Slashdot Mirror

> The problem is that the current generation knows that to survive at all you have to beg, borrow, steal
> and kill for any advantage you can get. Its not the same as safe places like (say) Jordan.
>
> This strategy would work, but only on generations not yet born. None of the people currently
> alive will believe you when you say "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you".
> They all know its bullshit.

Cite?

You speak as though all Iraqis are mindless automatons; it's very unlikely that is true. They're as smart as anyone else, even Americans - show 'em a government that they really can trust, and they'll start to do so. If we can start to stabilize much more chaotic states like Liberia or Sierra Leone, we can certainly do so in vastly-less-screwed-up Iraq.

I rememeber reading about a problems with a "nano" a while back - just went and dug up he article. On re-reading I realized that though it talks about nan particles and health problems, the conclusion was that it was not the nanoparticles causing the health issue, it was something else in the product specific to it being an aerosol:

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm? story_id=6795430

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm? story_id=6889252

Of course this is slightly tangential as to whether there is a tech stock bubble.

You jest, but some researchers think that's a very accurate description: "WHAT'S a girl to do when faced with the choice between a powerful action man who has great DNA but is likely to love her and leave her, and a carpet-and-slippers kind of bloke who will hang around and bring up the kids but may not be Mr Right in the genes department? Well, ideally, she should fool the latter into bringing up the former's children. And a piece of evidence that this is exactly what happens emerged this week from a research group led by Jan Havlicek of Charles University, in Prague."

>Heck, threatening the president only gets you an obligatory visit by his guards

If by "threatening the president" you mean holding a "No War for Oil" sign, and if by "only gets you an obligatory visit by his guards" you mean arrest and prosecution even after 11 congresspeople signed a letter to the prosecutor saying "no plausible argument can be made that [the protestor] was threatening the president", then yes, you're right.

Talking of The Economist, they have a writing guide. I read it the first time quite a few years back, and it has been very helpful.

Of course, what has really made me want to write better is that I don't want to sound/look like an idiot.

I heartily agree (at least for the moment) that the chief virtue of writing is clarity. And what has most inspired me to strive for clear writing is seeing good writing contrasted with bad writing.

For example, I genuinely enjoy reading The Economist Style Guide, just for fun, because it shows tons of examples where phrases we use every day are wordier than necessary. To me, the thrill of engineering is striving for the most elegant and powerful solutions to a problem. Demonstrating that writing has the same capacity for beautiful solutions (even to practical, and not artistic, problems) is all the motivation I need to write as best I can.

And that's why in France the 35-hours are being rolled back, that's because the right wing has been having the power lately.

And that's why in France the 35-hours are being rolled back, that's because the right wing has been having the power lately.

And that's why in France the 35-hours are being rolled back, that's because the right wing has been having the power lately.

The firewall is porous. Imaginative users can find ways of searching for sensitive topics such as news about Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement. In Google, entering the words “Falun Gong” will cause the entire results page to be blocked, but “FLG movement” will not. Many Chinese internet-users are well practised in configuring their internet browsers to route page requests through unblocked proxy servers outside China. These help bypass the firewall.

——
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

The firewall is porous. Imaginative users can find ways of searching for sensitive topics such as news about Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement. In Google, entering the words “Falun Gong” will cause the entire results page to be blocked, but “FLG movement” will not. Many Chinese internet-users are well practised in configuring their internet browsers to route page requests through unblocked proxy servers outside China. These help bypass the firewall.

——
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

The firewall is porous. Imaginative users can find ways of searching for sensitive topics such as news about Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement. In Google, entering the words “Falun Gong” will cause the entire results page to be blocked, but “FLG movement” will not. Many Chinese internet-users are well practised in configuring their internet browsers to route page requests through unblocked proxy servers outside China. These help bypass the firewall.

——
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

Special Report / Open-source business

Open, but not as usual
Mar 16th 2006
From The Economist print edition

As “open-source” models move beyond software into other businesses, their limitations are becoming apparent

ILLUS.

EVERY time internet users search on Google, shop at Amazon or trade on eBay, they rely on open-source software—products that are often built by volunteers and cost nothing to use. More than two-thirds of websites are hosted using Apache, an open-source product that trounces commercial rivals. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia with around 2.6m entries in more than 120 languages, gets more visitors each day than the New York Times’s site, yet is created entirely by the public. There is even an open-source initiative to develop drugs to treat diseases in poor countries.

The “open-source” process of creating things is quickly becoming a threat—and an opportunity—to businesses of all kinds. Though the term at first described a model of software development (where the underlying programming code is open to inspection, modification and redistribution), the approach has moved far beyond its origins. From legal research to biotechnology, open-business practices have emerged as a mainstream way for collaboration to happen online. New business models are being built around commercialising open-source wares, by bundling them in other products or services. Though these might not contain any software “source code”, the “open-source” label can now apply more broadly to all sorts of endeavour that amalgamate the contributions of private individuals to create something that, in effect, becomes freely available to all.

However, it is unclear how innovative and sustainable open source can ultimately be. The open-source method has vulnerabilities that must be overcome if it is to live up to its promise. For example, it lacks ways of ensuring quality and it is still working out better ways to handle intellectual property.

But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality.

This lesson was brought home to Wikipedia last December, after a former American newspaper editor lambasted it for an entry about himself that had been written by a prankster. His denunciations spoke for many, who question how something built by the wisdom of crowds can become anything other than mob rule.

The need to formalise open-source practices is at a critical juncture, for reasons far beyond Wikipedia’s reputation. Last year a lengthy process began to update the General Public Licence—the legal document which makes available “free software”, such as Linux, an operating system that poses a challenge to Microsoft’s dominance. The revision will enable the licence to handle issues such as patents and online services. The drafting process uses the same approach as the software production itself. It relies on an open collaboration that has hundreds of contributors around the world. “What we are actually doing is making a global institution,” says Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York and the legal architect behind the licence.

One reason why open source is proving so successful is because its processes are not as quirky as they may first seem. In order to succeed, open-source projects have adopted management practices similar to those of the companies they vie to outdo. The contributors are typically motivated less by altruism than by self-interest. And far from bein

Special Report / Open-source business

Open, but not as usual
Mar 16th 2006
From The Economist print edition

As “open-source” models move beyond software into other businesses, their limitations are becoming apparent

ILLUS.

EVERY time internet users search on Google, shop at Amazon or trade on eBay, they rely on open-source software—products that are often built by volunteers and cost nothing to use. More than two-thirds of websites are hosted using Apache, an open-source product that trounces commercial rivals. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia with around 2.6m entries in more than 120 languages, gets more visitors each day than the New York Times’s site, yet is created entirely by the public. There is even an open-source initiative to develop drugs to treat diseases in poor countries.

The “open-source” process of creating things is quickly becoming a threat—and an opportunity—to businesses of all kinds. Though the term at first described a model of software development (where the underlying programming code is open to inspection, modification and redistribution), the approach has moved far beyond its origins. From legal research to biotechnology, open-business practices have emerged as a mainstream way for collaboration to happen online. New business models are being built around commercialising open-source wares, by bundling them in other products or services. Though these might not contain any software “source code”, the “open-source” label can now apply more broadly to all sorts of endeavour that amalgamate the contributions of private individuals to create something that, in effect, becomes freely available to all.

However, it is unclear how innovative and sustainable open source can ultimately be. The open-source method has vulnerabilities that must be overcome if it is to live up to its promise. For example, it lacks ways of ensuring quality and it is still working out better ways to handle intellectual property.

But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality.

This lesson was brought home to Wikipedia last December, after a former American newspaper editor lambasted it for an entry about himself that had been written by a prankster. His denunciations spoke for many, who question how something built by the wisdom of crowds can become anything other than mob rule.

The need to formalise open-source practices is at a critical juncture, for reasons far beyond Wikipedia’s reputation. Last year a lengthy process began to update the General Public Licence—the legal document which makes available “free software”, such as Linux, an operating system that poses a challenge to Microsoft’s dominance. The revision will enable the licence to handle issues such as patents and online services. The drafting process uses the same approach as the software production itself. It relies on an open collaboration that has hundreds of contributors around the world. “What we are actually doing is making a global institution,” says Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York and the legal architect behind the licence.

One reason why open source is proving so successful is because its processes are not as quirky as they may first seem. In order to succeed, open-source projects have adopted management practices similar to those of the companies they vie to outdo. The contributors are typically motivated less by altruism than by self-interest. And far from bein

The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. [...] By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market [due in part to] the makers' increasing skill at hiding the technology from drivers. [...] This presented drivers with a radically simplified surface, or "interface" in today's jargon, so that all they had to do was turn the ignition key, put their foot on the accelerator, brake, steer and change gear--and after 1940, when automatic transmissions were introduced, even gear-shifting became optional.

——
Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Now you see it, now you don’t
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

To be truly successful, a complex technology needs to “disappear”

IMAGE

THERE has never been anything quite like information technology before, but there have certainly been other complex technologies that needed simplifying. Joe Corn, a history professor at Stanford University, believes that the first example of a complex consumer technology was clocks, which arrived in the 1820s. Clocks were sold with user manuals, which featured entries such as “How to erect and regulate your device”. When sewing machines appeared in the 1840s, they came with 40-page manuals full of detailed instructions. Discouragingly, it took two generations until a trade publication was able to declare in the 1880s that “every woman now knows how to use one.”

At about the same time, the increase in technological complexity gathered pace. With electricity came new appliances, such as the phonograph, invented in 1877 by Thomas Alva Edison. According to Mr Norman, the computer-design guru, despite Mr Edison’s genius for engineering he was a marketing moron, and his first phonograph was all but unusable (in fact, initially he had no particular uses in mind for it). For decades, Mr Edison fiddled with his technology, always going for the most impressive engineering solution. For instance, he chose cylinders over discs as the recording medium. It took a generation and the entry of a new rival, Emile Berliner, to prepare the phonograph for the mass market by making it easier to use (introducing discs instead of cylinders) and giving it a purpose (playing music). Mr Edison’s companies foundered whereas Mr Berliner’s thrived, and phonographs became ubiquitous, first as “gramophones” or “Victrolas”, the name of Mr Berliner’s model, and ultimately as “record players”.

Another complex technology, with an even bigger impact, was the car. The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. People at the time hired chauffeurs, says Mr Corn, mostly because they needed to have a mechanic at hand to fix the car, just as firms today need IT staff and households need teenagers to sort out their computers.

By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. Two things in particular had made this possible. The first was the rise, spread and eventual ubiquity of a support infrastructure for cars. This included a network of decent roads and motorways, and of petrol stations and garages for repair

The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. [...] By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market [due in part to] the makers' increasing skill at hiding the technology from drivers. [...] This presented drivers with a radically simplified surface, or "interface" in today's jargon, so that all they had to do was turn the ignition key, put their foot on the accelerator, brake, steer and change gear--and after 1940, when automatic transmissions were introduced, even gear-shifting became optional.

——
Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Now you see it, now you don’t
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

To be truly successful, a complex technology needs to “disappear”

IMAGE

THERE has never been anything quite like information technology before, but there have certainly been other complex technologies that needed simplifying. Joe Corn, a history professor at Stanford University, believes that the first example of a complex consumer technology was clocks, which arrived in the 1820s. Clocks were sold with user manuals, which featured entries such as “How to erect and regulate your device”. When sewing machines appeared in the 1840s, they came with 40-page manuals full of detailed instructions. Discouragingly, it took two generations until a trade publication was able to declare in the 1880s that “every woman now knows how to use one.”

At about the same time, the increase in technological complexity gathered pace. With electricity came new appliances, such as the phonograph, invented in 1877 by Thomas Alva Edison. According to Mr Norman, the computer-design guru, despite Mr Edison’s genius for engineering he was a marketing moron, and his first phonograph was all but unusable (in fact, initially he had no particular uses in mind for it). For decades, Mr Edison fiddled with his technology, always going for the most impressive engineering solution. For instance, he chose cylinders over discs as the recording medium. It took a generation and the entry of a new rival, Emile Berliner, to prepare the phonograph for the mass market by making it easier to use (introducing discs instead of cylinders) and giving it a purpose (playing music). Mr Edison’s companies foundered whereas Mr Berliner’s thrived, and phonographs became ubiquitous, first as “gramophones” or “Victrolas”, the name of Mr Berliner’s model, and ultimately as “record players”.

Another complex technology, with an even bigger impact, was the car. The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. People at the time hired chauffeurs, says Mr Corn, mostly because they needed to have a mechanic at hand to fix the car, just as firms today need IT staff and households need teenagers to sort out their computers.

By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. Two things in particular had made this possible. The first was the rise, spread and eventual ubiquity of a support infrastructure for cars. This included a network of decent roads and motorways, and of petrol stations and garages for repair

And yet, America still has the largest number of immigrants per year, anywhere from 1 to 2 million.

"Even allowing for immigration, the United Nations projects that the population of the current European Union members will fall by around 7.5million over the next 45 years. There has not been such a sustained reduction in the European population since the Black Death of the 14th century. (By contrast, the United States population is projected to grow by 44 percent between 2000 and 2050.)" source

Wow, looks like a horrible place to life. If our education sucks, hear care sucks, economy sucks, blah blah, its a wonder why millions flock here? Studies like this are FUD, and immature troglodytes like you love them because they reinforce their perception of the world. Go play in your sandbox.

~nate

we do agree that by the end of crossfire's run it wasnt a serious news show. so why not just find something else?

I'd love to. But as long as the major players are content to lob softballs and sell it as serious political debate, I don't have a lot of choice. The pols get the airtime they want, so they have no incentive to actually sweat a little.

Even if I do switch, there's no reason not to call the Crossfire pundits on their hypocrisy. You'll note that when Jon Stewart tore them a new one, they never claimed, as you do, that they were an inside-the-beltway version of Jerry Springer. Instead, they tried to hold Jon Stewart, who runs a comedy show, to the higher standard of journalism, one they apparently subscribed to.

you want hard journalism, go find it.

I have tried reading every major newsweekly in America. the best I can find is a British publication, The Economist. It's swell, but for US news it just doesn't have the same pull that a major US publication or network would. I've completely given up on TV news; fiberglass insulation has higher nutritional value.

I want our journalists to fill their important democratic role of holding politicians' feet to the fire. If they're not doing that, the should give up the pretense of being journalists and become entertainers or stenographers. It's shameful that Stewart and Colbert, who pretend to be newsmen, do a better job of getting at the truth than the actual ones.

Even under full-blown totalitarianism there's a graduated response. In the old Soviet Union people could find themselves hassled, demoted, or fired well before getting prosecuted for protesting or getting disappeared without access to a lawyer or even to family

“By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. [...] Ironically, it meant that cars got hugely more complex on the inside, because most of the tasks that had previously been carried out by drivers now had to be done automatically.”

——
Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Now you see it, now you don’t
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

To be truly successful, a complex technology needs to “disappear”

IMAGE

THERE has never been anything quite like information technology before, but there have certainly been other complex technologies that needed simplifying. Joe Corn, a history professor at Stanford University, believes that the first example of a complex consumer technology was clocks, which arrived in the 1820s. Clocks were sold with user manuals, which featured entries such as “How to erect and regulate your device”. When sewing machines appeared in the 1840s, they came with 40-page manuals full of detailed instructions. Discouragingly, it took two generations until a trade publication was able to declare in the 1880s that “every woman now knows how to use one.”

At about the same time, the increase in technological complexity gathered pace. With electricity came new appliances, such as the phonograph, invented in 1877 by Thomas Alva Edison. According to Mr Norman, the computer-design guru, despite Mr Edison’s genius for engineering he was a marketing moron, and his first phonograph was all but unusable (in fact, initially he had no particular uses in mind for it). For decades, Mr Edison fiddled with his technology, always going for the most impressive engineering solution. For instance, he chose cylinders over discs as the recording medium. It took a generation and the entry of a new rival, Emile Berliner, to prepare the phonograph for the mass market by making it easier to use (introducing discs instead of cylinders) and giving it a purpose (playing music). Mr Edison’s companies foundered whereas Mr Berliner’s thrived, and phonographs became ubiquitous, first as “gramophones” or “Victrolas”, the name of Mr Berliner’s model, and ultimately as “record players”.

Another complex technology, with an even bigger impact, was the car. The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. People at the time hired chauffeurs, says Mr Corn, mostly because they needed to have a mechanic at hand to fix the car, just as firms today need IT staff and households need teenagers to sort out their computers.

By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. Two things in particular had made this possible. The first was the rise, spread and eventual ubiquity of a support infrastructure for cars. This included a network of decent roads and motorways, and of petrol stations and garages for repair. The second was the makers’ increasing skill at hiding the technology from drivers. Ford proved particularly good at this. Ironically, it meant that cars got hugely more complex on the inside, because most of the tasks that had previously been carried out by drivers now had to be done automatically. This presented drivers with a radically simplified surface, or “interface” in today’s jargon, so that all they had to do was turn the ignition key, put their foot on the accelerator, brake, steer and change gear—and after 1940, when automatic t

“By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. [...] Ironically, it meant that cars got hugely more complex on the inside, because most of the tasks that had previously been carried out by drivers now had to be done automatically.”

——
Surveys / SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Now you see it, now you don’t
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

To be truly successful, a complex technology needs to “disappear”

IMAGE

THERE has never been anything quite like information technology before, but there have certainly been other complex technologies that needed simplifying. Joe Corn, a history professor at Stanford University, believes that the first example of a complex consumer technology was clocks, which arrived in the 1820s. Clocks were sold with user manuals, which featured entries such as “How to erect and regulate your device”. When sewing machines appeared in the 1840s, they came with 40-page manuals full of detailed instructions. Discouragingly, it took two generations until a trade publication was able to declare in the 1880s that “every woman now knows how to use one.”

At about the same time, the increase in technological complexity gathered pace. With electricity came new appliances, such as the phonograph, invented in 1877 by Thomas Alva Edison. According to Mr Norman, the computer-design guru, despite Mr Edison’s genius for engineering he was a marketing moron, and his first phonograph was all but unusable (in fact, initially he had no particular uses in mind for it). For decades, Mr Edison fiddled with his technology, always going for the most impressive engineering solution. For instance, he chose cylinders over discs as the recording medium. It took a generation and the entry of a new rival, Emile Berliner, to prepare the phonograph for the mass market by making it easier to use (introducing discs instead of cylinders) and giving it a purpose (playing music). Mr Edison’s companies foundered whereas Mr Berliner’s thrived, and phonographs became ubiquitous, first as “gramophones” or “Victrolas”, the name of Mr Berliner’s model, and ultimately as “record players”.

Another complex technology, with an even bigger impact, was the car. The first cars, in the early 1900s, were “mostly a burden and a challenge”, says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission, adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle, wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down, which it invariably did. People at the time hired chauffeurs, says Mr Corn, mostly because they needed to have a mechanic at hand to fix the car, just as firms today need IT staff and households need teenagers to sort out their computers.

By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready for the mass market. Two things in particular had made this possible. The first was the rise, spread and eventual ubiquity of a support infrastructure for cars. This included a network of decent roads and motorways, and of petrol stations and garages for repair. The second was the makers’ increasing skill at hiding the technology from drivers. Ford proved particularly good at this. Ironically, it meant that cars got hugely more complex on the inside, because most of the tasks that had previously been carried out by drivers now had to be done automatically. This presented drivers with a radically simplified surface, or “interface” in today’s jargon, so that all they had to do was turn the ignition key, put their foot on the accelerator, brake, steer and change gear—and after 1940, when automatic t

“[The Justice Department’s] definition of torture would have permitted pulling out fingernails and burning with hot irons. And it so overstated the president’s powers that, under its logic, Mr Bush could order genocide without Congress or the courts being able to stop him.”

——
United States / Civil liberties

Just a few bad apples?
Jan 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition

America’s quest to win over hearts and minds in the war on terror has been dogged by human-rights complaints. The first of two pieces looks at its record overseas

IMAGE (Eyevine)

THE United States is a “nation of law”, George Bush insisted after the sickening photographs showing American soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison appeared last spring. The “disgraceful conduct” had been the work of “a few bad apples” who would be brought to justice. He also promised that America’s treatment of terrorist suspects and “unlawful enemy combatants” such as those it has sent to the Guantánamo Bay base in Cuba would conform to both domestic and international laws. The United States, Mr Bush declared, was “committed to the worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example”.

Since then, the administration has suffered a number of reverses. Last summer, it emerged that it had sanctioned two memoranda redefining the concept of torture more narrowly. The Supreme Court has allowed the 550-odd foreigners being held in Guantánamo to challenge their detention in the American courts. Under international pressure, it has had to release ever more detainees. And a ruling by a federal district court judge has put on hold its planned system of special military commissions at Guantánamo.

Mr Bush seems unrepentant, judging at least from this week’s events. As The Economist went to press, it looked certain that Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel who was involved in both torture memos, would be confirmed by the Senate as the new attorney-general—America’s highest law officer. Meanwhile, officials have cited the tough sentence doled out to the chief bad apple at Abu Ghraib as evidence that the problem is being sorted out.

In the first contested court-martial relating to abuse at the prison, the alleged ringleader, Specialist Charles Graner, was sentenced on January 15th to ten years in jail and given a dishonourable discharge; he had been found guilty on all five charges of assault, maltreatment, indecent acts, conspiracy and dereliction of duty. Four other soldiers have entered guilty pleas, including three who have been given custodial sentences, one for eight years.

Another three soldiers are awaiting military trials, though in view of Mr Graner’s sentence they may now be tempted to plea-bargain. They include Private Lynndie England, Mr Graner’s former lover, who was pictured holding a prostrate naked prisoner on a leash.

The sentences, if completed, are certainly tough by historical standards. After the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968, when some 500 civilians were slaughtered, 25 American soldiers were charged. But only a few were tried and just one, Lieutenant William Calley, found guilty. He was sentenced to life but, after less than four years’ house arrest, he was released.

Has Mr Graner been made a scapegoat? All along, he—and most of the others involved—have claimed that they were simply following orders to “soften up” the detainees before interrogation. Strangely, at his court-martial his defence counsel called no senior officers or officials who might have been able to corroborate this, and Mr Graner himself declined to take the witness stand.

Eleven inqui

“[The Justice Department’s] definition of torture would have permitted pulling out fingernails and burning with hot irons. And it so overstated the president’s powers that, under its logic, Mr Bush could order genocide without Congress or the courts being able to stop him.”

——
United States / Civil liberties

Just a few bad apples?
Jan 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition

America’s quest to win over hearts and minds in the war on terror has been dogged by human-rights complaints. The first of two pieces looks at its record overseas

IMAGE (Eyevine)

THE United States is a “nation of law”, George Bush insisted after the sickening photographs showing American soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison appeared last spring. The “disgraceful conduct” had been the work of “a few bad apples” who would be brought to justice. He also promised that America’s treatment of terrorist suspects and “unlawful enemy combatants” such as those it has sent to the Guantánamo Bay base in Cuba would conform to both domestic and international laws. The United States, Mr Bush declared, was “committed to the worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example”.

Since then, the administration has suffered a number of reverses. Last summer, it emerged that it had sanctioned two memoranda redefining the concept of torture more narrowly. The Supreme Court has allowed the 550-odd foreigners being held in Guantánamo to challenge their detention in the American courts. Under international pressure, it has had to release ever more detainees. And a ruling by a federal district court judge has put on hold its planned system of special military commissions at Guantánamo.

Mr Bush seems unrepentant, judging at least from this week’s events. As The Economist went to press, it looked certain that Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel who was involved in both torture memos, would be confirmed by the Senate as the new attorney-general—America’s highest law officer. Meanwhile, officials have cited the tough sentence doled out to the chief bad apple at Abu Ghraib as evidence that the problem is being sorted out.

In the first contested court-martial relating to abuse at the prison, the alleged ringleader, Specialist Charles Graner, was sentenced on January 15th to ten years in jail and given a dishonourable discharge; he had been found guilty on all five charges of assault, maltreatment, indecent acts, conspiracy and dereliction of duty. Four other soldiers have entered guilty pleas, including three who have been given custodial sentences, one for eight years.

Another three soldiers are awaiting military trials, though in view of Mr Graner’s sentence they may now be tempted to plea-bargain. They include Private Lynndie England, Mr Graner’s former lover, who was pictured holding a prostrate naked prisoner on a leash.

The sentences, if completed, are certainly tough by historical standards. After the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968, when some 500 civilians were slaughtered, 25 American soldiers were charged. But only a few were tried and just one, Lieutenant William Calley, found guilty. He was sentenced to life but, after less than four years’ house arrest, he was released.

Has Mr Graner been made a scapegoat? All along, he—and most of the others involved—have claimed that they were simply following orders to “soften up” the detainees before interrogation. Strangely, at his court-martial his defence counsel called no senior officers or officials who might have been able to corroborate this, and Mr Graner himself declined to take the witness stand.

Eleven inqui

Leaders / Space

Back to the future
Apr 12th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Don’t race China to the moon, especially if you have been there already

IMAGE (NASA)

JUST before China’s president, Hu Jintao, visits the United States, a new front has opened up in the growing rivalry between today’s superpower and tomorrow’s aspiring one. Not content with bashing China over trade, jobs and its military build-up, several Republican congressmen are worried that the Chinese may try to get to the moon before America does. In apparent seriousness, they fear that America is caught up in a new space race—and that it is losing.

The facts, as laid out last week to a congressional hearing for NASA (itself a lunar veteran), are that China has put two manned vehicles into orbit, is planning a third by 2008, and would like a space laboratory. The politicians were alarmed by China’s scheme to visit the moon in 2017—and they want America to spend up to $5 billion to get there first.

The Americans are certainly right to keep a close eye on what China is up to in space—especially when it comes to military programmes. But the idea that there is a new space race to get to the moon is ludicrous—and not just because Neil Armstrong won that competition in 1969. Look at the details: the Chinese, it turns out, are sending the moon a robot, not a taikonaut. And why on earth (or in heaven) would America want to send people back to the moon anyway?

The reason—and this will come as no surprise to aficionados of China bashing—is a powerful domestic lobby. Racing a Chinese robot to the Sea of Tranquility might be batty, but it is a neat way to milk additional funds for NASA from the American public. You might wonder how Tom DeLay, the ousted majority leader, could warn his colleagues with a straight face that “the advanced state of the Chinese space programme represents a 21st century Sputnik moment.” But his logic becomes much clearer when you realise that NASA is a big employer in his Texas district.

Over the years, America’s politicians have injected the country’s space programme with so much spin, politics and greed that it is now bloated beyond belief. The price of launching a single American shuttle would run the entire Chinese space programme for a year, paying for the work of all its 200,000 scientists and engineers.

Strong arm
More than money is at stake, however. The idea of a space race with a huge communist country dredges up memories of the 1960s—which is precisely why it appeals to some conservatives in Congress. But even in those difficult times, Jack Kennedy had started to think that co-operation with the Soviet Union in civilian space programmes might be a better idea. China should be encouraged to participate in the International Space Station. If the mission to the moon is supposed to be multinational, then the Chinese should be involved in that, too. When governments compete for glory in space, the winners are the contractors and the losers are the taxpayers.

The irony is that the fuss in Congress comes at a time when the real race in space has moved to the private sector. At present, four companies have said they will build sub-orbital vehicles for space tourism. Elon Musk, who made his fortune with PayPal, an online payments system, is trying to shake up the satellite-launching business (and perhaps also the orbital-transport business) with his cheap—but not-quite-working—rocket, Falcon 1. Those are the kind of space races that benefit us all. Long may they continue.
 
::: yfnET

Leaders / Space

Back to the future
Apr 12th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Don’t race China to the moon, especially if you have been there already

IMAGE (NASA)

JUST before China’s president, Hu Jintao, visits the United States, a new front has opened up in the growing rivalry between today’s superpower and tomorrow’s aspiring one. Not content with bashing China over trade, jobs and its military build-up, several Republican congressmen are worried that the Chinese may try to get to the moon before America does. In apparent seriousness, they fear that America is caught up in a new space race—and that it is losing.

The facts, as laid out last week to a congressional hearing for NASA (itself a lunar veteran), are that China has put two manned vehicles into orbit, is planning a third by 2008, and would like a space laboratory. The politicians were alarmed by China’s scheme to visit the moon in 2017—and they want America to spend up to $5 billion to get there first.

The Americans are certainly right to keep a close eye on what China is up to in space—especially when it comes to military programmes. But the idea that there is a new space race to get to the moon is ludicrous—and not just because Neil Armstrong won that competition in 1969. Look at the details: the Chinese, it turns out, are sending the moon a robot, not a taikonaut. And why on earth (or in heaven) would America want to send people back to the moon anyway?

The reason—and this will come as no surprise to aficionados of China bashing—is a powerful domestic lobby. Racing a Chinese robot to the Sea of Tranquility might be batty, but it is a neat way to milk additional funds for NASA from the American public. You might wonder how Tom DeLay, the ousted majority leader, could warn his colleagues with a straight face that “the advanced state of the Chinese space programme represents a 21st century Sputnik moment.” But his logic becomes much clearer when you realise that NASA is a big employer in his Texas district.

Over the years, America’s politicians have injected the country’s space programme with so much spin, politics and greed that it is now bloated beyond belief. The price of launching a single American shuttle would run the entire Chinese space programme for a year, paying for the work of all its 200,000 scientists and engineers.

Strong arm
More than money is at stake, however. The idea of a space race with a huge communist country dredges up memories of the 1960s—which is precisely why it appeals to some conservatives in Congress. But even in those difficult times, Jack Kennedy had started to think that co-operation with the Soviet Union in civilian space programmes might be a better idea. China should be encouraged to participate in the International Space Station. If the mission to the moon is supposed to be multinational, then the Chinese should be involved in that, too. When governments compete for glory in space, the winners are the contractors and the losers are the taxpayers.

The irony is that the fuss in Congress comes at a time when the real race in space has moved to the private sector. At present, four companies have said they will build sub-orbital vehicles for space tourism. Elon Musk, who made his fortune with PayPal, an online payments system, is trying to shake up the satellite-launching business (and perhaps also the orbital-transport business) with his cheap—but not-quite-working—rocket, Falcon 1. Those are the kind of space races that benefit us all. Long may they continue.
 
::: yfnET

Business / Internet video

Clip culture
Apr 27th 2006 | SAN MATEO
From The Economist print edition

A start-up shows big media and mighty Google how to do web video

CHAD HURLEY and Steve Chen, two modest twenty-something software geeks in Silicon Valley, were at a dinner party last year where several people brought their camcorders and then complained how difficult it was to share home videos online. So they did what one does in their circles. They founded a company, called YouTube; got a few million dollars from Sequoia Capital, an eminent venture-capital firm; wrote some code in Mr Hurley’s garage; and then moved into a San Mateo loft that resembles an office. Their simple idea was to make uploading home videos to the internet easy.

It turns out that millions of people already had such videos and were just waiting for a way to share them. Even before YouTube’s official launch last December, the site contained more than a million short video clips. In December people were uploading 8,000 clips a day, and watching 3m a day. This month they were uploading 35,000 a day and watching 40m a day. With such amazing growth—almost all by word of mouth, e-mail and hyperlink—YouTube already has four times the traffic of Google Video, the online video market of the world’s largest search-engine firm, and the nearest thing to a rival.

YouTube’s success is therefore of great interest to many older and larger companies. Web video has over the past year become the next “next big thing” on the internet. A survey by the Online Publishers Association in February found that 69% of American internet users have watched video on the web, 24% do so at least once a week, and 5% every day. Almost every big internet company, from portals such as Yahoo! to retailers like Amazon, now has plans to offer video search and feeds. The traditional media companies—owners of video libraries—are interested too. Walt Disney is about to make several shows from its ABC television network available without charge (ie, with advertising) on a new web cinema. CBS already offers some of its shows online for 99 cents.

This may appeal to younger audiences, since it allows “time-shifting”, so that viewers can watch when it suits them, as opposed to when the show is on air. Apple Computer was the first to understand this—it struck a deal with Walt Disney last autumn to provide some television shows on iTunes, its online music store, so that people can put them onto their iPods.

But the success of YouTube points to another development. People are spending an average of 15 minutes on the site during each visit, enough to view several short, funny clips. This is because they are using YouTube for little breaks during a dull workday. And it is a “lean-forward” experience, as people sit in front of computer screens. This “clip culture”, as Mr Hurley calls it, is quite different from the “lean-back” experience of enjoying a half-hour show while reclining on the sofa. So different that YouTube sees Hollywood as a potential ally, rather than as a threat. For instance, the producers of “Lucky Number Slevin”, a new film with Morgan Freeman, Lucy Liu and Bruce Willis, are marketing it by making the first eight minutes exclusively available as a clip on YouTube.

This emerging clip culture is also a supply-side phenomenon. Only 10% of the clips on YouTube are from film-industry “professionals”, says Mr Chen. About 80% come from rank amateurs, and another 10% from “dedicated amateurs”, such as young comedians hoping to use internet celebrity as a way into a career. Unlike the big media companies looking to recycle their film libraries, Goog

I suspect reading some of the points of view in this series of postings
the facts will likely be lightly treated...

Here are some interesting articles and other sources of information I've come across that have helped me form my opinion of Walmart.

Do your homework before having an opinion. Google, some judgement and
chosing reputable sources goes a long way.

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapp er.html

The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.htm l

Wal-Mart
How big can it grow?
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory .cfm?Story_ID=2593089

Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_40 /b3852001_mz001.htm

Is Walmart good for America? US Trade with China: Expectations vs. Reality.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walm art/china/trade.html

For those of you that don't read, check out:
Walmart the high cost of low price.
http://www.walmartmovie.com/

Personally I believe the market only works to the benefit of the consumer in the long run when there is true competition. This is something that becomes very difficult when the competition is the size of Walmart and shops in China.

I see Walmart as part of the negative side globalization that is leading to a hollowing out of America, and in the long run is a significant part of what is feeding the trade deficit with China. What makes Walmart so profitable is that in many areas it has little or no competition (small town America) and effectively has almost a monopoly. A monopoly is a form of market failure, and in the long run is never good for the consumer (although its great for the shareholder). In the short term it has lowered prices in many areas, but then its lowered wages too.

Hey but don't take my word for it. Get your own facts, and then make a decision. That's what democracy is about, be an informed citizen, not an opinionated one.

United States / Lexington

The rebirth of outrage
Mar 30th 2006
From The Economist print edition

There’s an epidemic of outrage

IMAGE

THE most striking thing about Americans to many outsiders is how nice they are. They have none of the aloofness of the British or the froideur of the French. On the contrary, they go out of their way to be warm and welcoming. This is the land of the smiley face and the “have a nice day” greeting. Put simply, Americans like to be liked.

Yet turn on cable television and you are confronted with a series of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage. They are incensed (if they’re on the left) that Barbara Bush has stipulated that her Hurricane Katrina donation should be used to buy software from a firm owned by one of her sons; furious (if they’re on the right) that Hillary Clinton has invoked Jesus’s name in decrying Republican immigration policies; and pig-wrestling mad (and here outrage goes bipartisan) that Yale University has admitted a former spokesman for the Taliban.

The current king of outrage is Bill O’Reilly, the host of a Fox television show who only has to look at the camera to convey a sense that some monstrosity has been committed. But there are plenty of others. Sean Hannity (also at Fox) and Joe Scarborough (at MSNBC) are furious about whatever the Democrats have done that day. Over at CNN, Lou Dobbs, under the guise of presenting a news programme, bashes the government for failing to fix America’s borders, and big companies for exporting jobs abroad. The oddest of the lot is Don Imus (also at MSNBC) who sits there with a cowboy hat on his head and a scowl on his face, fulminating about whatever irritates him at that moment.

Cast your eyes up to Capitol Hill and the scene is only marginally more restrained. The Democrats have abandoned the idea that politics stops at the water’s edge to berate the Bush administration for its “dangerous incompetence” over Iraq. The Republicans can’t decide whether they’re more outraged at the Democrats’ treason or the tide of immigrants. The House Republicans want to build a wall across stretches of the Mexican border. Willie Whitelaw, one of the last great British patrician politicians, once accused Harold Wilson, the Labour leader, of going around the country “stirring up apathy”; these days all too many American politicians, amateur and professional, are going around the country stirring up outrage.

Why is outrage becoming such a defining feature of American life, and particularly political life? It does not apply to the whole country. Four in five Americans tell pollsters that they are either very happy (34%) or pretty happy (50%). Tabloid journalists the world over are in the outrage business. But America’s tabloid titans appeal only to narrow slivers of the country (“The O’Reilly Factor” reaches 2.5m people in a country of 300m). Most Americans pride themselves on their tolerance.

Yet things have patently changed since the 1996 election when Bob Dole ruefully asked “where’s the outrage?” as he tried to persuade a fat and happy country to ditch Bill Clinton. Today the mood is sourer. A striking 42% of Americans support Russ Feingold’s bid to censure Mr Bush for illegally wiretapping suspected terrorists. If the Democrats retake either the Senate or the House this autumn, Mr Bush will probably become the second president in a decade to be subject to impeachment proceedings.

There are lots of short-term reasons for all this outrage. For instance, the left howls that after 2000 Mr Bush used a narrow victory to push through a highly partisan agenda. But there are also deeper structural reasons why outraged partisans have such a peculiarly

United States / Lexington

The rebirth of outrage
Mar 30th 2006
From The Economist print edition

There’s an epidemic of outrage

IMAGE

THE most striking thing about Americans to many outsiders is how nice they are. They have none of the aloofness of the British or the froideur of the French. On the contrary, they go out of their way to be warm and welcoming. This is the land of the smiley face and the “have a nice day” greeting. Put simply, Americans like to be liked.

Yet turn on cable television and you are confronted with a series of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage. They are incensed (if they’re on the left) that Barbara Bush has stipulated that her Hurricane Katrina donation should be used to buy software from a firm owned by one of her sons; furious (if they’re on the right) that Hillary Clinton has invoked Jesus’s name in decrying Republican immigration policies; and pig-wrestling mad (and here outrage goes bipartisan) that Yale University has admitted a former spokesman for the Taliban.

The current king of outrage is Bill O’Reilly, the host of a Fox television show who only has to look at the camera to convey a sense that some monstrosity has been committed. But there are plenty of others. Sean Hannity (also at Fox) and Joe Scarborough (at MSNBC) are furious about whatever the Democrats have done that day. Over at CNN, Lou Dobbs, under the guise of presenting a news programme, bashes the government for failing to fix America’s borders, and big companies for exporting jobs abroad. The oddest of the lot is Don Imus (also at MSNBC) who sits there with a cowboy hat on his head and a scowl on his face, fulminating about whatever irritates him at that moment.

Cast your eyes up to Capitol Hill and the scene is only marginally more restrained. The Democrats have abandoned the idea that politics stops at the water’s edge to berate the Bush administration for its “dangerous incompetence” over Iraq. The Republicans can’t decide whether they’re more outraged at the Democrats’ treason or the tide of immigrants. The House Republicans want to build a wall across stretches of the Mexican border. Willie Whitelaw, one of the last great British patrician politicians, once accused Harold Wilson, the Labour leader, of going around the country “stirring up apathy”; these days all too many American politicians, amateur and professional, are going around the country stirring up outrage.

Why is outrage becoming such a defining feature of American life, and particularly political life? It does not apply to the whole country. Four in five Americans tell pollsters that they are either very happy (34%) or pretty happy (50%). Tabloid journalists the world over are in the outrage business. But America’s tabloid titans appeal only to narrow slivers of the country (“The O’Reilly Factor” reaches 2.5m people in a country of 300m). Most Americans pride themselves on their tolerance.

Yet things have patently changed since the 1996 election when Bob Dole ruefully asked “where’s the outrage?” as he tried to persuade a fat and happy country to ditch Bill Clinton. Today the mood is sourer. A striking 42% of Americans support Russ Feingold’s bid to censure Mr Bush for illegally wiretapping suspected terrorists. If the Democrats retake either the Senate or the House this autumn, Mr Bush will probably become the second president in a decade to be subject to impeachment proceedings.

There are lots of short-term reasons for all this outrage. For instance, the left howls that after 2000 Mr Bush used a narrow victory to push through a highly partisan agenda. But there are also deeper structural reasons why outraged partisans have such a peculiarly

Business / Microsoft

Spot the dinosaur
Mar 30th 2006 | REDMOND
From The Economist print edition

Microsoft’s core business is under threat from online software

IMAGE

RECENT advertisements for Microsoft show office workers as dinosaurs, stuck in a bygone era. Aptly, it is an accusation that some are now making about the software company itself.

Microsoft earns more than half its $40 billion or so of annual revenue—and the vast majority of its profits—on just two products: the Windows operating-system and Office, a collection of personal-computer (PC) applications including word-processing and spreadsheet programs. Both, however, are coming under threat from new technologies.

The pressure Microsoft is facing in its core businesses is similar to one confronted by IBM—another firm that was once synonymous with computing. At the beginning of the 1990s IBM had to face up to the shift from a computing world dominated by mainframes to one dotted by personal computers. In this new world hardware became a low-margin commodity and Microsoft’s operating system took the privileged position. Today, Microsoft still dominates the PC market. But like IBM before it, today’s giant knows that its position is under threat.

The threat to Microsoft comes from online applications, which are changing how people use computers. Rather than relying on an operating system and its associated application software—bought in a box from Microsoft, and then loaded onto a PC—computer users are increasingly able to call up the software they need over the internet. Just as Amazon, Google, eBay and other firms provide services via the web, software companies are now selling software as a subscription service that can be accessed via a web-browser. Salesforce.com, the best known example of this trend, offers salesforce management tools; other firms offer accounting and other back-office functions; there are even web-based word-processors and spreadsheets. This lowers the economic and technical barriers to entry for firms wanting to compete with Microsoft, as well as diluting the advantages the firm gets from controlling how the computer works.

These huge shifts in computing take a very long time, because there is so much inertia in the marketplace—the idea of online applications has taken years to get even this far. Microsoft is still in a position that most firms would kill for. Its two main products—Windows and Office—remain fabulously profitable quasi-monopolies. Even if online applications and open-source software make rapid progress, Microsoft would retain a powerful and profitable position for some time.

For all that, however, online applications clearly threaten the way Microsoft makes its money. Its licensing agreements are geared for a world where software is a physical product, purchased on discs, and paid for at once or in regular instalments. But its online competitors charge each user a subscription: some like Google are even supplying software as a free online service, financed by advertisements. Last month Google acquired the firm that created Writely, a popular online word-processing program that is an obvious potential competitor to Microsoft Word.

Online competitors have also mastered quick development and deployment times that Microsoft cannot match. Meanwhile open-source software—developed co-operatively and distributed free of charge—is also gaining ground. George Colony, the boss of Forrester, a technology-research firm, believes Microsoft faces the biggest challenge in the firm’s history: “Bill Gates knows how to compete with anyone who charges money for products,” he says, “but his head explodes whenever he has to go up against anyone who gives away product

Business / Microsoft

Spot the dinosaur
Mar 30th 2006 | REDMOND
From The Economist print edition

Microsoft’s core business is under threat from online software

IMAGE

RECENT advertisements for Microsoft show office workers as dinosaurs, stuck in a bygone era. Aptly, it is an accusation that some are now making about the software company itself.

Microsoft earns more than half its $40 billion or so of annual revenue—and the vast majority of its profits—on just two products: the Windows operating-system and Office, a collection of personal-computer (PC) applications including word-processing and spreadsheet programs. Both, however, are coming under threat from new technologies.

The pressure Microsoft is facing in its core businesses is similar to one confronted by IBM—another firm that was once synonymous with computing. At the beginning of the 1990s IBM had to face up to the shift from a computing world dominated by mainframes to one dotted by personal computers. In this new world hardware became a low-margin commodity and Microsoft’s operating system took the privileged position. Today, Microsoft still dominates the PC market. But like IBM before it, today’s giant knows that its position is under threat.

The threat to Microsoft comes from online applications, which are changing how people use computers. Rather than relying on an operating system and its associated application software—bought in a box from Microsoft, and then loaded onto a PC—computer users are increasingly able to call up the software they need over the internet. Just as Amazon, Google, eBay and other firms provide services via the web, software companies are now selling software as a subscription service that can be accessed via a web-browser. Salesforce.com, the best known example of this trend, offers salesforce management tools; other firms offer accounting and other back-office functions; there are even web-based word-processors and spreadsheets. This lowers the economic and technical barriers to entry for firms wanting to compete with Microsoft, as well as diluting the advantages the firm gets from controlling how the computer works.

These huge shifts in computing take a very long time, because there is so much inertia in the marketplace—the idea of online applications has taken years to get even this far. Microsoft is still in a position that most firms would kill for. Its two main products—Windows and Office—remain fabulously profitable quasi-monopolies. Even if online applications and open-source software make rapid progress, Microsoft would retain a powerful and profitable position for some time.

For all that, however, online applications clearly threaten the way Microsoft makes its money. Its licensing agreements are geared for a world where software is a physical product, purchased on discs, and paid for at once or in regular instalments. But its online competitors charge each user a subscription: some like Google are even supplying software as a free online service, financed by advertisements. Last month Google acquired the firm that created Writely, a popular online word-processing program that is an obvious potential competitor to Microsoft Word.

Online competitors have also mastered quick development and deployment times that Microsoft cannot match. Meanwhile open-source software—developed co-operatively and distributed free of charge—is also gaining ground. George Colony, the boss of Forrester, a technology-research firm, believes Microsoft faces the biggest challenge in the firm’s history: “Bill Gates knows how to compete with anyone who charges money for products,” he says, “but his head explodes whenever he has to go up against anyone who gives away product

According to the big mac index, a 1$ DVD is ~1 chinese big mac. A 15$ DVD is at 4 US big macs. It is not a x15 ratio but still a good x4. A resonnable price for chinese market would then be 4$...

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 use

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 use

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 use

Science & Technology / Medical marijuana

Reefer madness
Apr 27th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Marijuana is medically useful, whether politicians like it or not

IMAGE (Getty Images)

IF CANNABIS were unknown, and bioprospectors were suddenly to find it in some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer, and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia—many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. In reality, cannabis has been with humanity for thousands of years and is considered by many governments (notably America’s) to be a dangerous drug without utility. Any suggestion that the plant might be medically useful is politically controversial, whatever the science says. It is in this context that, on April 20th, America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement saying that smoked marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

The statement is curious in a number of ways. For one thing, it overlooks a report made in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academy of Sciences, which came to a different conclusion. John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska who co-chaired the committee that drew up the report, found some sound scientific information that supports the medical use of marijuana for certain patients for short periods—even for smoked marijuana.

This is important, because one of the objections to marijuana is that, when burned, its smoke contains many of the harmful things found in tobacco smoke, such as carcinogenic tar, cyanide and carbon monoxide. Yet the IOM report supports what some patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, AIDS and cancer—and their doctors—have known for a long time. This is that the drug gives them medicinal benefits over and above the medications they are already receiving, and despite the fact that the smoke has risks. That is probably why several studies show that many doctors recommend smoking cannabis to their patients, even though they are unable to prescribe it. Patients then turn to the black market for their supply.

Another reason the FDA statement is odd is that it seems to lack common sense. Cannabis has been used as a medicinal plant for millennia. In fact, the American government actually supplied cannabis as a medicine for some time, before the scheme was shut down in the early 1990s. Today, cannabis is used all over the world, despite its illegality, to relieve pain and anxiety, to aid sleep, and to prevent seizures and muscle spasms. For example, two of its long-advocated benefits are that it suppresses vomiting and enhances appetite—qualities that AIDS patients and those on anti-cancer chemotherapy find useful. So useful, in fact, that the FDA has licensed a drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of one of the active ingredients of marijuana—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Unfortunately, many users of Marinol complain that it gets them high (which isn’t what they actually want) and is not nearly as effective, nor cheap, as the real weed itself.

This may be because Marinol is ingested into the stomach, meaning that it is metabolised before being absorbed. Or it may be because the medicinal benefits of cannabis come from the synergistic effect of the multiplicity of chemicals it contains.

Just what have you been smoking?
THC is the best known active ingredient of cannabis, but by no means the only one. At the last count, marijuana was known to contain nearly 70 different cannabinoids, as THC and its cousins are collectively known. These chemicals activate receptor molecules in the human body, particularly the cannabinoid receptors on

Science & Technology / Medical marijuana

Reefer madness
Apr 27th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Marijuana is medically useful, whether politicians like it or not

IMAGE (Getty Images)

IF CANNABIS were unknown, and bioprospectors were suddenly to find it in some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer, and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia—many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. In reality, cannabis has been with humanity for thousands of years and is considered by many governments (notably America’s) to be a dangerous drug without utility. Any suggestion that the plant might be medically useful is politically controversial, whatever the science says. It is in this context that, on April 20th, America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement saying that smoked marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

The statement is curious in a number of ways. For one thing, it overlooks a report made in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academy of Sciences, which came to a different conclusion. John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska who co-chaired the committee that drew up the report, found some sound scientific information that supports the medical use of marijuana for certain patients for short periods—even for smoked marijuana.

This is important, because one of the objections to marijuana is that, when burned, its smoke contains many of the harmful things found in tobacco smoke, such as carcinogenic tar, cyanide and carbon monoxide. Yet the IOM report supports what some patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, AIDS and cancer—and their doctors—have known for a long time. This is that the drug gives them medicinal benefits over and above the medications they are already receiving, and despite the fact that the smoke has risks. That is probably why several studies show that many doctors recommend smoking cannabis to their patients, even though they are unable to prescribe it. Patients then turn to the black market for their supply.

Another reason the FDA statement is odd is that it seems to lack common sense. Cannabis has been used as a medicinal plant for millennia. In fact, the American government actually supplied cannabis as a medicine for some time, before the scheme was shut down in the early 1990s. Today, cannabis is used all over the world, despite its illegality, to relieve pain and anxiety, to aid sleep, and to prevent seizures and muscle spasms. For example, two of its long-advocated benefits are that it suppresses vomiting and enhances appetite—qualities that AIDS patients and those on anti-cancer chemotherapy find useful. So useful, in fact, that the FDA has licensed a drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of one of the active ingredients of marijuana—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Unfortunately, many users of Marinol complain that it gets them high (which isn’t what they actually want) and is not nearly as effective, nor cheap, as the real weed itself.

This may be because Marinol is ingested into the stomach, meaning that it is metabolised before being absorbed. Or it may be because the medicinal benefits of cannabis come from the synergistic effect of the multiplicity of chemicals it contains.

Just what have you been smoking?
THC is the best known active ingredient of cannabis, but by no means the only one. At the last count, marijuana was known to contain nearly 70 different cannabinoids, as THC and its cousins are collectively known. These chemicals activate receptor molecules in the human body, particularly the cannabinoid receptors on

How much did a car cost in 1920?
In 1924 a Model-T cost about $265
source

How much did a color TV with a remote cost in 1965?
around $400 for a good one
source

How much did a computer cost in 1984 or a VCR?
in 1984 you could get a commodore 16 for about $100
source

How much did a DVD player cost in 1997?
in 1999 it was just below $300
source

Today a nice car is around $30,000. A good tv about $1000. 2006's equivalent to 1984's commodore 16 I guess would be a couple hundred bucks. You can get an okay progressive scan dvd player for about $100 today.

The relative prices of things change dramatically over the years due to tons of economic and social variables. Inflation hides this fact a little bit.

Big Mac Price in USA in USD: 3.07$
Big Mac Price in China in USD: 1.27$

reference: The Economist's Big Mac Index June 2005, at: http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displaySto ry.cfm?story_id=4065603

REPORTS

Move over, Big Brother
Dec 2nd 2004
From The Economist print edition

Security: Privacy advocates have long warned of states spying on citizens. But technology is, in fact, democratising surveillance

[IMAGE]

LIVING without privacy, even in his bedroom, was no problem for Louis XIV. In fact, it was a way for the French king to demonstrate his absolute authority over even the most powerful members of the aristocracy. Each morning, they gathered to see the Sun King get up, pray, perform his bodily functions, choose his wig and so on. One reported in 1667 that there “is no finer sight in the world than the court at the lever of the King. When I attended it yesterday, there were three rooms full of people of quality, such a crowd that you would not believe how difficult it was to get into His Majesty’s bedchamber.”

Will this past—life without privacy—be our future? Many futurists, science-fiction writers and privacy advocates believe so. Big Brother, they have long warned, is watching. Closed-circuit television cameras, which are proliferating around the world, often track your moves; your mobile phone reveals your location; your transit pass and credit cards leave digital trails. “Light is going to shine into nearly every corner of our lives,” wrote David Brin in his 1998 book “The Transparent Society”. The issue, he argued, is no longer how to prevent the spread of surveillance technology, but how to live in a world in which there is always the possibility that citizens are being watched.

But in the past few years, something strange has happened. Thanks to the spread of mobile phones, digital cameras and the internet, surveillance technology that was once mostly the province of the state has become far more widely available. “A lot has been written about the dangers of increased government surveillance, but we also need to be aware of the potential for more pedestrian forms of surveillance,” notes Bruce Schneier, a security guru. He argues that a combination of forces—the miniaturisation of surveillance technologies, the falling price of digital storage and ever more sophisticated systems able to sort through large amounts of information—means that “surveillance abilities that used to be limited to governments are now, or soon will be, in the hands of everyone.”

Digital technologies, such as camera phones and the internet, are very different from their analogue counterparts. A digital image, unlike a conventional photograph, can be quickly and easily copied and distributed around the world. (Indeed, it is easier to e-mail a digital image than it is to print one.) Another important difference is that digital devices are far more widespread. Few people carry film cameras with them at all times. But it is now quite difficult to buy a mobile phone without a built-in camera—and most people take their phones with them everywhere. According to IDC, a market-research firm, 186m camera-phones will be sold this year, far more than film-based cameras (47m units) or digital cameras (69m units) combined.

The speed and ubiquity of digital cameras lets them do things that film-based cameras could not. In October, for example, the victim of a robbery in Nashville, Tennessee, used his camera-phone to take pictures of the thief and his getaway vehicle. The images were shown to the police, who broadcast descriptions of the man and his truck, leading to his arrest ten minutes later. Other similar stories abound: in Italy, a shopkeeper sent a picture of two men who were acting suspiciously to the police, who identified them as wanted men and arrested them soon afterwards, while in Sweden, a teenager was photographed while holding up a corner shop, and was apprehended within an hour.

Watching your every

REPORTS

Move over, Big Brother
Dec 2nd 2004
From The Economist print edition

Security: Privacy advocates have long warned of states spying on citizens. But technology is, in fact, democratising surveillance

[IMAGE]

LIVING without privacy, even in his bedroom, was no problem for Louis XIV. In fact, it was a way for the French king to demonstrate his absolute authority over even the most powerful members of the aristocracy. Each morning, they gathered to see the Sun King get up, pray, perform his bodily functions, choose his wig and so on. One reported in 1667 that there “is no finer sight in the world than the court at the lever of the King. When I attended it yesterday, there were three rooms full of people of quality, such a crowd that you would not believe how difficult it was to get into His Majesty’s bedchamber.”

Will this past—life without privacy—be our future? Many futurists, science-fiction writers and privacy advocates believe so. Big Brother, they have long warned, is watching. Closed-circuit television cameras, which are proliferating around the world, often track your moves; your mobile phone reveals your location; your transit pass and credit cards leave digital trails. “Light is going to shine into nearly every corner of our lives,” wrote David Brin in his 1998 book “The Transparent Society”. The issue, he argued, is no longer how to prevent the spread of surveillance technology, but how to live in a world in which there is always the possibility that citizens are being watched.

But in the past few years, something strange has happened. Thanks to the spread of mobile phones, digital cameras and the internet, surveillance technology that was once mostly the province of the state has become far more widely available. “A lot has been written about the dangers of increased government surveillance, but we also need to be aware of the potential for more pedestrian forms of surveillance,” notes Bruce Schneier, a security guru. He argues that a combination of forces—the miniaturisation of surveillance technologies, the falling price of digital storage and ever more sophisticated systems able to sort through large amounts of information—means that “surveillance abilities that used to be limited to governments are now, or soon will be, in the hands of everyone.”

Digital technologies, such as camera phones and the internet, are very different from their analogue counterparts. A digital image, unlike a conventional photograph, can be quickly and easily copied and distributed around the world. (Indeed, it is easier to e-mail a digital image than it is to print one.) Another important difference is that digital devices are far more widespread. Few people carry film cameras with them at all times. But it is now quite difficult to buy a mobile phone without a built-in camera—and most people take their phones with them everywhere. According to IDC, a market-research firm, 186m camera-phones will be sold this year, far more than film-based cameras (47m units) or digital cameras (69m units) combined.

The speed and ubiquity of digital cameras lets them do things that film-based cameras could not. In October, for example, the victim of a robbery in Nashville, Tennessee, used his camera-phone to take pictures of the thief and his getaway vehicle. The images were shown to the police, who broadcast descriptions of the man and his truck, leading to his arrest ten minutes later. Other similar stories abound: in Italy, a shopkeeper sent a picture of two men who were acting suspiciously to the police, who identified them as wanted men and arrested them soon afterwards, while in Sweden, a teenager was photographed while holding up a corner shop, and was apprehended within an hour.

Watching your every

According to the Economist article on the subject, the concerns are overblown.

The Economist had a damning article on Scott McNealy just a couple of weeks ago.

While 20,000 USD may well be the average in your area, the average salary for the whole of the US is more like 35,000-40,000 USD. One thing Americans who haven't been abroad may not realise is just how much spending power they have, which is one of the strengths of their economy, helped by factors like economy-of-scale.

The Economist's Big Mac Index provides and interesting view of this, though I'm tempted to think it's inaccurate (not least because it costs more like 4.19 UKP rather than 3.32 UKP in many high street MD's, because they have taken to charging more than out of town stores IIRC - but also because of how much cheaper electronic goods can be and how inexpensive housing is in the US compared to the UK).

As an example (which will be a familiar story to many of us in the UK):

I purchased a HTDV recently, a Pioneer PDP-506XE. The cheapest price for this on Froogle UK is 3,100 UKP or 5,500 USD (though this is about 1,000 USD less than I paid for mine as it doesn't include stand and speakers) . This model number is not used in the US, the exact equivalent model is the "PDP-5060HD". Froogle (US) shows dealers selling it for as low as 3,500 USD.

To bring it back to the to the topic a little, one of the reasons this is possible (not the only one, but one of) is that there is a larger 'underclass' in the US in the form of very cheap migrant labour (and because there isn't a higher minimum wage or a very large and expensive to maintain welfare system to support those who haven't provided for themselves). In short the system works because it exploits some to give benefit to others.

Making the system more equitable, for example by introducing a meaningful minimum wage, would have inevitable down side of increasing the cost of goods at retail. This just doesn't seem to a choice something most Americans are willing to face - they moan about migrant workers at the same time as not really realising how great their own quality of life is, but don't seem able to acknowledge that if they shut the door to cheap labour, there will be financial consequences that might negatively impact them.

To provide a comparison, in the UK there are certainly those who moan about the influx of immigrants (some of whom critics would argue don't work - with reference to the 30% unemployment figure for men in the Muslim communities here), but most of us appreciate how much good those that come here to work do for the country by providing much needed services and absolutely welcome them.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =4462719

In case the story's censored by those dastardly profit-motivated editors of the Economist, the most relevant bit is "there were some 74,000 protests last year, involving more than 3.7m people; up from 10,000 in 1994 and 58,000 in 2003. Sun Liping, a Chinese academic, has calculated that demonstrations involving more than 100 people occurred in 337 cities and 1,955 counties in the first 10 months of last year. This amounted to between 120 and 250 such protests daily in urban areas, and 90 to 160 in villages. These figures are likely to be conservative. Chinese officials often try to cover up disturbances in their areas to avoid trouble with their superiors."

I'll add that more than half China's population lives in the rural countryside, eking out sustenance on increasingly infertile soil. Development and industrial pollution threaten their land, and the income gap between them and the privileged urban rich--which makes America's income inequality look like a rounding error--causes a great deal of resentment. At least that's what I'm told.

Nuclear power

The shape of things to come?

Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Climate change is helping a revival of the nuclear industry, though its economics still look dodgy

[Image] (Alamy)

THINGS have not gone well for the nuclear industry over the past quarter century or so. First came the Three Mile Island accident in America in 1979, then the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986. In Japan, Tokyo Electric Power, the world’s largest private electricity company, shut its 17 nuclear reactors after it was caught falsifying safety records to hide cracks at some of its plants in 2002. And the attacks on September 11th 2001 were a sharp reminder that the risks of nuclear power generation were not only those inherent in the technology.

Nor was safety the only worry: there were financial problems too. British Energy, Britain’s nuclear-energy operator, required successive government bail-outs. Britain also recently finalised a £50 billion ($90 billion) scheme to deal with the nuclear-waste liabilities of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), an inept re-processor of nuclear waste that is itself bust.

But lately, things have brightened for the nuclear industry. In Asia, which never turned against it in the way the West did, the prospects are excellent. China already has nine nuclear reactors, and is planning to commission a further 30. New capacity is being built or considered in India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Russia has several plants under construction.

Now western governments are increasingly looking anew at nuclear energy. A few weeks ago TVO, a Finnish consortium, started work on the first new nuclear plant to be built on either side of the Atlantic in a decade. Pertti Simola, TVO’s chief executive, proclaims that, “Finland has opened the door to a new nuclear era! Many western countries will come behind us.”

France’s parliament has recently given its approval for a new nuclear plant. Guillaume Dureau of Areva, the world’s largest nuclear supplier, captures the dizzy mood that has overtaken vendors: “We are pretty convinced of a nuclear revival and [we] need to prepare for it. We need to hire 1,000 engineers.”

Despite its earlier doldrums, the nuclear industry is still a sizeable business. In 2004 Areva had sales of €6.6 billion ($8.2 billion). That figure includes mining uranium, designing power plants and reprocessing waste fuel. General Electric’s nuclear division, which designs and builds plants but does not handle fuel or waste, turned over about $1.1 billion last year (its turnover was double that figure if sales of non-nuclear bits of nuclear plants, such as generators and turbines, are included). Westinghouse, an American brand currently owned by BNFL, which recently put it up for sale, had sales of around £1.1 billion ($2 billion).

The main reason for the shift is climate change. As it has risen up the political agenda, so the impetus for a nuclear revival has grown.

More, and more respected, voices have been making the case that nuclear energy is essential if the rate of change is to be slowed. As a result, there is an unlikely alliance between the nuclear industry and many environmentalists, as a growing number of greens have come to believe that nuclear energy is the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Industry lobbyists are finding support from unexpected areas. Keith Parker of the Nuclear Industry Association, a British trade group, points to a recent quote from James Lovelock, a founder of Greenpeace: “Only nuclear power can halt global warming.”

Scientists are also lending their support. Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientist, recently argued that one further generation of nuclear power stations is needed (in Britain at least) to buy time, in ord

Nuclear power

The shape of things to come?

Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Climate change is helping a revival of the nuclear industry, though its economics still look dodgy

[Image] (Alamy)

THINGS have not gone well for the nuclear industry over the past quarter century or so. First came the Three Mile Island accident in America in 1979, then the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986. In Japan, Tokyo Electric Power, the world’s largest private electricity company, shut its 17 nuclear reactors after it was caught falsifying safety records to hide cracks at some of its plants in 2002. And the attacks on September 11th 2001 were a sharp reminder that the risks of nuclear power generation were not only those inherent in the technology.

Nor was safety the only worry: there were financial problems too. British Energy, Britain’s nuclear-energy operator, required successive government bail-outs. Britain also recently finalised a £50 billion ($90 billion) scheme to deal with the nuclear-waste liabilities of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), an inept re-processor of nuclear waste that is itself bust.

But lately, things have brightened for the nuclear industry. In Asia, which never turned against it in the way the West did, the prospects are excellent. China already has nine nuclear reactors, and is planning to commission a further 30. New capacity is being built or considered in India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Russia has several plants under construction.

Now western governments are increasingly looking anew at nuclear energy. A few weeks ago TVO, a Finnish consortium, started work on the first new nuclear plant to be built on either side of the Atlantic in a decade. Pertti Simola, TVO’s chief executive, proclaims that, “Finland has opened the door to a new nuclear era! Many western countries will come behind us.”

France’s parliament has recently given its approval for a new nuclear plant. Guillaume Dureau of Areva, the world’s largest nuclear supplier, captures the dizzy mood that has overtaken vendors: “We are pretty convinced of a nuclear revival and [we] need to prepare for it. We need to hire 1,000 engineers.”

Despite its earlier doldrums, the nuclear industry is still a sizeable business. In 2004 Areva had sales of €6.6 billion ($8.2 billion). That figure includes mining uranium, designing power plants and reprocessing waste fuel. General Electric’s nuclear division, which designs and builds plants but does not handle fuel or waste, turned over about $1.1 billion last year (its turnover was double that figure if sales of non-nuclear bits of nuclear plants, such as generators and turbines, are included). Westinghouse, an American brand currently owned by BNFL, which recently put it up for sale, had sales of around £1.1 billion ($2 billion).

The main reason for the shift is climate change. As it has risen up the political agenda, so the impetus for a nuclear revival has grown.

More, and more respected, voices have been making the case that nuclear energy is essential if the rate of change is to be slowed. As a result, there is an unlikely alliance between the nuclear industry and many environmentalists, as a growing number of greens have come to believe that nuclear energy is the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Industry lobbyists are finding support from unexpected areas. Keith Parker of the Nuclear Industry Association, a British trade group, points to a recent quote from James Lovelock, a founder of Greenpeace: “Only nuclear power can halt global warming.”

Scientists are also lending their support. Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientist, recently argued that one further generation of nuclear power stations is needed (in Britain at least) to buy time, in ord

You appear to be ignoring the data, linked by GP, that China has reduced its CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) emission up untill 2000, on the basis that there is no data available since then? I couldn't find any reports written by McIlvaine, or any other data, dealing with the period since, but its unreasonable to expect such a large trend to suddenly reverse. And, if you want to speculate, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change has published a report stating that China's emissions could reduce by 19% by 2015. By contrast, Western Europe increased its carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion by 4.5 percent from 1995 to 1999 and the United States increased its emissions by 6.3 percent.

Also, you mention the 1998 WHO study, which as well as being in the middle of the study period is irrelevant anyway; everyone acknowledges that China is heaviliy polluted, the point your disputing is that it is attempting to reduce its emissions.The Econimist details the political will to reduce emissions, and the Science study seems to suggest results.

Since you seem to be fond of facts, consider:
America has no emission reduction requirements as it has ignored Kyoto
America is the leading CO2 producer in the world (source: US Dept. of Energy)
America is building at least 94 new coal-fired electricity plants by 2012 (Source, Robert McIlvaine)

If you read the original Science artical you'll also see that China is shutting down many of its old, inefficienct, highly-polluting coal power plants and replacing them with more efficient ones, accounting for some of the new builds.

I'm not in any way trying to say America Bad, China Good, as that is clearly not the case, I'm just suggesting that greenhouse gas reduction can be accomplished without needing the Kyoto protocol, provided there is political will. And indeed, as out of the major polluters only the Europeans and Russians are reducing their emissions under Kyoto, it will require another international agreement in the future to have any serious impact upon global levels.