Slashdot Mirror

From an article in The Economist:

[F]lying a fully laden A380 is, in terms of energy, like a 14km (nine-mile) queue of traffic on the road below. And that is just one aircraft. In 20 years, Airbus reckons, 1,500 such planes will be in the air. By then, the total number of airliners is expected to have doubled, to 22,000. The super-jumbos alone would be pumping out carbon dioxide (CO2) at the same rate as 5m cars.

I haven't taken a plane for 3 or 4 years now, mainly because I'm something of a self-righteous treehugger. Then again I just can't help being awed and fascinated and inspired by this one.

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Nice work!

I'll qualify this troll-like statement by pointing out that The Economist IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING CONTENT. Take a look at their website, since you've obviously never even heard of the little magazine they run that puts Newsweek and Time to shame, and you'll realize how uninformed your comment is: http://www.economist.com/index.html

I have no idea if this plan will result in some way for The Economist to survive, but I hope they find a way to modernize where so many other papers are currently failing, because I've found them to be one of the single best sources for news in the world. Sure it's a week old by the time the paper (okay, "magazine") reaches my mailbox, but I still find myself learning more about topics that I'd previously only find headlines and blurbs about in mainstream national media. Sometimes the paper takes a stance I don't agree with (for instance, they basically support Bush's troop surge), however they present their stance on hot issues like this one in such a way that you really understand how someone can hold that belief rationally, rather than traditional media which simply tries to dismiss opposing viewpoints (or sometimes doesn't even present them, ala Fox "News"). It's refreshing to read compared to, say, AP source articles, which are written to the lowest common denominator. I suggest everybody take a look at their website to see what quality journalism in today's world can look like. The full content of next week's issue is available for free online (such is the nature of the internet), as well as some additional media content. If any paper deserves to survive the tradition to the new electronic era, it's this one....oh and I guess the NY Times should live, too.

Check them out: http://www.economist.com/index.html

Typically I would take the stance that if an industry can't adapt to the information age, it deserves to die... Leaner and meaner companies are still capable of competing in some markets, but journalism is an industry that by its vary nature requires more manpower to achieve success, yet their revenue streams are failing as people flock to the internet for news. The problem is, people ignore advertisements online and nobody has found another model that can support news organizations. Some companies will survive this "great dying": CNN and Fox News, for example, are owned by parent companies and are essentially pet projects of very rich men. It helps that television is still profitable, too. But must all independent news organizations be purchased to survive? Will the news industry solely survive as the philanthropic arm of gigantic megacorps in the future?

This is especially interesting considering that Sweden was recently indexed as the world's #1 democracy (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDE X_2007_v3.pdf) and scored a 100% in the civil liberties category.

Certainly relatively less computer use in North Korea but more than most people think. A recent issue of The Economist had a story about internet usage in North Korea. They installed a nation-wide intranet in 2000.

Firstly, the Canadians did not fight America to a draw. America invaded Canada in a show of bravado; Canada not only repelled the attack, they fought their way across the great majority of the United States (at the time), eventually reaching and burning down the White House. In fact, part of Maine is now Canada as we seceded our rights to end the war. American (and I guess Canadian) history books distort the truth, but the fact is America had its ass handed to it by Canada in 1812 -- I can't think of a more decisive and humiliating total defeat.

Secondly, the United States was loathed before 911. Back then, one of the major complaints was that we weren't involved in world affairs enough. I remember many a diatribe about how we let down the Kurds by not toppling Sadam after the first gulf war -- there was even a movie "The Siege" expressing the very idea that the world hated us precisely because we never followed through in world events.

Well, now we've followed through, and the world still hates us. Forgive me if I'm starting to lose patience and concern with the world's vacillating opinion. The only common thread seems to be a hatred of America.

Thirdly, I take issue with anyone who portrays China as benevolent alternative to the United States. China is most definitely not benevolent. Say what you want about American oil policies, they are not as bad as Chinese oil policies: China Blocks Security Council Resolution 1556. Or maybe a Chinese AIDS village would be a better example of Chinese benevolence. Or maybe their support of Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela is your idea of benevolent policies.

Finally, its easy to criticize the United States and its policies while you benefit from them. Any country who imports oil or any foreign resource, depends on the might of the American navy to keep those shipping lanes open. Canada, in particular, has no room to criticize, as they are America's largest trading partner and directly contribute to and benefit from those policies the most. The United States may have single handedly fought and financed the war in Iraq, but all western societies will benefit equally from the increased oil trade. Exxon-Mobile sells worldwide, America enjoys no disparate benefit. The same, however, cannot be said about China's oil companies, who are state owned, and not bound to sell to anyone but the Chinese.

Indeed, that is the danger. It should be noted too that there are reasons why the Nordic countries have been so succsessful with socialism. One, they are quite culturally homogenous, so one never feels that outsiders are leaching off of them. Two, they have a culture of cooperation brought about by extremes of climate. That's my theory, anyway.

While these factors may partially explain why Sweden and other Nordic countries have not crashed as spectacularly as other socialist movements (e.g., Germany, France, New Zealand, etc) to call their model a success would be to ignore its many current problems, its historic economic instability, and what is almost certainly a lack of sustainability of the model.

Sweden's real unemployment is estimated to be between 15 and 20%. Although their official stats count just ~6% as being unemployed, this excludes a lot of people on long-term sick leave (which count as being employed -- 16% of public spending pays for this!), welfare recipients, people that simply give up (e.g., students, early retirees, etc), etc.

What's more, many of those who are actually employed are employed by the government (about 30%). Sweden has created almost no new private sector jobs in 50 years. Only 1 of their 50 largest companies was created after 1970. Many of their biggest companies have left the country (e.g., IKEA) or moved their taxable entities outside recently. Despite having a large highly educated population, it is an unfriendly place for entrepreneurship and creates little of it due to labor laws (v. expensive to sack people), high taxation, very high sales taxes, etc.

Their tax revenues are significantly more than 50% of GDP (their middle class pay a much higher rate of tax than we do here). The Swedish people pay much higher taxes than we do across the board. They don't have a lot of wealthy people so they've been forced to raise taxes on the middle class to sustain these benefits. Some may try to excuse it as simply being a product of a welfare state, but it is a very real economic burden on their economy. For instance, their GDP per capita has fallen dramatically relative to the rest of the OECD since 1950.

Consider, for instance, that the difference in disposable income (after taxes and all social transfers) between the poorer 30 decile of income and the richest 80 decile is just 12K Krona per month (about $1500). This itself represents a small change in lifestyle but consider just how wide that gap is: the entire middle class (from poorest full-time working class and the upper middle class). There is very little incentive to work hard, to risk a stable job for a new one that might pay better, to take a new job if you get laid off (cushy benefits), to show up to work, to take a more stressful job, and to take business risks, etc. What has happened is that people are working less and less (and, ironically, many of those that want to work can't find it), taking more sick leave, etc. In fact, if you look at the number of hours worked in their economy it has fallen dramatically.

To further stress their system, Sweden's retirees is set to increase to roughly 54% of their working age people by 2050, i.e., 1 senior-pensioner for every ~2 working people (much of it happening soon). They've also acquired a significant number of foreign immigrants (many of them no longer of Nordic heritage) -- roughly 10% of the country now (who are heavily unemployed). The system is already showing signs of stress and tax payer unrest (at least 65B in overseas tax avoidance, rising non-market work, etc). Sweden an

Indeed, that is the danger. It should be noted too that there are reasons why the Nordic countries have been so succsessful with socialism. One, they are quite culturally homogenous, so one never feels that outsiders are leaching off of them. Two, they have a culture of cooperation brought about by extremes of climate. That's my theory, anyway.

While these factors may partially explain why Sweden and other Nordic countries have not crashed as spectacularly as other socialist movements (e.g., Germany, France, New Zealand, etc) to call their model a success would be to ignore its many current problems, its historic economic instability, and what is almost certainly a lack of sustainability of the model.

Sweden's real unemployment is estimated to be between 15 and 20%. Although their official stats count just ~6% as being unemployed, this excludes a lot of people on long-term sick leave (which count as being employed -- 16% of public spending pays for this!), welfare recipients, people that simply give up (e.g., students, early retirees, etc), etc.

What's more, many of those who are actually employed are employed by the government (about 30%). Sweden has created almost no new private sector jobs in 50 years. Only 1 of their 50 largest companies was created after 1970. Many of their biggest companies have left the country (e.g., IKEA) or moved their taxable entities outside recently. Despite having a large highly educated population, it is an unfriendly place for entrepreneurship and creates little of it due to labor laws (v. expensive to sack people), high taxation, very high sales taxes, etc.

Their tax revenues are significantly more than 50% of GDP (their middle class pay a much higher rate of tax than we do here). The Swedish people pay much higher taxes than we do across the board. They don't have a lot of wealthy people so they've been forced to raise taxes on the middle class to sustain these benefits. Some may try to excuse it as simply being a product of a welfare state, but it is a very real economic burden on their economy. For instance, their GDP per capita has fallen dramatically relative to the rest of the OECD since 1950.

Consider, for instance, that the difference in disposable income (after taxes and all social transfers) between the poorer 30 decile of income and the richest 80 decile is just 12K Krona per month (about $1500). This itself represents a small change in lifestyle but consider just how wide that gap is: the entire middle class (from poorest full-time working class and the upper middle class). There is very little incentive to work hard, to risk a stable job for a new one that might pay better, to take a new job if you get laid off (cushy benefits), to show up to work, to take a more stressful job, and to take business risks, etc. What has happened is that people are working less and less (and, ironically, many of those that want to work can't find it), taking more sick leave, etc. In fact, if you look at the number of hours worked in their economy it has fallen dramatically.

To further stress their system, Sweden's retirees is set to increase to roughly 54% of their working age people by 2050, i.e., 1 senior-pensioner for every ~2 working people (much of it happening soon). They've also acquired a significant number of foreign immigrants (many of them no longer of Nordic heritage) -- roughly 10% of the country now (who are heavily unemployed). The system is already showing signs of stress and tax payer unrest (at least 65B in overseas tax avoidance, rising non-market work, etc). Sweden an

...[R]eform in India has focused on setting its inventive private sector free from the world's most fearsome bureaucracy. This has unleashed entrepreneurial talent, but more change is needed. Now is the time to tackle the public sector itself. Infrastructure, such as roads and power, and public services, such as education and drinking water, are woefully inadequate and limit growth. Even as the economy has been booming, many public services have worsened. It seems incongruous that somebody can own a mobile phone, yet has to waste hours queuing for drinking water.

The Economist on removing DRM
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.c fm?story_id=8660389

Examples they quoted were novels and the waltz during the 19th century. Motion pictures, jazz, rock and roll, the radio, TV, etc, each saw their own resistance due to their "evil demoralizing impact on society"

There is a link to the article on the Economist's web site, but its premium content, you'll need to pay to see it, but I'll throw the link up for anyone who subscribes or wants to track it down at a library or something.
The Article at the Economist

Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Make it simple
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

The next thing in technology, says Andreas Kluth, is not just big but truly huge: the conquest of complexity

IMAGE

“THE computer knows me as its enemy,” says John Maeda. “Everything I touch doesn’t work.” Take those “plug-and-play” devices, such as printers and digital cameras, that any personal computer (PC) allegedly recognises automatically as soon as they are plugged into an orifice called a USB port at the back of the PC. Whenever Mr Maeda plugs something in, he says, his PC sends a long and incomprehensible error message from Windows, Microsoft’s ubiquitous operating system. But he knows from bitter experience that the gist of it is no.

At first glance, Mr Maeda’s troubles might not seem very noteworthy. Who has not watched Windows crash and reboot without provocation, downloaded endless anti-virus programs to reclaim a moribund hard disc, fiddled with cables and settings to hook up a printer, and sometimes simply given up? Yet Mr Maeda is not just any old technophobic user. He has a master’s degree in computer science and a PhD in interface design, and is currently a professor in computer design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is, in short, one of the world’s foremost computer geeks. Mr Maeda concluded that if he, of all people, cannot master the technology needed to use computers effectively, it is time to declare a crisis. So, earlier this year, he launched a new research initiative called “Simplicity” at the MIT Media Lab. Its mission is to look for ways out of today’s mess.

Mr Maeda has plenty of sympathisers. “It is time for us to rise up with a profound demand,” declared the late Michael Dertouzos in his 2001 book, “The Unfinished Revolution”: “Make our computers simpler to use!” Donald Norman, a long-standing advocate of design simplicity, concurs. “Today’s technology is intrusive and overbearing. It leaves us with no moments of silence, with less time to ourselves, with a sense of diminished control over our lives,” he writes in his book, “The Invisible Computer”. “People are analogue, not digital; biological, not mechanical. It is time for human-centred technology, a humane technology.”

The information-technology (IT) industry itself is long past denial. Greg Papadopoulos, chief technologist at Sun Microsystems, a maker of powerful corporate computers, says that IT today is “in a state that we should be ashamed of; it’s embarrassing.” Ray Lane, a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of the most prominent technology financiers in Silicon Valley, explains: “Complexity is holding our industry back right now. A lot of what is bought and paid for doesn’t get implemented because of complexity. Maybe this is the industry’s biggest challenge.” Even Microsoft, which people like Mr Lane identify as a prime culprit, is apologetic. “So far, most people would say that technology has made life more complex,” concedes Chris Capossela, the boss of Microsoft’s desktop applications.

The economic costs of IT complexity are hard to quantify but probably exorbitant. The Standish Group, a research outfit that tracks corporate IT purchases, has found that 66% of all IT projects either fail outright or take much longer to install than expected because of their complexity. Among very big IT projects—those costing over $10m apiece—98% fall short.

Gartner, another research firm, uses other proxies for complexity. An average firm’s computer networks are down for an unplanned 175 hours a year, calcul

Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Make it simple
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

The next thing in technology, says Andreas Kluth, is not just big but truly huge: the conquest of complexity

IMAGE

“THE computer knows me as its enemy,” says John Maeda. “Everything I touch doesn’t work.” Take those “plug-and-play” devices, such as printers and digital cameras, that any personal computer (PC) allegedly recognises automatically as soon as they are plugged into an orifice called a USB port at the back of the PC. Whenever Mr Maeda plugs something in, he says, his PC sends a long and incomprehensible error message from Windows, Microsoft’s ubiquitous operating system. But he knows from bitter experience that the gist of it is no.

At first glance, Mr Maeda’s troubles might not seem very noteworthy. Who has not watched Windows crash and reboot without provocation, downloaded endless anti-virus programs to reclaim a moribund hard disc, fiddled with cables and settings to hook up a printer, and sometimes simply given up? Yet Mr Maeda is not just any old technophobic user. He has a master’s degree in computer science and a PhD in interface design, and is currently a professor in computer design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is, in short, one of the world’s foremost computer geeks. Mr Maeda concluded that if he, of all people, cannot master the technology needed to use computers effectively, it is time to declare a crisis. So, earlier this year, he launched a new research initiative called “Simplicity” at the MIT Media Lab. Its mission is to look for ways out of today’s mess.

Mr Maeda has plenty of sympathisers. “It is time for us to rise up with a profound demand,” declared the late Michael Dertouzos in his 2001 book, “The Unfinished Revolution”: “Make our computers simpler to use!” Donald Norman, a long-standing advocate of design simplicity, concurs. “Today’s technology is intrusive and overbearing. It leaves us with no moments of silence, with less time to ourselves, with a sense of diminished control over our lives,” he writes in his book, “The Invisible Computer”. “People are analogue, not digital; biological, not mechanical. It is time for human-centred technology, a humane technology.”

The information-technology (IT) industry itself is long past denial. Greg Papadopoulos, chief technologist at Sun Microsystems, a maker of powerful corporate computers, says that IT today is “in a state that we should be ashamed of; it’s embarrassing.” Ray Lane, a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of the most prominent technology financiers in Silicon Valley, explains: “Complexity is holding our industry back right now. A lot of what is bought and paid for doesn’t get implemented because of complexity. Maybe this is the industry’s biggest challenge.” Even Microsoft, which people like Mr Lane identify as a prime culprit, is apologetic. “So far, most people would say that technology has made life more complex,” concedes Chris Capossela, the boss of Microsoft’s desktop applications.

The economic costs of IT complexity are hard to quantify but probably exorbitant. The Standish Group, a research outfit that tracks corporate IT purchases, has found that 66% of all IT projects either fail outright or take much longer to install than expected because of their complexity. Among very big IT projects—those costing over $10m apiece—98% fall short.

Gartner, another research firm, uses other proxies for complexity. An average firm’s computer networks are down for an unplanned 175 hours a year, calcul

semi-interesting...
http://economist.com/people/displaystory.cfm?story _id=8625931

[...]and the government staying out of it until it becomes a national concern that cannot be dealt with.

Then it's too late, way too late! If it becomes a national concern depriving Americans of their god given right to wear t-shirts in winter and wool sweaters in summer you'll be looking back at Katrina as a tame, little storm of allmost romantic proportions.

I would imagine that you can be clumped into the group of people that think enacting environmental protection laws will curb global warming?

No. I hold it with the Economist (which can most certainly not be called a fear mongering newspaper who wants to see laws enacted left and right). They argued in a survey from September 7 about climate change that investing now into curbing green house gases is way cheaper then facing the consequences at a future time. I quote from the introductory article of the survey:

This survey will argue that although the science remains uncertain, the chances of serious consequences are high enough to make it worth spending the (not exorbitant) sums needed to try to mitigate climate change. It will suggest that, even though America, the world's biggest CO2 emitter, turned its back on the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the chances are that it will eventually take steps to control its emissions. And if America does, there is a reasonable prospect that the other big producers of CO2 will do the same. (the whole survey can be purchased as a PDF for $4.95 here)

Of course you can now accuse the Economist of an anti-American publication who desperately loathes the republican party. You would be wrong of course. But don't let facts stand in the way of your prejudice.

[...]and the government staying out of it until it becomes a national concern that cannot be dealt with.

Then it's too late, way too late! If it becomes a national concern depriving Americans of their god given right to wear t-shirts in winter and wool sweaters in summer you'll be looking back at Katrina as a tame, little storm of allmost romantic proportions.

I would imagine that you can be clumped into the group of people that think enacting environmental protection laws will curb global warming?

No. I hold it with the Economist (which can most certainly not be called a fear mongering newspaper who wants to see laws enacted left and right). They argued in a survey from September 7 about climate change that investing now into curbing green house gases is way cheaper then facing the consequences at a future time. I quote from the introductory article of the survey:

This survey will argue that although the science remains uncertain, the chances of serious consequences are high enough to make it worth spending the (not exorbitant) sums needed to try to mitigate climate change. It will suggest that, even though America, the world's biggest CO2 emitter, turned its back on the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the chances are that it will eventually take steps to control its emissions. And if America does, there is a reasonable prospect that the other big producers of CO2 will do the same. (the whole survey can be purchased as a PDF for $4.95 here)

Of course you can now accuse the Economist of an anti-American publication who desperately loathes the republican party. You would be wrong of course. But don't let facts stand in the way of your prejudice.

Researchers at University of Alberta have found that dichloroacetate (DCA) is able to cause tumor regression in a number of human cancers growing in animals. DCA seems to awaken mitochondria, which are present in normal animal cells but dormant in cancer cells, and cancerous tumor growth is stopped.

While DCA has been used for decades to treat mitochondrial diseases in humans, patients are cautioned no human beings have gone through clinical trials using DCA to treat cancer.

Sorry to go on a slight tangent, and this will probably hurt my karma, but... what do you propose to do to give these people in backward countries good jobs? Why aren't you opening your factory in Malasia and India and offering them good wages and short working hours?

Maybe because a factory that did that would probably go out of business in a very short time... driven out of business by the ones that are heartless, inhumane, and efficient.

All the posturing, talking, and aid-giving hasn't helped africa one fucking bit. But sweatshops are lifting China out of its hole... high-tech industries are opening plants elsewhere, because China's too expensive now. Not because it's communist or they were forced to be nice to workers because the government made them... but because demand for employees has pushed wages up to where other countries are now cheaper.

Yeah. China is losing factories to other asian countries because their wages and cost of land are too high.

All the legislation in the world hasn't done jack-shit for China, but economics doesn't care about politics... it just works. It may take 50 years, but it's better than pissing money down a hole. So you can keep on having faith in your 'intelligent design' theory of helping third world countries, and I'll keep on believing in my 'economic evolution' theory backed by real world evidence.

Because of our tax structure and other factors, class mobility in America is actually low. This is only going to get worse with the damage done to the estate tax by Republicans and useless Democrats. Right now, studies show, "parental income to be a better predictor of whether someone will be rich or poor in America than in Canada or much of Europe. In America about half of the income disparities in one generation are reflected in the next. In Canada and the Nordic countries that proportion is about a fifth." See this in the not-at-all-liberal magazine, The Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?st ory_id=7055911

I'd have to strongly disagree. First of all, in my experience, the intellectual quality of bloggers really puts syndicated columnists to shame. (I'm talking about the upper end of them -- no doubt you can find lots of bad quality.) They can write much more and link to the basis for their claims. If anything is in error, they'll typically have comment and trackback capability so others can instantly expose them. Rarely will columnists deign to defend their assertions. After reading blogs for a few years, I checked back to some of the syndicated columns I had read (this is what I had in mind) and just marveled at how intellectually shallow they were. In contrast, check out this list of some of the blogs I read:

http://econlog.econlib.org/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/
http://www.janegalt.net/
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
http://patrick.net/wp/

Several of those are professors. Now, tell me they're not more refined than the columns you'd read in the paper.

I agree that the vast majority of media outlets are useless, but there is one notable exception - The Economist. Apparently I'm not the only person who is willing to pay for it - http://printmediakit.economist.com/Circulation.10. 0.html.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm ?story_id=8173422

"... reduced headcount by 10,000 ahead of schedule. It is also on track with factory closures, asset disposals and winnowing its product line-up ..."

It's good to read that things are going so well.

"If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more."

See more of his philosophy at http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story _id=8413080

So, while it would be nice to see the Supreme Court invalidate software patents, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to do so.

The Economist http://economist.co.uk/ has an argument against the practice of so-called fair trade. While a noble notion, in real life it is counter-productive.

I was going to just link to the article http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm ?story_id=E1_RPRDVJN, but since it you'll have to have a subscription to access it, I'll recant the main argument:

Coffee is cheap. Reason for this is over production. The coffee farmers have invested a lot of money in equipment etc, and reforming their farm is expensive.

Well-meaning western consumers pay extra for "fair trade" coffee, meaning extra money in the farmers pockets. Fair enough, right. Well, given the conditions cited earlier and apply a little basic economic principles: Farmers receiving, what essentially is, subsidies, will have the actual extra money to shift away from producing cheap, overproduced coffee-beans, but absolutely NO incentive to do so! Thus FURTHER lowering the prices.

Steffen Pøhner.

"Above market" means lots of things, most of which don't make starbucks look very good once the general conditions in Ethiopia are added to the discussion.

What would you rather they do instead? Stop buying Ethiopian coffee at all? Pay even more for the stuff grown in Ethiopia and thus attract even more growers to the already saturated market?

If Oxfam were really concerned about the third-world farmers, they would've been making noise against Europe's farmer-subsidies, against the smaller-but-still-significant American ones, and against Japan's protectionism. Instead Oxfam goes against a prominent corporation — they are well aware of the shortness of the attention span of their contributors... Much easier to bash a corporation (especially an American one), than to be "against the small farmers", is not it?

Special Report / Japan’s humanoid robots

Better than people
Dec 20th 2005 | TOKYO
From The Economist print edition

Why the Japanese want their robots to act more like humans

IMAGE (Getty Images)

HER name is MARIE, and her impressive set of skills comes in handy in a nursing home. MARIE can walk around under her own power. She can distinguish among similar-looking objects, such as different bottles of medicine, and has a delicate enough touch to work with frail patients. MARIE can interpret a range of facial expressions and gestures, and respond in ways that suggest compassion. Although her language skills are not ideal, she can recognise speech and respond clearly. Above all, she is inexpensive. Unfortunately for MARIE, however, she has one glaring trait that makes it hard for Japanese patients to accept her: she is a flesh-and-blood human being from the Philippines. If only she were a robot instead.

Robots, you see, are wonderful creatures, as many a Japanese will tell you. They are getting more adept all the time, and before too long will be able to do cheaply and easily many tasks that human workers do now. They will care for the sick, collect the rubbish, guard homes and offices, and give directions on the street.

This is great news in Japan, where the population has peaked, and may have begun shrinking in 2005. With too few young workers supporting an ageing population, somebody—or something—needs to fill the gap, especially since many of Japan’s young people will be needed in science, business and other creative or knowledge-intensive jobs.

Many workers from low-wage countries are eager to work in Japan. The Philippines, for example, has over 350,000 trained nurses, and has been pleading with Japan—which accepts only a token few—to let more in. Foreign pundits keep telling Japan to do itself a favour and make better use of cheap imported labour. But the consensus among Japanese is that visions of a future in which immigrant workers live harmoniously and unobtrusively in Japan are pure fancy. Making humanoid robots is clearly the simple and practical way to go.

Japan certainly has the technology. It is already the world leader in making industrial robots, which look nothing like pets or people but increasingly do much of the work in its factories. Japan is also racing far ahead of other countries in developing robots with more human features, or that can interact more easily with people. A government report released this May estimated that the market for “service robots” will reach ¥1.1 trillion ($10 billion) within a decade.

The country showed off its newest robots at a world exposition this summer in Aichi prefecture. More than 22m visitors came, 95% of them Japanese. The robots stole the show, from the nanny robot that babysits to a Toyota that plays a trumpet. And Japan’s robots do not confine their talents to controlled environments. As they gain skills and confidence, robots such as Sony’s QRIO (pronounced “curio”) and Honda’s ASIMO are venturing to unlikely places. They have attended factory openings, greeted foreign leaders, and rung the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange. ASIMO can even take the stage to accept awards.

The friendly face of technology
So Japan will need workers, and it is learning how to make robots that can do many of their jobs. But the country’s keen interest in robots may also reflect something else: it seems that plenty of Japanese really like dealing with robots.

Few Japanese have the fear of robots that seems to haunt westerners in seminars and Hollywood films. In western popular culture, robots are often a threat, either because they are manipulated by sinister forces or because something goes horribly wrong with them.

Special Report / Japan’s humanoid robots

Better than people
Dec 20th 2005 | TOKYO
From The Economist print edition

Why the Japanese want their robots to act more like humans

IMAGE (Getty Images)

HER name is MARIE, and her impressive set of skills comes in handy in a nursing home. MARIE can walk around under her own power. She can distinguish among similar-looking objects, such as different bottles of medicine, and has a delicate enough touch to work with frail patients. MARIE can interpret a range of facial expressions and gestures, and respond in ways that suggest compassion. Although her language skills are not ideal, she can recognise speech and respond clearly. Above all, she is inexpensive. Unfortunately for MARIE, however, she has one glaring trait that makes it hard for Japanese patients to accept her: she is a flesh-and-blood human being from the Philippines. If only she were a robot instead.

Robots, you see, are wonderful creatures, as many a Japanese will tell you. They are getting more adept all the time, and before too long will be able to do cheaply and easily many tasks that human workers do now. They will care for the sick, collect the rubbish, guard homes and offices, and give directions on the street.

This is great news in Japan, where the population has peaked, and may have begun shrinking in 2005. With too few young workers supporting an ageing population, somebody—or something—needs to fill the gap, especially since many of Japan’s young people will be needed in science, business and other creative or knowledge-intensive jobs.

Many workers from low-wage countries are eager to work in Japan. The Philippines, for example, has over 350,000 trained nurses, and has been pleading with Japan—which accepts only a token few—to let more in. Foreign pundits keep telling Japan to do itself a favour and make better use of cheap imported labour. But the consensus among Japanese is that visions of a future in which immigrant workers live harmoniously and unobtrusively in Japan are pure fancy. Making humanoid robots is clearly the simple and practical way to go.

Japan certainly has the technology. It is already the world leader in making industrial robots, which look nothing like pets or people but increasingly do much of the work in its factories. Japan is also racing far ahead of other countries in developing robots with more human features, or that can interact more easily with people. A government report released this May estimated that the market for “service robots” will reach ¥1.1 trillion ($10 billion) within a decade.

The country showed off its newest robots at a world exposition this summer in Aichi prefecture. More than 22m visitors came, 95% of them Japanese. The robots stole the show, from the nanny robot that babysits to a Toyota that plays a trumpet. And Japan’s robots do not confine their talents to controlled environments. As they gain skills and confidence, robots such as Sony’s QRIO (pronounced “curio”) and Honda’s ASIMO are venturing to unlikely places. They have attended factory openings, greeted foreign leaders, and rung the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange. ASIMO can even take the stage to accept awards.

The friendly face of technology
So Japan will need workers, and it is learning how to make robots that can do many of their jobs. But the country’s keen interest in robots may also reflect something else: it seems that plenty of Japanese really like dealing with robots.

Few Japanese have the fear of robots that seems to haunt westerners in seminars and Hollywood films. In western popular culture, robots are often a threat, either because they are manipulated by sinister forces or because something goes horribly wrong with them.

Tough to keep a signal at 500 kts and 36000 ft.

These concerns are between the cell-phone users and their service-providers. Governments and airlines need not interfere. The etiquette (or lack thereof) of chatting for hours is similar.

Airlines and the governments have been lying through their teethes to us on this and other matters for a long time... It is good thing, someone is finally breaking ranks:

Please switch off all mobile phones, since they can interfere with the aircraft's navigation systems. At least, that's what you've always been told. The real reason to switch them off is because they interfere with mobile networks on the ground, but somehow that doesn't sound quite so good. On most flights a few mobile phones are left on by mistake, so if they were really dangerous we would not allow them on board at all, if you think about it. We will have to come clean about this next year, when we introduce in-flight calling across the Veritas fleet. At that point the prospect of taking a cut of the sky-high calling charges will miraculously cause our safety concerns about mobile phones to evaporate.

The other factor you're not addressing, is the simple correlation between progressive taxes on the high end and quality of living, especially violent crime. You seem fond of bringing up small, anecdotal cases. Do explain to me Sweden, with high gun ownership rates and low wealth disparity managed not by an estate tax now, but by a direct, flat tax on total wealth every year. Why is it that they have one of the lowest rates of violent crime and one of the best standards of living? Note, their unemployment rate is about the same as the US.

Ahhh, does little baby want to pack up his toys and go home? Regardless of whether or not you'll respond to me (and risk getting destroyed, again), here is some more information for your edification.

Who knows, maybe you'll think twice before blindly spouting off the miracle that is Sweden...

An absolute comparison of income

Sweden's poorest 10% actually does slightly worse than their counterpart in the US in real dollar terms (PPP adjusted) even after taxes and most subsidies are taken into account. What's more, virtually every economic group above it, especially at the median and above, does significantly better.

If you're unconvinced that absolute measures of poverty "matter"..

Read Page 22

See page 17

Evidence of Sweden's declining economic status. The average Swede has lost purchasing power over the past 20 years and this effect is particularly evident when compared against the rest of Europe. They've slipped from #4 to #18 from 1970 to 1998 (an absolute loss of 17 points vs the OED average of 100).

Swedish Egalitarianism between 1903 and 2004


Evidence that Sweden had much less economic disparity before their welfare state was created due to collapse of capital markets (as opposed to the "because" that you want to believe) and that they've, in fact, followed similar economic trends.

Economist overview of Swedish economy and growing discontent amongst Swedes

A balanced article in the Economist about some not so well known facts about the Swedish economy. For instance, although they report 6% unemployment officially, they have a ton of people that actually long-term unemployed and living off the system (e.g., long term sick leave). Reliable estimates put their true unemployment closer to 15-17%. What's more, 30% of the country works for the government.

They also point out that Sweden has created virtually no new net jobs in private industry since 1950.

Only 1 of Sweden's 50 largest companies was founded after 1970. Entrepreneurship (and even self-employment) are much lower in Sweden than most of the US and even Europe.

Sweden's problem with entrepreneurship

An article discussing some of the problems and statisics relating to Swedish entrepreneu

The company coyly says that it does not plan to become American until half of all sales are made there and Americans hold half its stock (it reckons they now hold about a third of the company), but it may not have long to wait.

Although these issues must be addressed thoughtfully, this suggestion is similar to previous generations' objections to literacy, suffrage, and property rights for "the masses."

1. Oh no! What will happen if we let the masses have (x)?
2. How can they know how to manage (x) responsibly? ( by responsibly, they mean: like we prefer them to )
3. So let's not give it to them!

Honestly. It's silly to discourage the development of hardware on the basis that training isn't in place. Of course not. There's no hardware! The lack of expertise and training is a reason for developing the technology, not against it.

Without training, the OLPC experiment will fall flat with a lack of support staff and educational curricula integration. (from the olpc article)

If you put the equipment into the hands of the people, the street will find uses for things. Black and brown people are not stupid. Like all things in life, it's a choice involving certain levels of personal risk. If people will buy one of these laptops, they're going to want training, especially if they stretched themselves financially to obtain it. They're going to be willing to trade (social and material) goods and services for that training. With increased demand for expertise, people with initiative and talent will learn the needed information and skills. This allows a local tech economy to develop. Cost analysis can't explain this situation, which involves more than payouts into something with no return.

If you feel obligated to give everyone formal classes, not only are you insulting their intelligence and controlling what they can or ought to know, but you're pre-emptively aborting certain opportunities for local economic development.

Honestly -- I learned more about computers with Slackware on a 486 (and nothing but the howtos) than most people get in a lot of computer classes. Not everyone can do this (and I'm not suggesting we just throw people in the deep end), but that's the great thing about geeks. They can cut across the traditional socio-economic boundaries because their skills make them useful; it's definitely been the case for me.

If you look at the OLPC article suggesting $970 as the TCO for one of these machines, you see how silly this really is. Ignore, for the moment, their apparent confusion over whose expenses they're describing. Look instead at their actual figures. Where did they get the $108 for initial setup? Can't you just ghost all the machines automatically? Also, how do they get away with putting a dollar value to the effect of potential future political instability on the cost of internet services?

Note: In some developing settings, the introduction of mobile phones has been bittersweet, since not everyone makes wise choices (for people in the West, wealth is a blinding, useful buffer for waste and bad choices. The poor have a different margin of error). People will sometimes go into debt to obtain a mobile (they become a status symbol, or people misunderstand their role/value, or because people have a strong desire to stay connected).

Laptops are bound to create similar issues, but laptops are fundamentally different from mobile phones in their positive, versatile potential. And the introduction of new technology always introduces complex, bittersweet social change.

But mobile phones have been a positive development. According to an article in The Economist, "the London Business School found that, in a typical developing country, a rise of ten mobile phones per 100 people boosts GDP growth by 0.6 percentage points. Mobile phones are, in short, a classic example of technology that helps people help themselves."

Muhammad Yunus, one of this year's Nobel Prize winners, has said that "When you

It is boring to see the same kind of comments coming up when India is mentioned on /.. Despite the fact that your string of arguments have no logical connection whatsoever, here are a few points for you to take home:

- it is easier to generate higher ROA by investing in developing countries than in developed countries (partly because of the risk). It is no coincidence that you always hear about more and more investments going to China and India, but not so much about going to the US, because they're where the money is these days.

- India is not a "third-world country". In fact, the Economist claims that their economy is showing signs of overheating.

- the not-so-backwater US government is actually better known at taxing "outsiders" in their own "provincial" way. Protectionism is usually practiced in first-world countries, for reasons that I think should be obvious to most.

Actually, when I read this, I couldn't help but laugh at all of the dumb companies that thought that they could save money by investing in [India]

There is no question that companies are saving (and making) money by investing billions in India. A few VOIP taxes are not going to change that.

[India] is still, essentially, a third world country.

Nobody said otherwise. India is a developing economy. You have a very strange understanding of economics if you think that you cannot make money in a developing economy. Look at the bushfulls of money that have been made in the last 50 years in (e.g.) Korea, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, China, etc.

They should've realized that a few McDonald's and a rudimentary grasp of English doesn't make a country a first world country, (a good place to do business).

Rapidly growing economies are precisely where you go to do business.

I hope the backwater Indian government continues to tax "outsiders" in their own provincial way so that these stupid companies will learn their lessons.

America's backwater government also taxes "outsiders" in a provicial way. Haven't you heard about Bush's protectionism: http://www.progress.org/2003/trade12.htm

I think that India has a LONG way to go before it should be considered as any kind of technological powerhouse, and I think that this is a strong sign that that is true.

India's software industry alone is worth $20 billion. Tata infotech took 23 years to make its first billion and 23 months to make its second. Is that a powerhouse comparable to the American industry? Probably not. Does it matter? India's tech industry is strong, healthy and growing, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. Save your schadenfreude for someone who deserves it. You might want to read this to learn what's really going on in India: http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly. cfm?story_id=5300960

Your argument makes sense only if the rates are at the "correct" point somehow and not the cause of the problem.

is a discussion of the top marginal income tax in the last century in the US.

Compare the top rate with the wealth gap and I think you'll see an inverse correlation.

In the 50's and 60's, when everyone says the middle class was at it's best place, the rich were taxed around 90% Today its around 35% plus loophole city.

Your analogy is actually right on. You don't change the scoreboard to make your team win. We've done that and that's why there is a problem. If we put the scoreboard back where it was maybe the "teams" will be able to play fair.

The Economist article the chart's from? Sure

The problem is real in terms of percentile, and any other conclusion is either based on intentional deception or ignorance of the issue.

Here is a chart that says it all - the rich are getting richer as a percent of total wealth and that's bad for America.

Last time it was this bad we had a great depression.

If you don't like your 100k income in SF try making 15k there cleaning up after the 100k club. The so-called middle class has a very poor picture of how normal people actually live. You can live very very well on 100k in SF if you don't buy a lot of over priced crap.

Promote efficiency in the upper income brackets; tax 'em.

I used to agree with you, until I read an excellent article in The Economist which changed my perspective. If you take a look at:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/index.cfm?d= 20060701

It's the leader article. Unfortunately it's subscription only, but I think it's fair use to snip the last paragraph, which Bill seems to have taken to heart, and repost it here:

"The second danger lies in the vanity of philanthropists. They often like the notion that their foundations will live on after them, carrying their name down from generation unto generation. But, after the founder has died, foundations tend to become sclerotic and directionless--the fiefs of administrators who have lost sight of the original aims. So if you aim to be a truly philanthropic philanthropist, spend your money fast: do as much good as you can when you're alive, and let posterity go hang."

I think we can conclude that Bill reads the Economist. :p

As it sets out to broaden the gaming population, Nintendo is not fighting against Sony and Microsoft, says Mr Iwata. Its real enemy is the indifference that many people still feel towards gaming. Of course, says Mr Iwata, he would be happy if Nintendo became the leading console-maker again as a result of its new approach. But a victory over Sony and Microsoft in a shrinking market, he says, would not be a victory at all.

So we're cutting back on Ipods and Segways when he likes to drive Mercedes Benz and BMW vehicles?

Maybe we should place sanctions on things we produce that he likes.

In France, the government found that some surgeons were able to acheive 12x as many procedures as others at the same quality level[1]. This is the basis of the NHS reforms in the UK. i.e. Provide a system to encourage the 12x surgeons/other-staff to succeed.

So one way to increase productivity is to identify those 12x people, and find less demanding work for the <12ers. This is done by hocus-pocus Management Consultant type processes at the moment. Correcting this would lead to improved efficiency overall.

How much improvement? Dunno, I'm not a 12x person either!

----
[1] I read this in The Economist. Sorry, they require registration+£££ to read the article.

Isn't it strange how Putin's most vocal critics inside Russia are just dropping like flies...
Indeed, and these are people who are meant to be on "our side" now. Does anyone really think Russia isn't sliding back towards a totalitarian regime?

Or more likely, he's just not being honest.

Mr Putin himself has said Mr Litvinenko's death was a tragedy

Mr. Litvinenko was apparantly more than your average former KGB agent - he's accused Putin of pedophilia, among other things. Even if Putin weren't behind this poisoning (which he almost certainly is), he probably wouldn't consider Mr. Litvinenko's death a tragedy at all.

Isn't it strange how Putin's most vocal critics inside Russia are just dropping like flies...

There's definitely been discussion of the economic costs of trying to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm or so. (If we proceed with business as usual, it's predicted to hit 800 ppm by 2100; it's never been higher than 300 ppm at any time in the previous 800,000 years.) According to the Economist:

... Sir Nicholas [Stern] has tried to assess the future costs of climate change--drought in Africa, floods in Europe, hurricanes in America, rising sea levels around the world--and has set them against the costs of cutting fossil-fuel usage enough to stabilise carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. His answer to the second part of this calculation is fairly uncontroversial. The costs of switching away from carbon should not be huge because of the rise in fossil-fuel prices and the fall in alternative energy prices. Sir Nicholas reckons that the world could stabilise concentrations at a reasonable level at a cost of 1% of GDP by 2050. Many other economists have looked at the matter, and most agree with Sir Nicholas.

My favorite quote from the article:

Zune is much more controversial, however, because Microsoft's pre-existing hardware and service partners are left high and dry. "I've never seen a business so blatantly screw its business partners," says Peter Sealey, a professor at Berkeley's Haas School of Business.

Special Report / China and the internet

The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk
Apr 27th 2006 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition

At present the party has the upper hand. It is starting to sweat, though

IMAGE

“DO YOU know how serious a mistake you’ve made?” Yan Yuanzhang recalls an official asking him not long ago. Mr Yan had been summoned to Beijing’s Internet Propaganda Management Office to talk about his websites. They were causing, he was told, the Communist Party to lose face. They were providing material that foreign media could use to attack China. They were illegal and must be closed down within 24 hours.

“Farewell, worker comrades,” wrote Mr Yan in notices posted that day on his China-based websites, China Workers Net and Communist Net. Visitors could hear a lugubrious rendition of the communist anthem, the Internationale, through their computer speakers as they read. “Whether there is any hope of starting again, heaven knows.” He says now that he will relaunch one of the two sites on May 1st, this time on a server in Taiwan.

It is remarkable that the websites lasted as long as they did. Mr Yan, who is not a party member, launched them on May 1st last year to mark Labour Day. The aim, he says, was to provide platforms for a “leftist” critique of China’s embrace of “Dickensian capitalism”. They did not, as he tried to explain to the city government, attack the party itself or its leaders. But they did provide something the party abhors: uncensored news about worker unrest. In September he launched a bulletin board on which visitors could directly post their comments. Messages complained about corruption, the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and the hardships of unemployed workers.

As Mr Yan talks, he gets a text message on his mobile phone. It is from Tan Jiaming, a university student in southern China who has been running a website of similar outlook, Revolutionary Marxism. It too, the message says, has been closed. The student had posted a notice entitled “Strongly Protest the Snuffing Out of the China Workers Website by the Beijing Authorities”. He was summoned to hear a dozen officials threaten him with expulsion from his university for backing Mr Yan.

IMAGE

Six years ago Bill Clinton described China’s efforts to restrict the internet as “sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall”. But as China’s web-filtering technology has grown more sophisticated, and the ranks of its internet police have swelled, some have begun to wonder. A report in 2003 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested that, despite the difficulties the internet posed to authoritarian regimes, it could also be used to fortify them. China, the authors concluded, had been “largely successful at guiding use” of the internet. At a congressional hearing in February on American companies involved in internet business in China, a Republican congressman, Christopher Smith, said the internet there had become “a malicious tool, a cyber sledgehammer of repression”.

Some of the companies testifying at the hearing—Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!—deserved a grilling. Why, for instance, had Microsoft, at the request of Chinese officials, removed a popular site in December from its Chinese version of MSN Spaces, a service for personal diaries and blogs? Yahoo! too had questions to answer about reports that information it provided to the police about its e-mail services had helped put dissidents behind bars. More recently Reporters Without Borders, a human-rights group, said that a Hong Kong unit of Yahoo! had given the police a Chinese

Special Report / China and the internet

The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk
Apr 27th 2006 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition

At present the party has the upper hand. It is starting to sweat, though

IMAGE

“DO YOU know how serious a mistake you’ve made?” Yan Yuanzhang recalls an official asking him not long ago. Mr Yan had been summoned to Beijing’s Internet Propaganda Management Office to talk about his websites. They were causing, he was told, the Communist Party to lose face. They were providing material that foreign media could use to attack China. They were illegal and must be closed down within 24 hours.

“Farewell, worker comrades,” wrote Mr Yan in notices posted that day on his China-based websites, China Workers Net and Communist Net. Visitors could hear a lugubrious rendition of the communist anthem, the Internationale, through their computer speakers as they read. “Whether there is any hope of starting again, heaven knows.” He says now that he will relaunch one of the two sites on May 1st, this time on a server in Taiwan.

It is remarkable that the websites lasted as long as they did. Mr Yan, who is not a party member, launched them on May 1st last year to mark Labour Day. The aim, he says, was to provide platforms for a “leftist” critique of China’s embrace of “Dickensian capitalism”. They did not, as he tried to explain to the city government, attack the party itself or its leaders. But they did provide something the party abhors: uncensored news about worker unrest. In September he launched a bulletin board on which visitors could directly post their comments. Messages complained about corruption, the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and the hardships of unemployed workers.

As Mr Yan talks, he gets a text message on his mobile phone. It is from Tan Jiaming, a university student in southern China who has been running a website of similar outlook, Revolutionary Marxism. It too, the message says, has been closed. The student had posted a notice entitled “Strongly Protest the Snuffing Out of the China Workers Website by the Beijing Authorities”. He was summoned to hear a dozen officials threaten him with expulsion from his university for backing Mr Yan.

IMAGE

Six years ago Bill Clinton described China’s efforts to restrict the internet as “sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall”. But as China’s web-filtering technology has grown more sophisticated, and the ranks of its internet police have swelled, some have begun to wonder. A report in 2003 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested that, despite the difficulties the internet posed to authoritarian regimes, it could also be used to fortify them. China, the authors concluded, had been “largely successful at guiding use” of the internet. At a congressional hearing in February on American companies involved in internet business in China, a Republican congressman, Christopher Smith, said the internet there had become “a malicious tool, a cyber sledgehammer of repression”.

Some of the companies testifying at the hearing—Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!—deserved a grilling. Why, for instance, had Microsoft, at the request of Chinese officials, removed a popular site in December from its Chinese version of MSN Spaces, a service for personal diaries and blogs? Yahoo! too had questions to answer about reports that information it provided to the police about its e-mail services had helped put dissidents behind bars. More recently Reporters Without Borders, a human-rights group, said that a Hong Kong unit of Yahoo! had given the police a Chinese

Special Report / China and the internet

The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk
Apr 27th 2006 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition

At present the party has the upper hand. It is starting to sweat, though

IMAGE

“DO YOU know how serious a mistake you’ve made?” Yan Yuanzhang recalls an official asking him not long ago. Mr Yan had been summoned to Beijing’s Internet Propaganda Management Office to talk about his websites. They were causing, he was told, the Communist Party to lose face. They were providing material that foreign media could use to attack China. They were illegal and must be closed down within 24 hours.

“Farewell, worker comrades,” wrote Mr Yan in notices posted that day on his China-based websites, China Workers Net and Communist Net. Visitors could hear a lugubrious rendition of the communist anthem, the Internationale, through their computer speakers as they read. “Whether there is any hope of starting again, heaven knows.” He says now that he will relaunch one of the two sites on May 1st, this time on a server in Taiwan.

It is remarkable that the websites lasted as long as they did. Mr Yan, who is not a party member, launched them on May 1st last year to mark Labour Day. The aim, he says, was to provide platforms for a “leftist” critique of China’s embrace of “Dickensian capitalism”. They did not, as he tried to explain to the city government, attack the party itself or its leaders. But they did provide something the party abhors: uncensored news about worker unrest. In September he launched a bulletin board on which visitors could directly post their comments. Messages complained about corruption, the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and the hardships of unemployed workers.

As Mr Yan talks, he gets a text message on his mobile phone. It is from Tan Jiaming, a university student in southern China who has been running a website of similar outlook, Revolutionary Marxism. It too, the message says, has been closed. The student had posted a notice entitled “Strongly Protest the Snuffing Out of the China Workers Website by the Beijing Authorities”. He was summoned to hear a dozen officials threaten him with expulsion from his university for backing Mr Yan.

IMAGE

Six years ago Bill Clinton described China’s efforts to restrict the internet as “sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall”. But as China’s web-filtering technology has grown more sophisticated, and the ranks of its internet police have swelled, some have begun to wonder. A report in 2003 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested that, despite the difficulties the internet posed to authoritarian regimes, it could also be used to fortify them. China, the authors concluded, had been “largely successful at guiding use” of the internet. At a congressional hearing in February on American companies involved in internet business in China, a Republican congressman, Christopher Smith, said the internet there had become “a malicious tool, a cyber sledgehammer of repression”.

Some of the companies testifying at the hearing—Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!—deserved a grilling. Why, for instance, had Microsoft, at the request of Chinese officials, removed a popular site in December from its Chinese version of MSN Spaces, a service for personal diaries and blogs? Yahoo! too had questions to answer about reports that information it provided to the police about its e-mail services had helped put dissidents behind bars. More recently Reporters Without Borders, a human-rights group, said that a Hong Kong unit of Yahoo! had given the police a Chinese

Actually, there is already quite a bit of public money invested in biomedical research. The NIH budget is about 28 billion dollars (one of the major reasons why the U.S. is a world research leader, by the way).

Currently, universities are encouraged to patent innovations created with federal funding and make money off those patents, thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act. This statement calls on universities to open up their patents when doing so could help the developing world. It does not appear to call for any changes in how public money is spent -- only in what is done with the products of that public investment.

What's wrong with China? Oh I don't know, maybe this? How about this? Or maybe you'd prefer more Economist?

Of course there are a few successful localized industries... but as with many other poor countries, there are a few developed areas, while the rest of the country is still in the stone age.