Interactive Medal Tally

With help from the excellent data team at The Economist, here’s an ‘Olympic medal map’. It is an interactive infographic that provides a daily update on which countries or regions have won what events and what is still to play for.

Infographic developed by Ændrew Rininsland. Daily updates from Kenn Cukier and me.

Olympic medal map, The Economist’s Graphic Detail blog, Jul-Aug 2012

Links: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3Day 4, Day 5, Day 6, Day 7, Day 8, Day 9, Day 10, Day 11, Day 12, Day 13, Day 14, Day 15, Day 16

Image from here.

Online software piracy: Head in the clouds

As more people use “cloud computing” services like webmail and do word-processing via a browser, software makers fret that today’s software piracy will migrate to the cloud too. The Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade group, this month released a survey that emphasises that 30% of users in rich countries and 45% in poor ones have a “likelihood of sharing log-in credentials for paid services.” It is “a worrisome new avenue for software licence abuse,” says the BSA’s boss, Robert Holleyman.

Yet the closer one looks at the BSA’s study, the murkier such conclusions become.

Take the dramatic figures above. It is not quite so bad. The percentages come from a question in which people were asked if they had ever shared their log-in details for paid services. Some 15% of people in rich countries and 34% in poor countries said they had for personal use. For business use, it was 30% and 45% respectively. The larger figures amplify the BSA’s point, but they are not necessarily the most accurate.

Moreover the respondents were only those who had paid for cloud services, which was a fraction of users. Cloud services are generally based on a “freemium” model, whereby basic use costs nothing and a premium version is paid for. According to the BSA’s own data, only half of computer users tap cloud services, of which only one-third use it for business, of which two-thirds pay. Of the small subset that remain, the minority share log-ins.

This changes things considerably. If the BSA figures were adjusted for all this, the potential piracy figures could be as low as between 2% and 6% of users—as much as 20 times less than the group claims. (The BSA’s data is online here.)

Worse, the BSA and Ipsos Public Affairs, who conducted the survey, didn’t think to ask or examine whether sharing log-in details violated the terms of service. It may very well be the contrary: that the service had communal uses as a feature. Mr Holleyman bends over backwards to acknowledge as much on a blog post. Yet the overall impression that the BSA gives is that cloud users are poised to rob firms of their rightful revenue.

There are other anomalies. The BSA only considered PC use, when many people use cloud services over tablets and mobile phones, especially in poor places. And the survey, of 14,702 people in 33 countries, presumes to speak with confidence about the “developing” world but not a single African country is represented—an odd omission, since it is a fast growing market.

The annual BSA piracy study released this year in May estimated losses to the PC software industry in 2011 of $63 billion. That princely sum would make software piracy the 66th largest economy in the world, worth more than Syria and Croatia. The BSA reaches that amount by multiplying the estimated number of computers containing pirated software with the retail price of the software.

It is a specious way of calculating piracy (as we explored in an article in 2005 entitled “BSA or just BS?”). Many people would not buy the product at the expensive retail price. That’s why they steal it, after all. Still, the BSA’s dubious figures influence public policy. Mr Holleyman was invited to testify at a congressional hearing on July 25th on cloud computing, where his prepared remarks specifically cited “credential sharing” as a piracy challenge.

Be it in the cloud or back down on Earth, software piracy is theft and is wrong. The crime should be prosecuted and technically prevented as much as possible. But the way we think about the extent of the problem must be grounded in reality. Anything less is wrong too.

Written with Kenn Cukier. Also published on economist.com.

Image from here.

The conduct of science: Organic change

Most scientific research is about incremental improvements to existing theories. Every so often, though, an anomaly shakes things up, offering upstart ideas the chance to dislodge reigning ones. In December 2010 NASA, America’s space agency, announced a discovery which would, if confirmed, engender just such a shift. Their paper, published in Science, reported the isolation of a new species of bacterium. Where DNA of all known organisms is built on a backbone of phosphates, derived from phosphorus, GFAJ-1, as the microbe NASA’s boffins found in Mono Lake, California, is known, instead sported arsenates, chemical compounds based on arsenic. Since arsenic is toxic to other lifeforms, that would make the microbe different from anything else found on Earth.

Within a week of publication, however, scientists around the world began poking holes in the study. Its extraordinary and, they felt, unfounded claims called for extraordinary measures. So rather than pursue the usual, lengthy process of submitting papers to journals, which send them on to specialists in the field for formal evaluation, they tore the study apart in blogs and on Twitter.

In response, NASA scientists hid behind peer review, as the time-honoured practice is known, insisting they will only entertain such “formal” criticism. They can hide no more. Last week Science published two papers outlining failed attempts to replicate the results.

The first, by Tobias Erb, a microbiologist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, and his colleageus, shows that even though GFAJ-1 can indeed grow in remarkably high concentrations of arsenic, it nonetheless needs small quantities of phosphates in order to survive. This contradicted the original paper’s claim that the phosphates found in GFAJ-1 were insufficient to sustain life. In the second paper a team led by Joshua Rabinowitz, from Princeton University, and Rosie Redfield, at the University of British Columbia, reported the bacterium’s DNA contains traces of arsenic but that its role is not as central as NASA’s boffins had claimed.

Dr Redfield, an early and vocal critic of the arsenic-life hypothesis, has blogged about her findings over the past year. The paper she and Dr Rabinowitz had submitted to Science has been available for months on arXiv, a free online repository. This is unusual; researchers wanting to reveal their full finding prior to publication in Science and other leading journals which charge hefty subscription fees for providing access to the world’s best research need special dispensation from the publisher to do so.

This policy is looking increasingly unsustainable (see article in this week’s print edition). Peer review takes months and requires journals to act as intermediaries. The internet means that research can be subjected to unofficial, but no less diligent, scrutiny in a matter of days. Physicists and astronomers, the primary users of arXiv, have long since embraced this new model. Nowadays, a paper’s publication in a prestigious physics journal serves merely as a stamp of approval, not a way to disseminate findings. The arsenic-life palaver demonstrates that other disciplines are beginning to follow suit.

Also published on economist.com.

References:

  1. Wolfe-simon et al.Science, 2011
  2. Reaves et al.Science, 2012
  3. Erb et al.Science, 2012
  4. Scientist in a strange landPopular Science 2011
  5. Redfield on NASA’s claimsRRResearch 2010
  6. Redfield’s paper on arXiv, 2012

 Image from here.