Saturday, June 14, 2008
iPhone augurs the inevitable return of the Bell telephone monopoly
Apple's new iPhone augurs the inevitable return of the Bell telephone monopoly: "Who would have guessed that Apple—onetime victim of IBM and Microsoft—would today be an agent and symbol of industry consolidation? I don't know that it's fair to say this is Apple's fault. A telephone monopoly has been the norm for most of American telecommunication history, except for what may turn out to have been a brief experimental period from 1984 through 2012 or so. Like the short British experiment with republican government under Oliver Cromwell, it may be that telephone monopolies in America are a national tradition."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Americans are driving less
From the Economist:
The latest figures from the Department of Transportation show that in March, when fuel was a far more modest $3.22 a gallon, Americans drove 11 billion miles (17.7 billion km) fewer in comparison with a year earlier. The decrease compared with the previous year, of 4.3%, is the first since 1979, and the sharpest since 1942
The latest figures from the Department of Transportation show that in March, when fuel was a far more modest $3.22 a gallon, Americans drove 11 billion miles (17.7 billion km) fewer in comparison with a year earlier. The decrease compared with the previous year, of 4.3%, is the first since 1979, and the sharpest since 1942
To Swift-Boat or Not
The other day I was watching Michael Kinsley on C-Span and could not but think, yet again, that there is no way a Parkinson's will slow down this guy's quick-thinking brain. I do wish that he did not have to deal with Parkinson's this young at least. But, we have no control over those matters--at least, not yet.
I this column in TIME, Kinsley comments that: History shows that any candidate who relies on the voters to punish a swift-boater is going to be disappointed. People tell pollsters they are sick of nasty politics, then they respond to it every time."
I suppose for candidates it comes down to a variation of something like a prisoner's dilemma: what if the other candidate resorts to a Willie-Horton and I am caught unprepared? The presidency is after all too big a prize to let slip .... which is why candidates are often tempted to commit fouls that will impede the other candidate's success. Read my column on fouls to give.
I this column in TIME, Kinsley comments that: History shows that any candidate who relies on the voters to punish a swift-boater is going to be disappointed. People tell pollsters they are sick of nasty politics, then they respond to it every time."
I suppose for candidates it comes down to a variation of something like a prisoner's dilemma: what if the other candidate resorts to a Willie-Horton and I am caught unprepared? The presidency is after all too big a prize to let slip .... which is why candidates are often tempted to commit fouls that will impede the other candidate's success. Read my column on fouls to give.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
In this thought-provoking piece in the Atlantic, Nicholas Carr wonders about our intelligence the more we rely on the Web and Google. Excerpt:
Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. “The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”
Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt’s words, “to solve problems that have never been solved before,” and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn’t Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?
Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling.
My own take? No, Google is not making us stupid. And, yes, I can see it becoming a pathway to AI. But, that AI does not mean a flattening out of human intelligence.
Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. “The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”
Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt’s words, “to solve problems that have never been solved before,” and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn’t Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?
Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling.
My own take? No, Google is not making us stupid. And, yes, I can see it becoming a pathway to AI. But, that AI does not mean a flattening out of human intelligence.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
One of the best grad students ever?
An excerpt from Robert Samuelson's column: "I cannot detect powerful convictions in Obama. He seems merely expedient in peddling his convenient conflicts. He strikes me as a super-successful graduate student: the brightest, quickest, most articulate guy in the seminar. In his career, he has advanced mainly by talking and writing -- not doing -- and may harbor a delusion common to the well-educated: that he can argue and explain his way around any problem."
America, fast food, and the future?
A hilarious satire from The Onion, of course!
New Wearable Feedbags Let Americans Eat More, Move Less
New Wearable Feedbags Let Americans Eat More, Move Less
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
America’s not getting any respect
Published in The Register-Guard, June 2, 2008
It used to be the conventional wisdom that Americans learn world geography only when the country is at war. But apparently even being at war does not catalyze the need to understand the world and, more importantly, our own place in it.
Recently, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited India on a quick trip that also included stops in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. India has a growing need for energy and, with very little petroleum and natural gas within its borders, it actively seeks to import them from other countries — including Iran.
The U.S. government, which is on a mission to isolate Iran as much as possible, attempted to pressure India on the eve of this visit. Our government views any trade with Iran as supporting the regime there and, thus, opposed a natural gas pipeline linking Iran and India. The State Department further advised India to press Ahmadinejad to end Iran’s nuclear program.
To which the Indian government’s spokesman responded: “India and Iran are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries. Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations.”
That is a quite a rebuke to the world’s lone superpower, which is often quite alone, too, in many ways. But it was not the first time and is increasingly becoming the trend. It is more and more difficult to get other countries to “our” side, while it is getting easier for countries to pooh-pooh the United States.
In a stinging essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, writes: “The West is understandably reluctant to accept that the era of its domination is ending and that the Asian century has come.”
Ouch! Even though Mahbubani refers to the West, most of the essay targets only the United States.
Mahbubani then kicks it up a notch when he writes: “The West is not welcoming Asia’s progress. ... Unfortunately, the West has gone from being the world’s primary problem solver to being its single biggest liability.” Bam!
Even Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than the United States, when our status is such that we are being explicitly blamed as being the world’s single biggest liability!
Despite all this, I am not sure whether we in the United States are truly making any attempt to understand the world that is changing at a rapid clip. Even when we pause to note an event, we seem to be constrained by calculations, explicit or implicit, of “what’s in it for us?”
Remember the brouhaha when it seemed as if every presidential candidate, when there were many, was issuing calls for Pervez Musharraf to quit the Pakistani presidency? I suppose it was politically convenient then, and once that yielded the desired benefits, we were off to other pressing matters.
Well, Musharraf continues on as the president. Of course, the parties that opposed him have formed the government. But, ironically, it is this “opposition” to Musharraf that is seriously exploring releasing nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, has publicly admitted to selling atomic secrets to such countries as Iran and North Korea. The same Iran that we want to excommunicate from the world. And the same North Korea that has become a master at negotiating on its own terms.
And, unfortunately, all America can do is watch events unfold.
Even more recently, just a couple of days ago, when the United States declassified intelligence information about Syria’s nuclear program, the collective response from most of the world was à la Rhett Butler’s, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” More ouch!
As we scramble to understand one global issue after another, we notice that the United States has not been able to play a constructive role in any of the recent crises — from Zimbabwe to Kenya, from Myanmar to Tibet.
At this rate, a Miss America contestant’s wishes for world peace might be the only way that the United States can fit in with the rest of the world!
It used to be the conventional wisdom that Americans learn world geography only when the country is at war. But apparently even being at war does not catalyze the need to understand the world and, more importantly, our own place in it.
Recently, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited India on a quick trip that also included stops in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. India has a growing need for energy and, with very little petroleum and natural gas within its borders, it actively seeks to import them from other countries — including Iran.
The U.S. government, which is on a mission to isolate Iran as much as possible, attempted to pressure India on the eve of this visit. Our government views any trade with Iran as supporting the regime there and, thus, opposed a natural gas pipeline linking Iran and India. The State Department further advised India to press Ahmadinejad to end Iran’s nuclear program.
To which the Indian government’s spokesman responded: “India and Iran are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries. Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations.”
That is a quite a rebuke to the world’s lone superpower, which is often quite alone, too, in many ways. But it was not the first time and is increasingly becoming the trend. It is more and more difficult to get other countries to “our” side, while it is getting easier for countries to pooh-pooh the United States.
In a stinging essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, writes: “The West is understandably reluctant to accept that the era of its domination is ending and that the Asian century has come.”
Ouch! Even though Mahbubani refers to the West, most of the essay targets only the United States.
Mahbubani then kicks it up a notch when he writes: “The West is not welcoming Asia’s progress. ... Unfortunately, the West has gone from being the world’s primary problem solver to being its single biggest liability.” Bam!
Even Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than the United States, when our status is such that we are being explicitly blamed as being the world’s single biggest liability!
Despite all this, I am not sure whether we in the United States are truly making any attempt to understand the world that is changing at a rapid clip. Even when we pause to note an event, we seem to be constrained by calculations, explicit or implicit, of “what’s in it for us?”
Remember the brouhaha when it seemed as if every presidential candidate, when there were many, was issuing calls for Pervez Musharraf to quit the Pakistani presidency? I suppose it was politically convenient then, and once that yielded the desired benefits, we were off to other pressing matters.
Well, Musharraf continues on as the president. Of course, the parties that opposed him have formed the government. But, ironically, it is this “opposition” to Musharraf that is seriously exploring releasing nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, has publicly admitted to selling atomic secrets to such countries as Iran and North Korea. The same Iran that we want to excommunicate from the world. And the same North Korea that has become a master at negotiating on its own terms.
And, unfortunately, all America can do is watch events unfold.
Even more recently, just a couple of days ago, when the United States declassified intelligence information about Syria’s nuclear program, the collective response from most of the world was à la Rhett Butler’s, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” More ouch!
As we scramble to understand one global issue after another, we notice that the United States has not been able to play a constructive role in any of the recent crises — from Zimbabwe to Kenya, from Myanmar to Tibet.
At this rate, a Miss America contestant’s wishes for world peace might be the only way that the United States can fit in with the rest of the world!
Sportsmanship should supplant foul ethics
Published in The Register-Guard, May 27, 2008
Flicking through the television channels the other day, I paused at a basketball playoff game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Utah Jazz, which was such a close one that it eventually was settled in overtime.
The commentator made interesting remarks that are quite the norm in such contexts, analyzing who was in foul trouble and how many fouls each team had “left to give.”
Fouls left to give? There is no more talk of sports promoting sportsmanship, camaraderie and cooperation. Instead, it is about “fouls left to give” until players are ejected.
Increasingly, fouls and penalties are no longer results of players’ accidents or mistakes. Coaches and players systematically exploit this as a loophole with the sole intention of restricting the opponent’s performance.
It is not uncommon to see a basketball player intentionally grabbing an opposing team’s player if that will prevent a sure two points.
It is so often used against Shaquille O’Neal that we now have the sports jargon, “hack-a-Shaq.” A football cornerback might commit pass interference if it appears that without that penalty the wide receiver might coast into the end zone for a touchdown.
The manner in which fans respond to these fouls indicates that they, too, see it as legitimate maneuvering.
I wonder, then, if involvement in athletics might end up doing more harm than good. What will children learn if their coach teaches them to grab the player in order to prevent an opponent from scoring? Is the lesson to focus on winning at any cost, fully understanding that they have “fouls to give”?
It is bizarre that we have zero-tolerance policies in educational settings, even as we could instruct the same children that they have “fouls to give” on the playground.
It is no stretch to argue that this notion of “fouls to give” is becoming common in society.
The havoc that Enron brought upon its employees, shareholders and the rest of the world was nothing but a reflection of its decision-makers’ thinking that their transgressions were within their “fouls to give.” Professionals advise corporations on how to exploit loopholes in the law — a variation of fouls to give.
Political campaigning is along the same lines: Candidates or their surrogates intentionally commit fouls, then pay appropriate penalties and carry on, because, hey, that is how the game is played.
As an academic concerned about more than mere curricular issues, I am always perturbed when students and colleagues commit fouls. You can, therefore, imagine my sheer delight with the recent softball incident in a game between Central Washington University and Western Oregon University, where I teach.
In case you missed that news item: A lot was at stake because the winner of that game qualified for the regionals. With two on base, at the plate was a diminutive graduating Western senior who had never homered in her life. She hit her first home run ever, then badly injured her knee at first base while making her way around the bases.
Two fielders from Central carried her around the bases, which counted as a home run for Western. The gregarious Central team went on to the lose the game, while Western moved on to the regionals, and won the first round there, too.
It was a remarkable story of sportsmanship and offered an absolute contrast to the “fouls to give” calculations that are otherwise the norm.
In the spirit of using athletics to forge a greater sense of humanity, imagine the following scenario, which might sound as if it is coming from another planet. Well, given that I am from India, it might well be an alien thought!
The next academic year, when the Oregon Ducks play hosts to Pac-10 football teams at the loud and boisterous Autzen Stadium, it will almost always be a midday or late afternoon game. That means that there will be ample time for the Ducks to play a different type of host again: to sit down with the visiting team and have dinner after the game. The bands from the host and visiting teams can play a few numbers as entertainment for the evening.
An outrageous idea, I realize. But what a powerful message it can convey, particularly to the youth! The university even can make a fundraiser out of this, splitting the proceeds with the visiting teams.
It would be a huge step in the right direction. The focus, after all, is on the common cause of developing one’s skills and learning and playing the game to one’s fullest. I can easily imagine that such an attitude will quickly lead to players and spectators alike relearning the forgotten idea that there is no place for “fouls to give.”
In my book, nice guys never finish last, but are winners all the time.
Flicking through the television channels the other day, I paused at a basketball playoff game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Utah Jazz, which was such a close one that it eventually was settled in overtime.
The commentator made interesting remarks that are quite the norm in such contexts, analyzing who was in foul trouble and how many fouls each team had “left to give.”
Fouls left to give? There is no more talk of sports promoting sportsmanship, camaraderie and cooperation. Instead, it is about “fouls left to give” until players are ejected.
Increasingly, fouls and penalties are no longer results of players’ accidents or mistakes. Coaches and players systematically exploit this as a loophole with the sole intention of restricting the opponent’s performance.
It is not uncommon to see a basketball player intentionally grabbing an opposing team’s player if that will prevent a sure two points.
It is so often used against Shaquille O’Neal that we now have the sports jargon, “hack-a-Shaq.” A football cornerback might commit pass interference if it appears that without that penalty the wide receiver might coast into the end zone for a touchdown.
The manner in which fans respond to these fouls indicates that they, too, see it as legitimate maneuvering.
I wonder, then, if involvement in athletics might end up doing more harm than good. What will children learn if their coach teaches them to grab the player in order to prevent an opponent from scoring? Is the lesson to focus on winning at any cost, fully understanding that they have “fouls to give”?
It is bizarre that we have zero-tolerance policies in educational settings, even as we could instruct the same children that they have “fouls to give” on the playground.
It is no stretch to argue that this notion of “fouls to give” is becoming common in society.
The havoc that Enron brought upon its employees, shareholders and the rest of the world was nothing but a reflection of its decision-makers’ thinking that their transgressions were within their “fouls to give.” Professionals advise corporations on how to exploit loopholes in the law — a variation of fouls to give.
Political campaigning is along the same lines: Candidates or their surrogates intentionally commit fouls, then pay appropriate penalties and carry on, because, hey, that is how the game is played.
As an academic concerned about more than mere curricular issues, I am always perturbed when students and colleagues commit fouls. You can, therefore, imagine my sheer delight with the recent softball incident in a game between Central Washington University and Western Oregon University, where I teach.
In case you missed that news item: A lot was at stake because the winner of that game qualified for the regionals. With two on base, at the plate was a diminutive graduating Western senior who had never homered in her life. She hit her first home run ever, then badly injured her knee at first base while making her way around the bases.
Two fielders from Central carried her around the bases, which counted as a home run for Western. The gregarious Central team went on to the lose the game, while Western moved on to the regionals, and won the first round there, too.
It was a remarkable story of sportsmanship and offered an absolute contrast to the “fouls to give” calculations that are otherwise the norm.
In the spirit of using athletics to forge a greater sense of humanity, imagine the following scenario, which might sound as if it is coming from another planet. Well, given that I am from India, it might well be an alien thought!
The next academic year, when the Oregon Ducks play hosts to Pac-10 football teams at the loud and boisterous Autzen Stadium, it will almost always be a midday or late afternoon game. That means that there will be ample time for the Ducks to play a different type of host again: to sit down with the visiting team and have dinner after the game. The bands from the host and visiting teams can play a few numbers as entertainment for the evening.
An outrageous idea, I realize. But what a powerful message it can convey, particularly to the youth! The university even can make a fundraiser out of this, splitting the proceeds with the visiting teams.
It would be a huge step in the right direction. The focus, after all, is on the common cause of developing one’s skills and learning and playing the game to one’s fullest. I can easily imagine that such an attitude will quickly lead to players and spectators alike relearning the forgotten idea that there is no place for “fouls to give.”
In my book, nice guys never finish last, but are winners all the time.
I am baaaaaack!
Well, my on-again-off-again relationship with blogging is in the on-phase now. I have a feeling that this will stay for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)