On the fraught morality of impeding the Holy Process of Marketing

The Gizmodo dudes took TV-B-Gones to this year's Consumer Electronics Show.

There's only one thing you can do with a TV-B-Gone, and CES is full to the brim with big-screen TVs over whose remote receivers nobody thought to put a piece of tape.

So the inevitable happened.

Frankly, I found the older Apple Remote Front Row prank more amusing, but the sight of a video wall full of advertising going dark still warms my heart.

But man, check out some of the (500-plus!) comments on the Gizmodo page. Plenty of people just think it's funny, but there are many others accusing the pranksters of destroying the livelihood of the poor working stiffs at the show, endangering Gizmodo's own precious press "access", and thereby mis-serving their readers by reducing the chance that Gizmodo will be able to keep on covering the latest and most exciting developments in the world of high technology.

Bull, if I may coin a phrase, shit.

First up: Gizmodo are working stiffs too. They paid to go to the stupid show in the God-forsaken sweaty spangle-hole that is Las Vegas, and once they got there they couldn't quite figure out why they'd bothered.

I'm only peripherally associated with the gadget-blog world, and can only imagine how spiritually corrosive it is to be right at the coalface of Western society's ceaseless pursuit of boundless superconsumption of stupid crap, every day of the damn week.

I give a standing ovation to anybody who can cope with this strain by merely turning off a bunch of flatscreens, rather than taking systematically directed advantage of Nevada's easygoing firearms laws.

Former Gizmodo head Joel Johnson wrote, memorably, about the issue of gadget-mania a while ago. It is, as he says, insane to ceaselessly pursue every latest new gizmo, when long experience has taught you that new gizmos are always just as buggy and disappointing and unlikely to turn your life around as every previous device.

Devices that actually can change your life for the better do exist, but they're less than one per cent of the market, for reasons cogently explained in the above-linked Ten Reasons We're Doomed piece. And, hell, wait five years and you'll probably be able to pick up a bugless version for ten bucks. If you haven't been given six months to live, mellow out and see if you can't have just as much fun with a toy from yesteryear.

Secondly: I'm not sure exactly what Gizmodo (a site with Google PageRank eight, versus only six for dansdata.com) would have to do to get public relations people to shun them.

I don't think urinating on each and every PR person they met would quite do it.

Stabbing them might.

Turning off their video walls? That doesn't make the cut.

Oh, and when I used to do trade-show stuff years ago, we'd get at least one dude a day who thought it was fun to just yank cables out of the back of our gear. If the cable had a screw-in plug, you'd better leave it unscrewed, or a whole computer could be taking a ride off the top of your chintzy glass display case.

We freakin' dreamed of an attack that could be defeated with a few squares of electrical tape.

UPDATE: Gawker staffer banned from CES OMG.

(Said "staffer" is Richard Blakely, who did indeed do the dastardly remote-control deed but is not actually even one of the standard Gizmodo writers, so won't necessarily have any need to go back to CES anyway, even if they don't completely forget about the ban.)

And here's Joel Johnson again, on the subject "Do Gadget Blogs Hurt the Environment?"

UPDATE 2: Brian Lam, Gizmodo Editor, cordially invites the haters to lighten the hell up.

It turns out that Michael Jackson COULD look weirder

Michael Jackson with giant glove

There's something you don't see every day. (Via.)

The White Glove Tracking project got a lot of people who probably should have been working to identify the location of Michael Jackson's famous sequined white glove in every frame of his 1983 TV performance of Billie Jean.

Then they made this video.

The video is just one - relatively trivial - example of what you can do when you turn elements of moving video into separately manipulable data, and then start fooling with that data programmatically, in this case with Processing. There are several more examples on the whiteglovetracking.com gallery page.

Another, different but related, concept:

Making 3D models from video clips (via).

It's a start

Thanks to a poster on the invaluable Healthfraud list, allow me to present FairDeal Homeopathy: The world's only scientific homeopaths.

Magic hangover pills!

Somehow I came across this thing called PePP, marketed as a hangover cure. The web site (pepp-up.com) claims to "reduce alcohol levels by 50% within 40 minutes", which seems like a dubious claim to me.

Short of either vomiting or pissing it out, how can this thing possibly remove alcohol from your system?

Andrew

Pepp is supposed to contain "natural digestive and metabolic enzymes", which digest that nasty alcohol right out from under you!

(They also say it has "...various organic acids, vitamins and nutrients", but adding those things to the enzymes won't do anything to the enzymes except perhaps give them molecules to break down other than the alcohol. Popping multivitamins during a night on the town is not, by itself, exactly a hangover-zapping breakthrough.)

The major problem here - which applies to all of the other "enzyme" supplements as well - is that if you're a reasonably healthy human, your body already produces as many digestive enzymes as it needs. Enzymes you eat will be destroyed in the digestion process, anyway.

So anything these pills do, they'll have to do to alcohol that's still in your stomach or gut. This, in itself, is not ludicrous; enzymatic digestion certainly does happen in the stomach.

I suppose it's possible that the "recent clinical trials" they mention (PDF) actually exist. But, following the ancient tradition of makers of nonsense "supplements", they don't tell you where (or even if) these "studies" have been published. So who knows whether they're just making it all up or not.

There is absolutely no valid reason for anybody citing a scientific study that supports their statements to not mention, at the very least, who did that study and in what journal it was published. "Secret" studies of one kind or another abound in the world of alternative medicine and other Weird Science; as a rule of thumb, you can take unidentified "studies" as an anti-recommendation for a claim, like when you find out Doctor Smith actually bought his doctorate for $50 from a dude in Antigua.

(If the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, there was only one "study", and it was actually not so much a study as... a segment on Australian tabloid TV show "A Current Affair". In which they sent four people out to get pissed and two of them took the Pepp pills. And then someone with a clue actually looked at what was in the pills and concluded that "nothing here that is an actual drug or an actual compound that is known to have an effect on alcohol metabolism".)

There's an ingredients list on that page too, which rather tellingly does include the names of six enzymes (the "-ase" compounds), but which puts them at the very end of the list. If they're following standard ingredients-list rules - which they seem to be; the soy and rice protein pill-fillers are at the top of the list - that means that there's less of the enzymes in the pills than of any of the numerous, and irrelevant, other ingredients.

You'd better hope the top-listed enzyme, amylase, doesn't do anything, because the different amylases all break down starch into alcohol. Whoops - screwed that bit up (Thanks, Ubertakter!). The top-listed enzyme, amylase, actually breaks starches down into sugars. It's still pointless in an anti-alcohol concoction, though, and including it as the highest-dose enzyme still looks to me like a very strong indication that (a) there's actually only trace amounts, at most, of any enzymes in the pills, and (b) the makers of the pills think their customers are a bunch of idiots.

Then there's lipase, which catalyses the hydrolysis of ester bonds in water–insoluble lipids. It's irrelevant to alcohol metabolism, but at least it doesn't make more damn alcohol.

Then there's protease, which breaks amino acids apart (nope, still no good for metabolising alcohol), and cellulase, which is used for cellulose metabolism in creatures that can metabolise it (i.e. not us, but who cares, since cellulose isn't alcohol either).

Then there's lactase, which breaks down (wait for it) lactose, not alcohol.

And, finally, there's something just called "Dehydrogenase" in italics. Lets be generous and say that the emphasis means that it's actually class 1, hepatic, alcohol dehydrogenase. And yes, at long last, we now do have a compound that actually does do something to ethanol. Hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase turns ethanol into acetaldehyde.

But wait - that's the end of the list of enzymes in the pills!

So, assuming this stuff actually works and actually converts a significant amount of the alcohol in your stomach into acetaldehyde... that's where it'll stop. It won't go on to apply acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the result and leave you with harmless acetic acid. It will, instead, leave you with a gut-full of acetaldehyde.

Acetaldehyde is the chemical considered chiefly responsible for hangovers.

People with East Asian genealogy who flush bright red when they drink alcohol and then have immediate hangover symptoms do so because they've got unusually effective alcohol dehydrogenase, and unusually ineffective acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.

The drug disulfiram ("Antabuse") does essentially the same thing to people who don't have that genetic defect.

It would appear that these pills are trying to give everybody the fantastically awful feeling of acetaldehyde poisoning.

Wow, thanks!

Except, of course, they won't, because the (presumably alcohol) dehydrogenase is right down the end of the list of ingredients, so there's probably pretty much none of it in the pill. Maybe literally none; if that were the case, these would be far from the first "supplement" pills that turned out to have none of the allegedly active ingredient in them at all.

The alleged PEPP "studies" are supposed to say that the pills do something if you take them while you're drinking, and hey, maybe despite all this they actually do. Frankly, I think they'd be more likely to cause people taking them to turn into pumpkins, but what do I know.

But if you're going to take an alcohol-destroying pill along with the alcohol you're drinking, as the "studies" allegedly examined - why not just order friggin' ginger ale? Or save a bit less money by buying your expensive booze and pouring it into a potplant, rather than drinking it along with some pills you bought on eBay from Thailand (only ten bucks for... at the moment they don't say how many... pills - in "organge" flavour!) that promise to remove its effect?

What people are actually doing with the pills, apparently, is making the very wise decision to buy them for hilarious prices after they've already gotten drunk, then deciding they feel much better and driving home.

It is statistically unlikely that the people selling the Pepp pills will be the ones these drunk drivers run over.

But one can hope.

We're still talking about fuel catalysts? Really?

After my lengthy series of posts following the Sydney Morning Herald's entertaining deconstruction of the Firepower "fuel pill" saga, a reader felt compelled to bring this new Herald article to my attention.

The article sings the praises of the Moletech - or possibly MTECH - Fuel Saver, a catalytic device that allegedly changes the properties of the petrol, blah blah blah.

I saw it mentioned on the gadget blogs, too - these upstanding businessmen must have a stand at CES '08. At least the Engadget piece was properly derisive.

Moletech seem quite proud of their supporting evidence from one "California Environmental Engineering laboratory". Assuming I've found the right site for the lab, it looks kosher at first glance. But then you discover that the CEE lab has previously "proved" that the "Advanced Fuel Carburetor and Cat Converter" does the usual miraculous things. That was back in 2000.

And then there was the "Green Plus" fuel catalyst, also claimed to do similar things to the Moletech gadget, which the CEE lab also said worked.

And then there's the "Rentar Fuel Catalyst", also proclaimed genuine by CEE.

And that was just from the first page of Google results.

Gee, that oil company conspiracy that keeps all of these miracles off the market must be working pretty damn hard, huh?

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of "fuel catalysts" marketed in the past, many of them with claims indistinguishable from those made for the Moletech gadget.

But this one's the one that actually works. This time for sure, Rocky!

(The end of the Herald article makes reference to another report on the gadget, this time from the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services, which has recently and very helpfully been renamed the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I've used their Publication Information Request form to ask them whether the quoted report even exists. Hope springs eternal.)

UPDATE: What do you know, they actually replied! Read all about it, including some fresh weirdness, here!

Another overpriced heater

Hot on the heels of my post about the rather audacious "Amish" fan heater, came this:

I've been seeing commercials on TV that proclaim the advantages of a certain compact heating system that uses some sort of mixture of infrared lamps and a heat exchanger. They also claim, like the "Amish" heater people, that it uses less electricity than a coffee maker.

Now, I live in a 120+ year old house, and I'm quite... thrifty. Given the rise in natural gas prices, this of course piqued my interest.

The "Portable Furnace" is a similar product to the one in the ads.

Still, something sounds off here. I remember in my grandparents' old cottage they had a heating lamp of some description in the bathroom, over the spot one would be when one stepped outside of the shower door. It worked well then, but move a few inches either way and it was quite useless.

Smoke and mirrors?

Joe

I'll be darned if the "Portable Furnace" isn't just another surprisingly expensive ($US599!!) 1500-watt fan heater.

It's a nice-looking one that probably doesn't make much noise and may last longer than the $10 discount-store type, but it's still essentially the same thing. And, once again, the ads are trying to trick people into thinking it's something special, when it really, really isn't.

I can say this with such confidence because basic physics tells us that all resistive electrical heaters are, to a first approximation, exactly the same.

In a resistive heater - actually, in any electrically powered device at all - each watt of electricity ends up as one watt of heat. End.

You can change exactly how a heater delivers its heat to the room - as infrared light, in the case of a simple old-fashioned "bar" heater with a reflector, or as a rising column of convective hot air, in the case of an oil-filled heater, or as a hot breeze, in the case of a fan heater. You can even get all tricky and add a ceiling fan, probably spinning in the opposite direction to the way it spins in summer, to suck air up in the middle of the room and blow it down the walls, thus preventing hot air from gathering up by the ceiling where nobody is sitting.

But the base efficiency of the system is exactly the same for all electrical heaters.

The allegation that the Portable Furnace's heating elements are in some way special because they're big light bulbs (I presume the same kind you get in the bathroom ceiling heaters you mentioned) instead of the simple coiled element you get in a $10 fan heater is nonsense. It would make a difference if the light bulbs were pointing at you - instant warmth on the side of you facing the bulbs, at the price of a lot of glare - but since they're just pointing at some heat exchanger doodad inside the heater, over which a fan moves air, the end result will be exactly the same as that of any other fan heater, except presumably with a bit of a jolly glow coming out of the exhaust slot.

(The kind of heat lamp you see keeping reptiles and birds warm, that has a deep red glow, looks that way because there's a red filter over the lamp. Heat lamps really are basically just big bright light bulbs; they run at a relatively low temperature by light bulb standards, but without a filter 375 watts of heat lamp is still good for easily as much visible light output as a regular 200W bulb.)

If the diagram on the "how it works" page is accurate, the Portable Furnace's 1500 watt power rating and four bulbs means this thing does indeed have four 375W heat lamps inside it, just like a normal bathroom light-heat-and-fan combo package here in 230-volt Australia. Those lamps have a pretty long lifespan, but I'd be surprised if they lasted any longer than an ordinary cheap fan heater. Hence, I suppose, the availability of replacement Portable Furnace lamp sets (for a mere eighty bucks - which is easily twice what they ought to cost...).

The advantage of resistive electric heat is that you can have exactly as much heat as you need, exactly when you need it, from a dirt cheap heater. No other technology can give you that two minutes of heat while you're towelling off after your shower. And if you really do need to heat only one room, a central heating system with a furnace will waste considerable heat even if you remember to close the vents in all of the other rooms.

But resistive electrical heating is still more expensive per unit of heat than all of the other technologies. It's a lousy solution for long-term applications. And the "dirt cheap heater" advantage kind of goes away, too, if someone suckers you into paying six hundred freakin' dollars for a fan heater. Sheesh.

If gas or other combustion heating is out of the question, consider reverse-cycle air conditioning. That's much more efficient than resistive heating, because it uses some electricity to pump heat from one place to another, and adds its own waste heat. The result is at least two times, maybe 2.5 times, as much heat output as electricity input. The only big disadvantage is that if the cold side of a normal air conditioner is cooled close to freezing, it won't be able to pump any more heat from it - so reverse-cycle works well for heating in relatively temperate climates, but is no good if a real winter has set in.

Air-con's also not cheap to buy - you certainly can get a basic reverse-cycle window air conditioner for the price of a Portable Furnace, but that ain't saying much. And even a window air conditioner is not entirely trivial to install. Portable air conditioners need a certain amount of "installation" too (cumbersome hoses...), and they have lousy efficiency. And all air conditioning is kind of goofy unless you intend to use it at least occasionally for cooling as well.

Cheap air conditioners also all still use the old "binary" control system; they're either pumping heat at full power, or not pumping any heat at all. You have to pay extra to get an "inverter" system that's able to run at fractional powers, which is often what you actually want rather than endless noisy thermostat-driven cycles.

The very best electrical heating, though, is the kind you get as a side-effect of something else that you'd be doing anyway.

If your TV consumes 100 watts while it's on, you get 100 watts of heat out of it, "for free". The same goes for every other electrical appliance in the house, definitely including computers. This is bad if you're paying to cool your house (or room full of servers...), but it's great if you're paying to heat it.

So if you're to the point where you're considering resistive electrical heating anyway, think about more entertaining things you can get that electricity to do on the way to warming the room. Even if all you do is abolish all traces of Seasonal Affective Disorder by lighting your living room with two $25 500-watt halogen shop floods pointed at the ceiling, that still beats the hell out of being suckered into paying $600 for a lousy fan heater!

The surprisingly expensive Amish fan heater

Via Consumerist, I found this rather cheeky ad.

Amish fan heater

Click for the whole thing, including reams of text. The Consumerist version of the same image is here.

You can buy one of these "Heat Surge" fireplace-shaped heaters for a mere $US587 (plus extra for optional, but included by default, remote control and extended warranty!) from their main Web site. But if you plough through the advertorial and call before the "order deadline" and do whatever else they say you have to do to get your special claim code and then enter it on this other site, you can get a heater with its special allegedly-made-by-real-Plain-Folk mantel for "just two hundred ninety-eight dollars"!

The Consumerist's ridicule centred around the Photoshoppery visible in all of the images - particularly amusing given the touted Amish connection - and the fact that this "advertorial" is disguised as a real USA Today article.

I concur with their derision. The images, in particular, remind me of the quickie that'll-do pictures you see illustrating Onion articles - not least because The Onion uses much the same layout as USA Today (or possibly vice versa).

But I was also intrigued by the claim that this "work of engineering genius from the China coast" could in some way save you money.

The heater has a quoted "5119 BTU's" (sic) of output. The British Thermal Unit is a measure of energy; BTU ratings for heaters are actually BTU per hour. 5119 BTU is 5,400,831 joules, a joule is a watt-second, 5,400,831 watt-seconds in one hour is almost precisely 1500 watt-hours per hour.

So this thing is a 1500 watt fan heater, with what looks like a less than totally convincing fake-fire effect.

I'm guessing 1500 watts of heater element, plus maybe 50 watts for the fan and lights.

And it "uses less energy than it takes to run a coffee maker"!

Well, if your coffee maker draws more than 1500 watts, then yes. Small domestic "Mr Coffee"-type machines actually usually consume something like 900 to 1200 watts.

And your coffee machine doesn't run at full blast all day.

The vendors of this highly decorated fan heater enjoin you to "leave it on day and night" - which actually isn't a very safe idea for most fan heaters, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that this big chunky heater won't set the curtains, or itself, on fire if left unattended. If you do run it all day and night, though, then if you're paying ten cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity, it'll cost you three bucks sixty a day to run it.

Over a three-month winter, you'd pay about $US330.

To be fair, the "Saves Money" page of the Heat Surge site clearly tells you how much power the heater consumes (only 750 watts, on "Medium"!), and that it'll cost "about 12 cents an hour" to run at full power, at a presumed eight cents per kilowatt-hour, which isn't much lower than the US average. And their advice about only heating the rooms you're using is sensible enough. But, you know, duh.

This heater would be even cheaper to run, and much easier to move from room to room (a major selling point!) if it didn't have the silly mantelpiece and lit-up fake fire.

And wouldn't you know it - those technological geniuses "from the China coast" have just in the last fifty years or so invented amazing "fan heater" gadgets. You'll be astonished to learn that these devices are much more portable than this large and cumbersome fireplace-shaped device. And they can be purchased at any discount store for, oh, approximately nothing!

Which'll save you enough money to run one all winter.

Feline globule update

Thomas the cat, al fresco.

Tom's Web page will be ten years old this year, and Tom himself is fifteen.

He's still quite chirpy. Only about 6.5 kilograms, versus almost ten in his prime, as depicted in the famous kitten review. But that's just as well, since Tom's had arthritis and diabetes for a while now.

Neither complaint actually seems to have bothered him much. He's always considered movement to be highly overrated.

Tom munching lemongrass

Tom has a great enthusiasm for the tuft of lemongrass in my mother's back yard. He's never really figured out how to eat it without help, and all he ever does after eating it is throw up - sometimes practically immediately. But he seems to enjoy the whole experience enormously.

Posted in Animals. 1 Comment »