Evanomics

Public Intellectual Part II: Technology and the Renaissance

2008-05-05T00:43:00.000-07:00

In Part I of my series on the public intellectual, I talked about how public intellectuals are still thriving in our society thanks to democracy and religion. In this post, I will focus on how the internet has acted as a catalyst in the development of the public intellectual, as well as how the PI has been crucial in the development of such innovations .

Communicational innovations have been especially beneficial tools for the spread of public intellectuals, but more importantly, it has further enabled the effortless dissemination of their ideas. In turn, the PI's support and use of has been integral in the evolution of such creations. A striking resemblance can be made between Gutenberg's printing press and the current phenomenon of the internet.

The most glaring resemblance is the fact that both the printing press and the internet enabled sharing of information never before imagined. Similarly, both inventions caused massive effects outside of their original intention. Paradigms were not shifted - they were completely changed. James A. Dewar notes the many benefits of the printing press, noting,

“The printing press has been implicated in the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, all of which had profound effects on their eras; similarly profound changes may already be underway in the information age.”

Dewar also draws a similarity between the press and networked computing, arguing, “The future of the information age will be dominated by unintended consequences” and “It will be decades before we see the full effects of the information age.” Certainly many consequences will go unforeseen(as they often do with inventions of such magnitudes), though a lengthy realization may not be as likely. Where 150 years ago, it could take months to reach someone across the country, people can now instantly interact on a global scale. And, of course, almost everyone has a computer.

These tools are byproducts coming from a need to learn more about our universe – that undying intellectual drive to know. In other words, these are inventions to help inventors. The underlying idea is information. By sharing and spreading information, people can know more, and more people can know more. We are living in an age where information is power - where the most informed and the most amount of informed people gain new relevances. It is the Information Age, and ubiquity is not a dream, but a very realistic goal.

Still, the internet's importance does not rely solely on the fact that the information is out there, but also the ease of access and dissemination on a personal level. To find virtually information on any topic, all one needs to know is what they are looking for and google's URL. Type in “the basics of quantum computing” and you'll get 170,000 results in 0.22 seconds – perhaps there may be a few intellectuals in that bunch.

If you happen to be looking for more narrowed results, or if you are such an intellectual that your esoteric criteria is too obscure, there is a plethora of places to look. Many sites offer unique and user-customizable search filtering. The multitude of scholarly sites typically post journals, articles, interviews, and other academic work of the highest caliber. Though some come at an expense, their availability is the crucial point.

Wikipedia has replaced the encyclopedia as a common store of knowledge and reference. Because of it's open source philosophy where the community submits and moderates content, accuracy is ensured to a percentile surpassing a printed encyclopedia and rivaling current online ones. The community of Public Intellectuals is out there, and they are very aware of each other. Wikipedia is not the only way that the current PI collaborates.

The blogosphere is the new global agora. A blog serves as a personal statement of identity, by sharing one's ideas with others in hopes of finding people with similar interests or relevant criticisms. Even the simplest of blogs can give insight to an outsider. The evolution has gone from the newspaper article to the blog address, only you don't have to be hired to write anymore. Furthermore, forums and discussion groups are even less formal, but just as common ways of sharing ideas, allowing users to post and comment on various topics.

The global aspect of the internet is truly unique. Never before have people been able to easily communicate regardless of location. Forget about the phone – email, instant messaging, video chat, and file sharing allow people to interact and share ideas instantly across various mediums. Teachers can teach classes with audio and visual tools, almost creating a completely virtual classroom environment. The fast transmission of information allows for quicker evolution of ideas. Physicist Paul Ginsparg said:

"The communication of research results occurs on a dramatically accelerated timescale... In addition, researchers who might not ordinarily communicate with one another can quickly set up a virtual meeting ground, and ultimately disband if things do not pan out, all with infinitely greater ease and flexibility than is provided by current publication media." Maybe telepathy isn't so far away...

It's about time for the first global renaissance. The internet and open source movement resemble the characteristic massive intellectual effort and rejuvenation of the arts that occurred in Italy around 400 years ago. People are getting smarter than ever, becoming experts in multiple areas. Intellectuals are hard to miss with so many people online. Countless coders and programmers have developed the open source movement, in hopes of most adequately refining man's greatest tool. The world's large network of computers has music and film are everywhere, as artists broaden their scope just by browsing online, and fans discover an exponentially larger selection than they are used to. And everything is done instantly! Just the idea of this type of sharing seems good a priori. If the net stays neutral, and all people are granted access, the scale of advancement mankind will achieve in the next 50 years alone will be unprecedented.

Beyond the Internet

2008-04-28T13:19:00.001-07:00

The Internet is evolving, there's no doubt about that. We have Internet 2.0(and now 3.0), Wikis, picture perfect global maps, and numerous developments everyday. Despite all the progress, the future of the internet as we know it is up in the air, as companies battle over content control and argue over which rights should be granted and kept from users. The danger that free and equal use of the internet might be lost is imminent.

I find it ironic that by the time this perverted internet does manifest, it may already be obsolete. The entire Internet could soon be replaced by what is known simply as "The Grid".

The developers of the Internet have already begun networking supercomputers for the further posterity of virtual collaboration. The new network has been said to achieve "speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection(times online)." IBM's Brian Carpenter said of The Grid's future potential, "The Grid will open up ... storage and transaction power in the same way that the Web opened up content."

By installing a completely new infrastructure, they can avoid many problems the Internet has faced already. Still, this total switch will be difficult because of it's large scale. Group's of the world's elite scientists have been meeting to discuss issues of compatibility, security, accounting, and other important issues to consider before initiating the project to full tilt.

Douglas Heingartner explains potential uses:

"Other potential Grid components include creating a virtual observatory, and doctors performing simulations of blood flows. While some of these applications have existed for years, the Grid will make them routine rather than exceptional."

The future of the internet and the grid do share a common characteristic: uncertainty.

Paper Cut

2008-04-23T16:13:00.001-07:00

Many technologies are expunged due to their inferiority to competitors, while others are merely upgraded to keep up with the demands of the times. Despite the multitude of technological developments we have achieved, we have yet to successfully make paper a thing of the past, or even upgrade it.

To some, the disappearance of paper is long overdue. The computer has already eclipsed the printing press in magnitude, though it has not deemed it obsolete. A paperless workplace has been a commonly shared vision by many green-geeks of late, though a paperless world is easily perceivable to the common person. In his book, 1984, George Orwell predicted it's disappearance:

"The pen was an archaic instrument, seldom used even for signatures...Apart from very short notices, it was usual to dictate everything into the speak-write...Actually, few people ever wrote letters." (Orwell - 1984)

Let us consider what can go:

Paper records are being replaced by databases and electronic data storage types. Traditional snail mail has already been eclipsed by email. Physical newspapers have lost popularity, as anyone can simultaneously view multiple news sites for free. Paper books are still popular, though products like amazon's kindle look to take them out. Paper currency seems unnecessary with credit cards, check cards, and ATMs. Who needs map when you've got navigation?Airline tickets are totally electronic now. Even toilet paper can go with TOTO's new toilet seat.

So what is paper still good for? Well, it seems it started out as a medium for storing information, as paper records. Then became a transfer medium, used to share information and ideas with other people.
As a storage medium, people should try to free themselves of the paper reliance, as “paper is expensive to create and store - and not very environmentally friendly.” (silicon.com)
Though it seems digital data warehouses are better in almost every conceivable aspect of the storage medium, there are some characteristics as a transfer medium that are not yet replaceable with other technologies. The ability to hand someone a business card, or to quickly make a sketch may be hard to replace. It’s part of human nature to “hold something in our hands” says Bonnie Alba

There are a few proposed upgrades to lessen the reliability on paper, including the digital pen, digital watermarks, and E-paper.

Regardless, there will always be some resistance to the eradication of paper. Aside from the notable job losses to people anywhere on the supply chain for any type of paper-related production, there are some forces that will ensure paper usage to a certain extent. The government requires paper records to prove eligibility for tax deductions should there be an audit, paper records are required to prove many things in court, and paper records are required for proof of insurance. Still, I can envision ways to surpass these standards, as well as the true possibility of a paperless world. The arguments of the luddites, purists, and paper nostalgics are constantly dwindling due to the increasing promise of new technologies and innovation.

15 Crucial Sci-Fi Films

2008-04-09T10:48:00.000-07:00

Brave New World(1932)
Aldous Huxley was the godfather of science fiction. Very early on, he recognized the dangers of emerging technology, and predicted a world that few of his contemporaries thought possible. Though it was only made into a TV movie, to me the book was the first instance of these new concepts in literature, media, and the world.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb(1964)
The first Stanley Kubrick film and only black & white movie on this list is about a pre-emptive nuclear dilemma involving the United States and the Soviet Union. The film is extremely ironic and satirical, showing how our own machines, especially the weapons, can get out of control and lead to destruction.

2001: A Space Odyssey(1968)
Another Kubrick film with a man vs. machine theme, only this time it's in the future. The film focuses on human evolution, artificial intelligence and even extraterrestrial life. It is especially known for its realistic accuracy(e.g. no noise in space). The ultimate battle is between the crew of the ship and the supposedly error-free computer, HAL 9000. This episode shows the danger of Artifical Intelligence cognizing and resisting a shutdown.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes(1970)
Another future tale about evolution and nuclear disaster, this film is about a battle over an infertile earth between mutant humans and apes that can speak. The mutants have telepathic powers and worship an unexploded nuclear bomb. They eventually detonate upon realizing they cannot win a battle against the apes, causing the total destruction of earth.

THX 1138(1971)
George Lucas' first film, THX 1138 is very Orwelian in theme, in showing the the total control a government can attain through technological and scientific advances. The danger of humans becoming more robotic, mechanical, and generic in nature is emphasized.

1984(novel in 1949, movie in 1984)
The film adaptation of the very famous Orwell novel, is not the same as the novel, but very close. Still, “Big Brother is watching YOU” was coined in the original novel, as Orwell imagined a possible post WWII future. The “Big Brother” concept has grown to be a quite relevant discussion on personal privacy rights balanced with security and surveillance, despite whether it is one's own government, large companies, or other people.

Terminator(trilogy 1984, 1991, 2003)
An epic action flick showing the danger of a cyborg company taking over the world and destroying humanity. It also touches on time travel and the possible effects.

Hackers(1995)
Definately the most hokey of the bunch, Hackers is a modern film about a group of misfit-hacker teens who end up having to use their destructive and disruptive hacking abilities to battle a large corporation with their own 1337 hacker of their own.

12 Monkeys(1995)
Terry Gilliam directed this futuristic movie about a prisoner who is sent back in time to try to find a pure form of a virus that wiped out most of mankind on earth, only everyone in the past thinks he's crazy. The movie deals with the issue of creating a virus that could kill the world, as well as the dangers and paradoxes of time travel. Gilliam also directed Brazil(1985) which was his own more futuristic rendition of 1984.

Gattaca(1997)
Gattaca takes place in near future, where a naturally conceived(as opposed to genetically modified) man attempts to surpass the limitations put on him by society. Major themes include the dangers of genetic engineering as well as the random, inexplicable nature of the universe.

Matrix(1999)
If you haven't seen this movie, then you've probably been asleep for the past 10 years. Basically it is an epic movie about humans fighting to destroy their own creation, the Robot, which has turned against its creators and enslaved mankind. It's similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey in that it shows the danger of creating a cognitive machine that resists termination. An interesting idea, when the computer entity, Mr. Smith, notes that humans are more like a virus than any other creature(shown in the following trailer).

Minority Report(2002)
“Set in Washington, D.C. in the year 2054, where a special police department called "pre-crime" apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge, provided by three psychics termed 'pre-cogs'.” -Wikipedia The movie deals with the moral issues of altering people for unnatural purposes as well as the blind total reliance on new technologies, and the unknown unknowns.

Equilibrium(2002)
Very much like Brave New World and THX 1138, this film is about a society controlled by a totalitarian government who forces its population to take pills to eradicate emotions. The main character is a special soldier who is supposed to apprehend those who don't take the pills. He eventually stops taking them and begins to struggle over right and wrong.

I, Robot(book 1950, movie 2004)
Though the original book by Isaac Asimov was a collection of short stories about depicting a future with robots, the film focuses on a story where a robot is charged for the murder of his master. Almost all of Asimov's books dealt with new technology and its interworking with humanity in the not-so-distant future. My personal favorite, Foundation, is coming to theaters in 2008. Foundation is the first book of a series about a man who develops a method to predict the future and sees the destruction of civilization. He then establishes a distant colony to ensure the survival of the human race.

The Real Superhumans And The Quest For The Future Fantastic(2008)
The only movie on this list that isn't science fiction, it is a documentary dealing with modern people with superhuman abilities. The film also focuses on human evolution, genetics, and aging. A geneticist in this film successfully creates a chimera between two species more genetically disparate than humans and monkeys. He sees genetic engineering of humans inevitable, while warns of the possible biological(as opposed to social)stratification. Still, the super-humans are by far the most fascinating, and definitely worth a look.

Yarggggg! New World Pirates Battle Hollywood

2008-03-15T14:12:00.000-07:00

The fact that in 2007, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was among the top 5 most pirated movies is pure coincidence to most people. In fact, it is a sign of the time, reflecting not only the novel popularity of pirates, but also the real-life pirates whose treasure chest is a hard drive full of music, TV shows, and movies.

Media piracy has become an increasingly large problem for consumers and businesses alike. On one side sits powerful companies lobbying for copyright protection. On the other side sits the file-sharer whose life revolves around the internet. Stuck in between the crossfire is the common consumer, who uses a computer for simple tasks and still goes to the movies. While both sides continue to point fingers, the middle-man is forced to ask why this problem persists and whether an armistice is foreseeable.

Everyone knows that stealing is wrong, but there is something about downloading media that feels different. Perhaps it is the fact that downloading is often conveniently called 'sharing'. Maybe it's the fact that there is no tangible product to be clandestinely concealed and snatched – or it's simply too easy to do. Some 'pirates' argue that the unchecked conglomerate greed and exorbitant media prices justify their actions. Regardless, there seems to be no signs of slowing – a trend that the media companies cannot afford to ignore. But how can they fight this ever-growing armada of modern pirates?

Typical of the large media companies, they Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have overlooked and bypassed the user, specifically college students, in trying to solve their problems. The MPAA has been lobbying congress with a bill that would “force colleges to make plans for offering up legal music services to students and implement copyright filters, (even) after the MPAA's own data shows that schools have little to do with the overall problem.” [This type of filtering is similar to the Comcast practices mentioned in my previous post.] Of course, colleges are all for educating students on
copyright issues and the penalties for violation, though they are quite reluctant to use such filtering services.

In 2005, the MPAA conducted a study that found colleges to be the source of over 40% of all movie studio losses due to piracy. This was the original justification for urging congress to make colleges offer legal media services along with implementing filtering procedures. Unfortunately for the studios, the study was found to be quite erroneous, with the actual number around 15%. The MPAA's response was to change their reasoning, and emphasize the importance of filters for saving bandwidth and consequently, money.

Of course, the universities have been skeptical of this change and have remained stalwart in their objection to be forced into filtering the traffic on their own networks. But is there a solution somewhere between forced network filters and rampant files-haring?

Perhaps the movie studios to listen to their enemies, and learn:“Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij from The Pirate Bay(one of the world's largest torrent & filesharing sites) recently did a video interview which resulted in some great quotes. One such quote comes from Fredrik, he suggests that the movie and music industry should set up their own torrent site, and monetize it through advertisements. 'We would be out of business.''he added.” With the record box office booty in 2007, perhaps Hollywood should take a serious look in the mirror and try to reconnect with their inner pirate.

Op Ed: Comcast a Bunch of Hipocrites

2008-03-08T19:12:00.000-08:00

At an open FCC net neutrality hearing held at Harvard Law School on February 26, broadband company Comcast shamelessly paid employees to wait in line and fill seats in order to give the illusion of strong support for an already questionable cause. Comcast is desperate to justify what most are calling unreasonable network management, where the company targets and disconnects BitTorrent users, without notice or explanation. Daniel Weitzner, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Decentralized Information Group explained, “These are techniques that hackers would use to deny service to any application on the web.”

Comcast's actions are wrong for a number of reasons: Most importantly, there is a large discrepancy between the company's words and actions - In 2007, Comcast told The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press it would not interfere with users' ability to run file sharing applications over its network, specifically noting BitTorrent. Despite saying this, they have since been caught actively disconnecting BitTorrent users, and have thus incited the FCC's interests into their actions. Users have a right to know just what type of actions their Internet Service Provider(ISP) is using against them, and the information is only beginning to surface.

Secondly, it is completely out of Comcast's jurisdiction to police internet traffic. Competing broadband companies like Verizon and AT&T have already clearly stated they will take no such role in monitoring users for bandwidth usage and content. The philosophy entails letting people fileshare freely, while letting the government takes care of violators. For some reason, Comcast feels compelled to resist the paradigm shift and play the vigiliante.

The unreliability of a network will surely stifle web application innovation, causing developers to take a conservative stance in order to anticipate unknown “network management” effects. In fact, at the hearing they were accused of trying to eliminate “competition by blocking the delivery of rival video-on-demand services over its cable system.” If Comcast remains on the same course, they surely could not advertise as offering the same type of robust service other ISP's do.

Comcast argues that certain network management is needed due to the expensive costs of upgrading a system to handle increased user load. Of course certain management is needed, but what is reasonable? Where is the line drawn? Comcast already has the infrastructure for cable and on-demand services, but they aren't fully utilizing it. Furthermore, where other companies look to expansion to accommodate increased user needs, Comcast disconnects certain users to keep a balanced bandwidth.

Comcast has not yet been forced to change because the situation is almost totally unprecedented, and it carries large implications down the road regarding net-neutrality litigation. The issue emphasizes the importance of having some sort of regulation to set a standard for Internet Service Providers.

The company's actions at the meeting further expose their surreptitious nature. It's not wrong to organize people to rally, but perhaps hiring them to is over line. Comcast's fraudulent representation at the FCC hearing serves as a symbol of their dishonesty towards the general public and internet users alike. Their gestapo style regulation and feigned popularity resemble the tightening grip of a failing despot.

DANCEiSM Leap Year Launch Party

2008-03-02T12:32:00.001-08:00

Public Intellectual Part I: Democracy and Religion

2008-02-23T23:43:00.000-08:00

Currently, the term “Public Intellectual” is often construed as a vague notion of any semi-qualified person speaking his mind on a specific subject. This unclear meaning has a positive side – it allows the position to be appealing to many people - not just elite academia who believe they hold a monopoly on knowledge. Although Public Intellectuals are often thought of as a dying breed - or believed to be watered down - their existence and relevance has never been so widespread.

Stephen Mack seeks to lay these theories of decline to rest in his essay, “The 'Decline' of Public Intellectuals?” Mack traces the source of the supposed American anti-intellectualism to - ironically enough – the academics. He summarizes, arguing that this problem is a misconception, if not non-existent:

“Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum”

Mack then criticizes another academic, Richard Posner, for his attempt to categorize the position rather than explain it on a functional basis. He argues:

we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

It's the actions, not the man that matters.

With so much modern development, it's hard to believe some scholars think Public Intellectuals aren't popular anymore. Still, the core idea is resonant. Alan Lightman begins his own contemplation of the function of the Public Intellectual by analyzing Ralph Waldo Emerson's own concept:

“Emerson put forth the idea of the "One Man," by which he meant the complete person, or the person who embodies all dimensions of human potential and actuality”

Lightman then compares this idea to a more modern Public Intellectual, Edward Said:

“According to Said, an intellectual's mission in life is to advance human freedom and knowledge.”

Lightman goes on to create a hierarchy of levels of public intellectuals(while Stephen Mack cringes), defines their responsibilities, and even lists a few examples. Lightman also recognizes a new trend in the sphere of Public Intellect: “...many more such people, these days, have come from the sciences.” I would disagree with the belief that this trend is recent, though it is clear Lightman does not see any lack of intellectuals in the public sphere.

By default, Americans will always be aware of this position because the Public Intellectual is a byproduct of both democracy and religion, the important foundations of our country. The United States is the world's largest and most successful democracy, making it an apt measure for the status of the Public Intellectual. America is a breeding ground for thinkers – an elite technological culture with a large reliance on information flow and creative ideas – an arena for the daily battles between religion and science.

With the increasing importance of knowledge and information comes the reliance on and need for effective distributors. The Public Intellectual carries this burden – he must transmit vital issues and messages, however seemingly taboo, to his audience while accepting criticism or possible ostracization. Noam Chomsky, a current PI, explains the dilemma:

In fact one of the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals.”

Perhaps the notion of waning existence has been mistaken for a common unpopularity of the Public Intellectual. Regardless, this notion is way off the mark.

The religious figurehead is one of the earliest examples of a Public Intellectual. Humans have always had metaphysical questions, and because of the oligarchical tendency of previous cultures, religion has been a main source for guidance and answers. Whether it is the Pope, Martin Luther, the Dalai Lama, or some other revered spiritual leader, these people are considered to have the required specialization and ability to transmit their knowledge required of a Public Intellectual. Now, many academics question whether experts of religion, arts, and humanities qualify as a Public Intellectual. Stephen Mack points out the error in this judgement:

One of the great ironies of this debate is that historically, public intellectuals in America are a product of both our secular and religious traditions

The dissidents hold an elitist view, believing that only experts in the academic community should be considered as qualified to lead people in this role. This rift between science and religion can be traced back to the first extra-religious Public Intellectual in the first democracy, where modern logic was conceived.

To find the first non-cleric Public Intellectual, one must think back to the first democracy in ancient Athens. The new concept of openly discussing important issues necessitated that people had the ability to negotiate and communicate in public situations, as well as be aware of what was transpiring in the community. These circumstances gave rise to the original expert on intellect, Socrates. The new system needed to be tested – and Socrates would do just that.

Famous for his paradoxical ideal stated, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”, Socrates epitomized the Public Intellectual before any existed, and successfully communicated his message to people more than 2000 years after his death. Socrates strongly believed that thought is the highest human function, emphasizing “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Even during his time he was widely known and regarded for his intellectual prowess- The Oracle at Delphi claimed that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Socrates developed a method of learning where one embarks on a dialectic, playing devil's advocate to whatever topic is being discussed, regardless of personal stance. He would engage in his method with many citizens of Athens, constantly searching for truth and knowledge. This process has developed into what is now called the scientific method and has been critical in the development of logic. Socrates held no double standards when performing this analysis, and often made enemies for it. He went so far as to question the meaning of natural phenomenon beyond religious explanation, a dangerous endeavor. Though many people followed him for his brilliance of teaching, he was eventually tried and sentenced to death for teaching heresy. Even when the court offered amnesty for an apology, he refused because he firmly believed his teaching and questioning of the world was not wrong. He was so popular among the citizens of Athens that a group of supporters arranged to have him freed prior to his execution. Socrates refused, arguing that escaping is an injustice and that two wrongs don't make a right – he would be guilty of two crimes. He felt he had agreed in principle to live under the law in Athens, and by breaking those laws he was subject to the consequences like any other citizen. Further, Socrates added that one should not fear death. He accepted his punishment for the good of the many and the integrity of the democratic system. By drinking the vile of hemlock, Socrates martyred himself and set a key precedents for the Public Intellectual. Despite all his achievements, it was his inquisitiveness that made him an intellectual and a his open sharing of ideas that qualified him as public.

Considering he only discoursed and never recorded any ideas, it is amazing that Socrates' message has survived so long. Conversely, one can see the immense effects that developing modes of communication have had on the Public Intellectual. Instead of being restricted to the people within hearing distance, a PI can now reach any audience on a global scale. One can transmit his ideas very effectively using not only words, but sound, pictures, and film too. The ease in communicating allows intellectuals to be aware of each other so they can share information. With a a computer, a blog or a website, a Public Intellectual can make his message available at any time of the day to any person, anywhere. Consequently, education and intellectualism no longer hinges solely on the institutions – a person can become an expert through curiosity alone.

The religious and democratic framework of our country coupled with our technological communicative abilities creates an atmosphere ideal for intellectualism. Since the United States remains successful, and because the integrity of our system relies on people actively debating important issues, it is evident that intellectualism is thriving. It is just ridiculous to think the most advanced country in the world is a nation full of idiots.

The Battle for Media Rights

2008-02-14T23:41:00.000-08:00

Apparently some internet users in America have rights after all - Verizon's to aid Hollywood against piracy meant a triumph for user privacy over big business bullying. Though the move was also partly out of self interest, the rejection sends a strong message to the major broadband, record, and film companies worried about piracy. Verizon's refusal to jump on the information gestapo bandwagon shows just how desperate and ruthless some of the media companies are, being in the possible twilight of their existence.

Many people in the major media industries are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their market share, control, and profits. The music industry seems to be sinking fastest, making multiple acts of desperation. Labels are already notorious for their attempts to use the RIAA to target college students for copyright infringement, seeking compensation far out of proportion from the crime, using subpoenas to force ISPs to expose their clients identities. Among their latest brilliant ideas, record companies have decided to push the RIAA to lobby to decrease the already offensive artist royalties. Nate Anderson explains:

the NMPA wants 15¢ per track for the songwriters (often split 50/50 between the songwriter and the music publisher), but the RIAA only wants to pay 5¢ or 6¢ a track. DiMA suggests paying even less.
For streaming music, the NMPA suggests that 12.5 percent of total revenue would be a fair payment, while the RIAA thinks that 0.58 percent would be appropriate. DiMA has suggested that songwriters don't actually deserve any mechanical royalties at all for streaming music, comparing the practice of streaming to radio and arguing that radio's "performance royalty" should be used instead.

Because of iTunes popularity, some record companies are even considering forming a large conglomeration. Greg Sandoval explains how such talks between large companies raises a few eyebrows:

Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment have received requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice about a proposed music site called Total Music.

Whether its screwing the user, the artist, or other companies, these acts look like shameless last attempts at staying. All these attempts will probably be in vain because of the changing nature of the industry. It would be easier if some of these people would just face the facts: Nobody buys records or CDs anymore. Format is almost exlusively digital. Artists can write, produce, and finance an entire album with a personal computer. The only area left to infiltrate is promotion and sales. The record labels were too slow to digitize, so they lost their sales power, and with the internet, their promotional ability just isn't enticing anymore - there is just no space for major labels anymore, and there shouldn't be. These companies make their profits by exploiting somebody else's talent and claiming it as their own property.

Artists have been taken advantage of for far too long. Though this may mean fewer triple-platinum megabands on world tour, it helps ensure that musicians will maintain not only creative control - but rights as well - and hopefully fair compensation of royalties. The power of music should be put back in the hands of the artists, not the businessmen. Even Europe acknowledges some of these problems, attempting to extend music copyrights to 95 years.

The film companies aren't in quite the same position as the music industry, though they are still theatened by piracy. The music labels should be weary of Verizon's rejection, as it could have implications with the RIAA in the future. Broadband companies cannot become the policemen of the internet. In fact, this issue has major implications in the net-neutrality argument, being that precedents set here may affect or determine user's rights down the road.

Microsoft + Yahoo = $$$$ + ????

2008-02-02T13:09:00.001-08:00

After a few years full of steady growth and growing public dissent, Microsoft has attempted a power move in bidding $44 billion to purchase Yahoo. BBC reports:

The offer, contained in a letter to Yahoo's board, is 62% above Yahoo's closing share price on Thursday.

This is obviously an attempt to inject some momentum into their company and compete for a large part of Google's market share. I consulted a few business friends, who believed the buying price for Yahoo was extremely exorbitant, and the opporunity didn't appear to be a good buy for Microsoft. Microsoft was unsuccessful in a bid to buy Yahoo last year, and Bill Gates surely wants to leave his company with one final gem.

Though I am not the world's largest Microsoft fan, I believe credit is still due, as the company has been key in development and expansion of the computer, despite their anti-trust problems and buggy operating systems. This deal would be a positive thing for the market, being that Google seems to be holding a monopolistic position, and their hold is only growing stronger. They need a competitor to keep them in check and to add balance. The only company with enough resources to viably compete is Microsoft, so for the sake of competition and keeping each other honest, I see this move as a necessary. Still, it is interesting to note that with all their anti-trust problems through takeovers, this acquisition effectively creates competition rather than eliminating it. The outcome could determine whether Microsoft remains a force in the internet sector for years to come.

also see MSN money

(Annotation 2/4:)
Google is against this takeover(of course) complaining about the open-source ideology being disregarded, and the danger of a "software monopoly.":

Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts

Google has good reason not to trust Microsoft or their intentions, though it would be remiss to forget that no-one would be supportive of possibly losing a large market share in such a burgeoning area. Google has some strong points about the case, but they are also playing the role of the victim, possibly overacting a touch. Ken Fisher also sees through Google's feigned innocence as an attempt to polarize the issue in their favor:

Is this a reasonable response, or fear mongering? It strikes me as more of the latter, to be honest.

Well said, Ken.

Technology and Innovation: Is Nothing Sacred?

2008-02-01T22:08:00.001-08:00

Perhaps the best measure of mankind's success and evolution is the advancements of tools and technology. The wheel, the printing press, and the airplane are all perfect examples of this progression. The latest in this series is the adolescent computer, still an enigma, with a great deal yet to be discovered and utilized. Still, along with these uncanny and exciting developments come potentially equally negative side-effects and consequences. Science and technology seem to hold the answers for the future, but people should not put all their trust in these areas alone because they don't hold all the answers. Ethics will play a crucial factor in the survival of the human race alongside the evolution of the computer. If people do not deeply consider the implications and driving forces of technological innovation, the human race could find itself obsolete - or even worse – extinct.

Ask any baby boomer for a “when i was your age” story and they will be able supply you with a book full of scenarios. To think that some people witnessed the invention of the television, the first steps on the moon, and the invention of the microchip all in one lifetime is an incredible notion. Nowadays some people find it impossible to imagine a life without computers. After all of that, one would think it impossible that the world could change more drastically than it has the past 50, or even 100 years. The computer alone holds this potential for change, and it has only begun to reshape the world.

Computer technology is everywhere now, penetrating almost all areas of life. The benefits and applications of these tools seem not only endless, but extremely possible. Perhaps the main reason for this phenomenon is what is referred to as Moore's Law. Stated by Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore in 1965, the law predicted that the number of transistors that can be placed on a circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years. History has confirmed the truth of Moore's Law thus-far, and if the trend continues, by 2040 personal computers will be as powerful as the human brain at the price of $1000.

blue collar robot

One of the most popular ideas of the future with respect to the computer and microchip is the area of robotics. Not only are robots being developed to automate human tasks, they are also being designed to emulate pets, humans, or other natural life-forms. Artificial Intelligence(AI) is becoming more and more of a reality. Still, reality always bites to some degree, meaning the dangers have yet to be realized or discussed. With these advancements in robotics and automation, human jobs are being taken over by computers and robots. Any labor intensive job could be replaced by a robot, and a robot would do a better job to boot. Whether the job is supermarket teller or assembly-line worker, a robot will one day be able to fill the role of a human. The automation phenomenon has already started to happen at fast food restaurants, gas stations, etc. In fact, the world has completely online banks like Etrade Financial, as well as computer companies like Dell with no retail stores. The only factor preventing the complete automation of all blue-collar jobs is the cost and availability. Marshall Brain predicts this reality:

“...you could buy a humanoid robot for about $10,000. That robot could clean bathrooms, take out trash, wipe down tables, mop floors, sweep parking lots, mow grass and so on. One robot (could) replace three six-hour-a-day employees. The owner (would) fire the three employees and in just four months the owner recover the cost of the robot.”

He fears this scenario could actually be playing out by 2055. Could it be that eventually a robot or a computer will be able to do any task better than a human? Even if one's job isn't replaced by some tech-advancement, new technology has enabled outsourcing to be another viable alternative to expensive human capital. An executive can hire real people from India, China, or another country for a programming job in the US, paying robot-like wages. Andrew Leonard sees these advancements penetrating not only the blue, but white-collar class as well:

“The great fear about offshoring is that it is poised to move up the value chain, replacing high-paid white-collar jobs in the developed world with cheaper foreign competition”3

Money and efficiency are obviously important drivers in innovation, but is their impetus too strong? Mankind must now closely reconsider their place in the world.

Science can now work at the most microscopic of levels in areas like genetics and nanotechnology. Recently, the first man-made synthetic genome was created. The first conceived uses of this include:

“custom-design organisms, essentially creating biological robots that can produce from scratch chemicals humans can use. Biofuels like ethanol, for example.”4

Still, this is only the beginning:

“Voigt estimated that a synthetic human genome -- which could be used in human cloning research -- could be created by 2014.”

Here, another scary reality surfaces. Genetic engineering is no longer a science fiction tale, it is happening now. A scientist named Samuel Wood has even successfully cloned himself with his own skin cells and a few natural embryos.5 To some, it seems that engineering humans is wrong, immoral, or unethical. Perhaps engineering a human only produces an organic robot, devoid of the randomness and imperfections of nature. Others see this as a step forward towards eliminating harmful diseases and other health problems. The feature film Gattaca concentrates on this very scenario. When Antonio and his wife go to have their next baby created, they are concerned about having too much control over the way their son will turn out before he is even born. The doctor assures them, saying,

“This child is still you, it is just the best of you. You could conceive naturally one thousand times and never achieve such a result.”6

Should we be able to control gender, hair color, negative addictive traits, and other aspects of human life? Most parents would love to ensure their children are free of alcoholism and heart disease. Still, this is very new territory and must be treaded cautiously, lest we make Frankenstein's mistake of creating a monster we cannot control.

Even if we don't genetically engineer people, the possibility of implanted chips and bionic limbs is another likely alternative. Who knows, our limbs and body parts may even one day be obsolete. If Moore's Law does hold true, the future will have a vast microcosm of mini-devices running simultaneously with everyday life, even inside of people. Processors, cameras, microphones, and almost any electronics will be smaller than the eye can see. Everything will contain some information as it is linked in to the system with everything else. Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) chips are the current incarnation of this idea. These inexpensive microscopic chips can be placed in anything, and can easily store and/or send information. In his article Perspective: RFID tags: Big Brother in small packages, Declan McCullagh writes:

“It becomes unnervingly easy to imagine a scenario where everything you buy that's more expensive than a Snickers will sport RFID tags”7

This will mean information and computers will be heavily embedded in everyday life. This intrusion at the cost of efficiency is something to be strongly considered before we go crossing the Rhine!
RFID tag implanted in a human hand

The high traffic flow of information will allow for exponential increases in productivity. Still, what of personal security and privacy? Well, with the modern age and new technological era, our old notions of privacy go out the window. Essentially, as a consumer or internet user, a person forgoes a great deal of personal information by default. McCullagh's vision:

“in the future, we could be tracked because we'll be wearing, eating and carrying objects that are carefully designed to do so. “

Data and user information already go for premiums to any business that wants to advertise. Eventually, companies will be able to custom tailor spam to suit individual tastes. All your habits, likes, and dislikes will be recorded and analyzed. Just imagine the type of information the government could attain with this sort of capability. It is feasible that all aspects of life will be capably monitored. This “Big Brother” fear comes straight out of Orwell. But let's not forget about the ever-growing problem of identity theft. With your personal information out there just flying around, who knows who will have access to it? It's possible some hacker from half way around the globe could drain your bank account in a matter of minutes. The one gleam of light is the balance between privacy and security – a supposed zero sum game. The lack of privacy will hopefully be counteracted by superfluously heavy security - but who knows – people are always vulnerable.

This quest for improvement has even more serious implications. Our environment is now in dire risk. E-waste(electronic waste) is a growing issue. The problem is that most electronics contain toxic chemicals such as barium, cadmium and mercury. Currently, a popular solution to the problem is to ship the waste to other countries, as Richard Koman explains:

“According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 20 million pounds of e-waste was shipped to foreign ports last year from California, reports Sign on San Diego. And since the recycling industry is self-reporting, the amount of e-waste could be much higher.”8

Furthermore, companies like Intel and Apple produce a great deal of toxic waste, having failed most national standards.9 Despite Intel's initiative to run a cleaner shop by becoming the largest purchaser of green power in the US, this only mildly mitigates the problem. Legislation is not enacted against these companies because of their supposed importance to the economy and the unprecedented nature of the situation.

Even the most basic human interactions could be lost with this new technological age. The nature of communities and relationships are changing. There are so many ways of communicating indirectly, it seems like direct contact typically only comes when necessary. A person can instant message, email, or text someone depending on preference. Also, with the internet, people don't have to go out to get things – they can just order it from their desk and wait for it in the mail. As far as Dating and matchmaking goes - it can be done online. Why waste time taking different girls out on dates looking for your soul-mate if a web site can find her for you? Virtual and Global communities are now popular, but is it at the cost of traditional face to face interaction? The computer makes everything so easy, people barely need to go out. This could definitely lead to people being more sedentary and could possibly further feed America's growing obesity dilemma. There is even a new disorder classified as “technology addiction” or “technology overload”:

“Another research paper, published in 2007 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology by a psychiatrist at Tel Aviv University, recommended that Internet addiction be regarded as an extreme disorder on par with gambling, sex addiction and kleptomania.”10

Our dependence on technology can become a crutch, disabling from convetntional interaction. John O'Neill, the director of addictions services at the Menninger Clinic in Houston, Texas confirms this:

"We can become overloaded by technology and suffer consequences in our relationships”

People must remember what is important, and maintain human contact before we lose touch.

The greatest danger innovation can bring is the unknown. The sword almost always cuts both ways, bringing new problems along with the solution. Any new invention comes with the risk of opening another Pandora's box. Albert Einstein is a perfect example. He said,

“I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made,”

meaning that he did not foresee the scope of the negative effects the bomb would leave on the world. Like Einstein, many scientists and engineers get anxiety about new inventions, and the possibility of their misuse or failure. It is impossible to foresee all of the negative effects that will come with a new breakthrough, as there will always be a danger of unintended side-effects and unforeseen consequences. Murphy's Law classically states that all that can go wrong will go wrong. For this reason, we must use discretion, not necessarily pushing for a fully optimized and efficient world. Perhaps we should take a page from the Luddite's book, and destroy some of our own creations for the sake of our livelihood.

Technology is neither good or bad on its own – nothing is – until it gets into the hands of a human. People will always continue to innovate and discover new interesting things about our world, as it is only human nature to be curious. But, with all this talk of science, many other important aspects of life get pushed aside. Is there space for ethics, religion, metaphysics, and art in this new day and age? There ought to be, otherwise we face a rude awakening to a totally engineered world devoid of beauty and possibly humanity. We must always be aware of ourselves and the fact that there are more important things to the world than science. Jonah Lehrer stresses this socratic ideal saying,

“the sciences must recognize that their truths are not the only truths. No knowledge has a monopoly on knowledge.”

Must we draw a line?

2008-01-20T15:41:00.000-08:00

In the battle for net neutraliy, there are no neutral parties. For this two sided debate, each side carries a double edged sword. The current debate is reminiscent of the lasseiz-faire argument earlier in America's history that also focused on regulation and government intervention in big business. Though to many it seems ideal to have an unrestricted flow of information while allowing the large companies to do as they please, some problems are evident. By allowing the large internet companies to run free, we may see the microsoft anti-trust dilemma resurface with Google, Time Warner, or any other telecomm/net conglomerate. With the ability to takeover threatening companies and boycott competing apps, it is more than feasible that a company aquire a monopolistic market share. A proposed legislation would force a minimum amount of internet service providers in order to avoid such a situation. Also, legislation may be used to promote innovation of internet services and technology to ensure a high quality of service. Despite the seeming familiarity of the situation, the Internet is a new and unique phenomenon, behaving unlike any entity the world has ever seen.

It seems paradoxical for net neutralists to push for a rule for the internet, but the sort of rule they are pushing for would merely ensure the sanctity of personal freedom and equality on the web. They don't want government censorship and regulation of information and they certainly dont want to have to pay for extra services. Because of the polarizing nature of the debate, it sometimes becomes difficult to discern friend from foe.

To me, it seems that the large telecomm corporations should be feared most since they have the most to gain. Though Google and Microsoft seem to be friendly and pro-user, they are essentially the ones in control now, and should not be totally trusted either. This debate has huge implications for American's individual freedoms. I think the best course of action would be to keep an open debate without rushing to any rash decisions with the goal of a compromise in mind.

here is a video produced by an anti-neutrality lobbyist. notice how it almost seems to be pro-neutral - the key is the diction. the comments are insightful as well.

what no neutrality could mean: