Eric Schwarz

Plagiarism is a sensitive subject in academia. I always thought that the supposed plagiarism detection tools that were used as scare tactics in my high school and undergraduate days were fascinating, but I never really researched them much. Being the careful student I was, I always made sure to cite my sources, quote where appropriate, and follow the usual academic guidelines.

Obviously the simplest form of plagiarism detection is simply typing key words from a paper into your favorite search engine and seeing if anything familiar comes up. That's a lot of work for an instructor or professor who has to graduate 20+ papers.

According to Wikipedia's entry on plagiarism detection, there are a number of factors:

Factor	Description and alternatives
Scope of search	In the public internet, using search engines / Institutional databases / Local, system-specific database.
Analysis time	Delay between the time a document is submitted and the time when results are made available.
Document capacity / Batch processing	Number of documents the system can process per unit of time.
Check intensity	How often and for which types of document fragments (paragraphs, sentences, fixed-length word sequences) does the system query external resources, such as search engines.
Comparison algorithm type	The algorithms that define the way the system uses to compare documents against each other.
Precision and Recall	Number of documents correctly flagged as plagiarized compared to the total number of flagged documents, and to the total number of documents that were actually plagiarized. High precision means that few false positives were found, and high recall means that few false negatives were left undetected.

While these are great, and can be used to evaluate various plagiarism-detection products, how the heck is someone supposed to get documents in them to be checked?

Having students turn things in electronically make more sense, since they can be fed into web-based products. The problem with this is that some schools (especially high schools) have students spread out geographically and with different software. Little Marshall may be using a Windows Me-based PC with Microsoft Works and writes a report. On the other hand another student may use a Mac with Pages '09 to create their project. Obviously these will create acceptable documents, and the printouts can be read by a teacher. However, the expectation and possibly capability to export to a common, standard format (Microsoft Word) probably isn't there. What can be done?

Since so many people have internet access, why not look at a cloud-based option for turning in assignments? Students can copy and paste from their favorite word processor into a Google Doc, and allow the instructor to have access. My thoughts on cloud computing go back and forth, depending on the use, but if there was a clear, outlined process for submission, students could submit their assignments and instructors could analyze for plagiarism.

This may be a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist, but it may make life easier for those who are grading.

Posted by ecschwarz at 12:47 AM | Permalink

It seems that in my many hours of TV watching over Thanksgiving, I've seen more and more commercials from AT&T and Verizon arguing who has the better network. Every so often we see T-Mobile and Sprint try to get everyone's attention by not being AT&T or Verizon. My question is, when are consumers going to start seeing the benefits of this little battle royale?

Favorite carriers aside, Verizon did start this by ripping on AT&T's network with the "There's a Map for That" series. Many argue that this is because Verizon is bitter over still not having the iPhone, but is picking on AT&T, since picking on Apple would probably not help their situation.

AT&T fired back to try to legally stop Verizon from airing any more ads. Clearly they aren't happy about being called out about their rather poor 3G coverage. As they had lost the ruling, they started airing ads with Luke Wilson explaining the benefits of AT&T's network. Although it was a much harder and complicated upgrade than Verizon's to 3G, AT&T's network is faster and allows simultaneous calling and surfing. Furthermore, the dealbreaker for me against any CDMA carrier (Verizon & Sprint) is the lack of a SIM card. I like being able to switch phones easily at-will without dealing with calling my carrier or visiting a web site. In fact, I can use any GSM-based phone.

But I digress...obviously both carriers are moving towards a new technology, known as LTE. With that, we may see similar devices for both major carriers with SIM card capabilities. This is a win-win for consumers, since the device won't matter and the carriers will have to focus on good service, rather than some phone with a catchy name.

Another thing is that the two carriers have started duking it out. AT&T has been pushing the iPhone and other touch-screen phones for anyone and Verizon is trying to push any iPhone-competitor they can (Storm, Storm 2, Droid) in hopes that people will choose their arguably better network.

The funny thing is that most people who just use a phone for texting or making calls won't care about who has a better 3G network. Most people who want those non-smartphone-related features would be fine with a 2G or 2.5G network, which AT&T and Verizon both offer almost everywhere.

Who's network is better? Depends on how you look at it.

Posted by ecschwarz at 08:23 PM | Permalink

As promised, I'll be sharing a bit about the actual Renaissance. While trying to think about what to write, I decided to focus on a very important Renaissance invention: the parachute. A few early drawings appeared earlier, but this was another invention that Leonardo da Vinci helping improve upon.

One such difference between da Vinci's parachute and modern versions is that it had a wooden frame. This created a bit of a pyramid shape which helped the device stay open. Using this "a man could jump with absolute safety from any height whatsoever". Obviously, this was a gamble that many would have avoided. Da Vinci even was working on a flying machine, but there just wasn't enough power created by humans to allow it to fly. These inventions, however, laid the groundwork for modern-day aircraft technologies.

The parachute has become a useful tool for fun (skydiving), safety (in emergency situations on aircraft), or battle. Just make sure you pack enough. They never seem to in the movies.

Posted by ecschwarz at 04:43 PM | Permalink

Ren•ais•sance: –noun

1. the activity, spirit, or time of the great revival of art, literature, and learning in Europe beginning in the 14th century and extending to the 17th century, marking the transition from the medieval to the modern world.
2. the forms and treatments in art used during this period.
3. (sometimes lowercase) any similar revival in the world of art and learning.
4. (lowercase) a renewal of life, vigor, interest, etc.; rebirth; revival: a moral renaissance.

I think the term "Information Renaissance" certainly is comparable to The Renaissance (more on that later) in the idea that people have become more learning and art-oriented thanks to technology. In many ways, it is more in line with the era of the 14th-17th centuries, rather than a specific event or movement that came out of the Dark Ages, since as far as technology goes, has always been improving.

However, we have reached a point where our communications technology has become so good that people can express themselves in a number of ways and stay in contact with others in just as many. The telephone is a relatively old concept compared to personal computers or the Internet, but improved technology has allowed us to take the phone with us. Besides that, something that was previously designed for simply voice communication can now be used for emails, web browsing, text and multimedia messaging, and, on some models, video communication. Put simply, although we often get excited about computers and other larger electronics, few people still marvel at the fact that they are able to have instant access to those they care about in their pockets.

Beyond that, the accessibility of media is amazing, thanks to the Internet. Besides streaming video, we can share rich photos, order books, and buy and listen to music immediately. The ability to have access to the latest works of many of the "artists" in our day is one reason that the Internet has flourished into something other than just a place for research and business.

Finally, we see more and more people communicating long distances, thanks to social networking. Critics will say that a lot of time and effort is wasted on things like Facebook and Twitter. I'd agree, but I see some good with these services—you are able to know what is going on with your friends (the bigger events, not what they had for breakfast) in a passive way. It seems in some ways that this will allow more personal connections with more people without the need to have regular telephone conversations or emails.

I'm not sure what the next big thing is, but it is certainly nice to be able to access anything from the comfort of my desk.

Posted by ecschwarz at 03:38 PM | Permalink

When I use a computer, I'm often doing multiple things at once. A few windows and applications open, lots and lots of processes, and squeezing out every last ounce of power at any given time. I was surprised when I came across litl, a new Boston-based upstart that is hoping to redefine the computer.

The packaging explains its mission:

Inside you will find an internet computer, not a laptop. We believe computers have become too complex. We hit the reset button by designing an experience different than a PC. Simplicity over features. Design over options. Entertainment not just work. Sounds like a lot, but actually it's a litl.

Rather than make another computer, they managed to create a very innovative little web-based laptop. The industrial design is absolutely gorgeous—it is simple, yet functional. Removing extra keys from the keyboard, offering an easel mode, using a remote from far away that mimics the on-board content scroll-knob are just a few little touches. The actual computing hardware is pretty standard for most netbook-type devices (Atom processor, a bit of RAM, flash memory for storage), and many may argue that it is a bit expensive for something with those specs. That isn't really the point.

What really impresses me is that they managed to create an entirely new operating system for this notebook. In an article in Fast Company, we get to see the litl in action. It is a rather impressive design, but I am curious how it actually works in day-to-day use. I suspect that the operating system will be very single-process-oriented, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (the iPhone has proven that).

I think once real reviewers get their hands on these, and maybe if there is some sort of retail deal we could see this take off. The litl reminds me of many "appliance" computers of the 1980s where the idea was to get away from the grips of MS-DOS and IBM. Although I'm not comparing this to the original Macintosh, the Commodore Amiga, or the Atari ST (three computers designed around completely new operating systems that tied in with their hardware), it is nice to see someone in the computer industry willing to take risks.

Posted by ecschwarz at 01:46 AM | Permalink

I've been doing this technology thing for quite awhile. I've been working on SchwarzTech for the last ten years, have been tearing apart, fixing, and improving computers since I was in elementary school; had a tech support job for the students at the Indiana Academy my freshman year, and am the unofficial "computer and media guy" in my job now. I thought I would take some of those experiences and share my theories on technology consulting. Obviously, they may not match yours, and some may be wrong, but this is an educational experience and I thought I'd share.

Open Source ≠ Better?

As someone who has been a Mac user for years, one would assume that I am anti-Microsoft, and if I cannot recommend an Apple product, open source must be my second choice. This is not true. I feel that a lot of Microsoft products are rather bloated and are poorly executed, but they do get some things right. Windows XP could not have been that bad if it managed to carry the company for the last 8 years. Silverlight is actually pretty good for online video (much better than Flash). I was working with a friend who had a Dell notebook with Vista on it. Its resources were a bit taxed and it was running poorly, so rather than reinstall Vista, we put 7 on there. It seems to be working well, especially for a computer she was ready to throw out (and I could've recommended a Mac).

In some cases, open source software is fantastic. Mozilla Firefox destroys Internet Explorer in so many ways. UNIX and Linux offer more security and more stability in server environments. It really comes down to finding the proper balance between industry-standards, cost, learning curve, and open source products. This is not always easy—find the right tool for the job. Challenging standards may be risky, but sometimes you'll be rewarded for it.

Repurpose

I can never throw things away. Part of this comes from that I always wonder if I can use something later on. Right now, my old desktop computer has found use next to my television for use as a DVR and a web-based media center. It could be collecting dust somewhere, but instead I found something it could do quite well and put it to work. The same goes for businesses. Why throw away a computer that could be used as a file server or something else if you change the software on it? When I worked at the Indiana Academy, we ended up doing that with an iBook that had its screen broken by a student—it was connected to an old CRT and we used it to keep track of our inventory.

Be Creative

Part of this ties in with repurposing, but claiming to be creative and actually being creative are two different things. Obviously, solving a problem is one thing. It's a bit boring, but it gets the job done. Instead, I have found that thinking of new ways to do things, even if you do not have direct control over something may be beneficial. Sometimes suggestions appear to get overlooked, but then are taken into consideration the next time around. When we were learning how to use Map-Works last Fall, I asked why students couldn't be selected using some sort of live-updating criteria search (I compared my suggestion to the Smart Playlists feature in iTunes). My question was somewhat brushed off and I thought that was the end of that. As it turns out, a year later, we have something similar. Maybe someone else asked after I did at another institution or the representative took what was suggested back with them, but didn't know how to respond at the time.

Those are the three I want to share right now—possibly more to come? Stay tuned...

Posted by ecschwarz at 04:46 PM | Permalink

I have been needing a new mouse for a while. My prior mouse has long since worn out and was to the point that it was creaking and not scrolling the greatest. Coincidentally, around that same time, Apple introduced the Magic Mouse. Although it looked rather interesting, I didn't necessarily want to buy it. Originally, it was only shipping with the new iMacs, but finally was getting out to stores as a standalone purchase. I hit up the local Best Buy to check it out in person, since it was a radical departure from most other mice I've used.

It certainly is a different kind of beast. You hold it differently than you would a normal mouse, more like a playing with toy cars (Hot Wheels or Matchbox, anyone?) than the rest-your-palm-and-push-it-around-your-desk method used with most mice. That being said, I looked at a few other products, and although I couldn't try them for hours on end, I realized two things: a lot of mice are wireless just for the sake of being wireless, yet use a proprietary technology to connect to your computer, and the other is that I'm picky about input devices.

Most mice on the market connect with a simple USB cable (great), or proprietary radio frequencies. Connect the tiny receiver to a free USB port and you're all set. In both cases, you're tying up a USB port, but with the cordless ones you also have to deal with batteries. Laptop users have to remember to take the little receiver nubs with them. How convenient is that? Not really. A lot of recent laptops feature built-in Bluetooth radios (Apple has done it since 2006 and other companies have also done around the same timeline), so why not have a mouse that uses something already built-in? The Magic Mouse does and so far the signal has been great. Unfortunately, I still have to deal with AA batteries, but then again, I have a stash of them and they're supposed to last a few months.

Getting to the usability, the multi-touch features work as advertised and, although it's taking some getting used to, the idea of scrolling without a wheel or ball is kinda nice. I can scroll from anywhere on the mouse's surface, too. This means that my index finger doesn't have to move between clicking and scrolling. I hope there's a software update that adds more gestures.

In regards to me being picky, I think that Logitech and Microsoft make fine mice. They're reliable, inexpensive, and include enough features for the average user. Many of these, however, still have creaky plastic or certain things that can get gummed up over lots of use. Most of the wireless models have battery doors that also add to the creaking factor. The mouse feels solid, since the battery door adds nothing to the structure of the mouse. Two long rails keep it off your desk, so that's what it glides on. Since there is only one button mechanism (it reads left and right clicks based on where your fingers are), and a plain surface, there is not much mechanically that can go wrong with the mouse.

Did the fact that there was an Apple logo on it make me want to get it more? Not really—Apple has had a track record of making mice that were either just-okay or really mediocre. Heck, even PC World likes it so far. Maybe I'm just finicky, but I'm excited to see how this polycarbonate plastic and aluminum slab will hold up.

Posted by ecschwarz at 09:36 PM | Permalink