On this week's podcast from Al Franken, he begins in his monologue talking about the recent appointment of Pat Pizzella as the acting Secretary of Labor, who Franken says the House should hold hearings on Pizzella’s past.  As for the rest of the show, author and Atlantic Monthly staff writer, Franklin Foer joins Al for an interesting conversation about Big Tech.

​As Al notes -- The questions asked include "'re filter bubbles dividing us? Is Facebook deliberately keeping us angry and upset? Is everyone's attention span dwindling? Is Google selling records of all your searches? Is the Big One coming? You know – the day everyone who’s ever watched pornography will be revealed to everyone else who’s ever watched pornography?'"

On this week's podcast, Will Ferrell again returns as Ron Burgundy, and he and Carolina get advice about how to navigate the dark web from cybersecuity expert RIchard Greenberg.  Cybersecurity is a serious issue of hacking and misinformation, so this episode is a particularly good thing given how much Ron gets very, very, very wrong.  Happily, Richard Greenberg knows what he's talking about, so he helps make it pretty interesting.  And Ron at least does his best, making sure that listeners understand that when he refers to "passwords" he doesn't mean the old TV game show.

I realized that I've fallen a couple of months behind on posting links to my tech review column The Writers Workbench, so let's start making up for that.

Today I have a couple of products for those of you who hit the road and travel for work.  One is an extremely small and light keyboard that can connect by Bluetooth to your iPad or tablet (or mobile phone, for that matter), the Logitech Keys-to-Go.  It has much to recommend it for, though a drawback or two.

And there's also a bit of an oddity -- not something you think of as "tech" (because it really isn't), but something I came across at a recent trade show that deals impressively well with wrinkles in your clothes.

As always, it's much easier to point to you to column on the WGA website, for which it's written, than reformat the whole thing on these pages.  So, you can read about them here.

When I moved recently, I had to cancel my Spectrum cable account and then get the new Spectrum system for my new address.  There are many good things about the new system -- which is cloud-based -- though some options take far-too many extra clicks to accomplish which is a bit annoying.  But that's not the point here:  bottomline, some things better, some worse, fine.

The larger issue is that, being a new, cloud-based system, all the hiccups haven't been worked out yet.  Like often getting an error message, "We're sorry, the program guide can't be accessed right now."  Or the screen image gets all pixilated and becomes unwatchable.  And other cloud-glitches.

By the way, lest you get the wrong idea, this isn't a rant about Big Cable, or technical support, or any of the normal complaints available to make about cable.  It's about idiocy.  I'll get to that.

So, to be clear, the problem here isn't that there are hiccups in a new system.  I write about technology and understand that new versions of software do have bugs that need to get worked out.  But -- what I also understand is that generally they get "worked out" during the beta testing program and before the product is released to the public to pay for.  And though that's not the issue here either, being a beta tester AND paying a lot of money each month for the honor is not a good standard, and is the foundation of the point at hand.

Yes, there are annoyances, but I do get it.  Life is full of annoyances, and I don't expect cable to be any different.  I do have other expectations, though, and we're about to get to that.

A few nights ago, there was a bigger problem than usual.  Again, not The Worst Problem in the World at all -- -- they took the system down in the late evening, rather than a more sensible 3 AM morning -- but a big enough deep sigh "final straw" to call Spectrum the next day to discuss my beta tester status.

I knew it wasn't the tech person's fault, and I was thoroughly polite.  In fact, I explained all the things I liked about the new system, as well as a few of the bigger problems.  Actually, I wasn't even going to mention the specifics, but the customer support fellow kept asking me, because he wanted to make a record of it.  Good for him.  In fact he did a good job.  Mainly, I just wanted to make the point that Spectrum should never have released the system until it was ready and instead make subscribers the beta testers who pay for the honor.  He understood all the problems, he'd heard of them from others, and understood too the issue of releasing the software before it was ready.

Now, when I make calls like this in the past, I tend to leave it there to see how customer service handles things.  When I'm had problem with Spectrum in the past, for instance, they've always said they'd rebate the cost of service for that day of the problem.  No, it's not much but they make the effort.  Fine.  Good for them.

This fellow was very polite, but clearly wasn't authorized to do more than ask questions and be polite.  Finally, realizing this, I did what I almost never do.  I said that having to pay A LOT to be a tester of a system screwing up A LOT, is not how things should be, and I thought it would be proper to get some sort of rebate for all the times the software isn't working.

And that gets us to the point.  Yes, I know, it took a while to get here, but hopefully the ride was comfortable.

The short version (oh, now, I hear you cry, he inserts a "short version"...)  is that the fellow had to go check with his supervisors what he could do.  After about 10 minutes -- coming back on line every once in a while to thank me for my patience -- he said with great pride that he could offer me...a whole $10 rebate!  Although (and this is the good part), he made clear very pointedly to make sure I understand that this is a One-Time Only Offer for the year.  Yes, they would rebate that $10, but wouldn't be able to do so again until next year.  "How was that?" he asked.

All I could do was laugh.  Literally.  I said I knew it wasn't his policy, and I appreciated all the time he'd spent on the line, and I thanked him for diligently checking to get that answer -- "But," I added, "You do know that that is ridiculous."

And it was ridiculous.  It's not just that the amount is paltry -- honestly, I wasn't looking for a big pay day -- but the "one-time only" limitation was insulting.  It's as if they're doing you a favor.  Worse, it means when the system keeps screwing up, as it will, and already has, they're off the hook.  And it doesn't take much effort to now that there is a wide range of things they could have done instead, including for just one example, offer a premium service for a month.  It would cost them absolutely zero, and it could even make them money if you end up liking it and subscribing.  But no, $10 one-time only rebate for the year.  On a bill, for some people -- if they have lots of add-on premium extras, get their phone service and also mobile service --  of $4,000 to a year, I would imagine.

I knew that that was the resolution, and let the matter dropped.  There was no need to continue the conversation, and I said goodbye and thanks, and then hung up.

Again, I understand software problems.  I even understand using subscribers to test your software while telling them they're getting The Latest technology.  And I understand that the tech glitches are only occasional, albeit steady.  I have no huge issue with that.  The benefits of cable are worth it to me.  And I've pleased well-enough with Spectrum tech support.

But then I also understand dealing with tech companies, which I have done professionally for the past 20 years, writing my tech review column for the Writers Guild of America, and at one point the TV Academy.  And $10 for a one-time only yearly rebate -- from a corporate monopoly -- is...ridiculous.  Indeed, more to the point, it's foolishly short-sighted. And counter-productive, since it risks driving customers away who might be paying for ALL of Spectrum's services, not just having a TV hiccup.

Yes, I know, it's cable.  Many people have far-worse cable problems.  But this really isn't about "problems."  It's that I'm still laughing at the "We can give you $10!!  Once."  And if we screw up again, it's on you.

But what makes me most annoyed it that I didn't reply, "That's okay -- you keep the 10 bucks.  Spectrum clearly needs it more than I do."  

This coming September 9, legendary opera soprano Maria Callas will be giving a concert on stage at the Chicago Lyric Opera, performing some of her most famous arias written by Verdi, Puccini and others.  She will be accompanied by the Chicago Lyric orchestra, under the baton of Elmar Noone.  This is a really big deal because Madama Callas has not performed in Chicago in many decades.  

I should also note that Maria Callas died on September 16, 1977.  

But yes, it's still true.  And bizarre.  It's part of what is know as the Maria Callas Hologram Tour.  The company BASE Hologram created the technology for this event.  And it's both a bit creepy (needless-to-say) and absolutely remarkable.  Needless-to-say.

Side note:  I'm told that technically this is not precisely a hologram.  Whatever it precisely is, it's still creepy and remarkable.)

Here's a sample video.

Yes, this is a tech story.  But stick with it because it's not "techie" at all, but just a demonstration.  And I think you're find it utterly remarkable.

This is a demonstration video from C/NET about a new service that Google introduced last year, called Duplex, but it's been running under the radar in limited form.  You access it as part of the Google Assistant that's built into Android phones or can be downloaded to an iPhone.

To fully appreciate the video it's best not to know anything about the service beforehand, -- the version of the video in the original C/NET article had a title on it at the bottom of the screen which (if it appears here) you should do your best to avoid reading.  However, when I've tested the embedded version they provide, I didn't see the title, so all should be well.  Just click the Start arrow, and you're on your way.

(Alas, there's an ad that runs first, but it's quite short.)

I'll have a bit more about Duplex afterwards.  But for now, click away --

Okay, that's Duplex.  As C/NET says in it's article, when Google introduced the feature, its "way-too-human voice and mannerisms kind of freaked people out."  In an attempt to respond to some of the concerns of possible abuse and its future development, C/NET noted a few answers from Google to issues that were raised.

When a call begins, "Duplex will identify itself as a Google assistant and state the reason for the call. The call will also originate from a Google number, either (650) 203-0000 or (650) 206-5555."

Google says that, yes, Duplex phone calls are recorded, and "will disclose that information during the call in states that require disclosing that a call is being recorded."

Also, for businesses that don't want to received any Duplex calls, A company "can either call Google or change its Google My Business settings to not receive automated calls from the Google Assistant."

​And yes, it is absolutely remarkable technology already in its earliest stages -- and creepy.

This is an article from ZDNet by Jo Best that I don't fully understand -- though I get the point of it well-enough that I'm utterly fascinated by it.  It's about medicine and technology, and how one of the impressive things about their future is also one of the most problematic -- how being able to collect data on a patient remotely (like those with pacemakers) and provide diagnostics is also fraught with risks due to hacking, since when you send anything by remote, it has the possibility of that data being read by those who shouldn't have access.  The hacking has to be done reasonably near by, within about 30 yards, but in a medical facility that could be most anybody.  However (and this is the utterly fascinating part, even if I don't have the technology exactly right), when there is a wire connecting servers it's more difficult to intercept -- one would have to be within centimeters -- and researcher's at Lafayette's Purdue University have recently found that one way to accomplish this is for the person with the implanted device to basically be the "conduit" themselves!  Sensors would be attached to the patients and the signal would be routed through their body, "which dramatically cuts the distance over which any data can be read."  What the researchers have developed is a way to keep the signal completely within the body.

As I said, I have no idea how this actually works or why.  The article goes into meta-details which meant nothing to me, but skimming to the readable parts was able to get across the basics. Including that the technology not only helps prevent hacking, but is actually much more efficient which has its own benefits.

"'When you take information and put it onto electromagnetic carriers to communicate, which is what we do with our wireless technology -- Bluetooth, 5G -- you take a lot of energy because you have to generate that high-frequency electromagnetic wave...' Dr Shreyas Sen, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University, tells ZDNet. 

"'When you communicate over a wire,' Dr. Sen continued, 'it's 1000x more efficient. We started exploring how we might use the human body as a wire -- bringing the wireline kind of techniques into the human body to make it act like a wire. It really created interest in this technology.' 

"That means EQS-HBC has a practical advantage over wireless body networks: less energy demand means longer battery life for any implantable devices using the network. And a longer battery life means such devices won't need replacing as often -- for someone with a pacemaker, that could add up to a whole lot fewer invasive surgeries over their lifetime.

There's a great deal more in the article that's worth reading -- even if (like me) you can't grasp it all (like talk about nanojoules and picojoules, and that's some of the easy part...).  However, that's why God created skimming, and it's very simple to get through it all and come away with a lot that way.  You can find the whole article here.

The other day, Disney announced its news streaming service Disney Plus which will launch November 12.  Pricing will be $7 a month or $70 for an annual subscription, which most news reports commented how it compares favorably to $13 a month for Netflix's most popular tier.  The company said that they may eventually bundle Disney Plus with other of their services like Hulu and ESPN Plus.  During the first year, they expect to release 25 new series and 10 movies, documentaries and specials.  Overall, the Disney Plus library will have over 7,500 TV episodes and 500 movies.

It seems like a fascinating venture, with some plus and minuses.  On the plus side, Disney has a huge vault they can draw from, and recently bought the film division of 20th Century Fox, and now have that library, too -- which include the Star Wars franchise, the Avenger franchise and all 30 years of The Simpsons.  And among the new productions for the service are a Star Wars spinoff series, The Mandalorian and prequel to Rogue One (for which Diego Luna will reprise his role of Cassian Andor).  There will be a series Marvel Studios series Loki, that stars Tom Hiddleston reprising his role,; and a Pixar series Monsters at Work, that takes off after the events of the  original Monsters Inc. movie.

On the negative side -- or at least left out of most news stories is that the $7 a month is an "initial" price, most likely to get interest and subscriptions, and it seems probably that that will rise, and the cost-difference with Netflix will narrow.  In addition, Netflix has $9 stream plan, as well, which is much closer to Disney's "initial" offering.  And a significantly larger catalog -- 1,569 TV shows and 4,010 movies. (Keep in mind that the "7,500" figure for Disney is episodes, not shows.  If each Netflix TV series only has two years of 22 episodes each -- and keep in mind that old shows often had around 35 episodes a years and most not only ran for more than just two years, with some like Gunsmoke and Bonanza running for decades -- that works out to 70,000 episodes.

But further, it only compares with Netflix and leaves out Amazon.  An Amazon Prime subscription averages out to $10 a month.  And that not only includes a very large catalog, including international TV shows -- but most importantly includes free 2-day shipping on Amazon (and free next-day delivery on orders over $35), along with music streaming, cloud photo storage, Prime Now with free grocery and restaurant delivery within range, and more.

And no one should expect immediately competition with Netflix.  Disney predicts between 60-90 million subscribers in five years -- while Netflix currently has 140 million subscribers. Disney also says it expect so spend $2 billion a year over most of the next five years, while Netflix spends around $12 billion on content a year.

This is not to say that the Disney Plus service isn't intriguing and won't be a success.  In fact, it's very fascinating and seems poised to do well.  But as a complimentary service to Netflix and Amazon Prime, rather than one that can knock them out of the box.  Mainly, it's to say that most coverage of Disney Plus was pretty sketchy in its description of the landscape.

Besides which, who know how that landscape may be drastically changed in five years.

It's been a while, but time for another of my tech columns, The Writers Workbench, that I do for the Writers Guild of America,  As I've noted in the past, since it's a bother to code the code column for this site and it's already coded for the Guild's site, it's SO much easier to just provide the link to it here. 

The format has evolved a bit over the years -- I've been doing the column for maybe 18 years or so.  What I explain in the introduction.is that I'm going to try just covering one product per column -- along with the small "TWW Notes" at the end.  If any columns come along where it's convenient to compare a range of similar products, I'll continue to do that, but I think one product at a time at this point will let me post a few more columns than I've been doing and keeping them more up-to-date than having to wait on companies sending me their latest products when they're finally ready.

Anyway, this month is a a look at an oddly-designed, but very good surge protector, the Powramid, made by the company Accell. which has turned out decidedly odd, but very good products in the past.  You can find the column here.
​