tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84039633387955942652024-03-05T06:18:26.492-07:00DisruptivationSystems, Innovation and Leadership.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-55303606951575885362015-02-16T18:01:00.000-07:002015-02-16T18:01:12.736-07:00Link Dump 6<ul>
<li><a href="http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/patent_pools_offer_open_source.html" target="_blank">Patent pools offer open source a new incentive--and a new source of power</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/111030861447662731288" target="_blank">+Andy Oram</a>: t's been talked about for years, and now there are well-endowed and well-researched organizations claiming to offer open source software some protection from patent lawsuits. The very announcement of these efforts--even before they have a chance to prove successful--are an historical watershed for open source and free software. For the first time you get back something tangible for open-sourcing. And this leads to another key change in the terrain: it now becomes critical how "open source" is defined, and who has the power to define it.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-law-school-scam/375069/" target="_blank">The Law School Scam</a> by +Paul Campos :For-profit law schools are a capitalist dream of privatized profits and socialized losses. But for their debt-saddled, no-job-prospect graduates, they can be a nightmare.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.academia.edu/6209168/Mechanical_properties_of_components_fabricated_with_open-source_3-D_printers_under_realistic_environmental_conditions" target="_blank">Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions</a> by +Joshua Pearce: In order for RepRap printed parts to be useful for engineering applications the mechanical properties of printed parts must be known. This study quantifies the basic tensile strength and elastic modulus of printed components using realistic environmental conditions for standard users of a selection of open-source 3-D printers...It is clear from these results that parts printed from tuned, low-cost, open-source RepRap 3-D printers can be considered as mechanically functional in tensile applications as those from commercial vendors.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/pages/locomotion/unusual-locomotion-wheels-tracks-walking-reptation.html" target="_blank">Unusual Locomotion</a>: The wheel, invented by the Sumerians (in modern Iraq) 3000 BC, represented the most important advances in transportation. When you know that 80% of human activities for transport, we guess its importance. Wheels, tracks, screws, walking, crawling are used to move land vehicles. During the 50's to 70's, golden age of mobility studies, Mr. M.G. Bekker became the theoretician of land and lunar off-road locomotion and frame articulated vehicles, which move forward consistently through their joints for a long length of contact with the ground. Where the terrain falls away, the other modules take over. It was subsequently found that the benefits of such structures (and disadvantages) were not worth the extra cost of the vehicle.</li>
<li><a href="https://opensource.com/life/14/8/sandstorm-open-source-web-apps" target="_blank">What owning your personal cloud means for the open source movement</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/118187272963262049674" target="_blank">+Kenton Varda</a>: The real motivation for Sandstorm is, and always has been, making it possible for open source and indie developers to build successful web apps... In order for low-budget software to succeed, and in order for open source to make any sense at all, users must be able to run their own instances of the software, at no cost to the developer...But today, personal hosting is only accessible to those with the time, money, and expertise necessary to maintain a server. Even most techies don't bother, because it's a pain. Sandstorm exists to fix that, making personal hosting easily accessible to everyone.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.innocentive.com/for-solvers/winning-solutions/solar-powered-mosquito-repellant" target="_blank">Solar Powered Mosquito Repellant</a> +Tom Kruer: This solution was chosen as the winner of the InnoCentive Challenge entitled "Reducing the Risk of Malaria with a Solar Powered Device"...A prototype of this solution will be built and tested by SunNight Solar. If it is effective, SunNight Solar expects to begin production as early as this Spring</li>
<li></li>
<li><a href="http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/task_force_report_FINAL_WEB_062414.pdf" target="_blank">Recommendations and Report of the Task Force On US Drone Policy</a> (pdf) by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/109781564548193786145" target="_blank">+Stimson Center</a>: While the overseas use of UAVs for intelligence, reconnaissance, transport and close air support has been largely uncontroversial, the growing use of lethal UAVs for targeted counterterrorism strikes away from so-called “hot battlefields” has generated substantial attention and criticism</li>
</ul>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-61058563473885575662015-02-16T17:43:00.000-07:002015-02-16T17:43:40.419-07:00Link Dump 5<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.page" target="_blank">How to get free money by pretending to be a charity</a>: The worst charity in America operates from a metal warehouse behind a gas station in Holiday. Every year, Kids Wish Network raises millions of dollars in donations in the name of dying children and their families. Every year, it spends less than 3 cents on the dollar helping kids. Most of the rest gets diverted to enrich the charity's operators and the for-profit companies Kids Wish hires to drum up donations. In the past decade alone, Kids Wish has channeled nearly $110 million donated for sick children to its corporate solicitors. An additional $4.8 million has gone to pay the charity's founder and his own consulting firms. No charity in the nation has siphoned more money away from the needy over a longer period of time. But Kids Wish is not an isolated case</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/washington-is-a-cesspool-of-faux-experts-who-do-bad-research/380488/" target="_blank">'Washington Is a Cesspool of Faux-Experts Who Do Bad Research'</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/116392658123441019666" target="_blank">+Conor Friedersdorf</a>: Sweet validation! I've often suspected that official Washington is populated by enough disingenuous, misinformation-spreading hucksters to fill an underground container of organic waste. No one has better standing to render this judgment than Klein, whose earnest, tireless embrace of deep-in-the-weeds wonkery is unsurpassed in his generation. He wouldn't assert a whole cesspool of intellectual waste product without having seen plenty of specific examples.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/how-gangs-took-over-prisons/379330/" target="_blank">How Gangs Took Over Prisons</a> by +Graeme Wood: Originally formed for self-protection, prison gangs have become the unlikely custodians of order behind bars—and of crime on the streets.</li>
<li><a href="http://hackaday.com/2014/09/16/a-3d-printed-peristaltic-pump/" target="_blank">3D Printed Peristaltic Pump</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/110272658115014146785" target="_blank">+Eric Evenchick</a>: One nice thing about this design is that it is printed preassembled. Pop it out of the printer, add some tubing, and you’re ready to pump fluids. On top of the isolated fluid path, this pump gives accurate volume measurement.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.itworld.com/article/2694496/cloud-computing/3-keys-to-open-source-success.html" target="_blank">3 keys to open source success</a> by +Phil Johnson: A new study of GitHub data reveals characteristics of successful open source projects</li>
<li><a href="http://www.popsci.com/article/diy/rise-open-source-hardware" target="_blank">The Rise of Open Source Hardware</a> by +Rachel Nuwer: Part of the reason software has led the open source charge is that it has the advantage of being “lightweight,” Petrone explains. “It’s a case of atoms versus bits.”</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/want-to-reform-the-nsa-give-edward-snowden-immunity/379612/" target="_blank">Want to Reform the NSA? Give Edward Snowden Immunity</a> by +Yochai Benkler: Edward Snowden's disclosures led to the introduction of dozens of bills in Congress, a judicial opinion, and two executive-branch independent reviews that demanded extensive reforms to surveillance programs...The single most important lesson of Snowden's disclosures is that even well-designed and well-intentioned systems of checks and balances become corroded and subverted over time...Because it is practically impossible for outsiders to check the national-security system, protecting insider whistleblowers is especially critical.</li>
<li><a href="http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/" target="_blank">Learnable Programming</a> by + Bret Victor: Because my work was cited as an inspiration for the Khan system, I felt I should respond...How do we get people to understand programming? We change programming. We turn it into something that's understandable by people. This essay presents a set of design principles for an environment and language suitable for learning.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/technology/personaltech/technology-and-the-human-factor-the-future-could-work-if-we-let-it.html?_r=2" target="_blank">The Future Could Work If We Let It </a>by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/116205349749133086640" target="_blank">+Farhad Manjoo</a>: One persistent criticism of the tech industry is that it no longer works on big ideas...Matt Rogers and Stefan Heck...put forward the ultimate optimist's case for why the tech industry might substantially improve most of our lives...With the right incentives, the future could be fantastic. Just beware of the pesky humans getting in the way.</li>
</ul>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-10607272312649445662015-02-16T17:16:00.000-07:002015-02-16T17:16:49.834-07:00Link Dump 4<ul>
<li><a href="http://opensourceecology.org/ose-4-year-review/" target="_blank">Open Source Ecology 4 Year Review</a>: Efficiency is key to making open source technology viable. In December 2012, we have shown for the first time that one of our heavy machines, the Compressed Earth Block (CEB) Press, can be built in a single day. We combined modular design, digital fabrication, and swarm build techniques – for a rapid, parallel, Extreme Build. One Day.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.htxt.co.za/2014/10/27/garnter-says-lock-in-technology-will-replace-open-source-philosophy-for-3d-printers-and-that-should-make-everyone-angry/" target="_blank">Gartner says lock-in technology will replace open source philosophy for 3D printers – and that should make everyone angry</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/104454959648654660937" target="_blank">+Adam Oxford</a>: Gartner’s future is likely to pass if we don’t try and stop it now. In this future, big tech brands take over and fight to keep prices high by introducing new ‘features’ rather than continue to reduce the off-the-shelf cost of new printers. They lock people into artificially incompatible designs that are non-user serviceable. Even as raw feedstock prices drop due to demand, the move to proprietary cartridges that only fit one type of printer rather than generic spools of filament will keep end user costs high.</li>
<li><a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/how-do-you-avoid-being-forked-into-oblivion/" target="_blank">How do you avoid being forked into oblivion?</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/101120115153580954446" target="_blank">+Stack Exchange</a>: the founder of the project that was forked says: "The purpose of the MIT license is to unencumber your fair use. Not to encourage you to take software, rebrand it as your own, and then "take it in a new direction" as you say. While not illegal, it is unethical." It seems that the GitHub page of the new project doesn't even indicate that it's a fork in a typical GitHub manner...So my questions are: Was Xamarin's action and the way the action was done ethical or not? Is it possible to avoid such a situation if you are a single developer or a small unfunded group of developers?</li>
<li><a href="http://portside.org/2014-10-14/investing-junk-armies-why-us-efforts-create-foreign-armies-fail" target="_blank">Investing in Junk Armies: Why US Efforts to Create Foreign Armies Fail</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/100849792670380519421" target="_blank">+William Astore</a>: Bremer and his team vowed to create a new Iraqi military from scratch...Its main job would be to secure the country’s borders without posing a threat to Iraq’s neighbors or, it should be added, to U.S. interests...Despite years of work by U.S. military advisers and all those billions of dollars invested in training and equipment, the Iraqi army has not fought well, or often at all. Nor, it seems, will it be ready to do so in the immediate future...The simple answer: for a foreign occupying force to create a unified and effective army from a disunified and disaffected populace was (and remains) a fool’s errand. In reality, U.S. intervention, now as then, will serve only to aggravate that disunity</li>
<li><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_capital_in_the_twenty_first_century" target="_blank">New thoughts on capital in the twenty-first century</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/118167593232891107250" target="_blank">+Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'</a>: French economist Thomas Piketty caused a sensation in early 2014 with his book on a simple, brutal formula explaining economic inequality: r > g (meaning that return on capital is generally higher than economic growth). Here, he talks through the massive data set that led him to conclude: Economic inequality is not new, but it is getting worse, with radical possible impacts.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/why-kids-sext/380798/?single_page=true" target="_blank">Why Kids Sext</a> by +Hanna Rosin: Usually Lowe can more or less classify types in his head—which kids from which families might end up in trouble after a drunken fight in the McDonald’s parking lot. But this time the cast of characters was baffling..."If she was a teenager with a phone, she was on there."...Lowe’s characterization of the girls on Instagram morphed from “victims” to “I guess I’ll call them victims” to “they just fell into this category where they victimized themselves.”...For the most part, the laws do not concern themselves with whether a sext was voluntarily shared between two people who had been dating for a year or was sent under pressure: a sext is a sext...Whether a sext qualifies as relatively safe sexual experimentation or a disaster often depends on who finds out about it. </li>
</ul>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-82388316762129001812015-02-15T17:52:00.001-07:002015-02-15T17:52:59.403-07:00Link Dump 3<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/" target="_blank">How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/116394064071021023788" target="_blank">+Radley Balko</a>: It’s a common and unfortunate misconception among St. Louis County residents, especially those who don’t have an attorney to tell them otherwise. A town can’t put you in jail for lacking the money to pay a fine. But you can be jailed for not appearing in court to tell the judge you can’t pay...Some of the towns in St. Louis County can derive 40 percent or more of their annual revenue from the petty fines and fees collected by their municipal courts.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/" target="_blank">What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/104256649423986504162" target="_blank">+Matti Friedman</a>: The Western press has become less an observer of this conflict than an actor in it...I want to explore the way Western press coverage is shaped by unique circumstances here in Israel and also by flaws affecting the media beyond the confines of this conflict.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.dumblittleman.com/2014/11/3-improv-comedy-tricks-supercharge-social-life.html" target="_blank">3 Improv Comedy Tricks To Supercharge Your Social Life by +John Freund</a>: That decision to pretend I knew what I was doing led to a memorable and hilarious scene involving a family reunion inside a cave (we discovered a ‘lost boy’ who happened to be our cousin left over from the last reunion). And it all happened because I didn’t let my lack of confidence get the better of me. In short, I faked in with confidence. </li>
<li><a href="http://www.eoht.info/page/Entropy+antonyms" target="_blank">Antonyms for entropy</a>: Some of my favorites are syntropy and ektropy.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule" target="_blank">Natural distribution</a>: Assuming you get a certain chance once per day, a twice-in-a-lifetime thing is 1 in 16,000, so your True Love is one in 16,000, not one in a million. </li>
<li><a href="https://medium.com/thelist/the-other-side-of-diversity-1bb3de2f053e" target="_blank">The Other Side of Diversity by +Erica Joy</a>: I’ve searched for, and have been disappointed to find that few studies have been done on the psychological effects of being a minority in a mostly homogeneous workplace for an extended period of time. Here I’ll try to highlight how it has affected me, as I grew from a young black lady to a black woman in the predominantly white male tech industry.</li>
<li><a href="https://medium.com/@adamjh/why-i-left-my-254-895-pm-role-at-microsoft-a91c75db37ad" target="_blank">Why I left my $254,895 PM role at Microsoft</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/110336661975825497033" target="_blank">+Adam Herscher</a>: I’ll just say… to the child of an immigrant and middle class family, raised of sufficient but not excessive means, I can only describe that number as feeling both grossly obscene while at the same time a bit like: “Well, I’ve made it.” Whereas the things I valued most early on in my career had been achieved, other ambitions in life were slipping further away with each year.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect" target="_blank">The Kuleshov Effect</a>: It is a mental phenomenon by which viewers derive more meaning from the interaction of two sequential shots than from a single shot in isolation.</li>
<li><a href="http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/violence-is-currency-a-pacifists-guide-to-prison-weapo-1643807529" target="_blank">Violence Is Currency: A Pacifist Ex-Con's Guide To Prison Weaponry</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/101606866621237000155" target="_blank">+Daniel Genis</a>: Every incident I witnessed in prison, except for the melees that we had to break up when I worked in a unit for the mentally ill, was premeditated and done with purpose, however twisted that purpose was. The violence functioned as a tool for preserving order, whether to maintain the hierarchies of prisoners or to reassert the authority of the guards. It was the best form of currency we had.</li>
<li><a href="http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-4-value-and-currency/peer-reviewed-articles/reproducing-wealth-without-money/" target="_blank">Reproducing Wealth Without Money, One 3D Printer At a Time</a> by +Johan Söderberg: The Rep-rap project sets out to provide one piece of the puzzle in a larger peer-to-peer manufacturing infrastructure. With such an infrastructure in place, engineers can bypass fixed capital. It is a roadmap for the “exodus” of engineering practices from wage labour relations and (which is the same thing) from commodity production. The role assigned to “self-replication” in this larger scheme of things, although framed within a conceptual framework of evolutionary laws and technical determinism, testifies to the very opposite, the importance of design choices. The kind of 3D-printer that can reproduce itself (in symbiosis with human beings) is designed to ensure the community’s functional autonomy from corporations and venture capital.</li>
</ul>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-88734773589817079482015-02-15T17:27:00.000-07:002015-02-15T17:27:03.627-07:00Link Dump 2<ul>
<li><a href="http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/is-technology-making-us-vulnerable/" target="_blank">A fault in our design by +Colin Dickey</a>: Even a quick round-up of the technological advances of the past few decades suggests that we’re steadily moving forward along an axis of progress in which old concerns are eliminated one by one...the same technologies that are making our lives easier are also bringing new, often unexpected problems.</li>
<li><a href="http://lifehacker.com/what-i-wish-i-knew-when-i-started-my-career-as-a-softwa-1681002791" target="_blank">What I Wish I Knew When I Started My Career as a Software Developer by +Michael O. Church</a>: Let me bat out a few suggestions based on my experience and observations. This list is not all-inclusive—because it can't be. Your experience will be unique.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/2872094/open-source-software/seven-questions-to-ask-any-open-source-project.html" target="_blank">7 questions to ask any open source project by +Simon Phipps</a>: Do you truly have permission granted in advance to benefit from and innovate upon an open source project? These questions will help you find out</li>
<li><a href="http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/" target="_blank">On The Origin of Circuits by +Alan Bellows</a>: Dr. Thompson dabbled with computer circuits in order to determine whether survival-of-the-fittest principles might provide hints for improved microchip designs...what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest-- with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output-- yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.</li>
<li><a href="http://io9.com/heres-what-happened-if-you-asked-ayn-rand-to-loan-you-m-1679740203" target="_blank">Here's What Would Happen If You Asked Ayn Rand To Loan You Money by +Lauren Davis</a>: Naturally, Rand couldn't resist answer a request for a loan with a dissertation on fiscal responsibility. While there is some sensible stuff in here (and hey, at least she admits that Connie doesn't have to agree with her personal philosophy), most communications with teenage girls don't turn into a miniature version of Atlas Shrugged, paired with threats of viewing them as embezzlers.</li>
<li><a href="http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck" target="_blank">The Subtle Art of Not Giving A Fuck</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/101121409119865429067" target="_blank">+Mark Manson</a>: In my life, I have given a fuck about many people and many things. I have also not given a fuck about many people and many things. And those fucks I have not given have made all the difference.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/01/lost-in-the-meritocracy/303672/" target="_blank">Lost in the Meritocracy</a> by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/103525642142894178453" target="_blank">+walter kirn</a>: Someday we'll be screened and then separated...Four years ago my SAT scores set me on a trajectory...I knew only one direction: forward, onward. I lived for prizes, praise, distinctions, and I gave no thought to any goal higher or broader than my next report card. Learning was secondary; promotion was primary. No one had ever told me what the point was, except to keep on accumulating points, and this struck me as sufficient. What else was there?</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization" target="_blank">Decentralized Autonomous Organization</a>: sometimes referred to as a Fully Automated Business Entity or Distributed Autonomous Corporation/Distributed Autonomous Company...It can be thought of as a corporation run without any human involvement under the control of an incorruptible set of business rules. These rules are typically implemented as publicly auditable open-source software distributed across the computers of their stakeholders. A human becomes a stakeholder by buying stock in the company or being paid in that stock to provide services for the company. This stock may entitle its owner to a share of the profits of the DAO, participation in its growth, and/or a say in how it is run.</li>
</ul>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-89893537134400304462015-02-15T16:51:00.002-07:002015-02-15T17:01:08.625-07:00Link Dump 1<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>
<br />
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.3dhubs.com/trends" target="_blank">3D printing trends January 2015</a>: This trend report provides a comprehensive and unmatched perspective on the current state of the 3D printing industry. Based on data from our 3D Hubs community, which includes over 10000 printers in over 120 countries, and thousands of 3D print orders every month, we are excited to show you the printers people love and what’s trending in the world of 3D Printing. </li>
<li><a href="http://tradeinqualityindex.com/" target="_blank">Long Term (vehicle) Quality Index</a>: The Long-Term Quality Index is a collaborative project between +Steve Lang and +Nick Lariviere, designed to give the average car buyer a picture of what the long-term reliability of different makes and models are based on real-world used vehicle data.</li>
<li><a href="http://natureofcode.com/" target="_blank">The Nature of Code by +Daniel Shiffman</a>: This book focuses on the programming strategies and techniques behind computer simulations of natural systems using Processing.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.tokutek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/how-fractal-trees-work.pdf" target="_blank">How Fractal Trees Work by +Bradley C. Kuszmaul at CRIBB, November 4 2011 (pdf)</a>: Is there a data structure that is about as good as a B-tree for lookup, but has insertion performance closer to append? Yes, Fractal Trees!</li>
<li><a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/funding-vital-but-ignored-open-source-projects/" target="_blank">Mission: Funding all those small but important open-source projects by +Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols</a>: ...the problem is that there are still many small but important programs that don't get the headlines and millions of dollars of a Docker, Linux, or OpenStack. These projects get swept under the carpet even though, as Heartbleed proved, they're absolutely vital to modern IT...the Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII) has helped fund such tiny but significant programs as the Network Time Protocol (NTP), OpenSSH, and OpenSSL. It hasn't been enough.</li>
<li><a href="http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-give-bitcoin-two-years/29708" target="_blank">+Andreas Antonopoulos: “Give Bitcoin Two Years” by +Hal M. Bundrick</a>: Antonopoulos proclaimed. It’s a dumb network that supports smart devices, pushing all of the intelligence to the edge. “That means if you build a new application on top of bitcoin, you can operate the end devices and you can build an application, and you don’t need to ask for anyone’s permission to innovate. It’s innovation without permission. It’s innovation without central approval.”</li>
<li><a href="http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/158-jim-zemlin/808466-answering-the-call-for-werner-kochs-everywhere" target="_blank">Answering the Call for +Werner Koch’s Everywhere by</a> <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/110672742540891099057" target="_blank">+Jim Zemlin</a>: In addition to the world’s email encryption software being managed by one person, the Internet is being secured by two guys named Steve. The Network Time Protocol that manages clock synchronization for the world’s computer systems is largely maintained by a couple of folks. The examples go on.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/06/open_source_all_law_law_law/" target="_blank">Legalese and coding? Yup, it's the open-source FOSDEM shindig by +Damon Hart-Davis</a>: Where there's maturity and money there's lawyers; debugging the minutiae, a low-key dull-but-worthy message from FOSDEM. (I declare a bias, given that my IoT startup is founded on the principle of enabling a market by commoditisation of parts of it via FOSSH (free/open source software and hardware. Investors and bureaucrats no longer look at me as if I have two heads!)</li>
<li><a href="http://aeon.co/magazine/society/james-somers-web-developer-money/" target="_blank">Are coders worth it? by +James Somers</a>: On Thursday night I got an unexpected email. It was a job offer, and these were the terms: $120,000 in salary, a $10,000 signing bonus, stock options, a free gym membership, excellent health and dental benefits, a new cellphone, and free lunch and dinner every weekday. My working day would start at about 11am. It would end whenever I liked, sometime in the early evening. The work would rarely strain me. I’d have a lot of autonomy and responsibility. My co-workers would be about my age, smart, and fun. I put my adventure on hold.</li>
</ul>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-10636489604956984542012-01-07T07:30:00.011-07:002012-01-07T08:29:24.566-07:00Help Open Source Ecology Change The World<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.16in; "><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 0.16in; "></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 0.16in; ">Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.</span><span><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><span><span><a href="http://thinkexist.com/quotes/howard_aiken/">Howard Aiken</a></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><p></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.16in; "><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Sometimes you stumble across an idea that's so...well, BIG that it's hard to think about let alone describe. <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/">Open Source Ecology</a> (OSE), founded by <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Marcin_Biography">Marcin Jakubowski</a>, is just such an idea. Basically, what OSE is doing is recreating the entire history of technological development, without all of the false-starts, and from an open-source frame of reference. Modern civilization depends on a system of industry. OSE is going to open-source the entire system. I said it was big. The end result will be all of the technology necessary to, as Marcin says, “transform local resources into the substance of advanced civilizations.”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.16in; "><span><span style="text-decoration: none; "><span><span><span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; "><br /><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/16106427?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></span></span></span></span></span></p><p></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The initial primary focus is developing the <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set">Global Village Construction Set</a> (GVCS).</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/llW0ZSxJCHlFSBPosCa6tMrG3vpix3aBjpyl_pSdAz7_jnt82aSDizauiV__QSoZ1y4ZSa6CtiAUBJsubcRj8M7p7UzDerRP2Zu1M1_XUr_woA3R7Ec" name="graphics1" align="BOTTOM" width="864" height="286" border="0" /> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The GVCS is a system of machines that, working together, can create a small, sustainable civilization with modern levels of technology. Starting from scratch, or from scrap, a small group of people could produce everything they need to survive and thrive.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Perhaps the most important point to consider is that the GVCS will be integrated. Each machine will be designed to maximize the performance of the entire system, not the performance of the machine itself. For example, rather than build engines into every machine, interchangeable “power cubes” will keep things moving. The flexibility to provide power to anything, anywhere, will more than offset the loss of mechanical efficiency at each machine.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">They just barely failed to make it into the top 5 <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/wiki-diy-civilization_n_1157895.html?1324310724">Best of TED 2011 over at Huffington Post</a>, and they've been <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Press">covered in the press</a> for several years now. <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Main_Page">The wiki</a>, which is more-or-less the central organizational structure, has a crash course. OSE just released the first 1% of the GVCS and plans to release the other 99% by year end 2012, in accordance with their <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Distributive_Enterprise_Business_Plan_for_Earth">Enterprise Plan</a>.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Publications take on different forms depending on the organization doing the work. OSE is a non-profit obsessively dedicated to the principle that everyone benefits faster from doing things <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source">open-source</a>. Contrasted against closed-source, going “open” means they actively publish their work in such a way that the entire world has all the information necessary to replicate it. When OSE shows off a brick press that works twice as fast as its commercial equivalents they follow it up by creating a <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CEB_Fabrication_Master_PDF">detailed set of instructions</a>. Eventually, the entire GVCS will be designed and documented. The first four machines are in the <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Civilization_Starter_Kit_DVD_v0.01">Civilization Starter Kit</a>.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The CSK (v0.01) treads the first step on the road to industrial independence. The CSK contains all the information necessary to build the “lowest hanging fruit” of the 50 machines in the GVCS. Highlighted in brown, they are a tractor (<a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Tractor_Design_Rationale,_Product_Ecology">LifeTrac</a>), a compressed earth block press (<a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Design_Rationale,_Product_Ecology">Liberator</a>), a <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Soil_Pulverizer_Design_Rationale,_Product_Ecology">soil pulverizer</a> and a power source (<a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Power_Cube_Design_Rationale">Power Cube</a>). With these tools, two people can use dirt at the construction site to create enough bricks for a house in a single day!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">You don't have to pay for the instructions. Typically, the sole restriction of an open-source license is that whatever improvements you make to the machines you must release under a similar open-source license.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The important thing to communicate at this stage is that open-source technology depends on replication and guided evolution for its unmistakable cost and performance advantages. The Power Cube, LifeTrac, Soil Pulverizer (a cultivator) and Liberator have all moved beyond their first generation designs while being incubated at Factor E Farm. The next stage is for a hundred people to independently build, evaluate and refine them.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">It seems to me that the most fertile soil in which to plant these designs, specifically the LifeTrac, is in the hands of the world's <a href="http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/familyfarms/">small and independent farmers</a>. It can be fabricated for about $10,000 in materials, is designed to last 100 years, and has ownership costs 1/10th to 1/100th of a commercial skid-steer loader.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">More importantly, the LifeTrac is a taste of what's to come. Open-source hardware is just starting to become a “thing” but for something so new it is <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/09/open-source-government-it-goscon.html">showing remarkable promise</a>. For example, only a few years ago <a href="http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensab/">Dr. Adrian Bowyer</a> invented the <a href="http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page">RepRap</a>, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing#Domestic_use">3D printer</a>, and released the designs open-source. Today a RepRap costs between $500-$1,000 and <a href="https://printthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/insane-3d-print-resolution/">surpasses the performance</a> of commercial systems, none of which drop below $10,000.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">It's not outside the realm of possibility that the LifeTrac will have one fifth the cost and twice the performance of its commercial counterparts in only a few years. Just imagine how much time and money that would free up for farmers who are already overburdened with debt. Then, imagine an entire system of machines going through the same dramatic evolution.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">First, however, OSE needs people to use its machines in the real world.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><a href="http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Get_involved">This is a call to action</a>. If you are at all interested in the GVCS then <a href="http://opensourceecology.org/join.php">OSE</a> wants to hear from you. Their plan is to have hundreds, if not thousands, of people/organizations replicating their machines by the end of 2012. The benefits will be immediate, because the machines in the GVCS are high-value alternatives to existing machines, and perpetual, because any improvements will be incorporated into the GVCS in a matter of months.</p><script type="text/javascript">var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));</script><script type="text/javascript">try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-26913632914450872192011-11-15T19:15:00.009-07:002011-11-15T20:10:04.501-07:00Freedombox, A Suggestion<div style="text-align: left;">The <a href="http://freedomboxfoundation.org/" style="text-align: left; ">Freedombox</a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-align: left; "> is an idea who's time has come. Unfortunately, it's still just an idea.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Why is it still "just" an idea? <a href="http://joshuaspodek.com/an-offer-freedombox-community">Joshua Spodek</a> has some thoughts. To paraphrase: it's probably because the idea isn't perfect yet (engineers are notorious for never being ready to release their work). He figures someone (or someones) needs to step up and organize an effort, no matter how poor the initial outcome might be. Once SOMETHING is out there it can be improved by feedback from actual users.</div><div><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 235px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEholUiBV3tyVOL3BcfXJ6OHPadn_KNiQ8vcp6jW39yBJe6A3hicULlDOZyNCdIZbUBUDmtVv3aMbfOWkf8dbCiYrwWlRxBAhwFLQyxjgu7ig6KOFWkhbyg4Od0AoQZlc5C12aR4RSOFaKo/s320/stupid_a800_people.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675414464269762386" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span">Pictured: users.</span></i></div><div><br /></div><div>I agree that open-source projects either publish or cease to exist. OS projects just don't work until a person or a small group takes responsibility for getting results. Ideas are a great contribution, but someone has to contribute time and money too. Arguably an idea that can't attract even one person to take responsibility for it must not be a very good idea.</div><div><div></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Freedombox is a great idea. We need to shift the momentum of the internet back to individual control. </div><div><br /></div><div>That being the case, why hasn't the idea gotten more attention?</div><div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>At the moment it catches the attention of people who 1) understand technology and 2) are not invested in using it to control people (for one reason or another). Unfortunately that means the vast majority of the world is not, and possibly WILL not, be captivated by the idea.</div><div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn6B1axTLHFaO4Kq-VhjYqjWHO5uLHKmYaEVWdwOJube2E3eaR5gnzyNQUI2GpRQyPzdpDK4L35pVi9GEC7ZPR3RhaLJrBoKm1FyeglOb_FhRhUCCmEgIU3tHRIUMe9whq2KY3SLD8wk8/s320/young_large.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675417836060111234" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 226px; height: 320px; " /><div><div><div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div>Getting a lot of people to use one is kind of the whole point of the freedombox concept, so failing to capture the collective imagination is pretty much total failure period. Therefore, it seems to me that a big part of getting some momentum behind the idea is getting people interested in it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Or, failing that, latching onto something people are already interested in.</div><div><div><div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVIp2nd5pz92PtvvvqgAvasBC6-rmoRhyphenhyphene8_8_bJh5kHzNGYqKX5xkvJcfWBprkBYBzwixWqXG3qv9OIGL4E5sgtFjh-5IeFC3iOmYPdh8Ek1-nRhDIPZv3kas0q46rWnBqW_KmklrCGE/s320/tumblr_ldp3yyI6tu1qb9a2wo1_500.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5675418901195927986" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px; " /><div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Time to get sneaky.</i></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>On average, people don't care about security. They will instantly compromise every single security precaution established if it saves them a moment's frustration. They will not "opt in." So, to get them to do secure things, you have to restructure their environment such that they must "opt out." </div><div><br /></div><div>Rather than focusing on all the security advantages of the freedombox, emphasize its NON-security features. For example don't advertise the idea as a personal security initiative (freedom from oppression), instead advertise it as a personal cloud initiative (freedom from</div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div> cost/frustration). THEN build in all the security stuff you would have anyway. Tell people that's all there to guarantee the security of their cloud data. People love the idea of the cloud right now, and arguably a bunch of freedomboxes working together would fit under that umbrella.</div><div><br /></div><div>The project could still be called "freedombox" and the product could still be pretty much the same as before, just change the marketing. </div><div><br /></div><div>The strength of the idea is that it is the most "inherently" secure of all the options. When your data is on a company's servers it's under THEIR control. When your data is in your closet it's under YOUR control. In every society a person's home is considered more sacred than anywhere else. If an entity (cops or criminals) has to break into some faceless corporation to compromise you, that's one thing. When they have to go into your personal residence, that's an entirely different thing. No only is it simply physically easier to protect your dat</div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div>a when it's at home, but the government (even if it's corrupt) is far more likely to extend extra protections under the law to anything in your home.</div><div><br /></div><div>Play up all the ways the freedombox will "free" people to go anywhere and still have access to their data. It will absolutely accomplish that goal. When people embrace that they'll also be getting all the security built into the gadget by its creators. If they want to turn that stuff off, they can. It's theirs and they can do what they want. Since it's open-source someone will probably even create a security-lite release that runs on the same hardware. Whatever. All the people grabbing up the "personal cloud" will create momentum that will help out the people who live under repressive governments.</div><div><div><div><div><div><img src="http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trickle-down-stephen-hansen.jpg" border="0" alt="" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 354px; height: 500px; " /></div></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><i>Trickle down freedom.</i></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Basically, attach the idea to something that's already popular and it will get a lot more support. Play up one or two features that appeal to the largest audience. That way the few people who can REALLY benefit from it will get it even though they would never have been able to create enough momentum on their own.</div><script type="text/javascript">var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));</script><script type="text/javascript">try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {}</script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-33642155018477225102010-11-14T11:34:00.012-07:002010-11-24T18:59:31.539-07:00Cloud Manufacturing and IP Law<div align="left">The cool thing about innovation, as I've <a href="http://disruptivation.blogspot.com/2009/04/innovation-never-decreases.html">discussed before</a>, is that it can only ever increase the number of options available to us. The invention of the nuclear ICBM didn't render knives obsolete.<br /><br /></div><p align="center"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 300px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 169px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5539536523244091074" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXqbqJSk5BwnH_Jdd-rYcDbw_7SQwLBLeWhdjFeGDfIJeyowZLsRg9IOgZUmVSeTcEmpSfD4IFZEKTb_w7YZLoVPRcaQtBKdJLpCC_HYx6H2QCMMkMlk_D0hMLJj5u82Bddg7bttzd_ZM/s400/disable+his+hand.png" /><br /><align="center"><span style="font-size:78%;">"The enemy cannot press a button, if you disable his hand."</span><br /></p><p align="left">However, there is an exception to that rule, at least in practice. There was one innovation in human history that made it possible to limit our options...that innovation was lawyers.<br /></p><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 350px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 350px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5539956355074562562" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9jHqtL0TZpiyPeECjnRpQu19bhthyphenhypheniQ9P1zusM_GqL5MjU9CejWZGzSwDZkWOT21dy8Fzc5KCaVJ0twIM5qzAY_Tzsh6j9kEk5UJgMm03yY9K77JKl5W8Undn3cqMWYwaBWsyN3dz2Gg/s400/sexy-lawyer.jpg" /><br /><p align="center"><span style="font-size:78%;">Sexy, sexy lawyers.</span><br /></p><br /><p>The emerging accessibility of 3D printing <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/3d-fabbers-dont-let-the-dmca-stifle-an-innovative-future.ars">is eventually going to get a lot of attention in the courts</a>. Things like patent, copyright, and trademark law have always been crafted under the assumption that it's really difficult to make physical objects. For example, consider a pen (any kind of pen, really). If you had to make a pen yourself you'd probably end up using a feather, because the machinery necessary to make something like a ball-point pen is impossible for anyone to afford unless they're in the business of making ball-point pens. Thus, ball-point pen manufacturers are really only worried about other ball-point pen manufacturers.</p><br /><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 313px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5539957298139973474" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUu9Buu0q4AJUrN46EenUmJMXU6ofsEhFBimkcjGlP-lAtdqy00AYhQji3KpBwFqozuIHjaIY_zI1MS3q8pVTc6_qwnX24fRES-WQGguMuYbld6xjwOfTOGjgWzXTA6-TYcRovqUky9ZU/s400/free+ride+pen.jpg" /><br /><p align="center"><span style="font-size:78%;">Also, this thing.</span><br /></p><p><br />That is going to change. Not over night, but in the next decade it will become possible for an average, middle-class person to print a ball-point pen for nothing more than the cost of raw materials, and in less time than it takes to make popcorn.<br /><br />All sorts of industries are going to feel threatened by 3D printing technology. Picture the recording industry back when things like VCRs and MP3s were introduced to the market. Or take a look at the journalism industry. Sure, there will always be demand for professional journalists, but it turns out people are remarkably in favor of the idea of making their own journalism (blogs), even if it is of questionable quality, because it's custom and it's instant. The same thing applies to movies, music, books, comics, videos, etc.<br /></p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA6QmkT_Ypba0iE7cxdbGb6ao3_kCg3eK8mVcUdD6KsuYApJd0uBoag7tDu5ORW6XU6aP1Xmuihyphenhyphenfp4tY9X-qVq1228TpCKbWM5h0o9LszZCucFLHZinEaeh22Q6OHa4NEAIADz0F5xtA/s1600/fast-good-cheap.gif"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 381px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 331px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5539958714441937266" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA6QmkT_Ypba0iE7cxdbGb6ao3_kCg3eK8mVcUdD6KsuYApJd0uBoag7tDu5ORW6XU6aP1Xmuihyphenhyphenfp4tY9X-qVq1228TpCKbWM5h0o9LszZCucFLHZinEaeh22Q6OHa4NEAIADz0F5xtA/s400/fast-good-cheap.gif" /><br /><p align="center"></a></p><p align="center"><span style="font-size:78%;">You can pick any two.<br /></span><br /></p><p align="left">The ability to make something exactly the way you want, exactly when and where you want it, will be a huge leap forward in technology. As technological progress marches forward "cloud" manufacturing is going to emerge from the simple fact that the tools for making things will be cheap and abundant, rather than expensive and limited like they are now. How rocky the transition becomes will depend on <a href="http://tales-of-the-sausage-factory.wetmachine.com/content/protecting-the-future-of-3d-printing-dont-let-the-ip-mafia-rob-you-of-your-right-to-a-replicator">which side </a>mobilizes first. </p><p align="left"><br />Michael Weinberg wrote a paper that's posted over at <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up">Public Knowledge </a>titled, "<a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYWtlcGFydGV8Z3g6MTRhMTNiMzliMzUxN2UzNg">It Will Be Awesome If They Don't Screw It Up</a>." It is basically the American counterpart to Dr. Bowyer's (and friends) <a href="http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp">paper</a> titled, "<a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYWtlcGFydGV8Z3g6MzA5NDY0OTc0NGI3N2YxOA">The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-cost 3D Printing</a>." The legal situation in Europe is slightly different from America in that indivduals can copy patents for their own personal use, whereas in America any copying of a patent is infringment.<br /><br />Differences aside, both American and UK law says it's illegal to provide people with the means for violating intellectual property rights. This will <a href="http://xkcd.com/86/">most likely </a>be the weapon used in court to challenge the freedom of 3D printing. It's difficult to track down thousands of individuals, prove in court that they each individually violated your IP rights, and successfully sue them for whatever piddling amount of money they have. A much more attractive approach is to identify the few businesses involved in the technology, like a company that runs a <a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/">website</a> devoted to sharing digital designs, and sue their pants of. The pants of established companies are easier to locate and have more cash.<br /><br />The reason this approach will probably work is that established industries will have an easier time demonstrating to lawmakers that 3D printers are costing America precious jobs than 3D printing advocates will have demonstrating that 3D printers will be far more helpful than hurtful. Unless, of course, 3D printing advocates can manage to band together and present their case in a coherent, preemptive manner.<br /><br />For example, 3D printing could very well be a sort of "silver bullet" that allows us to significantly reduce per capita energy useage. It's simply <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity">more efficient </a>to manufacture exactly what you need out of commodity raw materials than to ship finished products all over the place.<br /></p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheS6fvbYr1xkH2IZ2vaYvbcf7oWublDOFRyM8Wcb8ah-Jk3tSNhFSlfPC1AhCmANXzVetPrxAumO0R8pL_gbYI-CQ7fL3-efo56kzsDtcf4SLqKVoQEKOxmWUxN3D3MWokwI-ocGn8PyE/s1600/Gdp-energy-efficiency.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 267px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5539975297778333490" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheS6fvbYr1xkH2IZ2vaYvbcf7oWublDOFRyM8Wcb8ah-Jk3tSNhFSlfPC1AhCmANXzVetPrxAumO0R8pL_gbYI-CQ7fL3-efo56kzsDtcf4SLqKVoQEKOxmWUxN3D3MWokwI-ocGn8PyE/s400/Gdp-energy-efficiency.jpg" /> <p align="center"></a><span style="font-size:78%;">I even have a graph.</span></p><p><br /></p>It will take a while for 3D printing to begin to seriously challenge established industries. Hopefully, the process will be slow enough for those industries to adapt, rather than object. But if not, it will be important to track the evolution of IP law to ensure it doesn't skew in favor of corporations.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-2208239852616453702010-10-27T19:42:00.014-06:002010-10-27T21:36:05.098-06:00Wright is Right. Also, ice cubes.<div align="left">The thing about people is that they have two sides. One side is emotional and short-sighted and blind to the world outside of its immediate grasp. The other side doesn't exist. </div><br /><div align="left">Well, it exists, but it's not very important. We can be rational, we just can't be rational if any one of a number of emotions are out of balance. For example, if you're reading this you're probably not getting angry (not yet). You're probably thinking about things, like ideas or something abstract, and not THAT SUICIDE BOMBER BEHIND YOU<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/23/60minutes/main555344.shtml">!!1</a></div><br /><br /><div align="center"></div><p><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 213px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532912078552057346" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUmvAm6RkRXXdBTolo6ExCvsAvTS2lRB1z9-guEUGcxfBX2j9wfF-9YuFkBZyqBF7zjgKbdPt638DaKremEJ3vDl3E3y_2FyGO1_k_EV32vyaGtGqUrVNM5pxwr-7OSlx-xKLrbWXNn-I/s320/islamic_suicide_bombers.jpg" /><br />Fear is probably the most commonly experienced emotion in the entire world because the natural reaction to something we don't understand is fear...and there's a lot we <a href="http://explainthisimage.com/">don't understand</a>.<br /><br />Of course, to really be afraid of something we have to become aware of it so that we can know we don't understand it. For most of America, 9/11 was one of those moments. There was the time before 9/11 when most of us were blissfully ignorant of radical Islam, and the time after 9/11 when we realized that <a href="http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm">THREE</a> religions spun off of Abraham's covenant with God.<br /><br />And, of course, the previous sentence is totally unfair. it conflates religion with politics, pretends a religion is the same as radical elements of that religion, and is also a bit snarky. </p><p><br /><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 256px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532916443349993938" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtvpzulzqENv1sC_eaUV3JRDERNRVtm35Zp_XytwhHYeDpzOzxoeYoKlmqbsTxXsnf16xkeGwcE7egvU2waFtUrlvYA7PwWXZkqfSxK-7KWnVa3mla4mDOV-0SoK-xzkLkzW2HrjYgag0/s320/on+the+internet.jpg" /> <align="center"><br />Anywho, I had a point. Yes, the point was that <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/islamophobia-and-homophobia/?partner=rss&emc=rss">Robert Wright </a>has a point.<br /></p><blockquote><em>As Islamophobia grows, it alienates Muslims, raising the risk of homegrown<br />terrorism — and homegrown terrorism heightens the Islamophobia, which alienates more Muslims, and so on: a vicious circle that could carry America into the abyss</em>.</blockquote><p><br />Wright goes on to point out that it is no longer cool, in mainstream culture, to be disrespectful to gay people. His thesis is that since gay people were already everwhere, pretty much everyone already knew a gay person, they just didn't know they knew a gay person. When those people started to come out, homophobes realized that it was kind of stupid to be afraid of someone you've known and liked for a long time just because you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Patrick_Harris#Personal_life">suddenly became aware </a>of their sexual orientation.<br /><object width="400" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/geyAFbSDPVk?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/geyAFbSDPVk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="385"></embed></object><br />Being nice to gay people is now so important that the President Of The United States made a special video to help out a successful national <a href="http://www.itgetsbetterproject.com/">movement</a>. What he didn't do was make a special video reminding Americans that Muslims are no worse than Christians. He didn't do that because islamophobia is on the rise, and if there's one thing a leader (hope and change!) avoids doing it's making an enlightened but unpopular statement. </p><p><br />I'd like to build on Wright's thesis a bit and suggest that the reason islamophobia is going to get worse before (if) it gets better is that there's little chance any American is going to meet a Muslim. Less than 1% of the population of America is Muslim. And they tend to cluster together. So most Americans only hear about Muslims, and in the same way no one ever hears about all the planes that landed safely yesterday no one ever hears about all the Muslims who didn't blow anything up. But, more importantly, all the Muslims in America represent only 0.2% of the global <a href="http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population(2).aspx">Muslim population</a>. </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtTKp9jF19hSmv3jeZJMpnuQXlyiIgBjaYc1g8-ILuBj9dPbqHcQkXMLWihvFzz1h5NLlRLPeHHZXF12SNE-mlsqHb1aPGtD1D_pTIOJqeJxWnTp_9QSq2bwqMG3e-q-Y8EX59cNeqtEs/s1600/islamic+world.gif"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 265px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5532924624257668450" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtTKp9jF19hSmv3jeZJMpnuQXlyiIgBjaYc1g8-ILuBj9dPbqHcQkXMLWihvFzz1h5NLlRLPeHHZXF12SNE-mlsqHb1aPGtD1D_pTIOJqeJxWnTp_9QSq2bwqMG3e-q-Y8EX59cNeqtEs/s400/islamic+world.gif" /></a></p><p> This means that there is no real chance Americans will ever think of Muslims as anything other than "them." Even if the Muslim population in America grew and distributed so that most Americans got the chance to live and work with them, all of those new Muslims would still represent an exception. </p><p><br />Now, the <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html">monkeysphere</a>. We're only capable of knowing, like, 150 people at any one time. Everyone else is either someone we've forgotten or a stranger. And it's not like people are just going to decide to forget 10 people, it has to happen naturally. So the problem we have is that building up the kind of experience with a stranger that brings them into your monkeysphere takes consistent effort over a long period of time. And it's basically impossible if they're not right next to you. </p><blockquote><em>The population of Muslims is so small, and so concentrated in distinct regions,<br />that there weren’t enough such encounters to yield statistically significant<br />data. And, as Putnam and Campbell note, this is a recipe for prejudice. Being a<br />small and geographically concentrated group makes it hard for many people to<br />know you, so not much bridging naturally happens.</em></blockquote><p><br />Since the average American doesn't have the chance to get to know Muslims even if they are currently open to the idea, they have to get an overview from <a href="http://islamtheenemy.com/">someone</a> who claims to know some Muslims. Most of those overviews are not flattering. </p><p><br /><object width="400" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TA1b3Hskb4Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TA1b3Hskb4Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="385"></embed></object></p><p><br />If you think about all of America like one organization (LOL you should) then theories of organizational change are applicable. They all tend to incorporate the <a href="http://www.mansis.com/freeze.htm">unfreeze/refreeze</a> model in one form or another. Basically, people start out in a sort of structure, and if you want them to take on a different structure you have to first shake them up. </p><p><br />Well, the overall situation is quite conductive to structuring Americans around the thought that Muslims are "them." There are a lot, but none of them are nearby, and they tend to disagree with us. None of that is going to change. So, what happens when people get shaken up anyway? </p><p></p><p>Well, if you let an ice cube melt it will take on a new shape. If it then refreezes in that random shape, instead of the one you wanted (a dinosaur), you've got only yourself to blame. In this case no one individual is responsible for the structure of America, but there are individuals responsible for shaking people up and then, at best, not giving them a good shape to refreeze into, and at worst deliberately encouraging them to refreeze around negative thoughts.</p><blockquote><em>So the engineering challenge in building bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims will be big. Still, at least we grasp the nuts and bolts of the situation. It’s<br />a matter of bringing people into contact with the “other” in a benign<br />context...Philanthropists need to figure out how you build lots of little<br />bridges at the grass roots level. And they need to do it fast.</em></blockquote><p></p><p>If any situation cries out for understanding systems, innovating, and leadership it's this one...but I have to admit that I'm at a loss. Personally, I think a significant percentage of America has already refrozen around a strongly anti-Islamic world view, and now they're working on shaking up (unfreezing) everyone else. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-88631046692426420592010-10-18T21:07:00.016-06:002010-10-20T14:15:18.657-06:00Reprap, Open-source, and liger jokesThis blog hasn't been on my mind too much what with moving from state to state, but I think what I'm getting into now will provide an awful lot of material.<br /><br />I ordered a <a href="http://store.makerbot.com/makerbot-thing-o-matic.html">Thing-O-Matic </a>from <a href="http://www.makerbot.com/">Makerbot Industries</a>...<br /><br /><br /><object width="400" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KCpuXm1O8Wo?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KCpuXm1O8Wo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />...yes, that's a little robot building parts for another robot all night, by itself. Now, some background.<br /><br /><a href="http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/">Dr. Adrian Bowyer </a>decided it would be awesome if machines could reproduce themselves. This was probably because he lived very far away from Hollywood. The first step was to figure out a way for ideas to be turned directly into useful objects. Technically, that "way" already existed (rapid prototyping) but it was way too expensive and the machines were covered in parts they couldn't make themselves.<br /><br />Instead of doing the proper academic thing and writing a theoretical paper, he built an absurdly low-cost 3D printer and released all the details under an open-source license. [video is a bit long, especially if you watch the second half]<br /><br /><br /><object width="400" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TZfcETkbGWk?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TZfcETkbGWk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />Well now his project is spawing all sorts of new innovations. The one I choose to participate in is called Makerbot Industries. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fScRYhq-5M0">These guys </a>are absurdly enthusiastic about the technology, which is great, but they also concur with Dr. Bowyer's commitment to <a href="http://www.opencollector.org/Whyfree/">open-source hardware</a>.<br /><br />It's mostly an intuition at the moment, but I think the combination of cheap personal fabricators and the open-source philosophy will be a disruptive innovation. Just spend a day looking around and keep track of how many things you use are nothing more than shapped plastic. Now imagine one or more of them broken. What would you do? If it's a replaceable part you could find it at a store, if you're desperate and lucky you could order a new one, but most likely there's no way to fix or replace that plastic part...and if there is it's probably not worth the time. But what if you could just print out a replacement? Lost your lense cap, print a new one. Broke a knob on an appliance, print a new one. Need a connector that Lego never manufactured, print it.<br /><br />That is where the idea starts to take hold. Then the odds are good that at some point in your life you've thought of a little thingamajig that would make your life better. Maybe a clever book mark, or a perfectly shaped tooth/fingernail pick, or a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeEeP8niq90">liger</a> ring for your niece because she loves <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger">ligers</a> and no one makes <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD6vpheUoPE&feature=related">liger</a> rings. Well, with a personal fabricator you're, like, minutes away from those ideas. Literally in the time it takes the little <del>brat</del> munchkin to stop crying you can print out a <a href="https://www.figurerealm.com/viewcustomfigure.php?FID=6821">Master Chief </a>action figure...and then print out a liger ring.<br /><br />Now you're not limited to making that song or newsletter or ball-kicking video a reality; now you can actually make physical things from your imagination into real things. And that's just for the developed world, where we think Maslow's Hierarchy is a progressive rock band. The rest of the world can get a printer and some bulk raw material (maybe even <a href="http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/pla.htm">grow it </a>themselves) and make exactly what they need exactly when they need it.<br /><br />Basically, the potential here reminds me of a joke I heard a while back that I can't attribute to anyone. If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you spend your time getting infected by alien plagues, or would you spend your time on the holodeck living out your fantasies, replicating food, and transporting your waste somewhere else?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-6704655383639129522010-02-13T21:58:00.027-07:002010-02-14T11:40:27.404-07:00Of Gaia and Green ManEveryone knows the world will end when <a href="http://www.dinosauria.co.uk/art.html">zombie dinosaurs</a> rise from the grave to feast on self-satisfied primates. But, there's no telling when that will happen. It could be tomorrow, it could be the day after that. . .but it probably won't be for a while. Digging through hundreds of feet of rock takes time.
<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUMnef4DssYsf2TCB5_oPgtlQhalIojnW2hX58D4gDw3sM_UTGYx-j4kwhN0pw-I1404N5xKECAYMRnwFhK7U9vIewIFIvFKEXK3TQGMUmBHZbxaR46Ke-E5myj1A8hxYxNVBqsB56rq0/s1600-h/Dino+Zombie+Colour.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 259px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUMnef4DssYsf2TCB5_oPgtlQhalIojnW2hX58D4gDw3sM_UTGYx-j4kwhN0pw-I1404N5xKECAYMRnwFhK7U9vIewIFIvFKEXK3TQGMUmBHZbxaR46Ke-E5myj1A8hxYxNVBqsB56rq0/s320/Dino+Zombie+Colour.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5437960304839668530" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Actually, would a zombie dinosaur look more like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg4Ls4gZjPo">Hexxus</a>?</span>
<br /></div>
<br />That being said, we will have to find something to keep ourselves busy while we wait. I propose one of the things we will end up doing is unleashing a global consciousness or, at a minimum, several sub-global <strike>consciousnessees</strike> <strike>consciousnessen</strike> consciousnesses. Also, we'll finally get those cool unitards science fiction promised.
<br />
<br /> <meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Linux)"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;">You're already on <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html">the Internet</a> because it allows you to access a lot of information quickly. Sure, most of that information is boobies and tweets, but there are rumors of the occasional nugget of work getting done. In fact, people manage to get so much work done via the intertubes that the whole thing is <a href="http://www.insead.edu/v1/gitr/wef/main/fullreport/index.html">blowing up</a> faster than a whale in orbit. </p>
<br /> <meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Linux)"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;">Old and busted: cables. New hotness: wireless. Okay, so wireless isn't new, but wireless networks that can build themselves are. <a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/mote3.htm">Ad-hoc networking</a> standards, and smarter operating systems, are producing nodes that can form a network any time they find another node(s) in range. Pretty soon you won't have to plan a network; you'll just toss self-connecting nodes out every hundred feet and call it a day.</p>
<br /> <meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Linux)"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;">Computers are to getting smaller what bears are to pooing in the woods; it's just what they do. As the physical size of computers gets smaller ad-hoc nodes will become cheaper and more disposable. <a href="http://www.switched.com/2008/01/09/intels-shrinking-processors-what-it-means-for-your-next-comput/">Processors</a> are getting smaller, <a href="http://www.livescience.com/technology/071018-nano-radio.html">radios</a> are getting smaller and<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span><a href="http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemTech/Volume/2009/10/zooming_in_on_sensors.asp">sensors</a> are getting smaller. Pretty soon everything necessary for a computer will fit inside the head of a pin. When a fully functional networked computer the size of this period “.” can be stamped out for next to nothing, it will be. In the future your computer will come in a ketchup packet. This <a href="http://www.nanotech-now.com/smartdust.htm">smartdust</a> will be cheap and easy to use.</p>
<br /><a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/amazing-software-turns-cheap-webcam-into-instant-3d-scanner/">Clever information processing</a> can vastly expand the usefulness of even the cheapest sensors. <a href="http://photosynth.net/about.aspx">Massive information processing</a> can produce coherent information from disorganized snapshots. This means that as the internet expands to incorporate smartdust sensors anyone will be able to know pretty much anything at any time; like Google Streetview on steroids multiplied by infinity. Have you ever seen your car or room when the light hits it at the perfect angle to reflect off of all the dust everywhere?
<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2GYtTdhOWNs5KqtXSJgWTRt0aFbA1u1s2GNMGyB5Z7Lgeczk3Sz1UH2McMm1kdojR0Mx2YSyHoyhmohXXcXIu6aCSGHjMm6XRHNXygLw5DfV4GxGjvazKjz1rxHJPcI-9inratgbGBnA/s1600-h/dust+motes.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 213px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2GYtTdhOWNs5KqtXSJgWTRt0aFbA1u1s2GNMGyB5Z7Lgeczk3Sz1UH2McMm1kdojR0Mx2YSyHoyhmohXXcXIu6aCSGHjMm6XRHNXygLw5DfV4GxGjvazKjz1rxHJPcI-9inratgbGBnA/s320/dust+motes.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438144976740274354" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">The future will mess with your allergies.</span>
<br /></div>
<br />Well each dust mote is now a computer, and it's watching you. With a thousand or more cameras monitoring a room from a thousand or more angles, and streaming their data to the internet, anyone will be able to virtually visit that room in perfect 3D. Perpetual immersion will mean seeing the light, hearing the sounds, feeling the temperatures, etc of anywhere in the world in real time.
<br />
<br />Speaking of that, yeah, it will be all over the world. Smartdust is going to start out kind of heavy, so it won't get airborne, but that stage will probably last a whopping two weeks. The world will become blanketed in the stuff because humans have A) poor impulse control and B) a burning desire to know what is going on somewhere else right now. A lot of it will start out as scientific research, monitoring temperatures in the rainforest or something, but that's how the internet started and we all know how that ended up.
<br />
<br />As functional as silicon is, there are still some things it can't do. Fortunately those in the squishy sciences are working on <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11294/">controlling</a> cells just like circuits. As we gain more control over biology and nanofabrication cells will be upgraded with artificial components and computers will be upgraded with biological components.
<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe188-YA-Cq2_1wQ2odGf1p8QWMQX-jY9LnbfVoldgpR615_bf2RVjJ_5cqZnlmcDN3bXJ-S_wZB0ILJUgSMyrtuTVPuY4s5u5Wn9Bsx9_2djduej5FlBWugmRHia1Q3h4q4WEVwkPgpI/s1600-h/fruit-powered-digital-clock.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 286px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe188-YA-Cq2_1wQ2odGf1p8QWMQX-jY9LnbfVoldgpR615_bf2RVjJ_5cqZnlmcDN3bXJ-S_wZB0ILJUgSMyrtuTVPuY4s5u5Wn9Bsx9_2djduej5FlBWugmRHia1Q3h4q4WEVwkPgpI/s320/fruit-powered-digital-clock.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438149901548465666" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">CYBORG!</span>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />One of the greatest weaknesses of computers is the reason they haven't yet enslaved us: they are delicate. It's really easy to break a computer (this sentence is false) and that means they can't survive on their own. When computers merge with biology they will become much more robust and therefore much harder to control. Basically, computers that have genes will inevitably start to <a href="http://oitblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/automated-inventing/">evolve</a>.
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVK5WrYZZlXB5oaOCspET6YTWh_e0U5Ru1ePtWGWbKTIOtniKt9Dxo0ojiwYJ6ugz3rYFbtlOSs_bp9fDZmBTDeIf2mia5OV66xeWvD-9eOyD6J8DcEVde8oFcKEc-GPNOPcR1yos7RQ0/s1600-h/evolution-of-computers.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVK5WrYZZlXB5oaOCspET6YTWh_e0U5Ru1ePtWGWbKTIOtniKt9Dxo0ojiwYJ6ugz3rYFbtlOSs_bp9fDZmBTDeIf2mia5OV66xeWvD-9eOyD6J8DcEVde8oFcKEc-GPNOPcR1yos7RQ0/s320/evolution-of-computers.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438151885219132626" border="0" /></a>
<br />The smartdust will be created to monitor environments and it will do a good job. However, at some inflection point it will be so ubiquitous that it will itself become part of the environment. A process that used to be linear will begin to feed back on itself. One theory of consciousness is that it emerged when neurons that used to monitor internal organs like the stomach started monitoring internal organs like other neurons. If a neuron is, in a sense, "aware" of the stomach it is monitoring then a neuron watching another neuron is "aware" of "awareness" and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=JANokq-wOcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn+1572303174&source=bl&ots=taSn_OaCmV&sig=K-UvrAnBxOzNOBCeh21Duc2ymfo&hl=en&ei=6jN4S-DBHYugswOg2PTLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false">consciousness emerges</a>. When smartdust starts to watch smartdust watching smartdust awareness of awareness will emerge.
<br />
<br />When a process doubles back on itself it becomes a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta">meta</a> process. Data about, say, rainforests becomes complex enough to be worth studying in its own right and produces data about rainforest data, or metadata. When someone experiences an emotion like anger, and then realizes they are angry, and then feels sad about feeling angry, they have experienced a meta-emotion. While definitions of sentience vary, they all tend to cluster around the idea that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwf1w3rp9hM&feature=related">something is sentient if it thinks it is sentient</a>.
<br />
<br />Everything that happens on the Earth will be monitored; the surface, the ocean depths, the atmosphere, etc. Smardust will be ingested by every organism, and may even become an ecology of organisms in its own right. After the monitoring processes turn back on themselves the Earth will, in a sense, "awaken." Whatever it is that humans do when they become conscious is what the internet will do. I'm not saying it will be Gaia, but it will be impressive.
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwU1NFqqX7kOmd8haAXuKVxqvwHr0k2kcTLgm-a4v1Fckwmj2E0IvKW_UcTgPU8YAWRpdRFoLUvVjh6_jXQjz34K9RZA0vAr8vsjMKQv4Sh_bSlb_AcHGtxRHPL29cJ7HTLQ2vt6aLkko/s1600-h/earth-brain-700.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 270px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwU1NFqqX7kOmd8haAXuKVxqvwHr0k2kcTLgm-a4v1Fckwmj2E0IvKW_UcTgPU8YAWRpdRFoLUvVjh6_jXQjz34K9RZA0vAr8vsjMKQv4Sh_bSlb_AcHGtxRHPL29cJ7HTLQ2vt6aLkko/s320/earth-brain-700.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438165486051884978" border="0" /></a>
<br />However, it will also be a huge pain in the ass. Smartdust will be inside of us too. We won't be able to avoid it. The stuff will be so small we'll end up ingesting it just like everything else whether we want to or not, and we'll probably end up using <a href="http://thehottestgadgets.com/2009/01/microscopic-nanobot-technology-is-closer-to-practical-medical-use-002114">nanobots</a> to keep ourselves healthy anyway. Why will this be a problem? Because the stuff inside of us will be an ad-hoc network just like the stuff outside of us. And the same network that will allow us to stream 3D images of the Himalayas without leaving our living room will allow hackers to spoof our internal network and mess with our nanobots.
<br />
<br />No security software is ever 100% effective. The only firewall that always works is the one that melts the modem into slag. So radios outside our body will have to be prevented from communicating with radios inside our body; to prevent mischief. The best way to passively block radio waves is a <a href="http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/tools/faradaycage.html">Faraday cage</a>. But, for a Faraday cage to work, it has to completely surround the volume it is shielding. So to keep our internal network secure we'll basically have to wear clothing with metal wires that covers everything.
<br />
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i1Ji8RRiREs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i1Ji8RRiREs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>
<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:78%;">Welcome to the future.</span>
<br /></div><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script>Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-55109445658217449272009-08-07T08:00:00.001-06:002009-08-09T12:29:05.339-06:00Awareness of System Boundaries is Necessary for SuccessA system is where you define it. Sometimes it's easier for people to agree on the boundaries of the system, sometimes it's harder, but either way it's always arbitrary. In keeping with the fractal nature of systems, the subsystem boundaries are also arbitrary.<br /><br />The definition of a system's performance depends on its boundary. A car's performance is measured in miles per hour because the boundary of the "car system" is between the tire and the road. We could say that the car actually stops at the axle and that the wheels are a separate system. Then the performance of the "car system" would be measured in revolutions per minute. However, car and the wheels are generally considered the system. On the other hand, when we talk about a highway at rush hour the cars are considered subsystems of the traffic jam. Alternatively, an company's organizational chart is an illustration of subsystems within systems.<br /><br />People who are in charge of a subsystem will generally consider themselves in charge of a system. When they strive to do the best job possible they will usually try to optimize the performance of their system. Just like the performance of the axles in a car is measured differently than the performance of the tires, the performance of one group is measured differently from the performance of the larger group it is a part of. The person in charge of the subsystem <span style="font-style: italic;">can't</span> measure the performance of the system, because that's not where they are; all they have to work with is the performance of their subsystem.<br /><br />This is a problem because to optimize the performance of a system you must de-optimize the performance of all the subsystems.<br /><br />For example, a "tuned" car doesn't have the most powerful engine because it would rip the transmission apart. If the transmission were beefed up it would spin the tires instead of moving forward. If the tires were stickier it would warp the frame. If the frame were reinforced it wouldn't leave enough space for the big engine, or it would weigh too much and it would need a bigger engine, starting the cycle over again.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBI6LE9CKni2MEmzjjvj_VZ-pbpeO-lCTxgrBlJqRH0TL_uFPkXrnNcU3DlVbFpoEQTaCvz1tGXiXm8Zy9TTBYrUwrLnUtKkR_IAKtifjn0s-tKDwGPPiWnyqoV9mj8RcWoyIQd_qvJWo/s1600-h/tsar+tank.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 225px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBI6LE9CKni2MEmzjjvj_VZ-pbpeO-lCTxgrBlJqRH0TL_uFPkXrnNcU3DlVbFpoEQTaCvz1tGXiXm8Zy9TTBYrUwrLnUtKkR_IAKtifjn0s-tKDwGPPiWnyqoV9mj8RcWoyIQd_qvJWo/s320/tsar+tank.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5367068042631953954" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">The <a href="http://www.chasal.info/">Tsar tank</a>. More like the reTSARded tank! Am I right?</span><br /></div><br />A system must have subsystems that are in balance with each other based on the performance goals of the system, not on the performance goals of the individual subsystems. This is relatively easy to understand when the systems are not people. But as soon as people get involved they start to get all pissy about being a subsystem rather than a system.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8XPAtPsfLKm0MiZ-xr00bseVGVDtCjmHNPhWQ0jFR8uYcDnGByBb-yOO4DPBmrQG7GKIF4zezsgh_rSqQmUsztMw2lZKzlS5GMMrs7_5OykkA3Q48SnIGtcDK7yddFEM3v_1APNRuix0/s1600-h/excluded_by_failedandforgotten.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 182px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8XPAtPsfLKm0MiZ-xr00bseVGVDtCjmHNPhWQ0jFR8uYcDnGByBb-yOO4DPBmrQG7GKIF4zezsgh_rSqQmUsztMw2lZKzlS5GMMrs7_5OykkA3Q48SnIGtcDK7yddFEM3v_1APNRuix0/s320/excluded_by_failedandforgotten.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5367070883092938162" border="0" /></a><br />This is why the executives of companies are constantly being reminded, often by highly overpaid consultants, that they have to explain to employees how their actions affect the company's overall goals. Otherwise, all they have to go on is the performance of the system they are aware of, which is the one they happen to be in charge of. When they do their best they will actually be destabilizing the company.<br /><br />BTW, this is why companies alternately claim it is better to keep their employees powerless and scared, or empowered and brave, depending on which extreme they are already closer to. A company that judges its employees on how well they aid the overall goals will strengthen the company by empowering everyone. A company that judges its employees on how well they perform on their section's individual metrics will strengthen the company by squashing everyone.<br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script>Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-65975902570313309772009-08-06T19:33:00.009-06:002009-08-06T21:18:45.207-06:00Spontaneous Misorganization Stifles Innovation at Large CompaniesNew ideas rarely emerge from bureaucracies. Large companies are generally bureaucratic, therefore new ideas rarely emerge from large companies. This is because people suck.<br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnMM2L0Vb9wlQeuUFTP8CFifxL9IX_PO1Q-rpZt0TviA1wS0IXHfz9haoBR0PviBMwhdeZ7D8gDR1_QAjK2t8pfhfmrrhmNyURrR7_s0tIlcw5Lllt7WjQTkeQF34WVVxaqXL7FYPigws/s1600-h/un+assembly.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 225px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnMM2L0Vb9wlQeuUFTP8CFifxL9IX_PO1Q-rpZt0TviA1wS0IXHfz9haoBR0PviBMwhdeZ7D8gDR1_QAjK2t8pfhfmrrhmNyURrR7_s0tIlcw5Lllt7WjQTkeQF34WVVxaqXL7FYPigws/s320/un+assembly.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5367040896239180994" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Pictured: People. Sucking.</span><br /></div><br /></div>A person doesn't suck (usually), but people do. The more persons are involved in something the more likely it is to suck. Observers often say that culture is the reason small companies are better at innovation than large companies; like <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2009/08/the_us_economic.html">Bruce Nussbaum</a>, <a href="http://www.svpg.com/innovating-in-large-companies/">Marty Cagan</a>, and <a href="http://www.innovationtools.com/Articles/EnterpriseDetails.asp?a=272">Jeffrey Baumgartner</a>. (respectively)<br /><blockquote>[large companies] don’t understand the critical cultural and social science components of [innovation].<br /><br />...there is much that the typical large company could do to improve the ability of their employees to innovate.<br /><br />The culprit behind this discrepancy is the decision making structure in each kind of company.</blockquote>It's not culture, at least that's not the first cause, it's the number of people. That's not to say it's the number of people technically grouped together. What is important is the number of people who have power over the outcome. As a general rule, people all want something different. It is impossible for everyone in a group to have the power to get what they want, but it is possible for everyone in a group to have the power to stop the process and ensure no one else gets anything. We have a built-in feeling of what is fair or not and <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as-it-49042.aspx">we act on it</a> by refusing to accept deals in which we get something, but the something is less than we feel is fair. Give enough people power over the outcome and nothing will ever get done.<br /><br />Small companies tend to have few people in them. They're "streamlined." That's a nice way of saying they have fired, or simply never hired, people they didn't need. Large companies tend to have a lot of people. They're "bloated." That's an acceptably crude way of saying there are too many people involved in what's going on. large companies provide a reliable flow of income, so they attract the people who can't hack it anywhere else. That's fine as long as they do their well-defined job and nothing else.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH7ydGK81F8estxvPOh2egNLqEhBgDVwKz6X-UHE0EQkKcoZHIYXupPLYdKfKr7wm9VAbpVfIlw8V2zqEzm5OmIrfazv1lHLEwYpFxWxVWsHQPU0Fux0CZZSWfl3US0-Mf3UAr9CCiQTg/s1600-h/time-clock-punch.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 193px; height: 202px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH7ydGK81F8estxvPOh2egNLqEhBgDVwKz6X-UHE0EQkKcoZHIYXupPLYdKfKr7wm9VAbpVfIlw8V2zqEzm5OmIrfazv1lHLEwYpFxWxVWsHQPU0Fux0CZZSWfl3US0-Mf3UAr9CCiQTg/s320/time-clock-punch.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5367050144459457058" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">You can have some power when the guy above you either loses all of it or gets more.</span><br /></div><br />A lot of people becomes "bloat" when those people start getting the power to make decisions affecting their own job. Since their job is all they can handle, they are not going to make decisions which result in changes to their job. This is not to say that hiring more people is bad, only that distributing power over one decision is bad, and more people hanging around makes it more likely power will end up distributed.<br /><br />Large companies can innovate just fine, and do, when they realize that throwing more people at a problem actually makes it worse. As groups grow larger, and more secure in their position, they become much more likely to <span style="font-style: italic;">spontaneously mis-organize</span> themselves.<br /><br />For example, as a company grows it tends to take on larger and more complicated projects, which necissarily involve more people with specific expertise than before. That's as it should be, the mistake is giving all those people power over the project. The appropriate way to organize it is to give one person power over the project, and make sure they get good advice from all the experts. This takes deliberate structuring because anyone who feels crucial to a project's success will feel it is unfair that they have no official power over it. This makes it much more likely one of them will demand, and get, some measure of power. That makes it more likely the others will demand, and get, the same.<br /><br />Then they will use their power to stop the project when it doesn't meet their standards, which it inevitably won't, as I'll explain in the next post.<br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script>Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-41435729545702844952009-08-05T20:52:00.007-06:002009-08-05T22:51:52.786-06:00National Healthcare Reform Leadership<script type="text/javascript"><br />var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");<br />document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));<br /></script>A new national healthcare system is in the works, or at least a modified one. Which is good, because no matter how you slice it the country needs to do something about steadily increasing healthcare costs, says the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml">CBO</a>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpjG5mV4uGVJYEYDEOMLN3n8-ZIhrX4xBe0VoE2YHx5i9r6eE-Bf0kMOpUz1zrnuRFRDt5lSNj0Ok5UjbdHfsaydGa9h3tl_M7Hyn21Ehy1Qah2odDleJsS_5Le4yRuYXQ1rZSIbuQ40c/s1600-h/CBO+healthcare+projection.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpjG5mV4uGVJYEYDEOMLN3n8-ZIhrX4xBe0VoE2YHx5i9r6eE-Bf0kMOpUz1zrnuRFRDt5lSNj0Ok5UjbdHfsaydGa9h3tl_M7Hyn21Ehy1Qah2odDleJsS_5Le4yRuYXQ1rZSIbuQ40c/s400/CBO+healthcare+projection.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366683153995394146" border="0" /></a><div style="text-align: center;">If rising healthcare costs were a steamroller. . .<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLlUgilKqms&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLlUgilKqms&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /></div><br />In BusinessWeek, <a href="http://www.nikosonline.com/">Nikos Mourkogiannis</a> proposes that the new system should focus on cutting costs. He also says that, while that is a fairly obvious consensus view, actually implementing it will require prodigious acts of leadership. The general idea is to create a system that ensures the average person will have a minimum level of benefits.<br /><br />As Mourkogiannis points out, the new healthcare system will not be able to do everything for everyone, it will have to make triage decisions which first reduce costs (and do everything else second). From the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/">White House</a>:<br /><blockquote>President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure <span style="font-weight: bold;">high-quality, affordable</span> health care for all Americans.</blockquote>The fun thing about mission statements is that they often utilize a lot of commas. Giving commas to a bureaucrat is the linguistic equivalent of giving a credit card to a teenager. All sorts of commitments are made with little consideration given to whether or not they can all be delivered. The term "high-quality" has a lot more wiggle-room than "affordable," and the situation demands the focus be on "affordable" anyway, so "high-quality" is really only in there to attempt to placate fears that the healthcare storm troopers are going to drag you off to the crematorium when you reach 65.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHadxl6w_emEdiEu5lymm52ed3q_ccrqM-BmcZskEtTh3JJ_7Ex0KENh4DAt_HK7_0fD5hhuVtLfZ85V9XwHn-hojqE6SxVAqnQyVkSFHtY02XSJrMjniw5zaiuerJpByMDt9FrdwBBaI/s1600-h/PBK_Stormtrooper_holding_a_baby_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 263px; height: 246px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHadxl6w_emEdiEu5lymm52ed3q_ccrqM-BmcZskEtTh3JJ_7Ex0KENh4DAt_HK7_0fD5hhuVtLfZ85V9XwHn-hojqE6SxVAqnQyVkSFHtY02XSJrMjniw5zaiuerJpByMDt9FrdwBBaI/s320/PBK_Stormtrooper_holding_a_baby_1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366693163085023778" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Your grandpa ran off to join the circus. Here's his replacement.</span><br /></div><br />High-quality will have to be secondary to low cost. The only reason we <span style="font-style: italic;">need</span> healthcare reform is that our current approach will bankrupt us. So, at a minimum, we have to do the same thing only cheaper. Improving quality would be nice, but it is not the primary driver; cost is.<br /><br />Now, try explaining that to the people who will cost too much to take care of.<br /><br />This healthcare reform situation is a good example of a situation that demands attention be paid to systems, innovation and leadership. The system is monstrously complex, implementing it won't work without some innovations that no one's thought of yet, and even then the leadership challenge is pretty much guaranteed to be beyond anyone's capabilities. We (Americans) are okay with the idea that the system can't take care of everyone. We are not okay with the idea that the system will officially not be taking care of everyone because they are officially on the wrong side of the cost/benefit analysis.<br /><br />That being assumed, what sort of leadership approaches have the best chance of getting people to at least let the necessary changes happen, if not get people excited about the changes?<br /><br /><ul><li>"<span style="font-style: italic;">We are working hard for you, but someone/thing else is working against us.</span>" Whoever gets saddled with the job of representing healthcare reform can try casting themselves as the plucky, unquestionably-good-hearted hero valiantly struggling against an evil menace. The menace could be immigrants flooding our emergency rooms, greedy HMOs, or just the vast scale of the problem. <br /></li><li>"<span style="font-style: italic;">We all know more than you and we say this is a good idea/working.</span>" Several large stakeholders in the healthcare marketplace, like the pharm-companies and AARP, have already expressed support for healthcare reform. It could be possible to present a unified front that overwhelms any attempt to claim it's a bad idea.</li><li>"<span style="font-style: italic;">Every alternative is worse, especially doing nothing.</span>" Proponents of healthcare reform, like me, have pretty much started here anway. This approach assumes that this will remain the primary tool moving forwards. It could be expanded upon by occasionally adding a new description of just how bad the future will/could get if things aren't done in a particular way.</li><li>"<span style="font-style: italic;">I was worried, but now I see there's nothing to worry about</span>." Instead of the leaders speaking, they could get average Joes and Janes to speak for them. That way the people who need to be convinced could see people just like them being convinced, rather than Ivy-league, smooth-talking socialist puppets trying to be convincing. <br /></li></ul><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script>Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-22952574753908834652009-08-04T12:23:00.007-06:002009-08-04T13:32:04.820-06:00Leaders Are Framers<script type="text/javascript"><br />var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");<br />document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));<br /></script>Since not much can be said about what leadership actually is, but people talk about leadership a lot, they must be talking about something else. I think they're talking about the incredibly complicated art/science of framing reality.<br /><p><a href="http://www.nwlink.com/%7EDonclark/leader/leadcon.html">According to a study</a> by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75 key components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that: </p> <ul><li>Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction in an organization. </li><li>Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to winning organizational trust and confidence: <ol><li>Helping employees <span style="font-weight: bold;">understand</span> the <span style="font-weight: bold;">company's</span> overall business <span style="font-weight: bold;">strategy</span>. </li><li>Helping employees <span style="font-weight: bold;">understand</span> how they <span style="font-weight: bold;">contribute to</span> achieving key business <span style="font-weight: bold;">objectives</span>. </li><li>Sharing information with employees on both how the <span style="font-weight: bold;">company</span> is doing and how an employee's own <span style="font-weight: bold;">division</span> is doing - <span style="font-weight: bold;">relative to</span> strategic business <span style="font-weight: bold;">objectives</span>. </li></ol></li></ul>I think this illustrates THE thing that people in leadership positions have to do. They have to frame reality for everyone else.<br /><br />There is more in the world than we can possibly perceive, and there is more in what we can perceive than we can possibly focus on, and there is more in what we can focus on than we can possibly make sense of. Appropriately, this scares the bejezus out of us. No matter how well we manage to understand the world, there will always be (infinitely?) more that we do not understand. This awareness leads us all to the obvious conclusion that if we can only understand part of the world, it should be the most important part.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwTWZpF6-Yp0wQewNVQVLR8Tcd1JBb6FZGzhpuDHYPem9IhDH5En-kimMrNAI2pNjcYBvsa82vwOSTa8BSjbxRxqqowvi7TsPVpsr7vcXhOKbzWCBbG-j8Ikbw2zJF5iDabMVnVwhaxNU/s1600-h/milky_way.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 172px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwTWZpF6-Yp0wQewNVQVLR8Tcd1JBb6FZGzhpuDHYPem9IhDH5En-kimMrNAI2pNjcYBvsa82vwOSTa8BSjbxRxqqowvi7TsPVpsr7vcXhOKbzWCBbG-j8Ikbw2zJF5iDabMVnVwhaxNU/s200/milky_way.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366177966834360210" border="0" /></a><br />But how can we be sure we understand the most important part of the world if there are things we don't understand? Maybe the most important part is one of those things we missed. This universal doubt drives all of us to the next obvious conclusion; to ask someone else.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW4G_luzUJ7MltAGoQpuUxuJepv4g4IR-ZPUxydFLhxGB2R_jB93ysrBipdvejgH0uMkmtcfHt_Z2XZMu-F1G_OZ5uZmWy7u3hDDvSzxjnEBy51QmJvaJZNj0GOBHD05kLwLFdsJunWhk/s1600-h/World_Religion2.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 198px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW4G_luzUJ7MltAGoQpuUxuJepv4g4IR-ZPUxydFLhxGB2R_jB93ysrBipdvejgH0uMkmtcfHt_Z2XZMu-F1G_OZ5uZmWy7u3hDDvSzxjnEBy51QmJvaJZNj0GOBHD05kLwLFdsJunWhk/s200/World_Religion2.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366189700458357506" border="0" /></a><br /> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxH2n8r3BNAzWheZOkm1DdUey5iF6XIe8E-0h930SIcMmoZiDhew_2l8MVm8qkqeOupf_fPTZEoDtnhzwWo9UQxLOYsfXMiazq-E2gbLIeGL3WbY5K71m3SAWNdJ5kJpYmZs7Y6luD4ZE/s1600-h/science+tools.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 187px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxH2n8r3BNAzWheZOkm1DdUey5iF6XIe8E-0h930SIcMmoZiDhew_2l8MVm8qkqeOupf_fPTZEoDtnhzwWo9UQxLOYsfXMiazq-E2gbLIeGL3WbY5K71m3SAWNdJ5kJpYmZs7Y6luD4ZE/s200/science+tools.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366189632554785458" border="0" /></a><br /> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSs2UA3PoJFb4eUHrJo5ehEH0_640aKZ-6bzKrtLESNFrp6SwBpojfzRK7Byan-tCWmS9R6SUTfUqrLiS7gIzyFdsc2Ed9gYAhYmqOzZWow739NJPc6WiqYoAkYs3qgy3uoiCJbHN_uWY/s1600-h/drama_faces.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 156px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSs2UA3PoJFb4eUHrJo5ehEH0_640aKZ-6bzKrtLESNFrp6SwBpojfzRK7Byan-tCWmS9R6SUTfUqrLiS7gIzyFdsc2Ed9gYAhYmqOzZWow739NJPc6WiqYoAkYs3qgy3uoiCJbHN_uWY/s200/drama_faces.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366189527102555330" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Since we are searching for the most important thing, upon which we can focus, we naturally assume it can be known. Therefore it makes perfect sense that someone else could know it. Whether or not they actually do cannot be determined, but they <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> know it. We look for a framework we can use to understand the most important thing, and from there to build our life around.<br /><br />Leaders provide that framework for us. They tell us what is important. This is why leadership looks the same at all levels, including personal, because everyone has some idea about what might be important. Leadership is touchy because when an organization tells us what is important we might be grateful, or we might be offended. Or we might be apathetic. It all depends on how we frame reality for ourselves and how our personal framework meshes with the leader's framework.<br /><br />When the leader's framework contradicts our own one of them has to be rejected, so either we think we are wrong or we think the leader is wrong. When the leader's framework merges with our own we feel completed. It is that feeling of appropriateness that creates a leader-follower dynamic.<br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />try {<br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-8555358-2");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br />} catch(err) {}</script>Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-18087925500546726222009-08-01T22:43:00.000-06:002009-08-01T11:44:37.674-06:00The Consciousness ConsensusThere is <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#10">no consensus</a> regarding what consciousness is, let alone whether or not it can be created artificially. The introduction to <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Mj_GJaOgXokC&dq=Cognition+Distributed:+How+cognitive+technology+extends+our+minds&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=KtMfM3_D10&sig=x1l-D3USJiF1msUhnIE1LM3eTrU&hl=en&ei=PG90Sq7cHIWesgP84IzkCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Cognition Distributed</a> does an excellent job of walking the reader all the way around the abyss that is our lack of understanding of consciousness.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisGDzZYItXT_25BmCNy_bcm3diIT_MnXz9hgJJX09WlB_nqpQfzxnNBlVItbVSv2lyQzDjhdtGdOj2tuMd4pqm6sAapu4lypjmLyMHqzdixUfmNyMO1gXGGhVmpkii1du7Vu5_wOpHMd0/s1600-h/Scotto_bct_16_31828_sm.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 134px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisGDzZYItXT_25BmCNy_bcm3diIT_MnXz9hgJJX09WlB_nqpQfzxnNBlVItbVSv2lyQzDjhdtGdOj2tuMd4pqm6sAapu4lypjmLyMHqzdixUfmNyMO1gXGGhVmpkii1du7Vu5_wOpHMd0/s200/Scotto_bct_16_31828_sm.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5365044090258852402" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">It takes a $100 book to explain that something can't be explained.</span><br /></div><br /><blockquote>When you say to yourself, "What is seven times nine?" and then "sixty three" pops up, you are certainly conscious of thinking "sixty three." So that's definitely mental; and so is the brain state that corresponds to your thinking "sixty three." But what about the brain state that actually found and delivered "sixty three"? You are certainly not conscious of that, although you were just as conscious while your brain was finding and delivering "sixty three" as while you were breathing, though you don't feel either of those states.</blockquote><br />We can agree that consciousness emerges from a sufficiently complex system, but not from insufficiently complex systems. While the metaphysical doubt that a rock could be somehow conscious, or a tree, or Gaia, always remains. . .it is merely a qualification made to preserve intellectual honesty. The doubt is really reserved for things like biomes and planets, not for dust and bushes. It's subjective, sure, but it's the best we've got.<br /><br />This question has been addressed so often that the language for discussing it is well established. It is possible there are just things that cannot be something, kind of like how "0" and "zero" are things that represent nothing. It's a paradox, not an inconsistency.<br /><br />Anywho, the really interesting development is that as we offload cognition into artificial actors we are accumulating context for the discussion that was impossible before the microchip. New innovations are being created every day that do things we previously associated only with conscious actors. Since we do not consider these new mechanisms conscious, we can no longer say those functions are conscious. If a function can be provided by purely vegetative processes then consciousness must be something else.<br /><br />Consciousness is one of those leading-edge concepts because everything we've nailed down as mere complexity, so far, has failed to explain it. Like how the round Earth was just a theory until someone actually managed to sail all the way around it, because the surface that had been explored up to that point didn't fully explain the Earth's roundness. I think we'll figure it out eventually. . .probably a few seconds after SkyNet becomes conscious and tries to kill us all. . .but life's a journey, not a destination.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-88162977293277398422009-07-29T17:35:00.006-06:002009-07-31T21:17:10.939-06:00Robots Don't Kill People, People do<a href="http://singularityu.org/people/gsp-09-students/rod-furlan/">Rod Furlan</a> <a href="http://twitter.com/rfurlan">twittered</a> a day in the life of a <a href="http://singularityu.org/">Singularity University</a> student. At 12:08:21 PM he asked, "When a robot kills, who pulled the trigger?"<br /><br />This question cycles through the public consciousness every year or so and is well illustrated by the South African National Defence Force's <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/">'little' accident</a> with an automated <a href="http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=1560&lang=3&pdb=1">Oerlikon GDF-005</a> (it sprayed 500 35mm anti-aircraft shells around its firing position, killing 9 and wounding 11).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCsdkblQVD4Tvi3t9vLlOoVXERCK9SuGHldRz-Qt9E6U8Fv_iCxIXkV5a-vv-g8U1ln_J8EfS97M9wokYmGgnrmvmryqKxMn0GhLjWPANS0Jt_gexntehE_ucZ65zvH0fOP5g2AI-pYO8/s1600-h/oc_f_3i.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCsdkblQVD4Tvi3t9vLlOoVXERCK9SuGHldRz-Qt9E6U8Fv_iCxIXkV5a-vv-g8U1ln_J8EfS97M9wokYmGgnrmvmryqKxMn0GhLjWPANS0Jt_gexntehE_ucZ65zvH0fOP5g2AI-pYO8/s200/oc_f_3i.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364049903986149202" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Oerlikon GDF-005, A.K.A. the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_%28character%29#Character_nomenclature">T-001</a></span><br /></div><br />At the moment no one seriously considers (except maybe the Koreans) holding the auto-turret responsible for the killings, because the system that controls the mechanical stuff isn't complicated enough to be plausibly sentient. <blockquote>...as backed up by empirical research by Friedman and Millett (1997), and by Moon and Nass (1998), humans do attribute responsibility to computers.<sup><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-responsibility/notes.html#3" name="note-3"></a></sup> Of course, <a href="http://http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-responsibility/#3">that we may be inclined to blame computers does not entail that we are justified in so doing</a>. Although computer systems may clearly be causally responsible for the injuries and deaths that resulted from their flawed operation, it is not so clear that they can be held morally responsible for these injuries or deaths. </blockquote>However, some people are really excited about the possibility that computers will eventually (sooner rather than later, yay!) be complicated enough for us to blame things on them. Without going into the background on this topic, the basic requirement for something to be responsible for its actions is that it be consciously aware of the difference between right and wrong. Since <a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/pc.htm">computers</a> just do what they are programmed to do, and have no ability to understand the concept of "should," they are not responsible for anything. Computers just follow orders.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirDZm-EhEe846x7e-CtvWUWnth_Us3yAal0clqjs8lB1fTknhq6U1KEuJZgr7XkEEpLcR7ovai-XjTCmKRy9T_2hKWHnIF1OT4QCMQkXmJc0QOmBlJCjM1bOYOKRjOjiKjpBWIN5QeYFU/s1600-h/nuremberg_defendants.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 149px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirDZm-EhEe846x7e-CtvWUWnth_Us3yAal0clqjs8lB1fTknhq6U1KEuJZgr7XkEEpLcR7ovai-XjTCmKRy9T_2hKWHnIF1OT4QCMQkXmJc0QOmBlJCjM1bOYOKRjOjiKjpBWIN5QeYFU/s200/nuremberg_defendants.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364055624425084402" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Computers totally would have let the Nuremberg Defendents off the hook.</span><br /></div><br />The human brain is a system, and a computer is a system, so it is plausible that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity">computer systems can increase in complexity and reach a par with the human brain</a>. So, at some point we will probably have to deal with computers that actually do understand morality. Since we'll still be human, we'll probably give them a gun and tell them to go kill our enemies. However, before we can pull the "the robot did it on its own" card, we will be forced to use old-fashioned computers to kill people.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cc.gatech.edu/aimosaic/faculty/arkin/">Dr. Ronald Arkin</a> wrote a book about this, and did a few<a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/robotics/teaching-robots-rules-war"> interviews</a>, and worked on a prototype computer-based morality system. His thesis is that robots can be more moral on the battlefield than humans because they are capable of making fewer mistakes. They won't make decisions based on fear, anger or recklessness and they will evaluate every situation on its own merits instead of suffering from 'scenario fulfillment' and jumping to conclusions.<br /><br />From a systems standpoint it seems fairly obvious that computers will eventually be more complicated than humans, and at that point they will probably have to start taking responsibility for their own actions (and for cleaning up that pig-stie they call a room). Until then, however, we humans will have to continue taking responsibility for robots that are put in increasingly complicated situations. Dealing with this transition period will require innovations that have not appeared yet. At some point it becomes difficult to hold a person responsible for the actions of a system they own, but that they can't possibly understand fully enough to predict its actions in all situations. Isaac Asimov built part of his career exploring the ways a robot could do totally unexpected things while blindly obeying the <a href="http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html#series13">3 Laws of Robotics</a>.<br /><br />We need an innovative way to interpret who is responsible for the actions autonomous (but unconscious) systems take. Even when some computers truly are unequivocally responsible for their own actions, the vast majority of computers systems will continue to be unconscious. Inevitably, some of the moral computers that we declare responsible for their own actions will assume control of non-moral computers that still aren't responsible for their own actions.<br /><br />The question is, 'in the future, when a moral computer tells a non-moral computer to kill, who can I sue?'Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-9051042587409055242009-07-22T18:13:00.012-06:002009-07-24T15:20:16.188-06:00President Obama's Healthcare NewsconferenceThe President addressed the nation. . .or at least as much of the nation as felt like watching the whole thing. The ones who relied on soundbites will miss out on the chance to draw their own conclusions, because anyone who uses soundbites or quotes is trying to back up a predetermined point :-)<br /><br />He said, "I'm the president, and I think this has to get done." This sort of statement is interpreted as arrogance by people who don't like the speaker, and as authority by people who do. I think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle because the laws of physics actually require a phenomenal concentration of arrogance to stabilize the phenomenal concentration of authority that comes with the Presidency.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSS4H3JBkHVbK_1kj4J7pw2Ny4T7dXQ0bQeT8bk70aY48gyZewdpzPf8pt0MWPLeQ_zK4ziCttz_O5s69m4Ojt1-xQV5tXlS3weVJzSDNZZWHGQmRWj6d1R76Hik2reWYjfh2BDe64h-w/s1600-h/Blog_Obama_Crowd.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 269px; height: 178px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSS4H3JBkHVbK_1kj4J7pw2Ny4T7dXQ0bQeT8bk70aY48gyZewdpzPf8pt0MWPLeQ_zK4ziCttz_O5s69m4Ojt1-xQV5tXlS3weVJzSDNZZWHGQmRWj6d1R76Hik2reWYjfh2BDe64h-w/s200/Blog_Obama_Crowd.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362123502434571122" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">What's he got to be smug about anyway?</span> </div><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> On the subject of healthcare reform, I think he did a good job of summarizing the reason we should at least talk about it. He said the cost of doing nothing is more than enough reason to do something (cuz the current system is on track to bankrupt the federal government); since we should do something, we should do it right. Doing it right means it doesn't add to the deficit, it protects the middle class and it satisfies healthcare experts. He also said there is so much waste in the current system that we can provide healthcare to everyone; if we can get people insurance that pays for preventative care they won't end up in the emergency room making the rest of us pay for their amputated foot instead of for cheaper counseling on diabetes prevention.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwmLiCbOp9PECFOfSmpIB8bmSSAKwEdE_8kCY_u8y1Gqwojw1frChdw7DBisxza43qvdL7swaHp_dfEd51p4S96TG6UYo6av6q7cczBJ5ZkErqpPVal387koKkBli7Lu_7Jdu8ra_7ZF0/s1600-h/appleaday.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 142px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwmLiCbOp9PECFOfSmpIB8bmSSAKwEdE_8kCY_u8y1Gqwojw1frChdw7DBisxza43qvdL7swaHp_dfEd51p4S96TG6UYo6av6q7cczBJ5ZkErqpPVal387koKkBli7Lu_7Jdu8ra_7ZF0/s200/appleaday.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362126419117304162" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">An apple a day keeps our economy afloat for another fiscal year.</span><br /></div><br />The healthcare system is incredibly complicated. That's something that seems to be forgotten when discussing healthcare reform. Additionally, it is a service that cannot be suspended while being overhauled. The average person doesn't even have the language skills necessary to frame the issue, let alone discuss anything approaching a solution. By way of an example, out of the dozens of times pundits mentioned the "cost" of the healthcare reform plan, only a couple times did anyone bother to mention that it was the projected cumulative cost over 10 years, expressed in current dollars.<br /><br />Even trying to talk about how much it might cost requires several qualifications and each qualification can be further qualified. Thinking about it is tough, let alone expressing it in a sentence. So, instead of admitting how complicated it is, we just gloss over the parts (99.99%) we don't understand and assume there is nothing significant hiding in the fog. It's like when people assumed the ocean floor was flat until they actually got a look at it.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidRMvnVaLBShIw7RY7FLbTCF86Sp7JFpw-4jTwUmm1nYkJOSIDwxhthUbXTWbEkP7l2r3V4tsBLRhyphenhyphenzaOaTkZ5_yTJG7TQWpcVhriE6YpTf_DFFVkBAC1m0K4Qi0XWxZTnef-W4gnlW-8/s1600-h/ocean+floor+globe.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 173px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidRMvnVaLBShIw7RY7FLbTCF86Sp7JFpw-4jTwUmm1nYkJOSIDwxhthUbXTWbEkP7l2r3V4tsBLRhyphenhyphenzaOaTkZ5_yTJG7TQWpcVhriE6YpTf_DFFVkBAC1m0K4Qi0XWxZTnef-W4gnlW-8/s200/ocean+floor+globe.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362130920661202082" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Pictured: Advanced sentence structure.</span><br /></div><br />Anywho, the commentary which followed was even more fun.<br /><br />CNN<br /><ul><li>he didn't add anything new</li><li>apparently Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s arrest is way more important than national healthcare</li></ul>I suppose we should forgive CNN. Their <span style="font-style: italic;">Black In America 2: The Revenge of Black In America</span> program was airing next and they really wanted to plug it. Apparently the best way to keep the attention of people who tuned in for a 45 minute lecture on healthcare reform is to claim it was a waste of time and that we should be paying attention to some dude who got arrested and then wasn't charged with anything. CNN is classy that way.<br /><br />FOX<br /><ul><li>he's a great liar</li><li>nothing is worth doing unless a list of bullet points can fully explain it</li></ul>Luckily, FOX was busy furiously ignoring the discussion of what happened to that dude who got arrested (oh, was he BLACK, we totally didn't notice) so they had plenty of time to talk about the news conference. Of course, by "talk about" I mean link everything to Republican talking points and, when that was too hard, tell the audience they should be too confused to remember to blink their eyes or wipe the drool off their bib.<br /><br />O'Reilly<br /><ul><li>I don't understand what his plan is (despite the fact that he opened the press conference by saying the plan is still being debated)</li><li>I don't want the government aggregating rates of medical conditions (despite the fact there is no reason names need to be attached to conditions)</li></ul>Maybe it's me...but O'Reilly always claims to adore Obama...while always coming up with a reason to hate everything Obama does. In this case he was very clear on two points: that he couldn't understand what Obama was saying and that he went to college so he totally should have been able to. Then he brought in some dude to talk about how healthcare reform is actually really simple, and all the possible changes (all 2 of them) must inevitably lead to a zombie apocalypse.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3_T-DkPzBIBkjholdBlQCPxF-4fPgKrbS_c62cIkO5fBsy3CALX-zUbLLR9yx8VnyMWyIuG7DV6Q5F5e7OF7mQVue712vTbnOm7OEyyxeydRGEcJ6CtoAchSg1xRdeSbeBRGJRwY9nt0/s1600-h/zombie+doctor.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3_T-DkPzBIBkjholdBlQCPxF-4fPgKrbS_c62cIkO5fBsy3CALX-zUbLLR9yx8VnyMWyIuG7DV6Q5F5e7OF7mQVue712vTbnOm7OEyyxeydRGEcJ6CtoAchSg1xRdeSbeBRGJRwY9nt0/s200/zombie+doctor.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362135337285800338" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">He'll be standing between you and your healthcare.</span><br /></div><br />AC360<br /><ul><li>Tough to make a hard sell for a proposal that's still evolving</li><li>Republicans don't have an alternative, just objections</li></ul>I think it's the hair. Anderson Cooper, like Superman, realies on his super-powered hair to save mankind once a week. Just imagine the desperate straits we'd be in if his hair was more like this:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQx_CLunwp4jG3DBoS4h8scJrTyTc8X8xfooub0T6bZB0WEGaXDXFHgqBBKQqa4TmtIqs-uJASKMj3SX5tBRYTg2qSdwvHCyd1kFj9LRpUsHMSSA7xSQCfYglMrjxDGTVgCKzETwHDng0/s1600-h/pamela_anderson_cooper_3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 141px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQx_CLunwp4jG3DBoS4h8scJrTyTc8X8xfooub0T6bZB0WEGaXDXFHgqBBKQqa4TmtIqs-uJASKMj3SX5tBRYTg2qSdwvHCyd1kFj9LRpUsHMSSA7xSQCfYglMrjxDGTVgCKzETwHDng0/s200/pamela_anderson_cooper_3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362138022246322466" border="0" /></a>Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-80250235028901176612009-07-15T11:55:00.001-06:002009-07-15T20:46:43.394-06:00Definition of Innovate (2 of 3)Innovate isn't really all that hard to define, but I think rephrasing the common definition will place the emphasis on a more useful concept.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=innovate&searchmode=none">Online Etymology Dictionary</a> states only that the word originated in 1548 and it is based on latin 'in' (into) + 'novus' (new), so it meant 'to renew or change.'<br /><br />The <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate">Random House Dictionary</a> states: to introduce something new (for or as if for the first time), to make changes in anything established.<br /><br />The<a href="http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/innovate"> American Heritage Dictionary</a> states: to begin or introduc<br />e (something new) for or as if for the first time.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovate">Merriam-Webster Dictionary</a> states: to introduce as, or as if, new.<br /><br />I think the concept of 'introduction' is important to understanding the definition of innovation. It is common to all these sources because, just like any other introduction, it must be done by a person. All innovations originate with an individual who then "introduces" the rest of us to it. This is because an innovation is relative. You can only be introduced to something once, because after the introduction you are familiar with the introduced. An idea can only be new to you the first time you are exposed to it. From then on it is no longer an innovation in your eyes, though it can still be an innovation to someone who has yet to be introduced to it.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpt6f0ZFOEr2RnxaV5niu6qH5G1IK64f1leHv6HlmY9rWCXQCZOF0AgIuuySmjn2Yg5XWbl2rHyuR7qn7LnH50ZT9Sz3dYdE3kw5bJk9T0NN60MPcix953mcZCQ_wshUd_72_9PuKa-3U/s1600-h/new.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 170px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpt6f0ZFOEr2RnxaV5niu6qH5G1IK64f1leHv6HlmY9rWCXQCZOF0AgIuuySmjn2Yg5XWbl2rHyuR7qn7LnH50ZT9Sz3dYdE3kw5bJk9T0NN60MPcix953mcZCQ_wshUd_72_9PuKa-3U/s200/new.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358435896029962050" border="0" /></a><br />Things are only called innovations until they are integrated into a conceptual framework. After a period of adjustment we consider any new idea to be an established part of the environment, and therefore not new. So it is a label applied by an actor, whether they be an individual or a society, when the actor is first introduced to something new.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhitj50t0zCRW7v2e0GMBQxfq51WgAEigVHoJ1qCpAgj_QBW6EKxdHtKyXQOQRgqMh1aGx5WyqiscSbYWGLoJeqbSlgK8zPI2TKPha79f3YH84fmzSYd_VE0NCLBBNPvELiw10A624by9g/s1600-h/learning+experience.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 301px; height: 225px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhitj50t0zCRW7v2e0GMBQxfq51WgAEigVHoJ1qCpAgj_QBW6EKxdHtKyXQOQRgqMh1aGx5WyqiscSbYWGLoJeqbSlgK8zPI2TKPha79f3YH84fmzSYd_VE0NCLBBNPvELiw10A624by9g/s200/learning+experience.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358435949849165986" border="0" /></a><br />For this approach to work we must understand it to mean that everyone is first introduced, including the person doing the introducing. The innovator, then, introduces the innovation to themselves first. This is consistent because the important event is the understanding by each individual that something is new; that is the metaphorical moment of introduction.<br /><br />Therefore, <span style="font-weight: bold;">I propose the following definition of innovate</span>: to understand something to be different from anything understood before.<br /><br />If you feel like researching the topic further <a href="http://yost.com/misc/innovation.html">Davit Yost</a>, <a href="http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/innovation/building-an-innovation-nation">McKinsey and the World Economic Forum</a>, and <a href="http://www.businesspov.com/article/277">businessPOV</a> are some resources.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-46366765018937097332009-07-14T15:51:00.003-06:002009-07-16T16:05:20.619-06:00Definition of Leadership (3 of 3)Leadership is pretty difficult to define. A few years back I made a bet that I could produce 10 different legitimate definitions of leadership, but delivered an even dozen without any difficulty. The word "leadership" is searched an average of four million times a month and produces more than one hundred million pages. (For comparison, "American Idol" is searched an average of 14 million times a month and produces two hundred million pages)<br /><br />The Online Etymology Dictionary doesn't even have an entry on the subject, and has very little to say about "leader." The Random House Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary can't seem to define it without using the word "lead."<br /><br />Congratulations must be given to <a href="http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/leadership">the American Heritage Dictionary</a> for providing "guidance and direction" instead of just "the act of leading."<br /><br />There is a particular trend in the introductions of attempts to define leadership, as illustrated by the <a href="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/leadership.html">Business Dictionary</a>, <a href="http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/leadership/g/leadership.htm">About.com</a>, and even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership">Wikipedia</a> that is best summarized as "no one's really sure but here's what the consensus seems to be." People and organizations are usually careful to state that they are providing their view on leadership, which they might be quite confident in, but which they will not claim is The Definition of the word.<br /><br />I think that<span style="font-weight: bold;"> leadership is</span>, quite simply, the act of dealing with change. I think this is The Definition, and that it has been missed, because there isn't much more one can say about it. The general consensus definition of leadership is usually something along the lines of "inspiring a group to action." However, this is almost always qualified with a list of additional actions that should be included, and a caveat that even then the definition is probably incomplete (and even when the definition is complete it shouldn't be taken strictly literally).<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVW2c6DYCcn7juEpxkndm6NdwPW5bUHX2NyVPfBIGWcGOyPyVkoZDhrCNS52IabegGpuMNC64d4UcEUTfPjeHH-ZcHZWC1xviMoeGtzqQHtckZmWkn6-QK-1Xgv_zLRtK8jrkABLs46Qo/s1600-h/charlie+brown+despair.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVW2c6DYCcn7juEpxkndm6NdwPW5bUHX2NyVPfBIGWcGOyPyVkoZDhrCNS52IabegGpuMNC64d4UcEUTfPjeHH-ZcHZWC1xviMoeGtzqQHtckZmWkn6-QK-1Xgv_zLRtK8jrkABLs46Qo/s200/charlie+brown+despair.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5359180498696197794" border="0" /></a><br />Working from that definition, then, it makes sense that it would be misunderstood. Because leadership is dealing with change, unlike management which is dealing with complexity, the act of leading is basically just guesswork. There isn't much more you can say about it. Take what you know about a situation and try to predict the future; you'll be wrong sometimes and right sometimes and hopefully you'll get better. Now, the position labeled "leader" does require an array of skills like management, communication, character, etc because once the guess is made it becomes a mere comlexity challenge, which can be managed. Management can be explained, so that is what gets explained, because the leadership part of it actually takes very little explanation.<br /><br />I went into more detail in <a href="http://disruptivation.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-leadership-and-management-really.html">this post</a>.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-42799103553570104532009-07-14T11:20:00.009-06:002009-07-15T20:22:02.745-06:00Definition of System (1 of 3)The biggest problem encountered when discussing the three concepts systems, innovation, and leadership is that people rarely agree on what the words mean when they are used. To help narrow down the list I will state explicitly that I am using these terms in their general sense and avoiding using them as specific jargon like you would find in a technical medical or computer discussion.<br /><br />This post is the first in a three-part series. Each instalment will investigate the definition of a word by summarizing the process I went through to generate a useful definition.<br /><br />The history of the word, as related by the <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=system">Online Etymology Dictionary,</a> can be traced back to the word 'systema' which is made up of 'syn' (together) + root of 'histanai' (cause to stand); meaning "set of correlated principles, facts, ideas, etc."<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/system">The Random House Dictionary</a> has a half dozen (relevant) overlapping definitions of the word. They can be condensed like this: an [ordered/comprehensive/coordinated/formulated/regular] [assemblage/combination/set/body] of [things/parts/members/facts/principles/doctrine/methods/schema] forming a [complex/unitary] [whole/scheme].<br /><br /><a href="http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/system;_ylt=Asd2l.HxbjdxuvUsBuyrafCsgMMF">The American Heritage Dictionary</a> has fewer overlapping definitions: A [group/organized set] of [interacting/interrelated/interdependent/functionally related/coordinated] [elements/ideas/principles/objects/phenomena] forming a complex [whole/order].<br /><br /><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system">The Merriam-Webster Dictionary</a> has even fewer: <span class="sense_content">A [interacting/interdependent/related] [group/arrangement] of [items/bodies/objects/forces/devices] forming a [unified/harmonious] [whole/network].<br /><br /></span>If all that could be further condensed down to a single sentence it might look something like this: a system is an integrated group of things which form a whole. However, I think there is an important concept being left out of these definitions.<br /><br /><span class="sense_content">An important concept to capture is that at any given moment a system is an arbitrary boundary drawn somewhere in a hierarchy of subsystems. A system is simultaneously a system and a subsystem, so defining it in relation to its subsystems makes it a sort of self-referential meta-definition. It's not as simple as nesting dolls. . .<br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8lC5boH0E5eMkruTnfrTjjKfxx4w5y9MCOl6Fpepv-2N22kgjjru76xvKERLRq3UoRkM0NB_smcyfXVpznnLUvLLLhYMWCEJc7bDlSbXHuU2Fju_fQt-VMAqjyHh7HpGZB7ZAP_lQ6PM/s1600-h/nesting+dolls.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 295px; height: 210px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8lC5boH0E5eMkruTnfrTjjKfxx4w5y9MCOl6Fpepv-2N22kgjjru76xvKERLRq3UoRkM0NB_smcyfXVpznnLUvLLLhYMWCEJc7bDlSbXHuU2Fju_fQt-VMAqjyHh7HpGZB7ZAP_lQ6PM/s200/nesting+dolls.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358414771222769554" border="0" /></a><br /><span class="sense_content">. . .it's more like a fractal.<br /><br /></span><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G_GBwuYuOOs&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G_GBwuYuOOs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br />Therefore, <span style="font-weight: bold;">I propose the following definition of 'system':</span> a purposeful choice of scale in an infinitely complex hierarchy of nesting subsystems, the discussion of which involves integrated collections of related things.<br /><br />For some other discussions of the definition of systems <a href="http://www.umsl.edu/%7Esauterv/analysis/bees/">The Univ. of Missouri-St. Louis</a>, the <a href="http://ide.ed.psu.edu/change/systems-characteristics-1.htm">Division on Systemic Change</a>, and the <a href="http://www.isss.org/primer/soyouwan.html">International Society for System Sciences</a> are valuable resources.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-49500481989167627832009-07-11T21:12:00.012-06:002009-08-01T11:07:03.514-06:00Our "Self" Wants More (and More)One of the things we humans think sets us apart from (other) animals is that we can invent and use all sorts of nifty tools. While research has demonstrated that animals can use natural tools, and even artificial tools, there is still a dramatic difference in scale (in tool use) between humans and our closest competitor.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk0xKkaBg4frcOISCb0hkoqJmHDZ0tl6qzsK9Rx3G3zRRSEH9I-PRIpi-Ab-WmtIa4jai-lQL9cKcOz5bUarqVc5AaoNCSp0PdeA3msLyRLbV3b0Vj5Q16QfRHv6HT2brvVQUQwObKXGk/s1600-h/monkey-gun.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 136px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk0xKkaBg4frcOISCb0hkoqJmHDZ0tl6qzsK9Rx3G3zRRSEH9I-PRIpi-Ab-WmtIa4jai-lQL9cKcOz5bUarqVc5AaoNCSp0PdeA3msLyRLbV3b0Vj5Q16QfRHv6HT2brvVQUQwObKXGk/s200/monkey-gun.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357408623701380818" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Here we can observe an animal using a tool to extract money from a</span><span style="font-size:78%;"> tourist.</span><br /></div><br />So, for the moment, lets assume that the essence of what we are is something very specific, like genes or a soul (call it the "self"), and everything else is a tool for advancing the "self's" agenda. In this thought-experiment, then, our body is just a tool for interacting with the world and our brain is just a tool for thinking about interacting with the world.<br /><br />Our body, when thought of as a tool, can be described as having certain parameters. It is a certain size, uses a certain amount of energy, produces a certain amount of force, etc. The brain can also be thought of as using a certain amount of energy, providing a certain number of calculations at a certain speed, etc. So, if our "self" became aware of the possibility of gaining access to a broader range of capabilities than our brain and body naturally provide, why wouldn't it?<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje40E2LHoustOYfUqKLLjK28LRaLbI-tNovqLv2dEF-ixMt0nRARJj_R8jxtW43okCb0vyYdRtVdrpHDl0ypmi3tBxI46NCYzYwlGACL-Pg7YZKcrqG15fAUw37u7d8Jotexo67pn_FWw/s1600-h/evolution.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 116px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje40E2LHoustOYfUqKLLjK28LRaLbI-tNovqLv2dEF-ixMt0nRARJj_R8jxtW43okCb0vyYdRtVdrpHDl0ypmi3tBxI46NCYzYwlGACL-Pg7YZKcrqG15fAUw37u7d8Jotexo67pn_FWw/s200/evolution.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357424123739917218" border="0" /></a><br />This process would appear to be a gradual improvement in the options our "self" has; specifically a better body and a better brain to control it. However, the brain and body can only be improved so much. For our "self" to keep getting more options it has to start incorporating things found outside the body. These things, like the wheel, a sharp stick, and fire, are just extensions of the body. Deer happened to be born with sharp sticks on their heads, we had to invent them, same capability.<br /><br />Some of our newer inventions, like writting, GPS, and the internet are extensions of our brains. Rather than expanding mechanical capabilities they expand processing capabilities. We could spend a long time trying to puzzle through the problem of navigating to our destination, or we could build a circuit to do that thinking for us just like a GPS unit does. Pulley systems allow our body to do more work than before and personal computers allow our brain to do more thinking than before.<br /><br />In this sense we started "merging" with machines a long time ago, when we started using spears. The process accelerated when we invented books, and is beginning to progress wildly faster than before due to little things like the Green Revolution and the Internet.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nty9NVINL_4&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nty9NVINL_4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br />I don't know what we'll be able to do in the future, I just know that it will be more than we can do now.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpWjvDu5X_5uQFg_oC8kRSKdHRhy_0TxUarBAw66taXAcc5I07rTKt2vUwfsPJQf1sN9Yyn_Ff0LHIcAXs1ykW0CDKDME50aDBhd8ywJqiBDBms-gx9kyvOkjGIKoJvlpkYTXDBKLjWNI/s1600-h/caveman+computer.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 144px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpWjvDu5X_5uQFg_oC8kRSKdHRhy_0TxUarBAw66taXAcc5I07rTKt2vUwfsPJQf1sN9Yyn_Ff0LHIcAXs1ykW0CDKDME50aDBhd8ywJqiBDBms-gx9kyvOkjGIKoJvlpkYTXDBKLjWNI/s200/caveman+computer.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357425893955598834" border="0" /></a><br />EDIT (2009AUG1) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Mj_GJaOgXokC&dq=Cognition+Distributed:+How+cognitive+technology+extends+our+minds&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=KtMfM3_D10&sig=x1l-D3USJiF1msUhnIE1LM3eTrU&hl=en&ei=PG90Sq7cHIWesgP84IzkCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false"><em>Cognition Distributed: How cognitive technology extends our minds</em></a> mentions in the introduction that: "Cognitive technology does, however, extend the scope and power of cognition, exactly as sensory and motor technology extends the scope and power of the bodily senses and movement...Both sensorimotor technology and cognitive technology extend our bodys' and brains' performance capabilities...as we increase our use and reliance on cognitive technologies, they effect and modify how we cognize, how we do things and what we do. Just as motor technology extended our physical ability and modified our physical life, cognitive technology extends our cognitive ability and modifies our mental life."Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-91578062309065460952009-05-18T20:50:00.004-06:002009-05-18T21:09:09.175-06:00The Improbable Makes Perfect SenseThe thing about systems that make them difficult to understand is that they obey rules which make sense, but the outcome can often make no sense whatsoever. By way of an example, I present this <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_fe_st/odd_child_shield;_ylt=ApfYqYeIA43OWleggtGCh6XtiBIF">article</a>.<br /><br />Basically, a woman handed a man her baby to use as a Taser shield. Yeah.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFHbyRZ1ZsigNIBJdCqiDLoqNjpw6noIkecNatPCXoTplPzkYddrWMqhI0UhVs05e5E-5BDjGPHO7GVolkkzY-ZFNRLzzig4fsoc_x2lf1gow12OnS3k56igGCZKctxz_ETRVsLscIVfw/s1600-h/baby_taser.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 288px; height: 216px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFHbyRZ1ZsigNIBJdCqiDLoqNjpw6noIkecNatPCXoTplPzkYddrWMqhI0UhVs05e5E-5BDjGPHO7GVolkkzY-ZFNRLzzig4fsoc_x2lf1gow12OnS3k56igGCZKctxz_ETRVsLscIVfw/s400/baby_taser.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5337363103025141938" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Babies: It's about time they were useful for something.</span><br /></div><br />I was going to try to build some sort of lesson around this example, but I think it pretty much stands on its own. If you think something would never happen because it wouldn't make any sense, then it will happen. . .and when it does it won't make any sense.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8403963338795594265.post-85399435160753289902009-05-08T19:15:00.007-06:002009-05-09T13:41:22.843-06:00Systems Discussions Required Specificity.Rachel <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Lehmann</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Haupt</span> wrote in Newsweek 11-18 May 2009: "Egg freezing, I believe, could be as revolutionary as the birth-control pill. And the timing for its takeoff couldn't be better. The age of first-time motherhood is rising. In the United States, the number of women becoming pregnant between the ages of 35 and 44 has nearly doubled since 1980. As education, advanced degrees and higher salaries become priorities, we are trading in our years of procreative power to gain economic power."<br /><br />I tracked down the statistic the author references (thank you <a href="http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubid.3708/pub_detail.asp"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">eppc</span>.org</a> for actually referencing the stat) in a press release from the National Center for Health Statistics. The <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/birthrates.htm">press release</a> states, "The birth rate for women aged 40-44 years has more than doubled since 1981." It also states that the birth rate for that age group in 2003 was 8.7 births per 1000 women. I had to dig through their archives to find the exact birth rate for 1981 (<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_29.pdf">it was 4.0 for all women 40 and over</a>).<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzKzEstMAbNDm83eBmryjZ0HU3_NjYDmcP6uNQRoyny0jkZa41gUk0r2AEsEAWJSNg-BrmSZP-t1BMZH_aBvHqG_fnz-h2trxn2YSWfebc-k7VV6nhmrxmHAaIk10jpiw1hNYUDzGrecI/s1600-h/birth+rates+40.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 227px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzKzEstMAbNDm83eBmryjZ0HU3_NjYDmcP6uNQRoyny0jkZa41gUk0r2AEsEAWJSNg-BrmSZP-t1BMZH_aBvHqG_fnz-h2trxn2YSWfebc-k7VV6nhmrxmHAaIk10jpiw1hNYUDzGrecI/s400/birth+rates+40.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5333879111237835026" border="0" /></a><br />The data does indicate a steady increase in the birth rate for women over 40. However, when the birth rate for all the other age categories are included in the plot, the tend is. . .underwhelming.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6QN5ippzBWnwc8-247Dfv5igpTNF93y6zcDUsPKrTV4PQnAWeFJQtY7n48Ii08qLLIhL7KasRIkX_49sEtCGAMRfDhbxmXxExUBOeYMl5_iYtKY4hNb5Z5kLJ3TfkfONEqBSoRHVIps4/s1600-h/birth+rates+all.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 235px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6QN5ippzBWnwc8-247Dfv5igpTNF93y6zcDUsPKrTV4PQnAWeFJQtY7n48Ii08qLLIhL7KasRIkX_49sEtCGAMRfDhbxmXxExUBOeYMl5_iYtKY4hNb5Z5kLJ3TfkfONEqBSoRHVIps4/s400/birth+rates+all.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5333880920858786162" border="0" /></a><br />As you can see, the statistic is entirely accurate, but it is also completely out of context. Until the birth rate of the 40+ age category doubles from 8 to 16, and then again to 32, it will still be a relatively insignificant event. Mentioning that it doubled is like mentioning that America is using more wind power. Yeah, we are, but even "twice as much" still doesn't matter. In fact, the most significant increase seems to be in the 30-40 age range, not in the 40+ age range.<br /><br />After looking at the data (in what is admittedly a quick and dirty fashion) it appears the author's main point seems to stand. Overall the birth rate seems to be decreasing and, at the same time, the birth rates for older women have been increasing. From a systems perspective, this is an interesting trend. What factors could be driving this change? Is it "education, advanced degrees and higher salaries" as the author states?<br /><br />One of the things to keep in mind when looking at a system is the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two metrics change the same way at the same time does not mean one is affecting the other. For example, an increase in average global temperature coincided with a decrease in average global pirate attacks. That does not mean that pirates are allergic to heat, and it does not even mean they are both responding to a change in some third factor, it just means that they both changed.<br /><br />I didn't write this to get into the debate. I only intended it as a small case study to illustrate a point. Statistics should be very carefully applied to systems. Statistical analysis is a great tool for reductionism, but it is less useful for analysis of holistic systems. This is due to the fact that statistics, by necessity, can only be used when things are reduced to specific metrics. It is tempting to analyze every subsystem and think that you understand the system, but to understand the system you have to analyze the system itself, not the subsystems. Doing this properly requires a lot of careful definitions of exactly what the system you are studying consists of, which are pretty boring, so that step usually gets skipped (or at least not mentioned).<br /><br />When you want to talk about a system, but you skip the definition step, what you say probably doesn't matter. At the very least, it is open to a lot of misinterpretation. For example, in the case I cite here the author could have been more specific about what the stat(s) were actually describing, how they were obtained, etc.Matthew Maierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01229687923793069565noreply@blogger.com0