Slashdot Mirror

I would have posted about the Economist myself, except that the topic was which PC magazines you read, not general interest magazines. Still, the Economist comes out with a quarterly technology issue (the latest one covers smart fluids, smart dust, wireless recharging and congestion charges, among other things) and it's not only informative but highly entertaining. Oh, and there's an article this week on "the smart tag revolution". Definitely worth a look.

Currently subscribe and read cover-to-cover:

• The Economist
• Harper's
• Flying
• Aviation Safety Letters
• SIGOPS Pubs

Read frequently:

• PHOTO (European Release (FRA)))
• Photo Techniques
• PDN (Photo District News)
• B&W
• View Camera
• AOPA Pilot

I read The Economist. The articles are well-written and insightful and, since it's published in London, you get a non-US perspective which is hard to find these days. Also, it doesn't try to be exclusively conservative or liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that -- I read Salon too).

They do tend to see free-market capitalism as the cure for everything. I don't really have a problem with this (in fact, market-based solutions often work in places you might not expect them to), but it's something to keep in mind when you read the magazine.

The Economist. By far the most thorough, witty and unabashedly opinionated source of news and analysis in the English-speaking world. Politics, technology, business, arts and literature--it's all there.

::: the economist troll

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

The future of energy

The end of the Oil Age

Oct 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition

Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them

[Image]

"THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." This intriguing prediction is often heard in energy circles these days. If greens were the only people to be expressing such thoughts, the notion might be dismissed as Utopian. However, the quotation is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister three decades ago. His words are rich in irony. Sheikh Yamani first came to the world's attention during the Arab oil embargo of the United States, which began three decades ago this week and whose effects altered the course of modern economic and political history. Coming from such a source, the prediction, one assumes, can hardly be a case of wishful thinking.

Yet a generation after the embargo began, the facts seem plain: the world remains addicted to Middle Eastern oil (see article). So why is Sheikh Yamani predicting the end of the Oil Age? Because he believes that something fundamental has shifted since that first oil shock--and, sadly for countries like Saudi Arabia, he is quite right. Finally, advances in technology are beginning to offer a way for economies, especially those of the developed world, to diversify their supplies of energy and reduce their demand for petroleum, thus loosening the grip of oil and the countries that produce it.

Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality. Switching to these new methods will not be easy, or all that cheap, especially in transport, but with the right policies it can be made both possible and economically advantageous. Unfortunately, many of the rich world's governments--and above all the government of America, the world's biggest oil consumer--are reluctant to adopt the measures that would speed the day when the Saudis' worst fears come true.

The $7 trillion heist

If treating the West's addiction to oil will be costly, is it really worth doing? To be sure. Petro-addiction imposes mighty costs of its own. First, there is the political risk of relying on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil still has a near-monopoly hold on transport. If the supply is cut off even for a few days, modern economies come to a halt, as Britain discovered when tax protestors blockaded some domestic oil depots two years ago. And despite what sound like large investments in new oil fields in Russia and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia's share of the world oil market will actually grow over the next two decades simply because it has such huge reserves of cheap oil. Geology has granted two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves to Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbours. Because of this continuing concentration of supply, the risk of a disruption to oil flows will continue to be a threat, and may even rise.

That points to a second sort of cost. According to one American government estimate, OPEC has managed to transfer a staggering $7 trillion in wealth from American consumers to producers over the past three decades by keeping the oil price above its true market-clearing level. That estimate does not include all manner of subsidies doled out to the fossil-fuel industry, ranging from cheap access to oil on government land to the ongoing American military presence in the Middle East.

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

The future of energy

The end of the Oil Age

Oct 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition

Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them

[Image]

"THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." This intriguing prediction is often heard in energy circles these days. If greens were the only people to be expressing such thoughts, the notion might be dismissed as Utopian. However, the quotation is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister three decades ago. His words are rich in irony. Sheikh Yamani first came to the world's attention during the Arab oil embargo of the United States, which began three decades ago this week and whose effects altered the course of modern economic and political history. Coming from such a source, the prediction, one assumes, can hardly be a case of wishful thinking.

Yet a generation after the embargo began, the facts seem plain: the world remains addicted to Middle Eastern oil (see article). So why is Sheikh Yamani predicting the end of the Oil Age? Because he believes that something fundamental has shifted since that first oil shock--and, sadly for countries like Saudi Arabia, he is quite right. Finally, advances in technology are beginning to offer a way for economies, especially those of the developed world, to diversify their supplies of energy and reduce their demand for petroleum, thus loosening the grip of oil and the countries that produce it.

Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality. Switching to these new methods will not be easy, or all that cheap, especially in transport, but with the right policies it can be made both possible and economically advantageous. Unfortunately, many of the rich world's governments--and above all the government of America, the world's biggest oil consumer--are reluctant to adopt the measures that would speed the day when the Saudis' worst fears come true.

The $7 trillion heist

If treating the West's addiction to oil will be costly, is it really worth doing? To be sure. Petro-addiction imposes mighty costs of its own. First, there is the political risk of relying on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil still has a near-monopoly hold on transport. If the supply is cut off even for a few days, modern economies come to a halt, as Britain discovered when tax protestors blockaded some domestic oil depots two years ago. And despite what sound like large investments in new oil fields in Russia and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia's share of the world oil market will actually grow over the next two decades simply because it has such huge reserves of cheap oil. Geology has granted two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves to Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbours. Because of this continuing concentration of supply, the risk of a disruption to oil flows will continue to be a threat, and may even rise.

That points to a second sort of cost. According to one American government estimate, OPEC has managed to transfer a staggering $7 trillion in wealth from American consumers to producers over the past three decades by keeping the oil price above its true market-clearing level. That estimate does not include all manner of subsidies doled out to the fossil-fuel industry, ranging from cheap access to oil on government land to the ongoing American military presence in the Middle East.

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

The future of energy

The end of the Oil Age

Oct 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition

Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them

[Image]

"THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." This intriguing prediction is often heard in energy circles these days. If greens were the only people to be expressing such thoughts, the notion might be dismissed as Utopian. However, the quotation is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister three decades ago. His words are rich in irony. Sheikh Yamani first came to the world's attention during the Arab oil embargo of the United States, which began three decades ago this week and whose effects altered the course of modern economic and political history. Coming from such a source, the prediction, one assumes, can hardly be a case of wishful thinking.

Yet a generation after the embargo began, the facts seem plain: the world remains addicted to Middle Eastern oil (see article). So why is Sheikh Yamani predicting the end of the Oil Age? Because he believes that something fundamental has shifted since that first oil shock--and, sadly for countries like Saudi Arabia, he is quite right. Finally, advances in technology are beginning to offer a way for economies, especially those of the developed world, to diversify their supplies of energy and reduce their demand for petroleum, thus loosening the grip of oil and the countries that produce it.

Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality. Switching to these new methods will not be easy, or all that cheap, especially in transport, but with the right policies it can be made both possible and economically advantageous. Unfortunately, many of the rich world's governments--and above all the government of America, the world's biggest oil consumer--are reluctant to adopt the measures that would speed the day when the Saudis' worst fears come true.

The $7 trillion heist

If treating the West's addiction to oil will be costly, is it really worth doing? To be sure. Petro-addiction imposes mighty costs of its own. First, there is the political risk of relying on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil still has a near-monopoly hold on transport. If the supply is cut off even for a few days, modern economies come to a halt, as Britain discovered when tax protestors blockaded some domestic oil depots two years ago. And despite what sound like large investments in new oil fields in Russia and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia's share of the world oil market will actually grow over the next two decades simply because it has such huge reserves of cheap oil. Geology has granted two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves to Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbours. Because of this continuing concentration of supply, the risk of a disruption to oil flows will continue to be a threat, and may even rise.

That points to a second sort of cost. According to one American government estimate, OPEC has managed to transfer a staggering $7 trillion in wealth from American consumers to producers over the past three decades by keeping the oil price above its true market-clearing level. That estimate does not include all manner of subsidies doled out to the fossil-fuel industry, ranging from cheap access to oil on government land to the ongoing American military presence in the Middle East.

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

SMART RADIOS

How the radio changed its spots

Dec 4th 2003
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

Smart radios: Radios capable of switching from one wireless standard to another, with nothing more than a dose of new software, are at last emerging from the laboratory

WHEN is a radio not a radio? When it's a computer program. Whether in a mobile phone, a fireman's walkie-talkie or a laptop's Wi-Fi card, a radio plucks a raw signal from the air and translates it into a useful stream of information (and vice versa). This translation involves several steps, most of which are normally done by dedicated signal-processing chips. But given enough processing power, the same job can also be done using software, rather than hardware. The result is a "software-defined radio" (SDR), also known as a "reconfigurable" or "smart" radio. As these names suggest, such a device can switch from being one kind of radio to another simply by loading some new software.

This chameleon-like ability is useful for a number of reasons. A mobile phone based on smart-radio technology might, for example, be able to switch between cellular standards used in different parts of the world. Mobile-phone base stations could be quickly and easily reconfigured to support new wireless standards. Smart radios could also ensure compatibility between the various radio standards used by different emergency services in a disaster-recovery situation, or link up soldiers in a multinational force whose radios might otherwise be incompatible.

Such flexibility comes at a cost, however. Dedicated signal-processing chips are designed to do one thing well, and use much less power than a general-purpose microprocessor. But as general-purpose chips continue to become smaller, cheaper and more powerful, the smart-radio approach will become increasingly practical, even in mobile devices where power consumption is constrained.

Smart radios will also make more sense as new wireless technologies proliferate, increasing the number of radio standards that a single device is expected to support, which in turn increases the number of dedicated radio chips required. A wireless-data card for a laptop might have to support various cellular standards, the Wi-Fi wireless local-area network standard, and Bluetooth, a short-range technology used to link computers with mobile phones. With exotic new standards such as 3.5G, 4G, WiMax and 802.20 on the horizon, smart radios could provide flexibility and compatibility. Now, after years in the laboratory, they are starting to emerge into the market.

Alphabet soup with chips

Next year, for example, Sandbridge Technologies of White Plains, New York, plans to launch a new smart-radio chip called Sandblaster. Once the appropriate software has been loaded, this chip can support a range of wireless standards, including GSM and CDMA cellular standards, their respective "third-generation" (3G) standards, W-CDMA and CDMA2000, plus Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and global-positioning system (GPS) standards. Sandblaster can even support more than one of these standards at the same time, such as W-CDMA and Bluetooth, for example. A single smart chip can thus replace several dedicated ones.

The trick to doing all this while maintaining low power consumption, says Guenter Weinberger, the company's boss, is that Sandblaster is both optimised for signal processing and based on a very efficient "multi-threaded" design which allows it to run several interleaving programs, or threads, at once. Supporting one of the 3G protocols, he says, requires the chip to run multiple threads. Simpler standards s

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

SMART RADIOS

How the radio changed its spots

Dec 4th 2003
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

Smart radios: Radios capable of switching from one wireless standard to another, with nothing more than a dose of new software, are at last emerging from the laboratory

WHEN is a radio not a radio? When it's a computer program. Whether in a mobile phone, a fireman's walkie-talkie or a laptop's Wi-Fi card, a radio plucks a raw signal from the air and translates it into a useful stream of information (and vice versa). This translation involves several steps, most of which are normally done by dedicated signal-processing chips. But given enough processing power, the same job can also be done using software, rather than hardware. The result is a "software-defined radio" (SDR), also known as a "reconfigurable" or "smart" radio. As these names suggest, such a device can switch from being one kind of radio to another simply by loading some new software.

This chameleon-like ability is useful for a number of reasons. A mobile phone based on smart-radio technology might, for example, be able to switch between cellular standards used in different parts of the world. Mobile-phone base stations could be quickly and easily reconfigured to support new wireless standards. Smart radios could also ensure compatibility between the various radio standards used by different emergency services in a disaster-recovery situation, or link up soldiers in a multinational force whose radios might otherwise be incompatible.

Such flexibility comes at a cost, however. Dedicated signal-processing chips are designed to do one thing well, and use much less power than a general-purpose microprocessor. But as general-purpose chips continue to become smaller, cheaper and more powerful, the smart-radio approach will become increasingly practical, even in mobile devices where power consumption is constrained.

Smart radios will also make more sense as new wireless technologies proliferate, increasing the number of radio standards that a single device is expected to support, which in turn increases the number of dedicated radio chips required. A wireless-data card for a laptop might have to support various cellular standards, the Wi-Fi wireless local-area network standard, and Bluetooth, a short-range technology used to link computers with mobile phones. With exotic new standards such as 3.5G, 4G, WiMax and 802.20 on the horizon, smart radios could provide flexibility and compatibility. Now, after years in the laboratory, they are starting to emerge into the market.

Alphabet soup with chips

Next year, for example, Sandbridge Technologies of White Plains, New York, plans to launch a new smart-radio chip called Sandblaster. Once the appropriate software has been loaded, this chip can support a range of wireless standards, including GSM and CDMA cellular standards, their respective "third-generation" (3G) standards, W-CDMA and CDMA2000, plus Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and global-positioning system (GPS) standards. Sandblaster can even support more than one of these standards at the same time, such as W-CDMA and Bluetooth, for example. A single smart chip can thus replace several dedicated ones.

The trick to doing all this while maintaining low power consumption, says Guenter Weinberger, the company's boss, is that Sandblaster is both optimised for signal processing and based on a very efficient "multi-threaded" design which allows it to run several interleaving programs, or threads, at once. Supporting one of the 3G protocols, he says, requires the chip to run multiple threads. Simpler standards s

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

(The most relevant bits are probably under "A rose by any other name...")

----

CASE HISTORY

A brief history of Wi-Fi

Jun 10th 2004
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

Wireless networking: Few people have a kind word to say about telecoms regulators. But the success of Wi-Fi shows what can be achieved when regulators and technologists work together

IT STANDS as perhaps the signal success of the computer industry in the last few years, a rare bright spot in a bubble-battered market: Wi-Fi, the short-range wireless broadband technology. Among geeks, it has inspired a mania unseen since the days of the internet boom. Tens of millions of Wi-Fi devices will be sold this year, including the majority of laptop computers. Analysts predict that 100m people will be using Wi-Fi by 2006. Homes, offices, colleges and schools around the world have installed Wi-Fi equipment to blanket their premises with wireless access to the internet. Wi-Fi access is available in a growing number of coffee-shops, airports and hotels too. Yet merely five years ago wireless networking was a niche technology. How did Wi-Fi get started, and become so successful, in the depths of a downturn?

Wi-Fi seems even more remarkable when you look at its provenance: it was, in effect, spawned by an American government agency from an area of radio spectrum widely referred to as "the garbage bands". Technology entrepreneurs generally prefer governments to stay out of their way: funding basic research, perhaps, and then buying finished products when they emerge on the market. But in the case of Wi-Fi, the government seems actively to have guided innovation. "Wi-Fi is a creature of regulation, created more by lawyers than by engineers," asserts Mitchell Lazarus, an expert in telecoms regulation at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, a law firm based in Arlington, Virginia. As a lawyer, Mr Lazarus might be expected to say that. But he was also educated as an electrical engineer--and besides, the facts seem to bear him out.

In the beginning

Wi-Fi would certainly not exist without a decision taken in 1985 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), America's telecoms regulator, to open several bands of wireless spectrum, allowing them to be used without the need for a government licence. This was an unheard-of move at the time; other than the ham-radio channels, there was very little unlicensed spectrum. But the FCC, prompted by a visionary engineer on its staff, Michael Marcus, took three chunks of spectrum from the industrial, scientific and medical bands and opened them up to communications entrepreneurs.

These so-called "garbage bands", at 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz, were already allocated to equipment that used radio-frequency energy for purposes other than communications: microwave ovens, for example, which use radio waves to heat food. The FCC made them available for communications purposes as well, on the condition that any devices using these bands would have to steer around interference from other equipment. They would do so using "spread spectrum" technology, originally developed for military use, which spreads a radio signal out over a wide range of frequencies, in contrast to the usual approach of transmitting on a single, well-defined frequency. This makes the signal both difficult to intercept and less susceptible to interference.

Though the 1985 ruling seems visionary in hindsight, nothing much happened at the time. What ultimately got Wi-Fi moving was the creation of an industry-wide standard. Initially, vendors of wireless equipment for local-area networks (LANs), such as Pro

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

(The most relevant bits are probably under "A rose by any other name...")

----

CASE HISTORY

A brief history of Wi-Fi

Jun 10th 2004
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

Wireless networking: Few people have a kind word to say about telecoms regulators. But the success of Wi-Fi shows what can be achieved when regulators and technologists work together

IT STANDS as perhaps the signal success of the computer industry in the last few years, a rare bright spot in a bubble-battered market: Wi-Fi, the short-range wireless broadband technology. Among geeks, it has inspired a mania unseen since the days of the internet boom. Tens of millions of Wi-Fi devices will be sold this year, including the majority of laptop computers. Analysts predict that 100m people will be using Wi-Fi by 2006. Homes, offices, colleges and schools around the world have installed Wi-Fi equipment to blanket their premises with wireless access to the internet. Wi-Fi access is available in a growing number of coffee-shops, airports and hotels too. Yet merely five years ago wireless networking was a niche technology. How did Wi-Fi get started, and become so successful, in the depths of a downturn?

Wi-Fi seems even more remarkable when you look at its provenance: it was, in effect, spawned by an American government agency from an area of radio spectrum widely referred to as "the garbage bands". Technology entrepreneurs generally prefer governments to stay out of their way: funding basic research, perhaps, and then buying finished products when they emerge on the market. But in the case of Wi-Fi, the government seems actively to have guided innovation. "Wi-Fi is a creature of regulation, created more by lawyers than by engineers," asserts Mitchell Lazarus, an expert in telecoms regulation at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, a law firm based in Arlington, Virginia. As a lawyer, Mr Lazarus might be expected to say that. But he was also educated as an electrical engineer--and besides, the facts seem to bear him out.

In the beginning

Wi-Fi would certainly not exist without a decision taken in 1985 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), America's telecoms regulator, to open several bands of wireless spectrum, allowing them to be used without the need for a government licence. This was an unheard-of move at the time; other than the ham-radio channels, there was very little unlicensed spectrum. But the FCC, prompted by a visionary engineer on its staff, Michael Marcus, took three chunks of spectrum from the industrial, scientific and medical bands and opened them up to communications entrepreneurs.

These so-called "garbage bands", at 900MHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz, were already allocated to equipment that used radio-frequency energy for purposes other than communications: microwave ovens, for example, which use radio waves to heat food. The FCC made them available for communications purposes as well, on the condition that any devices using these bands would have to steer around interference from other equipment. They would do so using "spread spectrum" technology, originally developed for military use, which spreads a radio signal out over a wide range of frequencies, in contrast to the usual approach of transmitting on a single, well-defined frequency. This makes the signal both difficult to intercept and less susceptible to interference.

Though the 1985 ruling seems visionary in hindsight, nothing much happened at the time. What ultimately got Wi-Fi moving was the creation of an industry-wide standard. Initially, vendors of wireless equipment for local-area networks (LANs), such as Pro

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

BIOMETRICS

Prepare to be scanned

Dec 4th 2003
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

Biometrics: High-tech security systems that rely on detailed measurements of the human body, known as biometrics, are taking off. But should they be?

IT HAS been a long time coming. But after years of false starts, security systems based on biometrics--human characteristics such as faces, hand shapes and fingerprints--are finally taking off. Proponents have long argued that because biometrics cannot be forgotten, like a password, or lost or stolen, like a key or an identity card, they are an ideal way to control access to computer networks, airport service-areas and bank vaults.

But biometrics have not yet spread beyond such niche markets, for two main reasons. The first is the unease they can inspire among users. Many people would prefer not to have to submit their eyes for scanning in order to withdraw money from a cash dispenser. The second reason is cost: biometric systems are expensive compared with other security measures, such as passwords and personal identification numbers. So while biometrics may provide extra security, the costs currently outweigh the benefits in most cases.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, however, these objections have been swept aside. After all, if you are already being forced to remove your shoes at the airport, and submit your laptop for explosives testing, surely you will not object to having your fingers scanned too? The desire to tighten security in every way possible, particularly in America, also means the funds are being made available to deploy technology that was previously regarded as too expensive to bother with.

As a result, biometrics are suddenly about to become far more widespread. America will begin using biometrics at its airports and seaports on January 5th. Under the new US-VISIT programme, all foreigners entering on visas will have their hands and faces digitally scanned. This will create what Tom Ridge, America's homeland-security supremo, calls "an electronic check-in and check-out system for foreign nationals". American citizens will also be affected, as new passports with a chip that contains biometric data are issued from next year. And the new rules specify that by October 26th 2004, all countries whose nationals can enter America without a visa--including western European countries, Japan and Australia--must begin issuing passports that contain biometric data too. Moves to create a European standard for biometric passports are already under way, and many other countries are following suit: Oman and the United Arab Emirates, among others, will begin issuing national identity cards containing biometrics next year. Britain's planned new national identity card will also include biometrics.

In other words, governments either do not believe that the costs of biometrics still outweigh any potential benefits or, more likely, fearing more terrorism they simply do not care. This could be an expensive choice. Recent reports from groups such as the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of America's Congress, and America's National Academy of Science (NAS), point out that, while the political environment has changed, the technology has not. Biometrics still do not work well enough to be effective for many of the applications in which they are now being deployed.

Even John Siedlarz, who co-founded the International Biometrics Industry Association to promote the sale and use of the technology, says that "recent congressional requirements are premature in my view." Despite this concern f

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

----

BIOMETRICS

Prepare to be scanned

Dec 4th 2003
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

Biometrics: High-tech security systems that rely on detailed measurements of the human body, known as biometrics, are taking off. But should they be?

IT HAS been a long time coming. But after years of false starts, security systems based on biometrics--human characteristics such as faces, hand shapes and fingerprints--are finally taking off. Proponents have long argued that because biometrics cannot be forgotten, like a password, or lost or stolen, like a key or an identity card, they are an ideal way to control access to computer networks, airport service-areas and bank vaults.

But biometrics have not yet spread beyond such niche markets, for two main reasons. The first is the unease they can inspire among users. Many people would prefer not to have to submit their eyes for scanning in order to withdraw money from a cash dispenser. The second reason is cost: biometric systems are expensive compared with other security measures, such as passwords and personal identification numbers. So while biometrics may provide extra security, the costs currently outweigh the benefits in most cases.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, however, these objections have been swept aside. After all, if you are already being forced to remove your shoes at the airport, and submit your laptop for explosives testing, surely you will not object to having your fingers scanned too? The desire to tighten security in every way possible, particularly in America, also means the funds are being made available to deploy technology that was previously regarded as too expensive to bother with.

As a result, biometrics are suddenly about to become far more widespread. America will begin using biometrics at its airports and seaports on January 5th. Under the new US-VISIT programme, all foreigners entering on visas will have their hands and faces digitally scanned. This will create what Tom Ridge, America's homeland-security supremo, calls "an electronic check-in and check-out system for foreign nationals". American citizens will also be affected, as new passports with a chip that contains biometric data are issued from next year. And the new rules specify that by October 26th 2004, all countries whose nationals can enter America without a visa--including western European countries, Japan and Australia--must begin issuing passports that contain biometric data too. Moves to create a European standard for biometric passports are already under way, and many other countries are following suit: Oman and the United Arab Emirates, among others, will begin issuing national identity cards containing biometrics next year. Britain's planned new national identity card will also include biometrics.

In other words, governments either do not believe that the costs of biometrics still outweigh any potential benefits or, more likely, fearing more terrorism they simply do not care. This could be an expensive choice. Recent reports from groups such as the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of America's Congress, and America's National Academy of Science (NAS), point out that, while the political environment has changed, the technology has not. Biometrics still do not work well enough to be effective for many of the applications in which they are now being deployed.

Even John Siedlarz, who co-founded the International Biometrics Industry Association to promote the sale and use of the technology, says that "recent congressional requirements are premature in my view." Despite this concern f

Perhaps you're right about Kerry (I happen to disagree), but The Economist certainly doesn't seem to mind him too much:

The one-time scourge of "Benedict Arnold companies" has become a pro-business Democrat who wants to reform the tax code, lower corporate-tax rates and reduce the federal deficit. Mr Kerry recently reminded the Democratic Leadership Council of his record of backing Clintonian policies such as welfare reform and educational accountability.

Hmm... I suppose that could be taken either way. Let me just put that in context by saying the rest of the article spends its inches fawning over Clinton's economic policy. See for yourself.

Please. They endorsed Bill Clinton in '92 and, just earlier this year, "Red" Ken Livingstone for mayor of London. Additionally, the editors have been outspoken in support of gay marriage and contraceptive education in third-world countries, to name a couple of traditionally "liberal" issues. And though they endorsed Bush in 2000, it seems highly improbable that they'll do so again this year, judging from the tone they've taken recently. For instance: one, and, more humorously, two. Finally, do you really think a magazine with a right-wing stick up its ass would produce a cover like this?

The Economist may be highly opinionated, but it's definitely not the "conservative, right-wing" mouthpiece.

Please. They endorsed Bill Clinton in '92 and, just earlier this year, "Red" Ken Livingstone for mayor of London. Additionally, the editors have been outspoken in support of gay marriage and contraceptive education in third-world countries, to name a couple of traditionally "liberal" issues. And though they endorsed Bush in 2000, it seems highly improbable that they'll do so again this year, judging from the tone they've taken recently. For instance: one, and, more humorously, two. Finally, do you really think a magazine with a right-wing stick up its ass would produce a cover like this?

The Economist may be highly opinionated, but it's definitely not the "conservative, right-wing" mouthpiece.

Please. They endorsed Bill Clinton in '92 and, just earlier this year, "Red" Ken Livingstone for mayor of London. Additionally, the editors have been outspoken in support of gay marriage and contraceptive education in third-world countries, to name a couple of traditionally "liberal" issues. And though they endorsed Bush in 2000, it seems highly improbable that they'll do so again this year, judging from the tone they've taken recently. For instance: one, and, more humorously, two. Finally, do you really think a magazine with a right-wing stick up its ass would produce a cover like this?

The Economist may be highly opinionated, but it's definitely not the "conservative, right-wing" mouthpiece.

Last year a german airline started allowing cellphones

I don't believe this is true; I'd like to see a link substantiating it. Certainly Lufthansa don't allow them. Perhaps you are thinking of airlines that allow phone/PDA type devices in 'flight mode' (with the radio component switched off)? Or perhaps the airlines that are allowing them in the plane *on the ground* (e.g. before takeoff and after landing?) Or perhaps something like this, which deals with airlines installing mini-cells in the actual planes themselves? But as far as I'm aware no airline currently allows the use of cellphones in flight.

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

--

Rebuilding Iraq

Without peace, reconstruction stalls

May 13th 2004 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition

Why it is proving so hard to rebuild the country

[Image]

IF THE Americans left Iraq today, their most obvious physical legacy, in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis, would be concrete blocks. The big slabs protecting administrators, soldiers and contractors from the 30-odd countries in the ruling coalition, which is due to be dissolved at the end of June in favour of an interim government run by Iraqis, jut into Baghdad's main roads and often reduce traffic in the capital to a standstill. Meanwhile, as the violence sputters on, the country's reconstruction--witness, for example, its communications system--is a shambles.

The insurgency, aimed at America's foreign and Iraqi contractors as much as the soldiers of occupation, is largely to blame. Last month 90 foreigners were kidnapped, prompting Russia, Portugal, Poland and France to urge their nationals to go home. Another bomb this week targeted a Baghdad hotel full of contractors. Kellogg Brown & Root, which has won the biggest building contracts in the new Iraq, has seen 34 of its staff killed, a higher toll than has been sustained by the military forces of any of America's allies bar Britain's.

Security squads and the protection of buildings, along with insurance and the soaring costs of transport on dangerous roads, account for as much as 30% of the costs of some of the companies trying to set up in business. The Californian building and engineering giant, Bechtel, which is handling contracts with the Agency for International Development (USAID) worth around $2 billion, has pulled half of its staff out to neighbouring Jordan and Kuwait and has assigned two Gurkha bodyguards to each of its 33 expatriates left in Baghdad. After last month's insurrections in Fallujah, to the west, and in Shia towns to the south, many of its key people have, for the time being, gone.

An official at the planning ministry, which oversees Iraq's reconstruction effort, says that productivity has slumped virtually to nil. When the militia of a rebel Shia firebrand, Muqtada al-Sadr, swooped through towns to the south of Baghdad, water, sewage-treatment and other projects were abandoned to scavengers, who stripped plants of machinery. Other than looters, the beneficiaries have been the 20,000-odd men working for security companies. They have blurred the lines between civilian and military contractors. Both are targets of the insurgents.

As the summer heat rises, many essentials are getting scarcer. The schools are still open and exams held on time. But after months of regular electricity at night, long power cuts have become frequent again, plunging the capital into darkness and increasing crime. Promises that by next month the country's output would have risen from 4,500 to 6,000 megawatts (the amount a biggish American town consumes) look unlikely to be kept, especially since all of Siemens's specialists and most of General Electric's have left. This week another Russian engineer was killed and two more kidnapped at a power plant, prompting a further flight of foreigners.

In their effort to achieve as smooth a handover as possible to Iraqis at the end of June, the American authorities are letting their generals make deals with the rebels to get the show back on the road. In Fallujah, the hottest cauldron of Sunni hostility, the marines have lifted their siege, leaving the insurgents to run the town's security; they have even staged a joint patrol. In Shia towns, including the holiest, Najaf, General Martin Dempsey has offered to tur

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

--

Rebuilding Iraq

Without peace, reconstruction stalls

May 13th 2004 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition

Why it is proving so hard to rebuild the country

[Image]

IF THE Americans left Iraq today, their most obvious physical legacy, in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis, would be concrete blocks. The big slabs protecting administrators, soldiers and contractors from the 30-odd countries in the ruling coalition, which is due to be dissolved at the end of June in favour of an interim government run by Iraqis, jut into Baghdad's main roads and often reduce traffic in the capital to a standstill. Meanwhile, as the violence sputters on, the country's reconstruction--witness, for example, its communications system--is a shambles.

The insurgency, aimed at America's foreign and Iraqi contractors as much as the soldiers of occupation, is largely to blame. Last month 90 foreigners were kidnapped, prompting Russia, Portugal, Poland and France to urge their nationals to go home. Another bomb this week targeted a Baghdad hotel full of contractors. Kellogg Brown & Root, which has won the biggest building contracts in the new Iraq, has seen 34 of its staff killed, a higher toll than has been sustained by the military forces of any of America's allies bar Britain's.

Security squads and the protection of buildings, along with insurance and the soaring costs of transport on dangerous roads, account for as much as 30% of the costs of some of the companies trying to set up in business. The Californian building and engineering giant, Bechtel, which is handling contracts with the Agency for International Development (USAID) worth around $2 billion, has pulled half of its staff out to neighbouring Jordan and Kuwait and has assigned two Gurkha bodyguards to each of its 33 expatriates left in Baghdad. After last month's insurrections in Fallujah, to the west, and in Shia towns to the south, many of its key people have, for the time being, gone.

An official at the planning ministry, which oversees Iraq's reconstruction effort, says that productivity has slumped virtually to nil. When the militia of a rebel Shia firebrand, Muqtada al-Sadr, swooped through towns to the south of Baghdad, water, sewage-treatment and other projects were abandoned to scavengers, who stripped plants of machinery. Other than looters, the beneficiaries have been the 20,000-odd men working for security companies. They have blurred the lines between civilian and military contractors. Both are targets of the insurgents.

As the summer heat rises, many essentials are getting scarcer. The schools are still open and exams held on time. But after months of regular electricity at night, long power cuts have become frequent again, plunging the capital into darkness and increasing crime. Promises that by next month the country's output would have risen from 4,500 to 6,000 megawatts (the amount a biggish American town consumes) look unlikely to be kept, especially since all of Siemens's specialists and most of General Electric's have left. This week another Russian engineer was killed and two more kidnapped at a power plant, prompting a further flight of foreigners.

In their effort to achieve as smooth a handover as possible to Iraqis at the end of June, the American authorities are letting their generals make deals with the rebels to get the show back on the road. In Fallujah, the hottest cauldron of Sunni hostility, the marines have lifted their siege, leaving the insurgents to run the town's security; they have even staged a joint patrol. In Shia towns, including the holiest, Najaf, General Martin Dempsey has offered to tur

The fact that you think there is any such thing as a non-biased analysis suggests naivity. Everything is biased, the only question is whether you are biased in the same way.

That's one way to define things. I favor another.

Everybody has a viewpoint, and everybody has opinions. A good writer, like a good scientist, should be able to learn about and write about a topic in an honest way. That doesn't mean that he will necessarily change his opinions or have a different viewpoint, but he will be open to that, and he will convey things in a where even reasonable people who disagree with him can agree that the article was a fair one.

In the US, we don't get much journalism like that. The wire services, who wanted to be able to sell copy to papers no matter their political orientations, pioneered this anemic, analysis-free "objective" reporting, which ends up being facile and thoughtless.

British journalists seem much better at the game. For example, I subscribe to The Economist, which, despite its name, is a British general-audience newsweekly. They have a very clear viewpoint; they're analytical, numbers-oriented, and big fans of free markets and free people. But they generally avoid being dogmatic about it; their articles have a clear viewpoint but they are honestly trying to seek out the truth and to tell you what they see along the way.

I like that better. Honestly, none of us will ever find The Truth, and anybody who thinks they have it is fooling themselves. But for those of us who are really looking, it's nice to have collaborators.

The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.

--

The Iraq handover

Barely ready, not yet steady

Jun 24th 2004 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition

America's remission of power in Iraq is, of necessity, much subtler than it seems

JUNE 30th has long been seen as a date of almost mystical significance for the future of Iraq. On that day, America will hand over to an interim government of Iraqis, and Paul Bremer, the American proconsul, will leave the country. Yet behind the symbolic toings and froings, how much will really change? And how much power will the Iraqis really have?

Iyad Allawi, a Baathist leader in Europe who plotted against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, is the prime minister-designate. He is seen as tough; "our kind of bully", as a State Department hand describes him. Under the temporary constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), cabinet decisions are law, and decrees already in force, such as those that laid down a new press law or set up the independent regulator of state media and mobile phones, can be scrapped by cabinet order.

Mr Allawi's "caretaker" powers are supposed to expire after elections for a National Assembly in January 2005. Some wonder whether they will, especially if security fails to improve. On the eve of the handover the fighting intensified, with black-clad insurgents battling the police in two towns west and north of Baghdad.

Most Iraqis, however, seem relieved to have one of their own back in charge. According to a poll conducted by Baghdad's Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, only 2% of them consider the Americans liberators. And the sickening spate of car-bombings and assassinations has left them craving the return of a strongman. Baghdad's city council has called for martial law to be declared in the capital for six months. Many are demanding a curfew.

Mr Allawi's team want to be seen to be up to the job; this is not, they believe, a time for soft talk. The justice minister has called for the revival of the death penalty, the defence minister has promised personally to cut off rebels' hands and heads, and the interior minister has ordered his police into no-go areas such as Baghdad's weapons market. More daring policemen are issuing fines for driving offences for the first time since the war. Mr Allawi has also promised to reintegrate senior Baathists excised by Mr Bremer, and has announced the remobilisation of five of Iraq's disbanded army divisions to support the police. "Disbanding the Iraqi army was a big mistake," he says. "We are fixing the mistakes of the Americans, aren't we?"

Baathists are understandably elated. Some are drawing historical parallels with the 1960s, when Baathists were overthrown in 1963 only to regain power in a coup five years later. "We're organising for the next," says a former scribe of Mr Hussein's. Although the rebels' strike-rate remains high, with 45 attacks a day, it is growing less lethal for American soldiers (see chart). The car-bombings and decapitations, optimists suppose, may be a sign of weakness, not strength.

The prospect that the old regime may rear its head has given some Americans pause for thought. Officials of the outgoing coalition authority resist the idea that Iraqis, rather than multinational forces, should impose martial law. The latest UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, they insist, gives the American-led multinational force authority to use "all necessary measures". Iraq's armed forces, it is understood, will be subject to the coalition's operational command, though the Iraqi government will take strategic decisions.

Comparisons with the brutality of the former regime are certainly premature. While Mr Hussein had 70 divisions, Mr Allawi will have a single arm

Solid, but for how long?
Sep 20th 2001 | BRUSSELS

European solidarity with the United States will depend on just what a global "war" against terrorism entails

A WEEK after the terrorist atrocities in America, the talk in the European Union was all still of "solidarity". "We stand four-square with our American allies and friends," said Chris Patten, the EU's commissioner for foreign affairs, in a statement echoed by scores of politicians across the continent. Opinion polls showed that most West Europeans wanted their governments to take part in military action against terrorism, with the French almost as eager as the British (see chart). Though Germans in general are edgier, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has sounded as robust as the French. [...] But the possible limits to European support for the United States are also becoming evident. [...]

It was noted with relief in Brussels and elsewhere that in the attacks' immediate aftermath, America and Iran appeared to undergo something of a small rapprochement. But it is also clear that a strong school of thought in the United States considers Iraq to be the main state promoter of terrorism. A recent book arguing that Iraq was behind the first attack on the World Trade Centre, in 1993, has won plaudits from, among others, Paul Wolfowitz, now Mr Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon.

If the United States chose to attack Iraq without convincing public evidence of its involvement in the latest terror, Europe's solidarity might begin to crack. The anti-Saddam coalition that the United States built up during the Gulf war has fizzled. France dropped out of the air patrols over Iraq's "no-fly" zones in 1998, leaving Britain as America's only ally in the skies. A clutch of French MPs has visited Baghdad, Iraq's capital. France has its eyes on lucrative Iraqi oil contracts, if and when UN sanctions against Iraq are lifted. Many governments and people in the EU now think sanctions against Iraq are ineffective--and needlessly cruel to ordinary Iraqis.

If the attempt to widen the war on terrorism beyond Mr bin Laden and Afghanistan is confined to judicial and intelligence co-operation, the EU should stay enthusiastic. But broader military strikes may cause public unease, except perhaps in Britain, with its emotional and security ties to the United States. Europe's reluctance is not just to do with evidence or with fear of the humanitarian consequences of military action. For all the talk of the attack on America being "an attack on all of us", some Europeans fear that if they cleave too closely to a broad, punitive American policy, terrorist reprisals against European cities will be far more likely. Rudolf Scharping, Germany's defence minister, at first seemed to distance himself from American war talk by cautioning against the use of emotive language: "We aren't on the brink of war."

A lot of Europeans, hoping that their advice may temper what they regard as the Pentagon's wilder instincts, say that the Americans should consult them--and "co-operate" with them--more. This partly reflects some Europeans' long-standing resentment of what they see as America's high-handedness. In this view, common in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, the crisis may have a beneficial side-effect if it makes America seek more equal relations with its European allies. But members of the British government tend not to take this line. A senior British politician points out that "America considers that it has a fundamental responsibility to respond to an attack on its own soil. What action Americans take is a matter for them."

Solid, but for how long?
Sep 20th 2001 | BRUSSELS

European solidarity with the United States will depend on just what a global "war" against terrorism entails

A WEEK after the terrorist atrocities in America, the talk in the European Union was all still of "solidarity". "We stand four-square with our American allies and friends," said Chris Patten, the EU's commissioner for foreign affairs, in a statement echoed by scores of politicians across the continent. Opinion polls showed that most West Europeans wanted their governments to take part in military action against terrorism, with the French almost as eager as the British (see chart). Though Germans in general are edgier, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has sounded as robust as the French. [...] But the possible limits to European support for the United States are also becoming evident. [...]

It was noted with relief in Brussels and elsewhere that in the attacks' immediate aftermath, America and Iran appeared to undergo something of a small rapprochement. But it is also clear that a strong school of thought in the United States considers Iraq to be the main state promoter of terrorism. A recent book arguing that Iraq was behind the first attack on the World Trade Centre, in 1993, has won plaudits from, among others, Paul Wolfowitz, now Mr Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon.

If the United States chose to attack Iraq without convincing public evidence of its involvement in the latest terror, Europe's solidarity might begin to crack. The anti-Saddam coalition that the United States built up during the Gulf war has fizzled. France dropped out of the air patrols over Iraq's "no-fly" zones in 1998, leaving Britain as America's only ally in the skies. A clutch of French MPs has visited Baghdad, Iraq's capital. France has its eyes on lucrative Iraqi oil contracts, if and when UN sanctions against Iraq are lifted. Many governments and people in the EU now think sanctions against Iraq are ineffective--and needlessly cruel to ordinary Iraqis.

If the attempt to widen the war on terrorism beyond Mr bin Laden and Afghanistan is confined to judicial and intelligence co-operation, the EU should stay enthusiastic. But broader military strikes may cause public unease, except perhaps in Britain, with its emotional and security ties to the United States. Europe's reluctance is not just to do with evidence or with fear of the humanitarian consequences of military action. For all the talk of the attack on America being "an attack on all of us", some Europeans fear that if they cleave too closely to a broad, punitive American policy, terrorist reprisals against European cities will be far more likely. Rudolf Scharping, Germany's defence minister, at first seemed to distance himself from American war talk by cautioning against the use of emotive language: "We aren't on the brink of war."

A lot of Europeans, hoping that their advice may temper what they regard as the Pentagon's wilder instincts, say that the Americans should consult them--and "co-operate" with them--more. This partly reflects some Europeans' long-standing resentment of what they see as America's high-handedness. In this view, common in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, the crisis may have a beneficial side-effect if it makes America seek more equal relations with its European allies. But members of the British government tend not to take this line. A senior British politician points out that "America considers that it has a fundamental responsibility to respond to an attack on its own soil. What action Americans take is a matter for them."

I do not consider a text-book a tool - just one good source of information. Your suggested texts are valid, however, just as software tools are no substitute for education, your text books are no substitute for a quality toolset. Incidentally, as an online reference, I was fairly impressed by the The Economist Style Guide.

I find it strange that you don't distinguish between two distinct scenarios. It is ludicrous to hope an automated checking tool will be an effective alternative to education. It is remarkably small-minded to assume that the educated are no more productive using appropriate automated tools.

I admit that, just as a thesaurus can be misused, so could a grammar checker. I've never argued that these tools alone will improve the quality of prose, but rather that, in the appropriate context, the availability of good quality software tools can improve productivity.

Whenever you hear someone spout off about how freedom of speech is being suppressed, or how it's a fascist state, or how Bush = Hitler, ask yourself why that person isn't rotting behind bars

By working in the Middle-East, the chances of your death becoming national news increases dramatically. This is just like if you get shot in a school than your death will become national news. There was all the fuss over profiling likely school shooters when the profile or the classmate most likely to kill your child is one who is behind the wheel and drunk. The media is not a good informer of the real risks you face in life.

You make choices involving life and death, health, and other risks every day. The market does a good job of discovering and pricing the risk premiums of various hazardous activities. The Economist looked at some data and found that the price that Americans put on their life is around $7 million. The question is how much you value your life compared to the market?

You probably should read the proposed EU constitution and then reconsider your views. It concerns far more than economic matters.

And even if this new constitution did concern merely economic matters there are two points you ought to consider:
(1) A huge share of Federal legislation in the US is enacted under the commerce clause.
(2) One of the most important lessons learned from political developments in the 20th century was that economic freedom and political freedom are inseparable.

If it costs you 5 bucks a kilowatt hour to buy the power, you can only charge your customers 1 buck per kilowatt hour!

I suspect you're illustrating a point, but let's pretend you aren't. Sorry if this is offtopic, but sometimes I need to respond to an inaccurate post with real data. Either either your numbers are off, or your units are.

Here in Illinois, we get power from Commonwealth Edison. The summer rates are (direct link HERE):
Summer Months (June 15th to Sept. 15th):
For all kilowatt-hours: 8.275 cents
Other Months :
For the first 400 kilowatt-hours: 8.275 cents
For all over 400 kilowatt-hours: 6.208 cents

SO: 5 BUCKS per kilowatt hour is a bit steep, as is 1 buck.

But, a Megawatt hour is 1000 * .008275 = $8.275.
A $1 / MWh rate is way-way-way cheap !

I heard on NPR that the Enron fscks were charging Calif. consumers up to $250 per megawatt hour. That's about 25 times more expensive than here in Illinois.

This is a strong argument for well-managed deregulation; let some real economists work on this. I believe The Economist might have some good opinions about how to make this regulatory mess work. Regulation of monopolies (like power and SBC DSL / Voice) is always an exercise in big-dog-fight scepticism.

So, California: Good luck with that. I hope you succeed, since we have SBC Ameritech here in Illinois, too, and I hate the fsckers monopolistic arguably anti-competitive practices here just as much as y'all probably do.

Wow. What an original idea. Sounds a lot like this documentary, which was reviewed in the mainstream media, which is pretty much dominated by... you guessed it. :)

The problem with the above plan is that you're limited to clear materials when you're building the wall. The translucent wall tech described in the article could be applied to a wall of any thickness and made of any material- even a load-bearing brick or concrete wall.

Of course, you caould always just use Tansparent concrete, but that's still a ways off.

Don't forget about Stryker! This is the direction the army is moving. It is a light, wheeled tank manufactured by General Dynamics (same company that makes the Abrams).

manufacture website

some news

The Stryker is at the centre of the transformation of America's military championed by Donald Rumsfeld (Subscription required)

Outsourcing (or "offshoring") has been going on for centuries, but still accounts for a tiny proportion of the jobs constantly being created and destroyed within America's economy. Even at the best of times, the American economy has a tremendous rate of "churn"--over 2m jobs a month. In all, the process creates many more jobs than it destroys: 24m more during the 1990s. The process allocates resources--money and people--to where they can be most productive, helped by competition, including from outsourcing, that lowers prices. In the long run, higher productivity is the only way to create higher standards of living across an economy.

Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus of public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them, as well as ensuring that Americans have education to match the new jobs being created. By contrast, regarding globalisation as the enemy, as Mr Edwards does often and Messrs Kerry and Bush both do by default, is a much greater threat to America's economic health than any Indian software programmer.

"One day, 2 or 3 billion people will have cell phones, and they are all not going to have PCs," says Jeff Hawkins, inventor of the Palm Pilot and the chief technology officer of PalmOne.

Yes, and "one day" we will implanting WiFi in our brains and thinking in binary.

The reality is, half the people in the world have never even made a phone call. I'll hang my hat on the likelihood that, although my cell phone is great, it's not a worldwide revolution just yet.

The funny thing with exchange rates is that when they're stable they might balance out so that it doesn't matter that there isn't 1:1 parity. If USD$10 = Linden$1, but a loaf of bread in America costs USD$1 and in the virtual world it costs Linden$0.1 then the Linden$ isn't really worth more.

The British pound has always been worth more than the American dollar, but the cost of living is generally higher and salaries generally lower in both numeric and real terms... so what does it mean to have a more expensive currency?

Take a look at The Economist's Big Max index and see what you think (just follow the latest Big Mac link down the page).

I think it depends on what your situation is. If you have a family, and you're deciding between renting a house and owning a house, and you don't plan on moving to a different city anytime soon, you should buy a house. If you're single, and renting means living in an apartment, then renting has a lot of advantages.

To people who think owning a house is easier: When you rent, you have to pay the rent, vacuum once in a while, and call maintenance if something breaks. Renters insurance is also a good idea. If you want to move, you turn in a 30 day notice.

When you own a house, you have to pay the mortgage, pay the property tax, pay the homeowners association fee, buy homeowners insurance, buy private mortgage insurance (unless you can come up with 20% for the down payment; good luck coming up with 20% of $500,000 in Silicon Valley), vacuum a much larger area, mow the lawn, do yardwork, and go to Home Depot if something breaks and then spend Saturday afternoon fixing it. You've also responsible for leaky pipes, termites, roofs that need to be replaced, walls that need to be repainted, and mortgages that exceed the value of the house because the housing bubble finally collapsed. If you want to move, you hire a real estate agent (costs about 6% of the value of the house) and look for a buyer. Depending on where you live and how good your agent is, this could take anywhere from a few days to over a year.

If you're single, and want to be able to afford a house once you're married, I say figure out how much more owning a house would cost per month, then keep renting and save the difference. You should end up with plenty of money for a down payment (real estate markets vary; this may not be true in certain parts of the country).

To those who say "owning your own place is so much more secure," I have two questions:
(a) If you rent an apartment, what happens if you can't pay the rent?
(b) If you own a house, what happens if you can't pay the mortgage?

Since you seem to be so skeptical about the usefulness of computerized crime tracking technology, I think you might find this article from the Economist an interesting read. I couldn't tell whether it's subscriber-only, so I'll reproduce part of it here:

CRIME maps, which record the locations of incidents in order to help predict where criminals are going to strike next, are used by police throughout the world. But the past is not always a helpful guide to the future, and a team of criminologists from University College, London, led by Kate Bowers, think they can do better. A test of their new model, unveiled in this month's British Journal of Criminology, suggests it is 30% better at predicting crime than traditional methods.

It is a cliché to say that crime spreads like a disease, but previous work by Dr Bowers and her colleagues found that this is exactly how crime does spread. Using statistical techniques developed to study the transmission of infections, they found that burglaries cluster in space and time in predictable ways. For example, properties within 400 metres of a burgled home, particularly those on the same side of the road, are at an increased risk of being broken into for up to two months after the initial incident.

Using these and other findings, the team created algorithms that predict where criminals will strike next, and then used those algorithms to generate "prospective hot-spot maps". These divide an area into 50-metre squares--a level of resolution chosen because 50 metres is a typical line-of-sight for a police officer in an urban area--and give a crime forecast for each square.

In their paper, Dr Bowers and her colleagues reveal the results of a study of burglaries in Merseyside, in northern England. Using historical data, they pitted their predictive modelling method against two traditional crime-mapping systems. They found that their method successfully "hindcasted" 62-80% of burglaries. The traditional techniques, by contrast, hindcasted only 46% of those incidents.

Computerized crime tracking technology like COMPSTAT is already helping to make police departments more efficient, focused and accountable in the real world. No, it won't alert you to a Stop'n'Go shooting spree in the last 3 hours, but it does help you clarify the big picture, about where carjackings are becoming more common, which neighborhoods are becoming more robbery-prone, that sort of thing. And that information can be immensely useful to an overworked precinct with limited resources (overtime, etc.) to do their jobs.

I'm not defending this expensive realtime display covering three walls of a command center, but I don't think the facts justify your skepticism about the use of trend-finding in police work.

High up executive?

Erm ... he's the richest man in Italy and owns most of their media conglomerates.

More information about Silvio Berlusconi

To be more exact...

Berlusconi Background

On a realated note the economist recently had an interesting article about cricket and recent controversy over one of the more important rules - the bowler (pitcher) is not allowed to straighten his arm when delivering the ball. Some are claiming that new bowlers are breaking this rule and other question whether the rule itself might actually contradict physics. Being an American who didn't know much about cricket I found the article to be thouroughly amusing. That game could never exist here in the states.

The Apologist understands what you're saying, but they're tentatively optimistic that it will be the opposite.

The article mentions an interesting theory, that instead of an external meteorite triggering mass eruptions, it might be the volcanic eruptions that came first. The eruptions were powerful enough to fire a great gob of rock into space, and each big crater is where it re-impacted. On this view the eruptions would be the prime cause of the mass extinctions - at Permian, Cretaceous and Triassic - and the impact craters just a side effect.

that seems unecessarily risky to me. much preferable is to get a job with an international company and get an internal transfer; then you get to keep your income and stuff. this page on developing an international career is helpful.

In addition, Canada derives many economic benefits from being in a free-trade alliance with the biggest economy in the world. You may look at oil/gas exports to the US as a favor to us. Canada isn't _giving_ fuel to the US -- it's _selling_ it. That probably accounts for a good portion of the trade deficit that we currently experience with Canada.

Despite this, the sentiment that I see (and feel free to disagree with me here) is that many Canadians look at the US as some sort of necessary evil, or maybe even an enemy. It's hard to back this sort of thing up, but Googling "canada anti-american" will bring up enough links to at least prompt a debate. Here is a good starting point. My point here isn't to demand gratitude from Canadians. But given the benefits that Canada has derived from its proximity to the US, I'd at least expect warmer feelings from up north. You're right -- in the US, Canada is on the fringe of peoples' consciousness. People close to the border make benign jokes about Canada, and those farther away don't really think about it much. But maybe that's for the best. If we paid closer attention, we might lump them in with a chorus of nations (*cough* France *cough*) that seem to reflexively and hypocritically dislike us, and the benign neglect would become animosity.

The Economist recently had an interesting article on how cell phones are marketed and why people buy them. Basically, when (some) people buy phones, they're looking more for a status symbol than for a device to actually make phone calls on. For example, teenagers might spend $3 on a ringtone because they're looking for a way to establish an identity.

The story is probably true, and Apple is doing damage control because they know the peril to their business if they raise song prices. Perhaps they are eating the extra cost themselves, and giving up most of their already-small cut of the revenue. But what is known is that the music industry is pushing for more expensive downloads. The labels are saying it themselves.

The Economist [economist.com - free] has an article in last week's edition about how phones are replacing cars [economist.com - suggar daddy required] and how this is "a good thing."

Full article text:

"PARKS beautifully", boasts an advertising hoarding for the XDA II, above a glimpse of its sleek silver lines. "Responsive to every turn", declares another poster. Yet these ads, seen recently in London, are selling not a car, but an advanced kind of mobile phone. Maybe that should not be a surprise. Using automotive imagery to sell a handset makes a lot of sense for, in many respects, mobile phones are replacing cars.

Phones are now the dominant technology with which young people, and urban youth in particular, now define themselves. What sort of phone you carry and how you customise it says a great deal about you, just as the choice of car did for a previous generation. In today's congested cities, you can no longer make a statement by pulling up outside a bar in a particular kind of car. Instead, you make a similar statement by displaying your mobile phone, with its carefully chosen ringtone, screen logo and slip cover. Mobile phones, like cars, are fashion items: in both cases, people buy new ones far more often than is actually necessary. Both are social technologies that bring people together; for teenagers, both act as symbols of independence. And cars and phones alike promote freedom and mobility, with unexpected social consequences.

The design of both cars and phones started off being defined by something that was no longer there. Cars were originally horseless carriages, and early models looked suitably carriage-like; only later did car designers realise that cars could be almost any shape they wanted to make them. Similarly, mobile phones used to look much like the push-button type of fixed-line phones, only without the wire. But now they come in a bewildering range of strange shapes and sizes.

Less visibly, as the structure of the mobile-phone industry changes, it increasingly resembles that of the car industry (see article). Handset-makers, like carmakers, build some models themselves and outsource the design and manufacturing of others. Specialist firms supply particular sub-assemblies in both industries. Outwardly different products are built on a handful of common underlying "platforms" in both industries, to reduce costs. In each case, branding and design are becoming more important as the underlying technology becomes increasingly interchangeable. In phones, as previously happened in cars, established western companies are facing stiff competition from nimbler Asian firms. Small wonder then that Nokia, the world's largest handset-maker, recruited its design chief, Frank Nuovo, from BMW.

That mobile phones are taking on many of the social functions of cars is to be welcomed. While it is a laudable goal that everyone on earth should someday have a mobile phone, cars' ubiquity produces mixed feelings. They are a horribly inefficient mode of transport--why move a ton of metal around in order to transport a few bags of groceries?--and they cause pollution, in the form of particulates and nasty gases. A chirping handset is a much greener form of self-expression than an old banger. It may irritate but it is safe. In the hands of a drunk driver, a car becomes a deadly weapon. That is not true of a phone (though terrorists recently rigged mobile phones to trigger bombs in Madrid). Despite concern that radiation from phones and masts causes health problems, there is no clear evidence of harm, and similar worries about power lines and computer screens proved unfounded. Less pollution, less traffic, fewer alcohol-related deaths and injuries: the switch from cars to phones cannot happen soon enough.

The Economist [economist.com - free] has an article in last week's edition about how phones are replacing cars [economist.com - suggar daddy required] and how this is "a good thing."

Full article text:

"PARKS beautifully", boasts an advertising hoarding for the XDA II, above a glimpse of its sleek silver lines. "Responsive to every turn", declares another poster. Yet these ads, seen recently in London, are selling not a car, but an advanced kind of mobile phone. Maybe that should not be a surprise. Using automotive imagery to sell a handset makes a lot of sense for, in many respects, mobile phones are replacing cars.

Phones are now the dominant technology with which young people, and urban youth in particular, now define themselves. What sort of phone you carry and how you customise it says a great deal about you, just as the choice of car did for a previous generation. In today's congested cities, you can no longer make a statement by pulling up outside a bar in a particular kind of car. Instead, you make a similar statement by displaying your mobile phone, with its carefully chosen ringtone, screen logo and slip cover. Mobile phones, like cars, are fashion items: in both cases, people buy new ones far more often than is actually necessary. Both are social technologies that bring people together; for teenagers, both act as symbols of independence. And cars and phones alike promote freedom and mobility, with unexpected social consequences.

The design of both cars and phones started off being defined by something that was no longer there. Cars were originally horseless carriages, and early models looked suitably carriage-like; only later did car designers realise that cars could be almost any shape they wanted to make them. Similarly, mobile phones used to look much like the push-button type of fixed-line phones, only without the wire. But now they come in a bewildering range of strange shapes and sizes.

Less visibly, as the structure of the mobile-phone industry changes, it increasingly resembles that of the car industry (see article). Handset-makers, like carmakers, build some models themselves and outsource the design and manufacturing of others. Specialist firms supply particular sub-assemblies in both industries. Outwardly different products are built on a handful of common underlying "platforms" in both industries, to reduce costs. In each case, branding and design are becoming more important as the underlying technology becomes increasingly interchangeable. In phones, as previously happened in cars, established western companies are facing stiff competition from nimbler Asian firms. Small wonder then that Nokia, the world's largest handset-maker, recruited its design chief, Frank Nuovo, from BMW.

That mobile phones are taking on many of the social functions of cars is to be welcomed. While it is a laudable goal that everyone on earth should someday have a mobile phone, cars' ubiquity produces mixed feelings. They are a horribly inefficient mode of transport--why move a ton of metal around in order to transport a few bags of groceries?--and they cause pollution, in the form of particulates and nasty gases. A chirping handset is a much greener form of self-expression than an old banger. It may irritate but it is safe. In the hands of a drunk driver, a car becomes a deadly weapon. That is not true of a phone (though terrorists recently rigged mobile phones to trigger bombs in Madrid). Despite concern that radiation from phones and masts causes health problems, there is no clear evidence of harm, and similar worries about power lines and computer screens proved unfounded. Less pollution, less traffic, fewer alcohol-related deaths and injuries: the switch from cars to phones cannot happen soon enough.

Check out this story about Google. "The Economist" advises against buying shares of Google because it is a loser.

Take my word for it...as we gradually run out of oil, (and we will reach the halfway mark sometime between 2015-2030 according to that article), the rising costs, scarcity and worries will spark many more serious wars than the current one (of which oil is the root cause, I believe) a long time before the "final crunch".

It remains to be seen if we will have a future left to worry/fantasize about if the current world scenario continues down it's plunging curve.