Brian Clegg's Blog, page 123

Cheque mate

Business is rather dependent on the flow of cash, moving easily from place to place. Self evident truth. And none more so than with a self employed business, like an author.* So why do some businesses make it so hard to enable that cash to do the rounds?

Once upon a time, customers would have had to turn up with a literal bag of cash (or possibly a chicken to barter with). This isn't very convenient. I've never seen face-to-face many of the people who pay me money. They insist on living in inconvenient places like London and New York. So someone had the clever idea of writing a promissory note that would be accepted by a bank as evidence of the wish to transfer virtual cash. A cheque. (Sorry, US folks, this is one case where your Ben Franklin et al simplified spelling goes horribly wrong. Calling it a 'check' doesn't work, because 'check' already means something else.) This could just be slipped in the post. Simples.

However, just as vinyl was replaced by CDs, themselves now being replaced by downloads, so the cheques that replaced cash are themselves being ousted by electronic funds transfer (usually in the form of BACS in the UK). And it's brilliant. It is genuinely win-win.

Using the cheque model, I have to wait for the cheque to come through the post, I have to make the effort to visit the bank to pay it in, I have to wait 3 working days for it to clear. And the bank kindly charges me 70p for the privilege of accepting it. By contrast, a BACS payment involves me doing nothing, can happen instantly, and isn't charged for by my bank. (Some banks do, I know.) The only downside from my viewpoint is that some customers are rather sloppy about sending out an electronic remittance advice to accompany the payment, so it's not always entirely obvious what a payment is for.

Surely, though, it's worse for the company making the payment? No, no, and thrice no. They too have lower costs by using electronic payments. Their bank will charge them for each cheque they write, but may not charge for paying this way. The company has to produce the paperwork to accompany the cheque and to post the whole thing. They have to get a director or someone else important to append their pretty signature. There's the cost of postage and of the admin effort required. Okay, the one advantage of the cheque is for their cashflow - they get to hold onto their money a few days longer - but with interest rates what they are, this is no great benefit.

So why, I ask, why is that a couple of the publishers I deal with insist on still using cheques? Come on, guys, get with the trend. I'm surprised they aren't offering chickens.

* Aside rant: I was furious to hear some US academic economist type on the news yesterday, who was criticizing the UK's claim to have falling unemployment. He said something to the effect of 'Yes, but these aren't real jobs, they're mostly self employed or low pay.' I'm sorry? Being self employed isn't having a real job? I've been self-employed now for around 19 years, merrily paying tax, buying goods and not being a burden on the state. Could you explain to me Mr Overpaid and Unnecessary Economist (because, let's face it, being an economist isn't exactly real employment) in what sense mine is not a real job? Grrr.

The mysterious case of the disappearing author

Where's Sherlock Holmes when you need him? For I have become aware of a case that I am sure he would regard as a three pipe problem. Consider this, dear reader, consider this.

 Facebook allows you to set up closed or 'private' groups - handy to hang out with friends for a chat about work or whatever you like. I belong to one with a number of online friends, and like all such groups, joining is by invitation - you can't see any details from the outside.

Yesterday one of the members was contacted on Facebook, by someone called Laurindo Jones, asking about the group by name. He seemed to have joined Facebook for the sole purpose, as he had only signed up 1 hour before. Around five others in the same group got friend requests from him within a matter of hours... then, as one of them was trying to find out more about 'Laurindo', the Facebook account was suddenly deleted. Most scarily of all, one of us got an email from him to a personal email address not connected to Facebook in any way.

Do a web search for Laurindo Jones and it seems he was an author of sorts. He has a profile on Amazon.com and did have a book listed on Amazon, Barnes & Noble etc. Only that has disappeared now too from all the online bookstores.

So what do we know about 'Laurindo'? According to his profile he is an American college student who wrote an erotic novel, allegedly partly based on his experiences. He comments 'Naturally "Laurindo Jones," is a pen name -- going to school fulltime and working is hard enough, without having to put up with a bunch of college girls curious to find out certain things about me.' Is he an author? Well: 'Whether my life now will lead to another book in the future, at this time I just don't know. That really depends on whether or not this one sells enough copies to make another worthwhile.'... Only 'this one' is hardly going to sell many copies now it has ceased to be available.

Thanks to the wonders of Google cache, we can discover that his book, My Totally Crazy Love Life appears to be a classic bit of teen wish fulfilment, and that it was published by 'Story Scene Press' who allegedly operate from storyscenepress.com which, guess what... has disappeared too. Yet the book was around from 2011, so unlike the Facebook membership, it doesn't seem to have been set up purely as an infiltration move.

So there were have it. A mysterious possible writer who had an unhealthy interest in members of a group he shouldn't particular know exists, then disappeared off the face of the Earth.

Will the mystery ever be solved? I don't know. But if you know Laurindo, drop me an email at brian@brianclegg.net - and if you are enjoying the mystery, I'll update this post with any further developments...

I have a little theory

As editor of the www.popularscience.co.uk website I get a lot of requests to review books. And generally speaking, as long it's a book on a vaguely interesting subject (as opposed to The Impact of Victorian Mill Buildings on the Lifecycle of the Lesser Spotted Tit Warbler) and from a respectable publisher, I am very happy to add a book to the review pile. Things are, however, a little more fuzzy when it comes to self-published books. My default response is 'No, thanks,' but I will make an exception if it's a really intriguing sounding book, or one that could well have been published by a serious publisher. If I didn't have some kind of filter, we would be inundated with self-published detritus as well as the occasional gem, and I simply don't have the person power to wade through, sieving for gold.

I'd like to briefly contrast two self-published books I have reviewed, one of which went down very well, and the other that didn't to show what is needed for a self-pub to succeed in this field.
The high flyer was a little number entitled The Rocketbelt Caper . We are happy to cover technology if it's interesting - and this was interesting in spades. It had a topic that anyone brought up on Tomorrow's World and James Bond would love - the development of the jetpack or rocketbelt - it was professionally told, and kept the reader interested throughout. It was no surprise to me that this book was picked up by a mainstream publisher, so is no longer self-published... but it was when we first reviewed it.
Less successful was the recently received Unraveling the Universe's Mysteries . This couldn't be faulted on the professionalism of its publicity machine, but left something to be desired as a book. I had let it through the sieve because the author had an appropriate background (physics degree/worked for IBM) and seemed from the blurb to be going for a straightforward explanation of science rather than pushing his own theories, but it wasn't a great read. It wasn't well edited (string theory, for example, became both sting theory and spring theory in the space of a couple of pages), the author didn't have that professional writing touch and there was at least one hiccup with the science. Now don't get me wrong, practically every popular science book I've read (including mine) has had more than one error - but it's a matter of proportion.
However the thing I was most uncomfortable with, and hence probably shouldn't have accepted the book for review in the first place, is that after a fair amount on current theories, the author started to give us some theories of his own. This is something that is usually an instant turn-off in self published books. That might seem unfair, but if, say, a leading theoretical physicist at a well-known university comes out with a speculative theory they have two advantages. First they have the knowledge to come up with a theory that could be meaningful, and secondly other people with similar expertise will have looked at that theory and commented on it. And both of those are necessary.
The fact is I'm not a physicist. I am a science writer with a rusty physics degree - not at all the same thing. And that means I really can't judge if a theory has any merit (I can tell if some are total fruit-loopery, but that's a different thing). I therefore feel uncomfortable recommending a self-published book by someone who isn't an academic working in the subject (the author of Unraveling isn't either) that comes up with original theories. The ideas in this book are certainly not totally off the wall - but they still make me feel uncomfortable.
So there we have it. It might seem unfair, but if it's self-published it mostly doesn't make the grade, and one real turn-off is going to be if the author has his or her own little theory...

Don't talk to me about gamification

A recent piece on the BBC's news website has left by stunned by the number of ways it managed to irritate me. How did it irritate me? Let me count the ways:

The title tells us that Fun and games 'can save the planet' - I'm already cringing. It is clear to anyone with half a brain cell that fun and games cannot undo the environmental mess we're in, and as I keep saying to the point of being boring, there is no question of saving the planet. The planet is not at risk. It can shrug off anything we can do to it in a few million years - no time at all for something 4.5 billion years old. What we are concerned with is saving human civilisation.In then tells us that A project has been launched to see whether games can help increase people's interest in environmental issues. - whoopie do. I'm thrilled. It sounds like the sort of study that may well come back with the answer 'Yes' after its 12 month period. But if it does, it will be a matter of folly, because I can guarantee you that games won't change the world. And there's quite a disconnect between increasing interest in environmental issues and 'saving the planet' (sic).Apparently the idea is to make use of 'gamification' which is 'using the concepts and and mechanics of games but in a non-gaming environment' as we are informed by 'consultant' Paula Owen. Pardon me while I barf. 'Gamification?' Leaving aside a word that clearly should be pronounced gam-ification, this is a mind bogglingly inane concept.The gamification (groan) aspect will be to enhance engagement with those who have not engaged with environmental issues in the past because it had "all been a bit guilt-filled and full of doom and gloom". Give me strength. So by putting gaming style activities into the workplace, say, we are supposed to find that those who find the environment a depressing topic will suddenly realise it is fun. Yes, well, don't hold your breath Dr Owen.To make things even more fun (could they be?) the idea will be to use actual games with an environmental flavour such as Play Your Eco-Cards Right and Eco-Snakes and Ladders. That'll do the trick.Of course this kind of thing is easy to mock. I just have. In a sense there's a sort of logic behind it - people might engage more with the environment if things are presented in a fun way. This logic is called 'lowest common denominator' or 'dumbing down.' This is an approach that works quite well with junior school children, but is treated somewhat cynically by many secondary school children and really is not the right way to go with adults. Unless you are Channel 5 News.
Frankly, the reason those unengaged people find it 'all a bit guilt filled and full of doom and gloom' is that this is a fair picture if you are going to be honest, rather than come across all Pollyanna. We do feel guilty, both because each of is in a small way responsible, and also because individually we can do very little. We should, frankly, be extremely worried, if not full of doom and gloom, and inspired to get things happening on a large scale. But to think that trivializing the issue and making it 'fun' can somehow change anything is naive in the extreme. And no doubt is using up taxpayers' money that could be spent more usefully.
This has been a green heretic production.

In praise of the walled garden

I recently read these comments from someone who works in a computer support department about a hapless computer user:

Unfortunately I've dealt with enough of these types of customer service issues to know with almost abolute [sic] certainty, that the customer in question here is your typical ignorant arsehole. 

He will have been the kind who in general doesn't listen to simple instructions, has no clue how to operate a computer, and will have installed a million browser toolbars, 6 unintended antivirus programs, and every peice [sic] of crapware available on the internet within minutes of plugging the dam [sic] thing in. 

He then phones some poor hapless call centre support bod, and shouts for fifteen minutes demanding a brand new computer. 

This all too typical genus [sic] is incapable of learning, because he/she refuses to accept just how useless they are at using a computer (never actually reading a message that pops up on the screen before clicking wildly in the hope of getting a new screensaver), and therefore makes the call centre bod's extremely difficult job simply impossible.

Now, as it happens I have run the PC support department of a large company and it is certainly true that you do get some difficult customers. But even so, I think the support guy here has got matters back to front (and has some problems operating a computer himself, given the number of spelling errors). What he is describing is not a fault with the user, but with the computer. Why should a customer know all the ins and outs of computer maintenance? He shouldn't have to.

One of the joys of having moved off a PC onto a Mac is that it is, in some ways, more restrictive. When I moved over, a friend said 'You are the last person I'd expect move into the walled garden,' because I used to program computers, so used to be good at getting my hands dirty, fiddling around at a low level. But no more. I understood DOS pretty well, but have little idea about what's going on in a modern Windows implementation. I want the protection of that wall. I don't get offered 'a million browser toolbars' and '6 unintended antivirus programs.' And I would argue it would be better still if it was even more of a walled garden. Yes, this means you are limited in the bells and whistles a fanboi can bolt onto their operating system. But 99.999% of users just want to get on with the thing and use it, not be constantly fiddling around with it.

Compare it with another really complex bit of technology many of us own, a car. On the whole, unless you are one of those odd custom car people, you buy a car and you use it. You don't keep upgrading the operating system (I assume it has one somewhere) or downloading extra bits of software to the CD player so it can tell you the time in Hong Kong as you drive. I'm not saying that a computer should be as limited as a car - it is a more flexible tool which requires a more flexible approach. But I'd say the amount of upgrading and bolting on and adding on that is allowed is just confusing for most users. Many of us have concealed computers in, for example, PVRs and Sky boxes. They get upgrades automatically, but on the whole they just work. A 90-year-old with no experience can use them. There is no reason at all why computers shouldn't be the same. Of course you have to be able to install programs (though not browser toolbars), but in a controlled way. As for upgrades that are fixes, they should be done invisibly - anything else should be kept to a minimum. Fine, have an unlock control in the system preferences that lets you do anything you like - but for the 99.99% of us who just want to use the thing, lock it down.

So I'm sorry, Mr Ignorant Support Person, the problems you describe are not because the customer is an 'ignorant arsehole' but because the computer software is 'badly designed' and doesn't offer the customers the protection they should expect when they buy a computer.

Scientists as celebs?

The interview that started it allI recently had the privilege of interviewing Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg for the Observer.

One of the commenters for the online version remarked 'If only the world took more interest in Physics Nobel Laureates and less interest in celebrity lives/murders or royal baby bumps.' Ah, so true. And I couldn't help thinking what a science version of the celebrity gossip magazine Heat - perhaps called Thermodynamics! - would be like.

I think, in all fairness to our favourite scientists, it would be rather dull. The commenter was making the point that scientists are more worthy than celebrities because they have actually done something amazing, rather than just being known for being known.

However, if you turn this around, you can see there's a fatal flaw in the reasoning that would condemn Thermodynamics! before it got off the ground. Because, on the whole, we don't know scientists. It's not that they don't have their fair share of juicy life stories, triumphs and disasters. Just take a look at a biography of Richard Feynman, for instance. But the reason people want to read Heat magazine is that these are stories about people they feel they know. People they would recognize if they saw them on the street. It's the modern day equivalent of the latest village tittle tattle. But the fact is, we don't know scientists. To be honest, I had no idea what Steven Weinberg looked like before this week. So why would we care?

It's a human thing, I afraid. Of course there are scientists etc. we know off the TV - they could feature in Thermodynamics!... but only again because we know them, not because of their scientific achievements. Can any Brian Cox fan tell me about a single significant piece of science he has done? I thought not.

Sadly, it's an exercise that's doomed to failure. But it was fun to think about it.

Appearing on University Challenge

Last night one of my daughters asked if I'd been on University Challenge. I said 'No,' but ironically within minutes I was receiving phone calls to tell me that I had been. Sort of. Somewhat bizarrely I was the subject of a question on this venerable BBC quiz show. Take a look:
Slightly shocked does not come close to describing it. Gobsmacked was closer. I must admit I wish that two out of three of the books listed weren't amongst my more obscure titles. And it would have been fun if the team had got the answer right. Even so, it's rather a nice feeling...

I want to write popular science

If this is the expectation, don't botherLast week I received a rather strange phone call. 'Is that the popular science website?' a female Scottish voice asked. I don't get phone calls for www.popularscience.co.uk so I rather hesitantly said 'Yes.'

'Do I need a degree to write popular science books?' came the reply. The conversation went on this vein for about 5 minutes. Inevitably afterwards I thought of a key question I should have asked her - 'Why do you want to write popular science books?' But I didn't.

My caller was a member of her local astronomical society, but had no qualifications. So what is the answer? Is enthusiasm enough? My reply had to be rather vague. It was a definite maybe. If you are going to write a book about heavy duty physics, I suspect a degree is the minimum qualification to have a reasonable chance of getting the message right. If, however, you are going to write a book about the joys of stargazing, then it certainly isn't a prerequisite. But that doesn't mean that it's enough to simply want to write a popular science book to do it well.

Anyone can, of course, write such a book and self publish it, or pay an arm and a leg for a vanity publisher to do it for them. But that doesn't mean the book will be any good, or that any one will read it. And whether you go down the self-publishing route or a more conventional one it would be sensible to apply the same criteria that a publisher would in taking a look at your proposal.

They would ask questions like:

Why you? You may not have a degree, but what makes you a good person to write this book? What is your experience? What can you bring to it? We need a little more that 'I'm a member of my astronomical society.'Is what you want to write about interesting to other people? You may be fascinated by a ten year study of the brightness of a single variable star, but the audience for such a book would be pretty limited. What is there going to be in your book that will get people interested?Can you write? In many ways this is the clincher. It's easy to think 'Well, anyone can write. I wrote stuff at school.' But there's a world of difference between being able to put words on a piece of paper and being able to get a science topic across engagingly - as many a professor attempting to write a popular book has discovered. This is a particularly difficult one as, frankly, you have little idea of your own ability. Nor do your friends and relatives (unless they work in publishing and are dangerously honest). If possible you need to get an unbiassed external assessment. One way to do this is just to send your stuff off to a publisher and see what happens.*It's a painful process, but a necessary one.
As I mentioned, I regret I also didn't ask that key question 'Why?' If you want to write a popular science book because you heard Stephen Hawking made millions from A Brief History of Time, forget it. Most popular science books probably earn their author a couple of thousand pounds for a lot of work - certainly less than minimum wage. If it's because you want to get on TV and be the next Brian Cox, doubly so forget it. If you have your own scientific theories (probably proving Einstein wrong) that you know the world would be dying to hear - take a reality check. The world does not want to hear. I would only recommend it if the topic fascinates you and you have an urge to share that fascination - and have a certain talent in getting that excitement and fascination across. You don't necessarily need a degree to write a popular science book, but there are some things you can't do without.
* When it comes to the stuff to send, it is important to get it right. I've a little free downloadable guide on this website that describes the package that should be sent as a proposal.

Putting the drops in the opsin

My latest podcast for the Royal Society of Chemistry takes a trip into your eyes and the remarkable compounds - opsins - that give you the ability to see.

Probably the best known of the opsins is rhodopsin. The 'rhod' part of the name, spelled R-H-O-D, comes from a Latin root meaning 'rosy', reflecting rhodopsin's purplish-red coloration - it is sometimes called 'visual purple.' However the name is doubly apt, because rhodopsin is found in a particular type of cell in animal retinas - the rod. But there's plenty more to find out, so hurry along to the RSC compounds site - or if you've five minutes to spare now, click to to have a listen to my podcast on opsins.

Spaced out

** Grumpy old man alert **

A genuine web formThere's a campaign in the US saying that every student should have the opportunity to learn to write computer code. And I agree - it is a great thing to be able to do. However I do warn people who take that step into coding that it may turn them into a grumpy person, when they know how easy it is to do something... yet discover that so many idiot coders have failed to do so.

My particular gripe today is web forms that ask for telephone numbers. The standard format for a phone number in the UK is something like '01793 765432' with a dialling code,  a space, and the local number. Of course you don't type the space into your phone, but it is the correct format. Yet increasingly web forms are rejecting phone numbers with spaces in. Use one and you will get an error message pointing out the folly of your ways.

But here's the thing, and the reason why I bring up coding skills in the same breath. Once upon a time I used to write code in C, the programming language (in various variants) most used to write software for personal computers. In C there is a standard, built-in function that does a pretty simple, but occasionally useful thing. It takes a string of characters and returns that same string with the spaces removed. That's all it does. Frankly it's easy enough to write yourself, but it usually comes in the library of functions. Plain and simple. So guess what? If you have a form and put the text in it through this routine, you will get a phone number without spaces. No need to wrap the user on the knuckles for getting it right - simply change the format to the one you want.

This is a fundamental of good user interface design. If you know what's wrong, don't complain, just fix it. If your programming can't cope with the input it's your fault, not the users.

Get your act together guys. This is pathetic.