a lawyer is an instrumentCaptain Splendid and his IP lawyer buddies are laughing all the way to the bank, saying that "lawyers don't sue people, people sue people". Tell me another one. Or, "a lawyer is an instrument"
Yeah, right - an instrument with a *will*, and a *profit motive*. I love the way this guy turns it around to make us all (including the money-making lawyers) look like victims of the "system". LOL! Said just like a - you know - LAWYER! Very, very funny, in an ironic kind of way.
In fact, many IP lawyers have been scamming their way to big bucks for the last decade. There are some attorneys who do good, no doubt - but when we see the ENABLEMENT by lawyers of the 'people' who sue, in ways that inflame the litigation, one has to wonder.
Bottom line: IP law needs *serious* overhall, and IP lawyers need serious price competition. This is beginning to happen, somewhat, as here in the Bay Area the rash of new firms is causing a surplus, with some firms starting to market aggressively for business - business that used to fall into their laps. I can't wait to see most of these sharks fade from the scene, as companies start to reralize that these "instruments" (what a crock!) are walking away with all the revenue.
Have any of you ever been in a divorce proceeding, where one attorney (or both) practically drool at the prospect of one of their letters to the opponent causing an angry outburst?
Look, lawyers are really not much more than specialized legal screed geeks, whose screed is kept obscure by - you guessed it - more lawyers...the ones in Washington and elsewhere who keep the legislative halls busy with new legal code, to keep their law firm friends happy.
Interesting fact: America has 1 attorney for every 500 citizens; Japan one attorney for every 10,000 citizens.
The law is PROFITABLE, in a way that COSTS our culture in a BIG WAY.
Fight the system? Ha! This is what most attorneys say, as they walk away with their big fees - fees that cost YOU and ME a LOT of money (these costs get passed on to consumers).
Why don't Captain Spendid and his buddies "fight the system"? They won't, because the system is *created* by lawyers. It *serves* the lawyers. (and here Splendid will say "we're a land of laws", of some other drivel that continues to serve him)
Regarding IP, there is a group of lawyers (Larry Lessig, for example), who are trying to change things, but their efforts are being fought every step of the way, by - guess who? - lawyers.
This is exactly right. Here in the Bay Area, there is currently a feeding frenzy going on, with one IP firm after another popping up to represent one tech company after another in one arcane patent dispute after another.
This is costing ALL OF US a LOT of money. It is making the legal system a LOT of money.
I've been inside a few of these law firms; they hire a phalanx of paralegals to pour through tens-of-thousands of documents, looking for keywords that might have bearing on a case; they create aggressive deposition schedules; they engage in ultra-expensive eDiscovery activities, and so on.
They bring in the best, catered food, day in and day out. They have overnight sleeping rooms, so that paralegals can stop work and not have to take time to commute the next morning. Money flows in, unencumbered by any thought about what it is costingi yuo and me, the American consumer, as all these costs are eventually borne by us in the way of higher prices, or constrained innovation.
The lawyers are walkingi away with big smiles on their faces; it's really sickening to consider the near-fact tthat there is probably more revenue being generated in Silicon Valley via IP litigation than there is from the deployment of new innovation.
Do you think the "legal profession's ethics" (an oxymoron, if I ever heard one) will do anything to stop this money-making juggernaut? Answer: no.
In fact, we are being held hostage by greedy IP law firms, who have a production-line attitude to litigating patent and copyright protection issues.
With new eDiscovery laws coming into place, now we're having to do legal diligence to the 'nth' email. Imagine the wide-eyed, greedy hand-wringing going on with that one.
Recently the ABA created a new "degree", for paralegals. It's called the "Paralegal Certificate". It's a two-year program, with the ABA (American Bar Assn.) mandating that ABA-approved paralegal programs CANNOT be held online. Imagine that. one has to trek off to night school after a long day at work, to listen to someone read notes from a Civil Litigation textbook that you could be reading and being tested for online.
Why this certificate? It permits these IPP (and other) law firms to bill more for paralegals. Now that "paralegal" is an "official" sub-category, law firms can take a $30 per hour paralegal and bill out $120-200 for their time (depending on discipline, and experience). More legal hands in our economy's cookie jar.
I don't know how we're going to change a copyright and patent system that feeds these parasitical attorneys so generously. Think about it; most of the laws are made by people who have been attorneys, and have staffs full of young attorneys. They will legislate in their self-interest.
This is all simply another phase in the rather predictable fall of major music distributors. If they think things are difficult now, wait until distributed networks are far more mature than they are now, and the tools of music creation, production, and distribution are even more easy to obtain, more affordable, and easier to use than they are now.
Who needs major distribution companies?
What effect do the majors think youtube and its many future imitators - some devoted EXCLUSIVELY to the creation and distribution of music (and other forms of entertainment) imitators - is going to mean? Do they think they will be able to continue their dominance in those environements, given the above developments? If they do, they're deluded.
It's OVER for the majors; the long tail, including human ingenuity in the creation of art (including commercial art) is going to largely replace the current players. Some of the operatives in the majors will find work within the newer
If they think it's going to mean that they can simply morph their lame business models to gain exposure, they're wrong. Their time has come, and gone.
Game over!
I remember" way back when", in 1994, when I had a discussion with several high end music distributors - thay all laughed at the idea of the Internet. I remember a VP of Marketing at Tower Records' now-defunct corporate offices in Sacramento saying "Tower will NEVER sell music on the Internet"
I see a new era of music production in the works. There will be companies that come along, some of them mildly related to the artifacts of the "oldies" (a word that will take on new meaning, as it applies to long-gone primary music distributors of the past).
Just wait until we have more accurate technology capable of determining what music modal, chordal, melodic and other variables our brains prefer - that's coming.
http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/outsourcing.html
here's the study
http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/Globalization_ White_Collar_Work_v3.pdf
This new information should be a wakeup call for policy-makers. The irony is that corporate profits no longer know national boundaries. Solutions are going to take political leadership, and real committment. If no solutions are forthcoming, we will continue to see significant employment displacement here, with all the social problems that that implies.
True, we're bound to the work = identity = worth model, and it's good to hear from someone who points out a few techniques for getting past that.
That said, I think s/he might have focused more on finding ways to experience wonder from moment-to-moment. This isn't easy when you're slinging hash, or heading toward the 11th straight hour of wrapping up a code project for a manager named Godzilla.
Life really is moment-to-moment, and very, very non-linear. There are ways - without becoming a mindless new age fanatic - to deal with the everyday.
Many years ago I read a book on Aesthetics called "Art in the Everyday"; it had a big impact. (I think it's out of print, and most people would probably find it pedantic).
Wittgenstein had a great way of dealing with this; he said (to paraphrase) "don't wonder about why you are, or what you are, or how you came to be, etc. - simply wonder THAT you are.
Again, this is not about contemplating one's navel, but rather using good, time-worn techniques (meditation, etc.) to get beyond all the stuff that weighs us down, and use that weight as a lever to achieve some internal peace.
It's tough drilling down to the moment in difficult times, but there's peace there, no matter what. I wish we could teach our kids more about how to do that.
Lastly, none of this means quiting the world, and withdrawing. On the contrary, it's about finding ways to pay more attention to the world on a moment-by-moment basis. that's deosn't preclude anyone from being/doing in this world in any number of ways - i.e. agressive entrepreneur, waiter, writer, coder, nanny, stay-at-home-mom, etc.
Apparently, that's the way the system is supposed to work. in this case, it didn't. My content was gone. Some of it was recovered eventually, but much of it disappeared.
Following this incident, a control system was begun that let project initiators have increased control over their Wiki. this appears to be working.
Wikipedia is a great resource, and a great idea. That said, I think the move to more rational control - to prevent malicious attacks or even inadvertant disasters - is a good idea.
This is exactly right. In fact, I had an entire Wiki wiped out by someone who didn't "agree" with the thrust ofo my project. The project in question was a Wiki project that I had been using as a placeholder to show the potential power of distributed and open source publishing to state public education officials. It's a K-12 textbook project.
What I discovered one day - because i dodn't visit the Wiki every day - was that the whole thing had been co-opted by some anarchistic fool who simply thought that *his* take on my project was a better one. That person literally stole my Wiki URL, erased what I and many others had constructed, and started putting his content on it. That, instead of simply starting his own project under a different name. I had to find an intermediary to help me negotiate with this person, just to get him to cease and desist. In the interim, I lost the promise of help for the project that I had received from several people who could have made the project move along faster. they were afraid that their work could/would be wiped out.
The entire incident caused immeasureable harm to my project, and to the project's self-image. The project lost viable contributions from nearly 100 contributors that really cared about what I was doing.This has since been repaired. I had to reconstruct everything from scratch. This disaster happened simply because there was no proper control designed into the process. Thiings are noe getting better on Wikipedia
Here's a fascinating application that I came across. This little company is making big waves in the music instrument manufacturing sector. They're doing some cool R&D on tracking technologies that combine GPS and RFID as well.
This project (COSTP/Wikibooks) invites anyone who is expert in World History to contribute. It's an important project because it will prove that a bona fide K-12 textbook *can* be created in open source - and most importantly, gain approval for use by the State Board of education, we would then be able to crack the costly commercial textbook business at the K-12 level.
COSTP has shown that you can have a *printed* textbook come out of open source at a 50% savings over commercial textbooks. California alone spends almost $400M for K-12 textbook in one year. Imagine how much $200M in savings would help California's money-strapped schools. Further, once other states get into the open content idea, many *billions* in savings could be realized.
It's very important that content contributors be willing to maintain strict adherence to the California State Education department Standards. This is the *only* way that a book like this will pass State Board of Education approval. if COSTP can get a few of these in the system, it will eventually open up for alternative histories, and other curriculum areas.
Lastly, COSTP is devoted to bringing *printed* textbooks to the K-12 sector, worldwide, by spreading the meme that open content - created by knowledgeable peers, and based on local curriculum standards - can and should be used for basic education
The opening paragraph to this post points to Hernando De Soto's superb book, "The Mystery of Capital" - the result of a many-year research project that he completed in the hope of finding out how to cure the seemingly impossible problems of poverty and underused capital, worldwide. His conclusions are brilliant, insightful, and being adopted by governments worldwide.
Those prior posters who are complaining about India's lack of political and economic transparency (as well as the same problem in many other poor countries) should read De Soto's book.
De Soto's goal is to help the poor - and the countries they reside in (including India) unlock dormant intellectual and financial capital.
Like it or not, India is growing up in ways that will make its poor more enabled - and able to leave poverty behind. Some of this will result in domestic displacement here. That's capitalism, especially when its operating in a way that lets people really *own* something of capital worth, and *leverage* that worth for further wealth.
Right now, India is learning to leverage intellectual capital, and making flegling attempts to improve the property system - there's no stopping this trend.
De Soto should win a Nobel prize for his work. His findings are astounding, and so compelling that every page seems a new insight into wire-ranging economic solutions that lie just under the surface.
What he describes in places like India is an arcane and complex system of underground economies that exist because there is no political/economic structure to permit ownership and transfer of capital. This is a seminal insight.
In fact, De Soto (who has done his research, exhaustively) shows that America went through the travails of a very non-transparent system of property ownership, and found its way out of it.
Bottom line: it's the ability of a culture to create transparent infrastructure that enables the ownership and transfer of capital that leads to development, and freedom ("freedom is participation in power" - Cicero (the Roman sage and philosopher).
Frankly, De Soto's book is one of the most enlightening things I've read on development, ever. It will help the reader understand what prerequisites are necessary to defeat poverty, and enable the poor.
As I write this, many governments worldwide have brought in De Soto (he's Peruvian) and his teams to help figure out new ways to structure capital ownership and capital transfer (leveraging).
This will all take time, and will make a huge difference to everyone - inlcuding Americans (in fact, De Soto presents the American experience as a template for how to begin approaching this problem in other places).
Apologies for the duplicate post; I wanted to make sure the links were correct
(COSTP) - The California Open Source Textbook Project has been collaborating with Wikipedia on a K-12 (public high school) World History project. The project is based on California State Board of Education Framework standards.
The idea is to create a pilot basd on strict curriculum framework adherence, as this is the **only** way to get **any** state board of education to approve the end product for local school district use.
The goal of this project is to prove the concept. Once that's done, may other curriculum areas can be constructed - including those that deviate from curriculum frameworks.
A further goal is to have the resulting files generate a 'print-on-demand' file because the end product should be a printed text.
COSTP has shown that the cost of an open source K-12 (printed)textbook (hardcover)is 40-50% cheaper than K-12 textbooks published and distributed by commercial publishers.
Lastly, if you want to contribute content to the project, please contribute *only* your own (original)work. Content that is already copyrighted is not welcome/ We want to show State Boards of Education that open source textbook publishing can save the states - collectively - *billions* of dollars. e.g. California spends $400M+ every year on K-12 textbooks, with prices having risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992.
COSTP is an official collaborator with Creative Commons, and was a recent participant in forging the Creative Commons educational license.
Also, we hope in the future to work with the
Connexions Project at Rice University, to get further tests piloted.
"The California Open Source Textbook Project (COSTP)
- - http://www.opensourcetext.org - -
has been collaborating with Wikipedia on a K-12 (public high school) World History project. The project is based on California State Board of Education Framework standards.
The idea is to create a pilot basd on strict curriculum framework adherence, as this is the **only** way to get **any** state board of education to approve the end product for local school district use.
I would encourage anyone who is expert in World History to contribute to this project here
The goal of this project is to prove the concept. Once that's done, may other curriculum areas can be constructed - including those that deviate from curriculum frameworks.
A further goal is to have the resulting files generate a 'print-on-demand' file because the end product should be a printed text.
COSTP has shown that the cost of an open source K-12 (printed)textbook (hardcover)is 40-50% cheaper than K-12 textbooks published and distributed by commercial publishers.
Lastly, if you want to contribute content to the project, please contribute *only* your own (original)work. Content that is already copyrighted is not welcome/ We want to show State Boards of Education that open source textbook publishing can save the states - collectively - *billions* of dollars. e.g. California spends $400M+ every year on K-12 textbooks, with prices having risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992.
COSTP is an official collaborator with Creative Commons, and was a recent participant in forging the Creative Commons educationsal license.
Also, we hope n the future to work with the Connexions Project
The concept of open source is now thoroughly out of the box, and already moving into areas beside IT. Here are a few examples:
1) ""Researchers in Australia and India are sidestepping agriculture patents held by the likes of Monsanto and DuPont to develop competitive technologies and foods (such as a high-protein potato) that are, by design, open and unrestricted. In pharmaceuticals, India is skirting patents to create generic AIDS drugs that are orders of magnitude cheaper than those made by the transnational drug companies..." http://www.mediajunk.com/public/archives/200 4_01.h tml
2) The California Open Source Textbook Project www.opensourcetext.org has been created to provide open source printed books for K-12 students in California, and eventually the world. www.opensourcetext.org
3) MIT's OpenCourseWare project has been created to provide free university curriculum to students http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
4) Wikipedia is a great example of open source content with it's many open source projects www.wikipedia.org
There are many other examples, currently, of cooperative efforts to share intellectual capital.
This is another in a continuing series of developments (including open content licesnsing - see www.creativecommons.org) that will change current models of textbook development and distribution forever.
It's just a matter of time before public educational institutions at the K-12 and university level (in addition to many private educational institutions)procure all or most of their curriculum materials this way.
American public educational institutions spend several billions of tax dollars per year for textbooks - required by every public school, most private schools, many home schools, and public universities.
Added to this cost is the fact that university and K-12 textbooks have risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992. In California alone, the annual cost for K-12 textbooks is more than $400M per year.
The textbook industry began its climb to prominence in the 1950's and 60's's, as Baby Boomers entered private and public educational institutions in unpecedented numbers. There was a real need for mass produced educational materials, and commercial textbook publishers filled the demand.
As enrollment in educational institutions continued to increase, commercial educational publishers gradually became the default suppliers of text-based educational materials.
Realizing that they had a near monopoly on the educational publishing market, commercial publishers began to raise prices and force "new editions" of classic textbooks into the market to compell new purchases, and defeat the used textbook market. As a result, textbook prices have risen precipitously; it's not unusual for a high school textbook to approach $100, or more. It's often the case that college textbooks exceed that amount.
Continued dependence on commercial publishers for basic textbooks has led to a "fox is living in the henhouse" situation. As a result, massive diseconomies and inefficiencies have been introduced to the academic textbook market.
We now live in a time where most consumers can walk into their neighborhood bookstore and purchase a 10th-grade level book on Euclidean Geometry for $10-15. Yet, the same curriculum material, embellished for a 10th-grade school district, can cast upwards of $100, often in addition to the purchase of required ancillary materials (teacher's guides, study guides, lab tapes, etc.).
The above example is repeated in many classical mathematical - and other - disciplines at the university level.
Until recently, short of requiring every teacher (or school district) to write its own textbooks, nothing could be done about this costly situation.
With the advent of new Internet technologies and intellectual property licensing innovations it is now possible to create free, high-quality, distributed banks of educational content. This content can published and distributed for far less than similar materials provided by commercial publishers.
Here is a listing of some well-known open source educational projects
Some new current open source content projects are as follows:
California Open Source Textbook Project (COSTP)(conducting pilot projects) http://www.opensourcetext.org
Wikipedia World History Project (a beginning K-12 pilot inspired by COSTP and based on strict California State surriculum standards) http://wikibooks.org/wiki/World_Histor y_Project
MIT's OpenCourseWare project (a university-based open curriculum project) http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
There is a burgeoning movement to create "open source" educational content banks, from which insitutional (even individual) users can select - and publish - content about virtually *any* educational topic. These content resevoirs will be constructed to meet the most demanding curriculum frameworks, at all levels of curriculum instruction.
The open educational content movement makes sense because the bulk of formal educational content - i.e. the content that is delivered to student by educational ins
HDTV won't be anywhere near ubiquitous for some time, probably 5-7 years, maybe longer. Takeup times for new technologies always take longer than hype suggests.
A few comments
1) HDTV has been mandated by law, but there is a lot of consumer confusion in the market about what comprises HDTV, which TV sets will actually deliver an HDTV signal, and so on. Here's more on the confusion http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3403493.stm
2) We're looking at 5-7 (or more) years before sufficient turnaround from analog and many digital TV sets (that don't necessarily play HDTV signals) happens. Also, there is still a relative dearth of HDTV programming *compared to* traditional programming. Content is the one thing that will drive this sector, but the current situation lends itself to a chicken and egg scenario where content producers are waiting for crtical HDTV mass - while consumers wait for critical HDTV content mass - to appear.
Go here http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/h ighdeftv020107.html for more insight
Here's another interesting article on the topic. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B C4AFFD0C-7857-4867-B8B7-14F013AEF961%7D&siteid=goo gle&dist=google
3) Go here for listings of what's available in HDTV format in your area. http://www.titantv.com/TTV/MyTitanTv/Login/ index.a spx?ReturnUrl=%2fTTV%2fCommandCenter%2fCommandCent er.aspx
4) Lastly, the investment sector is cautious about HDTV. They predict universal adoption eventually, but clearly see risk factors if HDTV takeup rates don't mesh with the aggressive hype that we've seen from the consumer electronics press, companies, and associations.
Textbooks are required by every public school, most private schools, and many home schools, and public universities in America. American public educational institutions spend several billion of tax dollars per year for textbooks. Added to this cost is the fact that K-12 textbooks have risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992. In California alone, the annual cost for K-12 textbooks is more than $400M per year.
The textbook industry began its climb to prominence in the 1950's and 60's's, as Baby Boomers entered private and public educational institutions in unpecedented numbers. There was a real need for mass produced educational materials, and commercial textbook publishers filled the demand.
As enrollment in educational institutions continued to increase, commercial educational publishers gradually became default the suppliers of text-based educational materials.
Realizing that they had a near monopoly on the educational publishing market, commercial publishers began to raise prices and force "new editions" of classic textbooks into the market to compell new purchases, and defeat the used textbook market. Also, textbook prices began to rise precipitously; it's not unusual for a high school textbook to approach $100, or more.
Continued dependence on commercial publishers for basic textbooks has led to a "fox is living in the henhouse" situation. As a result, massive diseconomies and inefficiencies have been introduced to the academic textbook market.
We now live in a time where most consumers can walk into their neighborhood bookstore and purchase a 10th-grade level book on Euclidean Geometry for $10-15. Yet, the same curriculum material, embellished for a 10th-grade school district, can cast upwards of $100, often in addition to the purchase of required ancillary materials (teacher's guides, study guides, lab tapes, etc.).
Until recently, short of requiring every teacher (or school district) to write its own textbooks, nothing could be done about this costly situation.
With the advent of new Internet technology, and new intellectual property licensing innovations, it is now possible to create free high-quality, distributed banks of educational content. This content can published and distributed for far less than similar materials provided by commercial publishers.
Here is a listing of some well-known open source educational projects
Some new current open source content projects are as follows:
California Open Source Textbook Project (conducting pilot projects) http://www.opensourcetext.org
Wikipedia World History Project (a beginning pilot) http://wikibooks.org/wiki/World_History_Pr oject
MIT's OpenCourseWare project (a university =based open curriculum project) http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
There is a burgeoning movement to create "open source" educational content banks, from which insitutional (even individual) users can select - and publish - content about virtually *any* educational topic. These content resevoirs will be constructed to meet the most demanding curriculum frameworks, at all levels of curriculum instruction.
The open educational content movement makes sense because the bulk of formal educational content - i.e. the content that is delivered to student by educational institutions - doesn't change very much from year to year. For instance, there has been almost no change in the Calculus, or Euclidean Geometry for hundreds of years. Some basic curriculum areas do change, although slowly (with a very few exceptions). Thus, it's possible to imagine a scenario where free, open source access to educational content - based on sound curriculum frameworks put forward by our best public and private institutions - would benefit educational institutions, students, and taxpayers. More, bettwr quality, and less costly educational content will result.
Many foreign governments and international agencies are on the constant lookout for high quality inexpensive acces to high quality educational content in English, and other languages; they will also benefit from the reduced cost, greater quality, and wider availablility of open source educational content.
Where is Interaction Design in all of this?
on
KISS
·
· Score: 1
Bottom line: we're going to see a lot more of this as companies decrease their times to market, the latter fueled by the miniaturization and convergence of everything digital.
In all of this, it's a shame that true interaction design isn't playing more of a role.
Interaction designers (read Alan Cooper's "The Inmates are Running the Asylum, for more)deal with "how software behaves". Interaction design looks at what the *goals of the user* are. These goals are surmised after intense, up close work with customers. They result in rich templates that are followed *to the letter* by the developer - and, most importantly, this process *works*!
The end result is a very strict template that *directs* the software/hardware developer. It's much like a rendering of architectual plans for a home contractor. Here, the architect, after consultation with her client about *how* the home is to be used, and what the occupants *personal goals* are in that use, comes forward with a design that is followed *to the letter* (no deviation) by the contractor.
Consider the interaction designer and software/hardware developmer in a relationship much like the architect/homeowner.
BTW, there is no putting the systems architect in place of interaction designers. Systems architects - with exceptions for those who have an innate gift that mimics the best interaction design - are at fault, too. (There are always exceptions to the rule, but the bulk of rotten UI in all products proves my point)
There is simply no excuse for the continuation of faulty UI and confusing feature sets. The only reason this continues is because we continue to pay attention to the promises of marketers. We're adapting to less-than-optimal user experiences, in engineering-driven product scenarios. This will change in one of two ways: we will either adapt to poor interface, or the smart companies will realize that the real value in a product is what - in essence - defines a killer app...i.e., making a product enable an activity that one already engages, *easier*, or a new activity *easier* in ways that make the user want to dispense with the old activity.
Developers need to be following strict interaction design templates, period. No more "let's throw in this or that feature" if it is outside the boundaries of the *goals* of the target audience. Developers and product marketers, driven by the insane and increasing speeds of markets, are developing willy-nilly, with no thought to theh user experience.
Read Cooper's book for more. Every product developer should have it on his/her shelf.
1) Game over! Manufacturing: 17-18 million Chinese will migrate *every year* to China's coastal manufacturing provinces and cities *for the next 18-20 years*.
2) Game Over! Software/Hardware Engineering: *320,000 engineers graduated in the Pacific Rim in 1999 (excluding Japan, where wages are high) *65,000 engineers graduated in the US in 1999 (80,000 - if you count graduate students) [[*1999 National Science Foundation, audited numbers]]
3) Game Over! American Technology Services Sector (e.g. Accenture, IBM (consulting), etc): Massive infrastructure shifts to the services sector in Pacific Rim countries who have lost manufacturing jobs to China
There is virtually nothing anyone can do about outsourcing - and the fast developing intellectual capital resources of the rest of the world - that will insulate American workers, with the exception of regressive protectionism (which will result in an even worse situation).
In fact, *anyone* who's occupation does not *require* face-to-face contact is at risk of displacement, long-term.
The next big 'thing' will be social entrepreneurial plays that bring social and fiscal efficiencies into mature capitalism, on a large scale. Also, people will learn - in general, and long-term - to be happy with somewhat more limited material horizons (and probably enjoy life more). This is as plain as day, and already in the cards.
Politicians will not/cannot do anything to abate the outsourcing trend. Why? Because capital is "on the wire", and doesn't know national boundaries any longer. Corporations answer only to fiscal mandates, created by law. Game over!
So, say "ta-ta" to the gravy train; let's learn to optimize our intellectual and social capital, learn to cooperate (intra- and inter-nationally), and become creatively and commercially fierce (like the rest of the world).
There are *three* general solutions to this problem, with the third being social 'adjustment', made by Americans:
1) Unlock the potential of American economic diversity with aggressive public policy. This means mandating changes - in telecommunications, manufacturing, education, and other vital sectors - that enable Americans to take advantage of their enormous intellectual capital.
2) Encourage the growth of social entrepreneurial activity, with the goal of creating massive private and public efficiencies from the great wealth of intellectual, financial, and social capital held by Americans.
3) Social adjustment. Americans will learn to cooperate (among themselves, and with others) more - over the long-term - and realize that there are limits and consequences to great wealth.
All consumer electronics devices should be manufactured - at base - with the lowest-common-denominator user in mind.
If a device is made to enable someone with physical challenges, it should be a cinch to use for anyone who isn't challenged.
From there, a device could be addended with options, for those that want them. In fact, devices built this way would have a much higher "cool" factor than most of the poorly-desogned products we see today. Witness all the excitment every time an "easy-to-use" product comes to market...that alone makes my point.
If one considers that virtually all consumers will be physically challenged at some point in their lives (broken bones, aging, etc.), why shouldn't manufacturers be building devices with a "fail-safe" user mode that permits limted, but functional use?
Frankly, this design strategy alone would revolutionize consumer product manufacture in many sectors (auto, electronics, etc), and solve many of the "user-unfriendly" problems that plague consumers today.
Unfortunately, what we see today is engineering-driven design that frustrates all but the most determined users, and even those face barriers to seamless use that simply should not exist.
MoralHazard: "Fact is, evolution is NOT, NOT an intentional, planned affair, as your second sentence implies (and upon which your entire argument depends)." ------------ ebusinessmedia: Not so. You are reading that assumption into my argument, in order to make your own. In fact - whether evolution was planned or not [the solid evidence is that it isn't] - human beings have *not* evolved as primarily protein-and-fat-eating organisms.
MoralHazard: "So you build a "best of all possible worlds" fallacy on top of a confusion of "sufficient" conditions with "necessary" conditions, enough to reverse the factual relationship between the cause and the effect." ------------ ebusinessmedia: Again, you're reading into my argument. Read on, as I help you uncover your false assumptions.
MoralHazard: "Look at the theoretical picture, by analyzing the whole class of phenomena: the human immune system didn't evolve in the presence of antibiotic treatments. [snip]...by and large, technological advancement helps rather than hurts. As evidence, I would point out that the human race has generally exploited technology to minimize environmental threats and increase productivity, both of which contribute to a greater short-term and long-term survivability of the species." ----------- ebusinessmedia: For you and me, as individuals, technology has "by-and-large" (as you put it) been beneficial. However, the opportunity cost has not been as benign to millions upon millions of individuals who have been selected out by one technological change or another. It's almost unconscious, but still a disingenuous argument to claim that technology has profited the species. Sure, technology has helped some members of the species, and we're thriving (in terms of numbers); *however*, technology is still a recent thing in terms of life's developmental timeline. The jury is still out.
MoralHazard: "We are the most successful organism in the history of the planet, because we have the potential to become nearly un-extinctable, as a species. All because we say "FUCK YOU!" and flip the finger to Mother Nature, and we try to take an active control over our destiny." ----------- ebusinessmedia: Again, your assumption has 'not' been proven. The jury is out. For instance, will you or your progeny survive near-future develoments in proteomics and nanotechnology? (a moot point, because you wouldn't be here)
Will you consider it a "good" if your genotype gets selected out? Sure, some sembalce, some 'adapted' semblace of the human species will result, but to call this a "good thing", or claim it as a "win" over Mother Nature", is naive. We *have to* play inside the rules of evolution, that's our destiny, and evolution does not necessarily include a far-future for human beings. I suggest we hold oour applause for technology. Our "active control" has led to poverty, pestilence, and destitution for many. Technology (in its current, and near-future [Genomics/Proteomics, Robotic, Computer Science/AI/Cognitive Science, Nanotechnology, etc]) is a *very recent* adaptation. Let's wait a bit before declring "victory" over Mother Nature.
MoralHazard: "Oh, and for the record, I'm with you on the Atkins topic, specifically: they're just now starting to see cancer risk accumulations associated with regular pot smoking, but only over a 30-40 year span. I'll wait on Atkins until a substantially larger population has guinea-pigged it and found out the REAL risks." ----- ebusinessmedia: Right. This will be a nice opportunity for those medical specialists who evolve to treat overworked kidneys.
You Can't Fool Mother Nature
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You can't fool Mother Nature
Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein. We evolved as *active* animals who browsed and hunted for food.
The current social environment mitigates against health. There is too much food available, too much stress, not enough 'meaningful personal connection' (loss of the tribe?), too little movement [exercise], etc.
It's understandable that a population that is grossly unhealthy seeks tweaked solutions to health.
Atkins, like many other tweaks, will sooner or later be found to cause health problems, and drop from favor.
What's unfortunate - and ironic - about all these body tweaks, is that there is a grain (pun intended) of truth in most of them. It's probably a good thing that people move away from refined carbohydrates, add reasonable amounts of healthy fat to the diet, consume a greater portion of protein relative to carbs than has been the case for the last several decades, etc.
Unfortunately, the 'overclocking' crowd hoes whole hog (pun intended, again) on this stuff - the water diet, the grapefruit diet, the protein diet, etc. A price will be paid.
The Atkins Diet not what Mother Nature intended, and she always has her way in the end.
What I would like to see is a more in depth analysis - by individual - of how different bodies matabolize different foods, or combinations of foods. That day is coming. When we're they're (it's a way off), we'll have a better idea about what 'works' for us as individuals, and be able to intelligently act on that.
One last thing: populations and food availability co-evolve. One of the reasons why the French and Italians do so well with a lot of wine is because they're been drinking it for hundreds of generations. Those who coudn't take the Italian, French, Chinese, or whatever diet, died off, and tended not to reproduce. Those who were left are the ones who were able to handle it, and thrive on it (for the most part).
There have been interesting studies that return Southwest American Indians to their original diets, lost generations ago. What's startling about these studies is that many individuals who were diabetic, or had other health problems, experienced dramatic returns to health, or major improvement as a result of diet.
We might say the same for the typical American diet, with it's high sugar, refined carbohydrate and other oddities. If we did nothing at all, over generations (many of them) an 'American' genotype would evolve that was able to deal with the current toxins in the American diet (even pesticides), and thrive on them.
Sure, Atkins will work very well for some small number of people over a long period of time. However, many more people will most likely pay a price in compromised health (or general frustration)over the long term with Atkins diet, or any other diet that doesn't work the way MOther Nature intended.
Autotuners are here to stay, we should get over it. They will get more sophisticated, and be used by more-and-more artists, and consumers.
Also, what should consumer's expect - especially since the onset of MTV? Essentially, the current premium in pop music os to *look* good (hip); *sounding* good is important too. Thus, if current audio technology permits somewho who looks 'good' (right for the venue) to sound good (even if they don't have vocal talent), why not.
Thus, rather than diss autotuning technology, those who complain might consider Antares (and other) autotuners a sign of the pop music times.
Lastly, this technology will eventually make it into consumer devices. Can yo uimagine being able to 'sing' a pop song "in tune" with the original instrumentals, after the pop star's voice has been digitally muted? Or, singing along with the pop star on a CD/music video that's running on your game console (with all requisite tuning siftware built in)? How about singing your favorite aria via cell phone, and having your tune sent to a friend, or Mom. These things, and more, will happen as a result of autotuning technology.
If nothing else, autotuners help us all to appreciate just how rare a great, always-in-tune, expressive singing voice really is. In an odd way, autotuning technology will help create more respect and awe in the presence of great, un-retouched singing.
This looks a lot like some of the behavior engaged in the past (and present) by the the San Francisco Cacophony Society http://sf.cacophony.org/
The increasing capacity for spontaneous social expression via the network is going to get a boost, now that *everyone* who is within proximity of a prank has a chance to participate.
Yet another example of new social behaviors that emerge spontaneously at the 'edge' of the network.
It's be interesting to see what new kinds of mass social behavior develop, and which ones manage to survive, and become institutionalized.
As long as no one gets hurt, we could use a little levity.
As stated on the SF Cacophony site: "The Cacophony Society is a randomly gathered network of individuals united in the pursuit of experiences beyond the pale of mainstream society through subversion, pranks, art, fringe explorations and meaningless madness. "
Here's an excerpt about one past activity:
Mad Santa Crawl:
"each year at christmastime a crowd of santas descends upon one of san francisco's most-touristed neighborhoods to get drunk, to hand out disturbing gifts, and to frighten tourists.
on december 16, 2000 a santa faction drove to a ranch in petaluma, spent the afternoon discharging firearms, then joined the rest of the santas for the evening's festivities in san francisco. about 150 santas took over grant street in chinatown, and they eventually headed up into north beach."
Look, what this country (USA) has in massive quantity is *diversity*. That's something that no other nation enjoys - to the degree that we enjoy it. There's strength - economic, technological, and intellectual - in diversity.
We're also not weighed down by tradition. I don't see the US going the way of the UK, or Japan - both weighed down by less-than-transparent business and government institutions that keep them from turning on a dime to adapt to change.
We have enjoyed hegemony in many sectors since WWII, and largely squandered our opportunities due to the haughtiness of short-sighted American managers, who failed to husband opportunity in ways that would keep some benefit at home.
We're going to learn some hard lessons; if we get through those lessons, we're going to come out of this a better people.
Someone said above that American's aren't very good at self-reflection. That's true. The reason for this is because over the last 60 years we haven't had to 'reflect'. We've been busy dominating.
The tech sector will continue to be strong here, but it will have to look for unique ways to leverage intellectual capital if it's going to stay in the game.
Lastly, the tech sector is just one place where the general influence of the distribution of the means of production and labor will have massive impact in this country.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, many IP lawyers have been scamming their way to big bucks for the last decade. There are some attorneys who do good, no doubt - but when we see the ENABLEMENT by lawyers of the 'people' who sue, in ways that inflame the litigation, one has to wonder.
Bottom line: IP law needs *serious* overhall, and IP lawyers need serious price competition. This is beginning to happen, somewhat, as here in the Bay Area the rash of new firms is causing a surplus, with some firms starting to market aggressively for business - business that used to fall into their laps. I can't wait to see most of these sharks fade from the scene, as companies start to reralize that these "instruments" (what a crock!) are walking away with all the revenue.
Have any of you ever been in a divorce proceeding, where one attorney (or both) practically drool at the prospect of one of their letters to the opponent causing an angry outburst?
Look, lawyers are really not much more than specialized legal screed geeks, whose screed is kept obscure by - you guessed it - more lawyers...the ones in Washington and elsewhere who keep the legislative halls busy with new legal code, to keep their law firm friends happy.
Interesting fact: America has 1 attorney for every 500 citizens; Japan one attorney for every 10,000 citizens.
The law is PROFITABLE, in a way that COSTS our culture in a BIG WAY.
Fight the system? Ha! This is what most attorneys say, as they walk away with their big fees - fees that cost YOU and ME a LOT of money (these costs get passed on to consumers).
Why don't Captain Spendid and his buddies "fight the system"? They won't, because the system is *created* by lawyers. It *serves* the lawyers. (and here Splendid will say "we're a land of laws", of some other drivel that continues to serve him)
Regarding IP, there is a group of lawyers (Larry Lessig, for example), who are trying to change things, but their efforts are being fought every step of the way, by - guess who? - lawyers.
This is exactly right. Here in the Bay Area, there is currently a feeding frenzy going on, with one IP firm after another popping up to represent one tech company after another in one arcane patent dispute after another.
This is costing ALL OF US a LOT of money. It is making the legal system a LOT of money.
I've been inside a few of these law firms; they hire a phalanx of paralegals to pour through tens-of-thousands of documents, looking for keywords that might have bearing on a case; they create aggressive deposition schedules; they engage in ultra-expensive eDiscovery activities, and so on.
They bring in the best, catered food, day in and day out. They have overnight sleeping rooms, so that paralegals can stop work and not have to take time to commute the next morning. Money flows in, unencumbered by any thought about what it is costingi yuo and me, the American consumer, as all these costs are eventually borne by us in the way of higher prices, or constrained innovation.
The lawyers are walkingi away with big smiles on their faces; it's really sickening to consider the near-fact tthat there is probably more revenue being generated in Silicon Valley via IP litigation than there is from the deployment of new innovation.
Do you think the "legal profession's ethics" (an oxymoron, if I ever heard one) will do anything to stop this money-making juggernaut? Answer: no.
In fact, we are being held hostage by greedy IP law firms, who have a production-line attitude to litigating patent and copyright protection issues.
With new eDiscovery laws coming into place, now we're having to do legal diligence to the 'nth' email. Imagine the wide-eyed, greedy hand-wringing going on with that one.
Recently the ABA created a new "degree", for paralegals. It's called the "Paralegal Certificate". It's a two-year program, with the ABA (American Bar Assn.) mandating that ABA-approved paralegal programs CANNOT be held online. Imagine that. one has to trek off to night school after a long day at work, to listen to someone read notes from a Civil Litigation textbook that you could be reading and being tested for online.
Why this certificate? It permits these IPP (and other) law firms to bill more for paralegals. Now that "paralegal" is an "official" sub-category, law firms can take a $30 per hour paralegal and bill out $120-200 for their time (depending on discipline, and experience). More legal hands in our economy's cookie jar.
I don't know how we're going to change a copyright and patent system that feeds these parasitical attorneys so generously. Think about it; most of the laws are made by people who have been attorneys, and have staffs full of young attorneys. They will legislate in their self-interest.
Woof! er..... I meant "Hi"
Who needs major distribution companies?
What effect do the majors think youtube and its many future imitators - some devoted EXCLUSIVELY to the creation and distribution of music (and other forms of entertainment) imitators - is going to mean? Do they think they will be able to continue their dominance in those environements, given the above developments? If they do, they're deluded.
It's OVER for the majors; the long tail, including human ingenuity in the creation of art (including commercial art) is going to largely replace the current players. Some of the operatives in the majors will find work within the newer
If they think it's going to mean that they can simply morph their lame business models to gain exposure, they're wrong. Their time has come, and gone.
Game over!
I remember" way back when", in 1994, when I had a discussion with several high end music distributors - thay all laughed at the idea of the Internet. I remember a VP of Marketing at Tower Records' now-defunct corporate offices in Sacramento saying "Tower will NEVER sell music on the Internet"
I see a new era of music production in the works. There will be companies that come along, some of them mildly related to the artifacts of the "oldies" (a word that will take on new meaning, as it applies to long-gone primary music distributors of the past).
Just wait until we have more accurate technology capable of determining what music modal, chordal, melodic and other variables our brains prefer - that's coming.
To the majors: yes, it's over folks.
http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/outsourcing.html here's the study http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/Globalization_ White_Collar_Work_v3.pdf
This new information should be a wakeup call for policy-makers. The irony is that corporate profits no longer know national boundaries. Solutions are going to take political leadership, and real committment. If no solutions are forthcoming, we will continue to see significant employment displacement here, with all the social problems that that implies.
That said, I think s/he might have focused more on finding ways to experience wonder from moment-to-moment. This isn't easy when you're slinging hash, or heading toward the 11th straight hour of wrapping up a code project for a manager named Godzilla.
Life really is moment-to-moment, and very, very non-linear. There are ways - without becoming a mindless new age fanatic - to deal with the everyday.
Many years ago I read a book on Aesthetics called "Art in the Everyday"; it had a big impact. (I think it's out of print, and most people would probably find it pedantic).
Wittgenstein had a great way of dealing with this; he said (to paraphrase) "don't wonder about why you are, or what you are, or how you came to be, etc. - simply wonder THAT you are.
Again, this is not about contemplating one's navel, but rather using good, time-worn techniques (meditation, etc.) to get beyond all the stuff that weighs us down, and use that weight as a lever to achieve some internal peace.
It's tough drilling down to the moment in difficult times, but there's peace there, no matter what. I wish we could teach our kids more about how to do that.
Lastly, none of this means quiting the world, and withdrawing. On the contrary, it's about finding ways to pay more attention to the world on a moment-by-moment basis. that's deosn't preclude anyone from being/doing in this world in any number of ways - i.e. agressive entrepreneur, waiter, writer, coder, nanny, stay-at-home-mom, etc.
Following this incident, a control system was begun that let project initiators have increased control over their Wiki. this appears to be working.
Wikipedia is a great resource, and a great idea. That said, I think the move to more rational control - to prevent malicious attacks or even inadvertant disasters - is a good idea.
What I discovered one day - because i dodn't visit the Wiki every day - was that the whole thing had been co-opted by some anarchistic fool who simply thought that *his* take on my project was a better one. That person literally stole my Wiki URL, erased what I and many others had constructed, and started putting his content on it. That, instead of simply starting his own project under a different name. I had to find an intermediary to help me negotiate with this person, just to get him to cease and desist. In the interim, I lost the promise of help for the project that I had received from several people who could have made the project move along faster. they were afraid that their work could/would be wiped out.
The entire incident caused immeasureable harm to my project, and to the project's self-image. The project lost viable contributions from nearly 100 contributors that really cared about what I was doing.This has since been repaired. I had to reconstruct everything from scratch. This disaster happened simply because there was no proper control designed into the process. Thiings are noe getting better on Wikipedia
If you want to see the project- the California Open Source Textbook Project [COSTP] now almost fully back from near-decimation, go to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/COSTP_World_History_P roject
http://www.opensourcetext.org/
Here's a fascinating application that I came across. This little company is making big waves in the music instrument manufacturing sector. They're doing some cool R&D on tracking technologies that combine GPS and RFID as well.
http://www.snagg.com
This project (COSTP/Wikibooks) invites anyone who is expert in World History to contribute. It's an important project because it will prove that a bona fide K-12 textbook *can* be created in open source - and most importantly, gain approval for use by the State Board of education, we would then be able to crack the costly commercial textbook business at the K-12 level.
COSTP has shown that you can have a *printed* textbook come out of open source at a 50% savings over commercial textbooks. California alone spends almost $400M for K-12 textbook in one year. Imagine how much $200M in savings would help California's money-strapped schools. Further, once other states get into the open content idea, many *billions* in savings could be realized.
It's very important that content contributors be willing to maintain strict adherence to the California State Education department Standards. This is the *only* way that a book like this will pass State Board of Education approval. if COSTP can get a few of these in the system, it will eventually open up for alternative histories, and other curriculum areas. Lastly, COSTP is devoted to bringing *printed* textbooks to the K-12 sector, worldwide, by spreading the meme that open content - created by knowledgeable peers, and based on local curriculum standards - can and should be used for basic education
Those prior posters who are complaining about India's lack of political and economic transparency (as well as the same problem in many other poor countries) should read De Soto's book.
De Soto's goal is to help the poor - and the countries they reside in (including India) unlock dormant intellectual and financial capital.
Like it or not, India is growing up in ways that will make its poor more enabled - and able to leave poverty behind. Some of this will result in domestic displacement here. That's capitalism, especially when its operating in a way that lets people really *own* something of capital worth, and *leverage* that worth for further wealth.
Right now, India is learning to leverage intellectual capital, and making flegling attempts to improve the property system - there's no stopping this trend.
De Soto should win a Nobel prize for his work. His findings are astounding, and so compelling that every page seems a new insight into wire-ranging economic solutions that lie just under the surface.
What he describes in places like India is an arcane and complex system of underground economies that exist because there is no political/economic structure to permit ownership and transfer of capital. This is a seminal insight.
In fact, De Soto (who has done his research, exhaustively) shows that America went through the travails of a very non-transparent system of property ownership, and found its way out of it.
Bottom line: it's the ability of a culture to create transparent infrastructure that enables the ownership and transfer of capital that leads to development, and freedom ("freedom is participation in power" - Cicero (the Roman sage and philosopher).
Frankly, De Soto's book is one of the most enlightening things I've read on development, ever. It will help the reader understand what prerequisites are necessary to defeat poverty, and enable the poor.
As I write this, many governments worldwide have brought in De Soto (he's Peruvian) and his teams to help figure out new ways to structure capital ownership and capital transfer (leveraging).
This will all take time, and will make a huge difference to everyone - inlcuding Americans (in fact, De Soto presents the American experience as a template for how to begin approaching this problem in other places).
Read the book, and be enlightened.
(COSTP) - The California Open Source Textbook Project has been collaborating with Wikipedia on a K-12 (public high school) World History project. The project is based on California State Board of Education Framework standards.
The idea is to create a pilot basd on strict curriculum framework adherence, as this is the **only** way to get **any** state board of education to approve the end product for local school district use.
I would encourage anyone who is expert in World History to contribute to this project here Wikipedia World History Project
The goal of this project is to prove the concept. Once that's done, may other curriculum areas can be constructed - including those that deviate from curriculum frameworks.
A further goal is to have the resulting files generate a 'print-on-demand' file because the end product should be a printed text.
COSTP has shown that the cost of an open source K-12 (printed)textbook (hardcover)is 40-50% cheaper than K-12 textbooks published and distributed by commercial publishers.
Lastly, if you want to contribute content to the project, please contribute *only* your own (original)work. Content that is already copyrighted is not welcome/ We want to show State Boards of Education that open source textbook publishing can save the states - collectively - *billions* of dollars. e.g. California spends $400M+ every year on K-12 textbooks, with prices having risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992.
COSTP is an official collaborator with Creative Commons, and was a recent participant in forging the Creative Commons educational license. Also, we hope in the future to work with the Connexions Project at Rice University, to get further tests piloted.
- - http://www.opensourcetext.org - -
has been collaborating with Wikipedia on a K-12 (public high school) World History project. The project is based on California State Board of Education Framework standards.
The idea is to create a pilot basd on strict curriculum framework adherence, as this is the **only** way to get **any** state board of education to approve the end product for local school district use.
I would encourage anyone who is expert in World History to contribute to this project here
- - http://wikibooks.org/wiki/World_History_Project_-_ Contents - -
The goal of this project is to prove the concept. Once that's done, may other curriculum areas can be constructed - including those that deviate from curriculum frameworks.
A further goal is to have the resulting files generate a 'print-on-demand' file because the end product should be a printed text.
COSTP has shown that the cost of an open source K-12 (printed)textbook (hardcover)is 40-50% cheaper than K-12 textbooks published and distributed by commercial publishers.
Lastly, if you want to contribute content to the project, please contribute *only* your own (original)work. Content that is already copyrighted is not welcome/ We want to show State Boards of Education that open source textbook publishing can save the states - collectively - *billions* of dollars. e.g. California spends $400M+ every year on K-12 textbooks, with prices having risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992.
COSTP is an official collaborator with Creative Commons, and was a recent participant in forging the Creative Commons educationsal license.
Also, we hope n the future to work with the Connexions Project
http://cnx.rice.edu/
at Rice University, to get further tests piloted.
The concept of open source is now thoroughly out of the box, and already moving into areas beside IT. Here are a few examples:
..."0 4_01.h tml
N ews&file= article&sid=815
1) ""Researchers in Australia and India are sidestepping agriculture patents held by the likes of Monsanto and DuPont to develop competitive technologies and foods (such as a high-protein potato) that are, by design, open and unrestricted. In pharmaceuticals, India is skirting patents to create generic AIDS drugs that are orders of magnitude cheaper than those made by the transnational drug companies
http://www.mediajunk.com/public/archives/20
also,
http://www.wacc.org.uk/modules.php?name=
2) The California Open Source Textbook Project www.opensourcetext.org has been created to provide open source printed books for K-12 students in California, and eventually the world.
www.opensourcetext.org
3) MIT's OpenCourseWare project has been created to provide free university curriculum to students
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
4) Wikipedia is a great example of open source content with it's many open source projects
www.wikipedia.org
There are many other examples, currently, of cooperative efforts to share intellectual capital.
This is another in a continuing series of developments (including open content licesnsing - see www.creativecommons.org) that will change current models of textbook development and distribution forever.
It's just a matter of time before public educational institutions at the K-12 and university level (in addition to many private educational institutions)procure all or most of their curriculum materials this way.
American public educational institutions spend several billions of tax dollars per year for textbooks - required by every public school, most private schools, many home schools, and public universities.
Added to this cost is the fact that university and K-12 textbooks have risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992. In California alone, the annual cost for K-12 textbooks is more than $400M per year.
The textbook industry began its climb to prominence in the 1950's and 60's's, as Baby Boomers entered private and public educational institutions in unpecedented numbers. There was a real need for mass produced educational materials, and commercial textbook publishers filled the demand.
As enrollment in educational institutions continued to increase, commercial educational publishers gradually became the default suppliers of text-based educational materials.
Realizing that they had a near monopoly on the educational publishing market, commercial publishers began to raise prices and force "new editions" of classic textbooks into the market to compell new purchases, and defeat the used textbook market. As a result, textbook prices have risen precipitously; it's not unusual for a high school textbook to approach $100, or more. It's often the case that college textbooks exceed that amount.
Continued dependence on commercial publishers for basic textbooks has led to a "fox is living in the henhouse" situation. As a result, massive diseconomies and inefficiencies have been introduced to the academic textbook market.
We now live in a time where most consumers can walk into their neighborhood bookstore and purchase a 10th-grade level book on Euclidean Geometry for $10-15. Yet, the same curriculum material, embellished for a 10th-grade school district, can cast upwards of $100, often in addition to the purchase of required ancillary materials (teacher's guides, study guides, lab tapes, etc.).
The above example is repeated in many classical mathematical - and other - disciplines at the university level.
Until recently, short of requiring every teacher (or school district) to write its own textbooks, nothing could be done about this costly situation.
With the advent of new Internet technologies and intellectual property licensing innovations it is now possible to create free, high-quality, distributed banks of educational content. This content can published and distributed for far less than similar materials provided by commercial publishers.
Here is a listing of some well-known open source educational projects
Some new current open source content projects are as follows:
California Open Source Textbook Project (COSTP)(conducting pilot projects)
http://www.opensourcetext.org
Wikipedia World History Project (a beginning K-12 pilot inspired by COSTP and based on strict California State surriculum standards)
http://wikibooks.org/wiki/World_Histor y_Project
MIT's OpenCourseWare project (a university-based open curriculum project)
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
There is a burgeoning movement to create "open source" educational content banks, from which insitutional (even individual) users can select - and publish - content about virtually *any* educational topic. These content resevoirs will be constructed to meet the most demanding curriculum frameworks, at all levels of curriculum instruction.
The open educational content movement makes sense because the bulk of formal educational content - i.e. the content that is delivered to student by educational ins
HDTV won't be anywhere near ubiquitous for some time, probably 5-7 years, maybe longer. Takeup times for new technologies always take longer than hype suggests.
h ighdeftv020107.html
B C4AFFD0C-7857-4867-B8B7-14F013AEF961%7D&siteid=goo gle&dist=google
/ index.a spx?ReturnUrl=%2fTTV%2fCommandCenter%2fCommandCent er.aspx
A few comments
1) HDTV has been mandated by law, but there is a lot of consumer confusion in the market about what comprises HDTV, which TV sets will actually deliver an HDTV signal, and so on. Here's more on the confusion http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3403493.stm
2) We're looking at 5-7 (or more) years before sufficient turnaround from analog and many digital TV sets (that don't necessarily play HDTV signals) happens. Also, there is still a relative dearth of HDTV programming *compared to* traditional programming. Content is the one thing that will drive this sector, but the current situation lends itself to a chicken and egg scenario where content producers are waiting for crtical HDTV mass - while consumers wait for critical HDTV content mass - to appear.
Go here http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/
for more insight
Here's another interesting article on the topic. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7
3) Go here for listings of what's available in HDTV format in your area.
http://www.titantv.com/TTV/MyTitanTv/Login
4) Lastly, the investment sector is cautious about HDTV. They predict universal adoption eventually, but clearly see risk factors if HDTV takeup rates don't mesh with the aggressive hype that we've seen from the consumer electronics press, companies, and associations.
Textbooks are required by every public school, most private schools, and many home schools, and public universities in America. American public educational institutions spend several billion of tax dollars per year for textbooks. Added to this cost is the fact that K-12 textbooks have risen at three times the rate of inflation since 1992. In California alone, the annual cost for K-12 textbooks is more than $400M per year.
r oject
The textbook industry began its climb to prominence in the 1950's and 60's's, as Baby Boomers entered private and public educational institutions in unpecedented numbers. There was a real need for mass produced educational materials, and commercial textbook publishers filled the demand.
As enrollment in educational institutions continued to increase, commercial educational publishers gradually became default the suppliers of text-based educational materials.
Realizing that they had a near monopoly on the educational publishing market, commercial publishers began to raise prices and force "new editions" of classic textbooks into the market to compell new purchases, and defeat the used textbook market. Also, textbook prices began to rise precipitously; it's not unusual for a high school textbook to approach $100, or more.
Continued dependence on commercial publishers for basic textbooks has led to a "fox is living in the henhouse" situation. As a result, massive diseconomies and inefficiencies have been introduced to the academic textbook market.
We now live in a time where most consumers can walk into their neighborhood bookstore and purchase a 10th-grade level book on Euclidean Geometry for $10-15. Yet, the same curriculum material, embellished for a 10th-grade school district, can cast upwards of $100, often in addition to the purchase of required ancillary materials (teacher's guides, study guides, lab tapes, etc.).
Until recently, short of requiring every teacher (or school district) to write its own textbooks, nothing could be done about this costly situation.
With the advent of new Internet technology, and new intellectual property licensing innovations, it is now possible to create free high-quality, distributed banks of educational content. This content can published and distributed for far less than similar materials provided by commercial publishers.
Here is a listing of some well-known open source educational projects
Some new current open source content projects are as follows:
California Open Source Textbook Project (conducting pilot projects)
http://www.opensourcetext.org
Wikipedia World History Project (a beginning pilot)
http://wikibooks.org/wiki/World_History_P
MIT's OpenCourseWare project (a university =based open curriculum project)
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
There is a burgeoning movement to create "open source" educational content banks, from which insitutional (even individual) users can select - and publish - content about virtually *any* educational topic. These content resevoirs will be constructed to meet the most demanding curriculum frameworks, at all levels of curriculum instruction.
The open educational content movement makes sense because the bulk of formal educational content - i.e. the content that is delivered to student by educational institutions - doesn't change very much from year to year. For instance, there has been almost no change in the Calculus, or Euclidean Geometry for hundreds of years. Some basic curriculum areas do change, although slowly (with a very few exceptions). Thus, it's possible to imagine a scenario where free, open source access to educational content - based on sound curriculum frameworks put forward by our best public and private institutions - would benefit educational institutions, students, and taxpayers. More, bettwr quality, and less costly educational content will result.
Many foreign governments and international agencies are on the constant lookout for high quality inexpensive acces to high quality educational content in English, and other languages; they will also benefit from the reduced cost, greater quality, and wider availablility of open source educational content.
Bottom line: we're going to see a lot more of this as companies decrease their times to market, the latter fueled by the miniaturization and convergence of everything digital.
In all of this, it's a shame that true interaction design isn't playing more of a role.
Interaction designers (read Alan Cooper's "The Inmates are Running the Asylum, for more)deal with "how software behaves". Interaction design looks at what the *goals of the user* are. These goals are surmised after intense, up close work with customers. They result in rich templates that are followed *to the letter* by the developer - and, most importantly, this process *works*!
The end result is a very strict template that *directs* the software/hardware developer. It's much like a rendering of architectual plans for a home contractor. Here, the architect, after consultation with her client about *how* the home is to be used, and what the occupants *personal goals* are in that use, comes forward with a design that is followed *to the letter* (no deviation) by the contractor.
Consider the interaction designer and software/hardware developmer in a relationship much like the architect/homeowner.
BTW, there is no putting the systems architect in place of interaction designers. Systems architects - with exceptions for those who have an innate gift that mimics the best interaction design - are at fault, too. (There are always exceptions to the rule, but the bulk of rotten UI in all products proves my point)
There is simply no excuse for the continuation of faulty UI and confusing feature sets. The only reason this continues is because we continue to pay attention to the promises of marketers. We're adapting to less-than-optimal user experiences, in engineering-driven product scenarios. This will change in one of two ways: we will either adapt to poor interface, or the smart companies will realize that the real value in a product is what - in essence - defines a killer app...i.e., making a product enable an activity that one already engages, *easier*, or a new activity *easier* in ways that make the user want to dispense with the old activity.
Developers need to be following strict interaction design templates, period. No more "let's throw in this or that feature" if it is outside the boundaries of the *goals* of the target audience. Developers and product marketers, driven by the insane and increasing speeds of markets, are developing willy-nilly, with no thought to theh user experience.
Read Cooper's book for more. Every product developer should have it on his/her shelf.
1) Game over! Manufacturing:
17-18 million Chinese will migrate *every year* to China's coastal manufacturing provinces and cities *for the next 18-20 years*.
2) Game Over! Software/Hardware Engineering:
*320,000 engineers graduated in the Pacific Rim in 1999 (excluding Japan, where wages are high)
*65,000 engineers graduated in the US in 1999 (80,000 - if you count graduate students)
[[*1999 National Science Foundation, audited numbers]]
3) Game Over! American Technology Services Sector (e.g. Accenture, IBM (consulting), etc):
Massive infrastructure shifts to the services sector in Pacific Rim countries who have lost manufacturing jobs to China
There is virtually nothing anyone can do about outsourcing - and the fast developing intellectual capital resources of the rest of the world - that will insulate American workers, with the exception of regressive protectionism (which will result in an even worse situation).
In fact, *anyone* who's occupation does not *require* face-to-face contact
is at risk of displacement, long-term.
The next big 'thing' will be social entrepreneurial plays that bring social
and fiscal efficiencies into mature capitalism, on a large scale. Also,
people will learn - in general, and long-term - to be happy with somewhat
more limited material horizons (and probably enjoy life more). This is as
plain as day, and already in the cards.
Politicians will not/cannot do anything to abate the outsourcing trend. Why?
Because capital is "on the wire", and doesn't know national boundaries any
longer. Corporations answer only to fiscal mandates, created by law. Game over!
So, say "ta-ta" to the gravy train; let's learn to optimize our intellectual and social capital, learn to cooperate (intra- and inter-nationally), and become creatively and commercially fierce (like the rest of the world).
There are *three* general solutions to this problem, with the third being social 'adjustment', made by Americans:
1) Unlock the potential of American economic diversity with aggressive public policy. This means mandating changes - in telecommunications, manufacturing, education, and other vital sectors - that enable Americans to take advantage of their enormous intellectual capital.
2) Encourage the growth of social entrepreneurial activity, with the goal of creating massive private and public efficiencies from the great wealth of intellectual, financial, and social capital held by Americans.
3) Social adjustment. Americans will learn to cooperate (among themselves, and with others) more - over the long-term - and realize that there are limits and consequences to great wealth.
All solutions are related.
Here's to making those solutions happen!
All consumer electronics devices should be manufactured - at base - with the lowest-common-denominator user in mind.
If a device is made to enable someone with physical challenges, it should be a cinch to use for anyone who isn't challenged.
From there, a device could be addended with options, for those that want them. In fact, devices built this way would have a much higher "cool" factor than most of the poorly-desogned products we see today. Witness all the excitment every time an "easy-to-use" product comes to market...that alone makes my point.
If one considers that virtually all consumers will be physically challenged at some point in their lives (broken bones, aging, etc.), why shouldn't manufacturers be building devices with a "fail-safe" user mode that permits limted, but functional use?
Frankly, this design strategy alone would revolutionize consumer product manufacture in many sectors (auto, electronics, etc), and solve many of the "user-unfriendly" problems that plague consumers today.
Unfortunately, what we see today is engineering-driven design that frustrates all but the most determined users, and even those face barriers to seamless use that simply should not exist.
MoralHazard:
"Fact is, evolution is NOT, NOT an intentional, planned affair, as your second sentence implies (and upon which your entire argument depends)."
------------
ebusinessmedia:
Not so. You are reading that assumption into my argument, in order to make your own. In fact - whether evolution was planned or not [the solid evidence is that it isn't] - human beings have *not* evolved as primarily protein-and-fat-eating organisms.
MoralHazard:
"So you build a "best of all possible worlds" fallacy on top of a confusion of "sufficient" conditions with "necessary" conditions, enough to reverse the factual relationship between the cause and the effect."
------------
ebusinessmedia:
Again, you're reading into my argument. Read on, as I help you uncover your false assumptions.
MoralHazard:
"Look at the theoretical picture, by analyzing the whole class of phenomena: the human immune system didn't evolve in the presence of antibiotic treatments. [snip]...by and large, technological advancement helps rather than hurts. As evidence, I would point out that the human race has generally exploited technology to minimize environmental threats and increase productivity, both of which contribute to a greater short-term and long-term survivability of the species."
-----------
ebusinessmedia:
For you and me, as individuals, technology has "by-and-large" (as you put it) been beneficial. However, the opportunity cost has not been as benign to millions upon millions of individuals who have been selected out by one technological change or another. It's almost unconscious, but still a disingenuous argument to claim that technology has profited the species. Sure, technology has helped some members of the species, and we're thriving (in terms of numbers); *however*, technology is still a recent thing in terms of life's developmental timeline. The jury is still out.
MoralHazard:
"We are the most successful organism in the history of the planet, because we have the potential to become nearly un-extinctable, as a species. All because we say "FUCK YOU!" and flip the finger to Mother Nature, and we try to take an active control over our destiny."
-----------
ebusinessmedia:
Again, your assumption has 'not' been proven. The jury is out. For instance, will you or your progeny survive near-future develoments in proteomics and nanotechnology? (a moot point, because you wouldn't be here)
Will you consider it a "good" if your genotype gets selected out? Sure, some sembalce, some 'adapted' semblace of the human species will result, but to call this a "good thing", or claim it as a "win" over Mother Nature", is naive. We *have to* play inside the rules of evolution, that's our destiny, and evolution does not necessarily include a far-future for human beings. I suggest we hold oour applause for technology. Our "active control" has led to poverty, pestilence, and destitution for many. Technology (in its current, and near-future [Genomics/Proteomics, Robotic, Computer Science/AI/Cognitive Science, Nanotechnology, etc]) is a *very recent* adaptation. Let's wait a bit before declring "victory" over Mother Nature.
MoralHazard:
"Oh, and for the record, I'm with you on the Atkins topic, specifically: they're just now starting to see cancer risk accumulations associated with regular pot smoking, but only over a 30-40 year span. I'll wait on Atkins until a substantially larger population has guinea-pigged it and found out the REAL risks."
-----
ebusinessmedia:
Right. This will be a nice opportunity for those medical specialists who evolve to treat overworked kidneys.
You can't fool Mother Nature
Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein. We evolved as *active* animals who browsed and hunted for food.
The current social environment mitigates against health. There is too much food available, too much stress, not enough 'meaningful personal connection' (loss of the tribe?), too little movement [exercise], etc.
It's understandable that a population that is grossly unhealthy seeks tweaked solutions to health.
Atkins, like many other tweaks, will sooner or later be found to cause health problems, and drop from favor.
What's unfortunate - and ironic - about all these body tweaks, is that there is a grain (pun intended) of truth in most of them. It's probably a good thing that people move away from refined carbohydrates, add reasonable amounts of healthy fat to the diet, consume a greater portion of protein relative to carbs than has been the case for the last several decades, etc.
Unfortunately, the 'overclocking' crowd hoes whole hog (pun intended, again) on this stuff - the water diet, the grapefruit diet, the protein diet, etc. A price will be paid.
The Atkins Diet not what Mother Nature intended, and she always has her way in the end.
What I would like to see is a more in depth analysis - by individual - of how different bodies matabolize different foods, or combinations of foods. That day is coming. When we're they're (it's a way off), we'll have a better idea about what 'works' for us as individuals, and be able to intelligently act on that.
One last thing: populations and food availability co-evolve. One of the reasons why the French and Italians do so well with a lot of wine is because they're been drinking it for hundreds of generations. Those who coudn't take the Italian, French, Chinese, or whatever diet, died off, and tended not to reproduce. Those who were left are the ones who were able to handle it, and thrive on it (for the most part).
There have been interesting studies that return Southwest American Indians to their original diets, lost generations ago. What's startling about these studies is that many individuals who were diabetic, or had other health problems, experienced dramatic returns to health, or major improvement as a result of diet.
We might say the same for the typical American diet, with it's high sugar, refined carbohydrate and other oddities. If we did nothing at all, over generations (many of them) an 'American' genotype would evolve that was able to deal with the current toxins in the American diet (even pesticides), and thrive on them.
Sure, Atkins will work very well for some small number of people over a long period of time. However, many more people will most likely pay a price in compromised health (or general frustration)over the long term with Atkins diet, or any other diet that doesn't work the way MOther Nature intended.
Autotuners are here to stay, we should get over it. They will get more sophisticated, and be used by more-and-more artists, and consumers.
Also, what should consumer's expect - especially since the onset of MTV? Essentially, the current premium in pop music os to *look* good (hip); *sounding* good is important too. Thus, if current audio technology permits somewho who looks 'good' (right for the venue) to sound good (even if they don't have vocal talent), why not.
Thus, rather than diss autotuning technology, those who complain might consider Antares (and other) autotuners a sign of the pop music times.
Lastly, this technology will eventually make it into consumer devices. Can yo uimagine being able to 'sing' a pop song "in tune" with the original instrumentals, after the pop star's voice has been digitally muted? Or, singing along with the pop star on a CD/music video that's running on your game console (with all requisite tuning siftware built in)? How about singing your favorite aria via cell phone, and having your tune sent to a friend, or Mom. These things, and more, will happen as a result of autotuning technology.
If nothing else, autotuners help us all to appreciate just how rare a great, always-in-tune, expressive singing voice really is. In an odd way, autotuning technology will help create more respect and awe in the presence of great, un-retouched singing.
This looks a lot like some of the behavior engaged in the past (and present) by the the San Francisco Cacophony Society http://sf.cacophony.org/
The increasing capacity for spontaneous social expression via the network is going to get a boost, now that *everyone* who is within proximity of a prank has a chance to participate.
Yet another example of new social behaviors that emerge spontaneously at the 'edge' of the network.
It's be interesting to see what new kinds of mass social behavior develop, and which ones manage to survive, and become institutionalized.
As long as no one gets hurt, we could use a little levity.
As stated on the SF Cacophony site: "The Cacophony Society is a randomly gathered network of individuals united in the pursuit of experiences beyond the pale of mainstream society through subversion, pranks, art, fringe explorations and meaningless madness. "
Here's an excerpt about one past activity:
Mad Santa Crawl:
"each year at christmastime a crowd of santas descends upon one of san francisco's most-touristed neighborhoods to get drunk, to hand out disturbing gifts, and to frighten tourists.
on december 16, 2000 a santa faction drove to a ranch in petaluma, spent the afternoon discharging firearms, then joined the rest of the santas for the evening's festivities in san francisco. about 150 santas took over grant street in chinatown, and they eventually headed up into north beach."
Not really.
Look, what this country (USA) has in massive quantity is *diversity*. That's something that no other nation enjoys - to the degree that we enjoy it. There's strength - economic, technological, and intellectual - in diversity.
We're also not weighed down by tradition. I don't see the US going the way of the UK, or Japan - both weighed down by less-than-transparent business and government institutions that keep them from turning on a dime to adapt to change.
We have enjoyed hegemony in many sectors since WWII, and largely squandered our opportunities due to the haughtiness of short-sighted American managers, who failed to husband opportunity in ways that would keep some benefit at home.
We're going to learn some hard lessons; if we get through those lessons, we're going to come out of this a better people.
Someone said above that American's aren't very good at self-reflection. That's true. The reason for this is because over the last 60 years we haven't had to 'reflect'. We've been busy dominating.
The tech sector will continue to be strong here, but it will have to look for unique ways to leverage intellectual capital if it's going to stay in the game.
Lastly, the tech sector is just one place where the general influence of the distribution of the means of production and labor will have massive impact in this country.