Sometimes choosing an investment strategy is a matter of simple mathematics. Consider for example choosing between the following two strategies:
A. A strategy giving 20% profit each year
B. A strategy giving 0.1% profit each day in a 200 day trading year
Most people would probably consider these strategies relatively equal. Perhaps B is a litte better, but then you have the added labour cost of having to reinvest every day. Let's find out by computing the return after one year.
A. The return is 1 + 0.20*1 = 1.2
B. The return is (1.001)^200 = 1.22
The extra 2% might be worth the extra work. Or perhaps not.
But let's modify the example as follows:
A. A strategy giving 200% profit each year.
B. A strategy giving 1% profit each day in a 200 day trading year.
Now, for A we have 1 + 2*1 = 3.0, but for B we have (1.01)^200 = 7.32!
So in this case, by choosing strategy B, you can make nearly three times the profit you get from strategy A! Clearly worth the extra work.
So if you find a profitable investment opportunity, you can make it much more profitable by chopping it up in small periods and reinvest all the small profits!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
A Computer Glitch
Recently, the Norwegian Tax Administation distributed CDs with personal data on all taxpayers in Norway to a number of newspapers. Amongst others, the CDs contained the social security numbers for all tax paying Norwegians. The Tax Administration regretted this, and blamed a computer glitch in the tax administration system. They kindly asked the newspapers to return the CDs.
This makes me wonder why everyone seem to get away with blaming a "computer glitch" whenever a computer does something bad. This is certainly not the case in other technology areas.
Consider the auto industry. When airbags were first introduced in cars, there were some occurences of airbags inflating without the car colliding, something that could be harmful to the driver. Did the auto makers blame this on "an airbag glitch"? Certainly not. Everyone understood that the people designing the airbag systems were responsible for the malfunction.
This is also the case in the construction industry. Sometimes buildings collapse. When this happens, the people responsible for the construction are often arrested and charged. Even in the case of natural disasters like earthquakes, the people who constructed collapsed buildings are blamed for not designing the construction to be sufficiently robust to withstand the quake.
So what is so special with computers, since the blame goes to the computer itself and not the people that constructed and programmed it?
Apparently, many people think that computers live their own lives, executing their own actions at random, and not being completely controllable even by the best programmer. There seems to be a common perception that computers can do things by random, introducing errors into even the best program. With computers, you can never be sure. So if something goes wrong, you can always blame the computer.
This belief is perhaps a telltale sign of the immaturity of the computer industry. No wonder people have this belief, when their experience with computers is that things can go wrong any time. The application may stop, the operating system may stall, and the hard drive may crash. For most users, computers are fragile and unstable, and it has always been so. They take this as a fact of life, and do not seem to think of blaming the errors on those who constructed it.
No wonder then that it is acceptable to blame "a computer glitch" whenever something bad happens.
This makes me wonder why everyone seem to get away with blaming a "computer glitch" whenever a computer does something bad. This is certainly not the case in other technology areas.
Consider the auto industry. When airbags were first introduced in cars, there were some occurences of airbags inflating without the car colliding, something that could be harmful to the driver. Did the auto makers blame this on "an airbag glitch"? Certainly not. Everyone understood that the people designing the airbag systems were responsible for the malfunction.
This is also the case in the construction industry. Sometimes buildings collapse. When this happens, the people responsible for the construction are often arrested and charged. Even in the case of natural disasters like earthquakes, the people who constructed collapsed buildings are blamed for not designing the construction to be sufficiently robust to withstand the quake.
So what is so special with computers, since the blame goes to the computer itself and not the people that constructed and programmed it?
Apparently, many people think that computers live their own lives, executing their own actions at random, and not being completely controllable even by the best programmer. There seems to be a common perception that computers can do things by random, introducing errors into even the best program. With computers, you can never be sure. So if something goes wrong, you can always blame the computer.
This belief is perhaps a telltale sign of the immaturity of the computer industry. No wonder people have this belief, when their experience with computers is that things can go wrong any time. The application may stop, the operating system may stall, and the hard drive may crash. For most users, computers are fragile and unstable, and it has always been so. They take this as a fact of life, and do not seem to think of blaming the errors on those who constructed it.
No wonder then that it is acceptable to blame "a computer glitch" whenever something bad happens.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Our beloved friends and neighbours, the Swedes
The Swedish parliament has recently voted in favour of new legislation, permitting the Swedish Security Agency (FRA), to eavesdrop on electronic communication going through Sweden. The proposal is surrounded with a great deal of controversy, which has caused several of the political parties in Sweden to moderate their viewpoint to accomodate criticisms.
The latest development is a proposal to moderate the legislation to only allow eavesdropping on communication sent from citizens of other countries. This must be understood as communication coming from and going to elsewhere, passing through Sweden on its way.
This should not concern most people in the world. Sweden is after all located on the northern tip of Europe, so not much communication destined elsewhere should pass through it anyway. This has however some important exceptions: Norway and Finland. Due to the geographical location of these countries, a significant part of their Internet traffic pass through Sweden. For example, take a look at this traceroute from visualroute.com to the webserver of the Norwegian University of Technology and Science:
As you can see on the traceroute, the main route for NTNU goes through NORDUnet in Sweden. Indeed, this is the case for all universities and colleges in Norway, through the Uninett network. The same applies for universities and colleges in Finland
So with the most recent proposal, the Swedish Security Agency will be able to snoop on people in Norway and Finland, but not much else.
Thank you Sweden. We thought you were our good friend and caring bigger brother. Now we know better.
The latest development is a proposal to moderate the legislation to only allow eavesdropping on communication sent from citizens of other countries. This must be understood as communication coming from and going to elsewhere, passing through Sweden on its way.
This should not concern most people in the world. Sweden is after all located on the northern tip of Europe, so not much communication destined elsewhere should pass through it anyway. This has however some important exceptions: Norway and Finland. Due to the geographical location of these countries, a significant part of their Internet traffic pass through Sweden. For example, take a look at this traceroute from visualroute.com to the webserver of the Norwegian University of Technology and Science:
As you can see on the traceroute, the main route for NTNU goes through NORDUnet in Sweden. Indeed, this is the case for all universities and colleges in Norway, through the Uninett network. The same applies for universities and colleges in Finland
So with the most recent proposal, the Swedish Security Agency will be able to snoop on people in Norway and Finland, but not much else.
Thank you Sweden. We thought you were our good friend and caring bigger brother. Now we know better.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Update: Google Knol Experiment
Update:
The Knol quickly (less than one day) turned up in Google search results, but very far back among the results. In fact, this page was ranked much higher. This result would be consistent with the publicized version of the PageRank algorithm; this page has several links to it from other pages, while the Knol at the time it was published didn't.
It's interesting though that the Knol was indexed quite fast. Knol seems to be indexed more often than other sites. This does not however imply that Google gives it special treatment. Heavily updated sites seems to be visited more often than sites with infrequent updates. Makes sense.
The Knol quickly (less than one day) turned up in Google search results, but very far back among the results. In fact, this page was ranked much higher. This result would be consistent with the publicized version of the PageRank algorithm; this page has several links to it from other pages, while the Knol at the time it was published didn't.
It's interesting though that the Knol was indexed quite fast. Knol seems to be indexed more often than other sites. This does not however imply that Google gives it special treatment. Heavily updated sites seems to be visited more often than sites with infrequent updates. Makes sense.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Google Knol Experiment
Google Knol has launched, and some people are concerned that Google will rank Knols higher in their search results than other pages.
As an experiment, I published one of the introductory sections of my PhD thesis as a Knol on "Digital Investigation Process". I now want to determine if this Knol turns up in the list of search results in Google when searching for "Digital Investigation Process", and if so how soon that happens. The current list of search results for that term consists of papers and other web pages related to the topic, some of which I have cited in the Knol.
It will be interesting to see if the search engine prioritizes the Knol.
As an experiment, I published one of the introductory sections of my PhD thesis as a Knol on "Digital Investigation Process". I now want to determine if this Knol turns up in the list of search results in Google when searching for "Digital Investigation Process", and if so how soon that happens. The current list of search results for that term consists of papers and other web pages related to the topic, some of which I have cited in the Knol.
It will be interesting to see if the search engine prioritizes the Knol.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Tethered by law
"If we remove the legal barriers to build on other works by allowing reverse engineering of devices and production of add-on software for every device, no tethered device will stop generativity. Instead, they will provide new platforms on which generative production of new technology can flourish.
Remove the legal control measures, and every device will be generative!"
I just finished reading Jonathan Zittrain's excellent book The future of the Internet, in which Zittrain expresses his concern over the recent downturn of generativity in the Internet. I concede with most of Zittrain's views, and would recommend the book to anyone interested in Internet related policy. Zittrain is particularly concerned about tethered appliances like the iPhone, and how it can lock down the Internet by not being programmable. Zittrain recommends introducing legislation to protect the generativity of the Internet. Why not start with removing legislation and policy already limiting generativity? Several policy types springs to mind:
1. Software patents. With the current law, those with the resources necessary to go through the patent process can monopolize fundamental principles necessary for new technology development. How generative can tomorrows technology development be when the principles constituting its building blocks are owned by large corporations? Zittrain argues that software patents does not harm generativity because you will only be sued once you have turned your software into a fortune. So what's the incentive of making a successful computer program then? If you're successful, you'll get sued, because someone owns one of the many mathematical principles it's based on. Conclusion: If you're so good that you can make a fortune by programming, you'll get sued and lose it. So don't. Bad for generativity indeed.
2. Legal provisions outlawing reverse engineering. Such provisions come amongst others in the form of click-wrap agreements, wherein any form of reverse engineering of the software and hardware constituting the product is illegal, but reverse endigeering is also forbidden by law in some countries. By forbidding reverse engineering, it is no longer possible to make add-on software to products from other. Thus, tayloring of any specific product is left to the provider of that product, thus by definition not allowing generativity for that product. If reverse engineering was legal, it would be possible for anyone to make add-on software even for tethered appliances, thus enabling generativity also on the devices that Zittrain see as the greatest threat to generativity.
3. Legal provisions outlawing specific types of software rather then their illegal use. Such provisions exist for example in the DMCA and in the EU directive on the information society, both outlawing software that can be used to circumvent copy protection mechanisms. Another example can be found in the European Council Cybercrime Convention Section 6, by which production, procurement and possession of "tools for computer intrusion" (i.e. exploits) is outlawed. I do not approve computer crime, but it's the act itself that should be penalized, not making tools that makes it possible. Especially when the tool also has legitimate uses, outlawing these programs is the opposite of a generative solution.
The above mentioned laws are presented as measures of control to prevent the Internet from becoming even more like an anarchy than it already is. In my opinion, they also constitute part of the reason why The future of the Internet lies in less generativity and more control. The reason is that they prevent tethered appliances from becoming generative.
Consider the iPhone, which provides an excellent example throughout Zittrain's book. Being a mobile phone adhering to standards developed by international standardization bodies, one would think that a mobile phone would be hard to make completely proprietary. The iPhone however is completely under Apple's control because:
A. It has the wildly popular iTunes application, set to get music via the iTunes music store only, and only with copy protected music.
B. It does not run other software than Apples (in the case of iPhone 1.0), or only runs software approved by Apple and distributed by Apple (in the case of iPhone 2.0)
C. It is locked to the operator of Apples choice.
In the case of A, the whole success of iTunes has been made possible by the failure of the recording industry to find sustainable business models that does not require the distribution of a physical item. The record industry's requirement that the music must be copy protected was the perfect excuse to monopolize the whole chain, from studio to device. Apple has no doubt profited enormously on this requirement and the legal protection by the DMCA that follows. If it wasn't illegal (or legally "shady", depending on one's view) to make software to circumvent the copy protection of iTunes, the making of software for using iPod/iPhone/iTunes would undoubtly be a flourishing business, and not a "black market activity" as it seems to be now.
A similar argument can be made about B and C. Of course the black market has already found ways to install software on the iPhone or change operator, but this requires modifications of the phone which Apple says can destroy it. This is easy for them to say as long as the opponents are shady groups of hackers. But if these modifications were legally unproblematic, they couldn't. Producing modified iPhones for the public would then be an open industry, and getting public software to run on an iPhone would be a matter of getting services from the open market.
This gets me to my main point: Why worry about the non-generativity of appliances like the iPhone? The problem is not that they are released as tethered appliances, but rather that they are allowed to stay tethered, because there is a legal penalty associated with making them generative.
If we remove the legal barriers to build on other works by allowing reverse engineering of devices and production of add-on software for every device, no tethered device will stop generativity. Instead, they will provide new platforms on which generative production of new technology can flourish.
Remove the legal control measures, and every device will be generative!
Remove the legal control measures, and every device will be generative!"
I just finished reading Jonathan Zittrain's excellent book The future of the Internet, in which Zittrain expresses his concern over the recent downturn of generativity in the Internet. I concede with most of Zittrain's views, and would recommend the book to anyone interested in Internet related policy. Zittrain is particularly concerned about tethered appliances like the iPhone, and how it can lock down the Internet by not being programmable. Zittrain recommends introducing legislation to protect the generativity of the Internet. Why not start with removing legislation and policy already limiting generativity? Several policy types springs to mind:
1. Software patents. With the current law, those with the resources necessary to go through the patent process can monopolize fundamental principles necessary for new technology development. How generative can tomorrows technology development be when the principles constituting its building blocks are owned by large corporations? Zittrain argues that software patents does not harm generativity because you will only be sued once you have turned your software into a fortune. So what's the incentive of making a successful computer program then? If you're successful, you'll get sued, because someone owns one of the many mathematical principles it's based on. Conclusion: If you're so good that you can make a fortune by programming, you'll get sued and lose it. So don't. Bad for generativity indeed.
2. Legal provisions outlawing reverse engineering. Such provisions come amongst others in the form of click-wrap agreements, wherein any form of reverse engineering of the software and hardware constituting the product is illegal, but reverse endigeering is also forbidden by law in some countries. By forbidding reverse engineering, it is no longer possible to make add-on software to products from other. Thus, tayloring of any specific product is left to the provider of that product, thus by definition not allowing generativity for that product. If reverse engineering was legal, it would be possible for anyone to make add-on software even for tethered appliances, thus enabling generativity also on the devices that Zittrain see as the greatest threat to generativity.
3. Legal provisions outlawing specific types of software rather then their illegal use. Such provisions exist for example in the DMCA and in the EU directive on the information society, both outlawing software that can be used to circumvent copy protection mechanisms. Another example can be found in the European Council Cybercrime Convention Section 6, by which production, procurement and possession of "tools for computer intrusion" (i.e. exploits) is outlawed. I do not approve computer crime, but it's the act itself that should be penalized, not making tools that makes it possible. Especially when the tool also has legitimate uses, outlawing these programs is the opposite of a generative solution.
The above mentioned laws are presented as measures of control to prevent the Internet from becoming even more like an anarchy than it already is. In my opinion, they also constitute part of the reason why The future of the Internet lies in less generativity and more control. The reason is that they prevent tethered appliances from becoming generative.
Consider the iPhone, which provides an excellent example throughout Zittrain's book. Being a mobile phone adhering to standards developed by international standardization bodies, one would think that a mobile phone would be hard to make completely proprietary. The iPhone however is completely under Apple's control because:
A. It has the wildly popular iTunes application, set to get music via the iTunes music store only, and only with copy protected music.
B. It does not run other software than Apples (in the case of iPhone 1.0), or only runs software approved by Apple and distributed by Apple (in the case of iPhone 2.0)
C. It is locked to the operator of Apples choice.
In the case of A, the whole success of iTunes has been made possible by the failure of the recording industry to find sustainable business models that does not require the distribution of a physical item. The record industry's requirement that the music must be copy protected was the perfect excuse to monopolize the whole chain, from studio to device. Apple has no doubt profited enormously on this requirement and the legal protection by the DMCA that follows. If it wasn't illegal (or legally "shady", depending on one's view) to make software to circumvent the copy protection of iTunes, the making of software for using iPod/iPhone/iTunes would undoubtly be a flourishing business, and not a "black market activity" as it seems to be now.
A similar argument can be made about B and C. Of course the black market has already found ways to install software on the iPhone or change operator, but this requires modifications of the phone which Apple says can destroy it. This is easy for them to say as long as the opponents are shady groups of hackers. But if these modifications were legally unproblematic, they couldn't. Producing modified iPhones for the public would then be an open industry, and getting public software to run on an iPhone would be a matter of getting services from the open market.
This gets me to my main point: Why worry about the non-generativity of appliances like the iPhone? The problem is not that they are released as tethered appliances, but rather that they are allowed to stay tethered, because there is a legal penalty associated with making them generative.
If we remove the legal barriers to build on other works by allowing reverse engineering of devices and production of add-on software for every device, no tethered device will stop generativity. Instead, they will provide new platforms on which generative production of new technology can flourish.
Remove the legal control measures, and every device will be generative!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Time Forensics page
I have set up a web page on www.timeforensics.com, devoted to papers and information about timestamp forensics.
The idea with this is to simplify the process for other researchers, developers or forensic practioneers who want to do work in this interesting field. If you can find the time, please have a look at it and let me know if anything is incorrect or missing.
The idea with this is to simplify the process for other researchers, developers or forensic practioneers who want to do work in this interesting field. If you can find the time, please have a look at it and let me know if anything is incorrect or missing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
