New TSA Screenings to Come

TECH NEWS: The Transportation Security Agency announced plans to roll out a new security device: an archway that will spray airline passengers with aerosolized garlic as they pass through security checkpoints. TSA officials claim that this is the next step in protecting travelers from terrorist vampires.

At a cost of $425,000 per arch and $155 per traveler for the garlic canisters, critics have questioned whether this new technology is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. "If you really want to check for vampires, why not just use a mirror?", comments security expert Bruce Schneier.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano answered the critics at a recent press conference by stating that, "The techniques used by terrorists are growing more sophisticated all the time, and it's imperative that our security policies expand to stay ahead of them." She also explained that, "No expense is too great to ensure our safety from every possible threat." Napolitano went on to say that the success of the TSA's anti-bugbear measures are proof that the agency's proactive measures are effective.

UPDATE: In response to pressure from the American Vampire Coalition for a Better Tomorrow (AVCBT), the TSA is reportedly considering exempting vampires from the otherwise mandatory screening.

Another online survey

I recently signed up with an alarm monitoring service for my house. They sent me an email asking me to fill out a survey. After taking a look at the survey, I decided to send them the following, from the contacts link on the company's web site:

Hi there. I'm a new customer, and I recently received an email asking me to fill out a customer satisfaction survey. I'm writing to warn you that this practice could undermine some of the confidence customers have in your company.

I expect the survey was sincerely intended as a way to improve your company's service. But a cautious and computer-savvy customer might think that it was sent by someone other than [company name removed], seeking to gain information about him, his house, and his security system, and his friends.

Consider the following:
1. The link sent me to a web domain that I've never heard of.
2. The survey asked me to provide my name, address, phone number, and email address - all of which your business already has.
3. The survey asked me to provide information about friends who don't currently have security with your company (and who might not have security monitoring service of any sort).
4. The web site used unencrypted communications.

I recognize that the service you provide is vastly different than computer security, and nobody can be expected to be an expert in everything. But this survey demonstrates a sort of naivety about certain forms of security that, frankly, weakens your reputation.

Update!

Roughly an hour after I submitted the email above, I received the following reply:

[Meanie],

I wanted to thank you for your email.

You pointed out valid issues which we will address.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide the analysis.

[Name removed]

Chief Operating Officer

[company name removed]

Wow. A prompt and personal reply to a criticism from a highly ranked officer. That does wonders for my confidence in the company. Nice!

Customer Service

Discussing my most recent attempts to get DSL service with my friend:

Meanie: Woman at AT&T actually hung up on me.
Monger of War: Are you serious?
Meanie: Yes
Monger of War: That's fucked up.
Meanie: I argued with her, but I wasn't vulgar or belligerent.
Meanie: I guess the cunt was too stupid to realize the difference. :)

Online surveys

Newegg.com - an online retailer for computer parts - just sent me an email asking me to participate in a survey about their new packing material. I don't mind; I'm a regular Newegg customer, and my feedback might help them make their services better. So I clicked on the link.

The page it took me to was simple enough. "Did your order arrive undamaged?" I chose "Yes" from the dropdown listbox. "Do you prefer our new SomeWeirdBrandName packaging to our old packaging?" Well, I didn't have a preference, so I chose "No" from the dropdown. (The only options, of course, were "Yes" and "No".)

There was also an edit box for additional comments, and next to it, a dropdown that defaulted to "Choose category...", and had one other option which was "Additional Comments". Clunky. I didn't have any additional comments, so I left both of those alone.

I hit the Submit button, and got an error message. I don't remember precisely what it said, but I knew it meant it wouldn't let me through until I had selected "Additional Comments" from the dropdown. Fortunately, I now had some additional comments:

Whoever wrote this web form is an idiot. My submission was rejected because I hadn't selected "Additional Comments" from the "Choose a topic..." drop down, because I didn't have any additional comments.

I have nothing to say about the new packing material. It was neither better nor worse, in my estimation, than other options.

However, if you want people to give you feedback on this sort of thing, please make sure that your survey forms don't make them jump through needless hoops and try to guess what's needed to provide you the data.

Of course, this time when I hit submit, it rejected my input because I had used too many characters. (Nowhere on the page did it warn that I should limit my feedback to some particular limit.)

My second submission went through:

I have nothing to say about the packing material, but this form is horrible. Twice it has rejected my submission - first because I didn't select "additional comments" when I had none. Then a 2nd time because I used too many characters. If you want people to give you feedback, please don't make them jump through hoops due to lazy web developers. Seriously, fire whoever wrote this page.

Let this be a warning to companies who seek to learn customer attitudes from online surveys: The survey itself can go a long way in shaping the customer's attitude about your company.

Life Lesson

This weekend, with the help of two friends, I moved from an apartment to my new house. Based on that experience, I have the following wisdom for anyone who cares to read: Often in life, it's useful to have friends who are much less lazy than you.

Thanks guys!

Let it burn

In forestry, there's a doctrine called "let it burn". It goes something like this: Forest fires are, in fact, a part of nature. They happen regularly, due to lightning strikes and other natural phenomena. They're actually an important part of a forest's ecosystem: they consume old dying vegetation, making room for and providing nutrients to new life. When things are in balance, this happens frequently, on a relatively small scale.

The real trouble comes when things are out of balance. My generation - and the ones surrounding it - grew up being told that forest fires are universally bad. The naive, but human, instinct is to want to put out every fire as swiftly as possible. The problem there is that when we never allow fires to burn, the forest floor accumulates more and more dead wood: more fuel for the next fire. Eventually, a fire comes along that we can't control: a huge fire; a monstrous fire; a deadly fire. And this one scars the whole land for a long, long time.

I'm over-simplifying, but those are the two options: lots of little fires that live and die as a part of the forest's ecosystem; or decades of carefully controlled, fire-free forests, eventually ended by a violent shift in balance and a black wasteland.

The reason I bring it up is because an economy is a lot like an ecosystem, and recently our economy has experienced a violent shift in balance. And yes, it looks like a black wasteland. Some people claim that government regulations are the way to keep an economy healthy. They say that the financial meltdown was due to insufficient oversight, and that it wouldn't have happened if we had just enacted a few more rules. I say they're wrong. I say it was their constant interference over the decades, inhibiting the small, natural fires, that lead to tragic blaze through which we're suffering now.