To understand the cultural, social, and political complexity of the United States thinking of North America as an "island" often helps. As I typed that statement I also wonder if another Thought Model (allegory) might be better, that of a watchtower along the perimeter of a prison yard, with the United States being the watchtower, our government being the guards, a few other developed countries being other watchtowers (Germany, France, Great Britain), and the prison yard full of prisoners, all of which have a spectrum of rights allowed to them, e.g. Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, etc. And, the thought also occurs to me which parents might appreciate is the notion of people telling you how to raise your kids based only on what they see while shopping at Kroger and not see the complete account of all actions throughout the day.
My point is, it's easy for someone to tell you what to do or how to act when they have little to no vested interest in the outcome, and won't bear any penalty for advice or action which goes wrong.
And, some of these people giving out advice are so far removed from their own nascent beginnings they forget how chaotic those circumstances were.
Western society, Europe plus the United States and Canada, have spent a couple hundred years hammering out the details of the Free, Fair, and Open Society. Make no mistake, this endeavor is still a work in progress. Yet, we have for the most part decided our conversations about our societal openness must occur in a non-violent way. These debates have not always been so; all one has to look at is the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Anti-war Vietnam Protests and Kent State, or the Socialist Labor Movement of the 20th century and we have plenty of evidence that civil unrest can be met with physical violence and death.
Events in the Middle East, from the Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, and the September 2012 Mohammed Movie Controversy appear to the Western World as violence associated with unsophisticated, ignorant, and underdeveloped societies.
And, to some extent, this is true.
Middle Eastern societies have evolved along a different societal form than societies in Europe. Most of the Middle East societies are tribally based where alliances are between large families and not to a central government. Monarchies developed, or were encouraged to develop by Western Powers, in order for countries to conduct business with each other. It is much more convenient to negotiate an oil deal with one person than negotiate with multiple tribal leaders scattered over the wilderness, right?
Monarchies enriched by the oil trade are not likely to cede power to anyone. If anything, monarchies are more likely to condense power into a few trusted family members, brothers, uncles, nephews, and cousins. Power becomes concentrated within a cluster of a few people who are given titles, like Minister of Oil, Minister of Trade, Minister of the Military, etc., but really are representative of the strength of the monarchical family.
In order to maintain the power of the family, the Monarchy, really a Dynasty, as governing power is passed to male family members, all opposition to the monarchical rule is crushed. And, if the religious leaders can be co-opted to support the monarchy, so much the better. Then, the hearts and souls of the population are essentially captured. And, by association, the mind is then captured, as most people will make decisions based on their feelings, that is, their heart or spiritual leanings than with their mind.
With the exception of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, who actively supports education, the building of universities and technical schools, and sends thousands of Saudi students abroad for education every year, the Middle East is overburdened with societal and cultural ignorance of the rest of the world.
Governments have actively suppressed education and societal openness. Governments have shutdown Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Governments actively spy on their citizen's cellphone conversations. Middle Easterners who use Blackberries should be aware that every single text, cellphone conversation, and voicemail is being stored and analyzed. Any comments against governments, families, or Islam run the risk of being used as a means to persecute the account holder or the account holder's family and friends. Jordan, Syria, Iran, UAE, Bahrain have all instituted draconian policies against certain types of speech.
In fact, being able to speak freely without incident is a very recent freedom for Libyans, Egyptians, Saudis, Tunisians, and millions of others throughout the Middle East. For decades, if not centuries, people throughout the Middle East have been punished, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, or killed for voicing opposition to the government. The Arab Spring Uprising began in Tunisia when a man set himself on fire because a local government official was trying to extort money from him, a common practice at the time in Tunisia. A person had no legal recourse, no way out; pay me money to sell from your cart or I will arrest you and put you in prison.
Bahrain activates its army to end protests. Syria activates its military to end protests and punish everyone and every town involved in the protests. Jordan issues a warrant for the arrest of YouTube.
Rather than address issues of important speech and open communication, governments, out of fear and cowardice, attack their own populations. "This is the way it has always been done." How many times have you heard that while growing up, right?
Even our own government forgets lessons it should have learned long ago, with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Forget for a moment the idea behind OWS, and focus on the idea a government will respond with police action or military action to suppress the rights of speech for large groups of people who come together out of a unifying concern or issue. Never is this a good thing to have happen. Not for a country which prides itself on the ability of sharing thoughts, ideas, and foundations of open, honest, and fair communication.
Consider for a moment those days a little over a year ago when OWS protestors in New York City were assaulted by police officers with mace and tear gas simply for protesting the egregious and wanton behavior of Wall Street investment companies wasting shareholder money on investments of dubious quality and of extremely high risk with no accountability. And, a year later, no changes to accountability have been implemented, little to no punishment and few Wall Street investment companies have altered their behavior.
Two points from all of this; one, the United States needs to get beyond the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. The hypocrisy of telling other countries to encourage free speech while simultaneously discouraging or shutting down speech in the United States will be lost on only the completely obtuse.
Second, countries exhibiting violence with regards to art, science, literature, and media available in other countries should be expected. These countries have been run by military or authoritarian governments, governments which have absolute control over all media, and the people living in these countries for the most part have no idea what it means to have "freedom of expression." To these people, expressing one's self always had bad consequences, loss of job, jail time, prison time, jailing of family members, and even death.
As long as countries like Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain continue to remain closed or resistant there will always be violent reaction to perceived insults and misunderstandings.
In a way they, too, are cultural and social islands, just like the United States.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Why manufacturing matters for America
The United States will always need local manufacturing. But, we do need a new manufacturing philosophy and new economic plans for continued success. Our current manufacturing environment continues to support labor practices and strategies which are still firmly rooted in early 20th century labor sentiments. We will never hold our own against other countries if we continue to behave as if we are a developing nation. We need heavy investment in education, training, and workforce enhancement to moderate structural changes in U.S. labor markets.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
New York Times: "The Weatherman is NOT a Moron"
The New York Times has a cool article on Meteorology. The article is chock-full of good information, from the education required to analyze weather and climate, challenges faced in forecasting, the supercomputers used in forecasting, and some statistics on the improvement of forecasting and especially warning systems. Meteorology requires a ghastly amount of computer power. An interesting comment, though I suspect some embellishment, stated the supercomputing center generates its own weather simply due to the heat the center generates.
Here is a link to the Nick Silver article [link].
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Thunderstorms of September 6th, 2012
Bow Echo Thunderstorm systems are exciting :^) This is a screenshot taken on an iPad using the Intellicast app and which I have annotated using Paint.Net.
Bow Echo thunderstorm systems for quickly and move fast. They form from large differences in pressure between the surface and winds aloft creating wind shear. Bow Echo thunderstorms can generate winds in excess of 60MPH during their brief lives. They generally do not spawn tornadoes unless they are part of a larger series of Bow Echo thunderstorms like ...
...this one. Multiple Bow Echo thunderstorm systems are not comforting. Besides bringing strong straight-line winds, these can spawn tornadoes, and be part of a larger weather system called a "derecho" (dah-RAY-cho). Derecho are not a comforting sight, either.
Derechos are often called "shelf clouds" due to their very flat appearance with a clearly defined leading edge. They are generally 10s to 100s of miles in length, a long ribbon of clouds which foretell the immediate arrival of very bad and potential dangerous weather, strong winds and tornadoes.
The above image is the derecho which ran through our region in April 2011. I think this is the one which provided us with straight line winds of nearly 70mphs - almost like a Category 1 hurricane.
Using weather apps, Unisys, Intellicast, for example, can provide you with a cool way of watching thunderstorm development. Thunderstorms can have diagnostic features which help in their classification. Knowing what a few of these diagnostic appearances are can help even an "Armchair Meteorologist" determine what the coming weather system might be like, whether a simple shower is in the offing, or if you should bring in Toto and head for the storm shelter.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Geography of Apple v. Samsung
I'm writing my post from my "13-inch Late 2007 MacBook" while I follow updates regarding Tropical Storm Isaac on my iPad 2. I have my iPhone 3GS within arm's reach as my iPhone is the only phone I own. While appreciate Apple's devices, I am not an Apple fanboy. I cut my proverbial teeth on MS-DOS and PC-DOS, have experience in Sun Microsystem's Solaris (both Unix and x86 flavors), in IBM's AIX (another Unix flavor), and have used a variety of Linux versions. However, due in part to wide-spread adoption of Microsoft programing and operating system environments, I have some experience with every MS OS since Windows 3.
Apple's victory over Samsung will have some interesting ramifications for the technology industry, some good, some not so good, and some bad.
Of some note is the disparity in international legal decisions with respect to Apple's legal claims as pertains to their patents. Most Americans may not be aware Apple has sued Samsung not only in the United States, but in Germany, in Italy, in the UK, in South Korea, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Australia.
Apple won an injunction in Germany against Samsung and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, Apple itself is being sued by Motorola over push-notification technology in Germany. Motorola developed a push-notification technology for pagers upon which current push-notification technology is based. Sort of.
In Europe, and in South Korea, Apple has not made much headway in patent battles. The reason behind their inability to find favor abroad seems to be related to courts abroad being immune to notions that rounded corners should be a patentable feature.
Abroad, patenting environments are considerably different than in the United States. In the United States, an idea sketched on a napkin has the potential of being patented. A square or rectangle with arrows denoting various features has the potential of being enough to capture a patent license. Writing a bit of software code has the potential of being patented.
The idea behind patenting is to protect a real and useful "concrete" technology from being stolen by others and to provide the developer time enough to recover costs and make a little money. The idea must be able to be engineered and implemented. The idea must represent a new and unique advancement of the natural sciences. In other words, mathematical formulas, business processes, the presentation of information, and software cannot be patented. Yet, another way, you cannot hold a formula or process in your hand; you can hold the tangible outcome of the utilization of a process in your hand, but not the process itself.
Can a shape be patentable? Should a shape be patentable? Should a gesture be patentable?
My response to the above is, no, shapes and gestures are "open source." In other words, they are not unique and represent no form of technological enhancement or contribution. In fact, language is "open source," too.
If language were not "open source" imagine the complexity of paying people who license every word imaginable and also licensed every permutation of every possible letter combination which might result in a new word. Every author would become instantly bankrupt.
Yet, in the United States, that seems to be where we are heading. The US Patent Office allows companies to patent their software code. Allowing patenting of software code is much like allowing Stephen King to patent all the words in his books so no one else could use those books. What S King does is copy-protect his stories, and to some extent he is offered protection from other writers deriving verbatim his works. Musicians cannot copyright the notes they use, but they can copyright the composition and lyrics.
In Europe and abroad, computer languages are seen much like spoken or written languages. Companies are limited as to what they can protect with software patents. Code which accesses a DVD drive, or a software port, or a mouse, or calculates the volume of a sphere - I'm sure there are better examples cannot be patented simply because of the finite number of ways such events can occur. To sue someone because of button placement, button appearance, or button behavior is simply asinine in most European countries because these do not meet the criteria of being new and unique advancements.
In the United States, though, we seem to be heading down the path where even small snippets of code are patentable.
Take the Oracle v. Google lawsuit related to Java. Google was able to eke out a winning decision v. Oracle. In Europe, a similar lawsuit would doubtfully succeeded, as well. The judge did say the judgment did not apply to all APIs, however. The European High Court ruled against the US company SAS, stating "a computer language or the functionality of a computer program cannot be copyrighted."
The theme behind my comments reflects the changes the US patent system must implement to ensure and promote innovation and squelch those who simply want to be paid for property which is falsely labeled as "intellectual." Rounding edges, pinching screens, and vague descriptions of techniques for communicating using copper wire or via wireless communication networks need to be filtered before entering the patent system.
One comment I read this morning hinted the decision might be a good one for the industry. The judgment against Samsung will foster MORE innovation, not less, the contributor argued, because people will have to be more creative to avoid Apple's design elements. Companies need to stop jumping on the bandwagon, for sure. Samsung is a global telecommunications company and has been a dominant player in the smartphone market. True, Samsung made some very bad choices which essentially gave the jury no choice but to find in Apple's favor. However, if Samsung had simply said, "Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone" they probably would have been OK. Instead, they opted to nearly reverse engineer an iPhone, which is really dumb, and now Samsung's own stupidity has brought a queasiness sense of dread to an entire technology sector, putting everyone on edge. Hopefully, though, the verdict will act as a cold splash of Reality in the faces of technology design teams around the world. "Oh, shit, we've been mesmerized by Apple. Duh. OK, everyone lets get creative."
As a direct result of the decision, lawyers will undoubtedly play an even bigger role in technology design simply to prevent further patent legal issues. Is this really good for innovation, to have more legalese involved simply to make sure Technology A does not "steal" from Technology B? Do we really want lawyers designing our technology?
All of this might seem silly, yet in light of swimmer Ryan Lochte wanting to patent the word "Jeah!" my comments seem pretty realistic.
Patents, in a sense, create a monopoly for the owner. In a corporate sense, hegemony, which is worse. Hegemony means complete ownership and domination. An examination of Apple's suits worldwide, as I discussed earlier, almost argues Apple is looking not simply for protection of intellectual property but complete hegemony over the global telecommunications markets, using local, regional, national, and international court systems.
I realize the jury made their judgment based on current US legal doctrine. The judgment might be "lawful" but was their judgment "prudent?" Recently, the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Brievik was sentenced to 21 years in prison for his crimes, the maximum legal judgement in Norway. In the United States, with 100% surety Breivik would have spent his remaining days in prison, or been executed. In Norway, Breivik's sentence was "lawful" in that he was punished to the maximum Norwegian courts allow, but was his punishment in proportion to the deaths of 77 people, most of them schoolchildren? That is my point. Sometimes, what is lawful is not necessarily proportional to the crime nor prudent.
Patents were designed to be granted for tangible objects which represent new and unique technologies developed from knowledge of the natural sciences. A CD, or DVD, or Blu-Ray, or SD card reflect patentable materials. However, patent laws in effect today have not changed much to account for technology, innovation, or rapidly changing global economies. Pharmaceuticals are in the same IP/Patent boat which affects the prices we pay for medication, potentially keeping them artificially higher than they should be.
The patent process needs to be fully examined to ensure fair and equitable standards are implemented which work to the benefit of designers, developers, and consumers.
Apple's victory over Samsung will have some interesting ramifications for the technology industry, some good, some not so good, and some bad.
Of some note is the disparity in international legal decisions with respect to Apple's legal claims as pertains to their patents. Most Americans may not be aware Apple has sued Samsung not only in the United States, but in Germany, in Italy, in the UK, in South Korea, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Australia.
Apple won an injunction in Germany against Samsung and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, Apple itself is being sued by Motorola over push-notification technology in Germany. Motorola developed a push-notification technology for pagers upon which current push-notification technology is based. Sort of.
In Europe, and in South Korea, Apple has not made much headway in patent battles. The reason behind their inability to find favor abroad seems to be related to courts abroad being immune to notions that rounded corners should be a patentable feature.
Abroad, patenting environments are considerably different than in the United States. In the United States, an idea sketched on a napkin has the potential of being patented. A square or rectangle with arrows denoting various features has the potential of being enough to capture a patent license. Writing a bit of software code has the potential of being patented.
The idea behind patenting is to protect a real and useful "concrete" technology from being stolen by others and to provide the developer time enough to recover costs and make a little money. The idea must be able to be engineered and implemented. The idea must represent a new and unique advancement of the natural sciences. In other words, mathematical formulas, business processes, the presentation of information, and software cannot be patented. Yet, another way, you cannot hold a formula or process in your hand; you can hold the tangible outcome of the utilization of a process in your hand, but not the process itself.
 |
| Are consumers really so dumb as to think the Samsung is literally a generic iPhone? |
Can a shape be patentable? Should a shape be patentable? Should a gesture be patentable?
My response to the above is, no, shapes and gestures are "open source." In other words, they are not unique and represent no form of technological enhancement or contribution. In fact, language is "open source," too.
If language were not "open source" imagine the complexity of paying people who license every word imaginable and also licensed every permutation of every possible letter combination which might result in a new word. Every author would become instantly bankrupt.
Yet, in the United States, that seems to be where we are heading. The US Patent Office allows companies to patent their software code. Allowing patenting of software code is much like allowing Stephen King to patent all the words in his books so no one else could use those books. What S King does is copy-protect his stories, and to some extent he is offered protection from other writers deriving verbatim his works. Musicians cannot copyright the notes they use, but they can copyright the composition and lyrics.
In Europe and abroad, computer languages are seen much like spoken or written languages. Companies are limited as to what they can protect with software patents. Code which accesses a DVD drive, or a software port, or a mouse, or calculates the volume of a sphere - I'm sure there are better examples cannot be patented simply because of the finite number of ways such events can occur. To sue someone because of button placement, button appearance, or button behavior is simply asinine in most European countries because these do not meet the criteria of being new and unique advancements.
In the United States, though, we seem to be heading down the path where even small snippets of code are patentable.
Take the Oracle v. Google lawsuit related to Java. Google was able to eke out a winning decision v. Oracle. In Europe, a similar lawsuit would doubtfully succeeded, as well. The judge did say the judgment did not apply to all APIs, however. The European High Court ruled against the US company SAS, stating "a computer language or the functionality of a computer program cannot be copyrighted."
The theme behind my comments reflects the changes the US patent system must implement to ensure and promote innovation and squelch those who simply want to be paid for property which is falsely labeled as "intellectual." Rounding edges, pinching screens, and vague descriptions of techniques for communicating using copper wire or via wireless communication networks need to be filtered before entering the patent system.
"Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone"
One comment I read this morning hinted the decision might be a good one for the industry. The judgment against Samsung will foster MORE innovation, not less, the contributor argued, because people will have to be more creative to avoid Apple's design elements. Companies need to stop jumping on the bandwagon, for sure. Samsung is a global telecommunications company and has been a dominant player in the smartphone market. True, Samsung made some very bad choices which essentially gave the jury no choice but to find in Apple's favor. However, if Samsung had simply said, "Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone" they probably would have been OK. Instead, they opted to nearly reverse engineer an iPhone, which is really dumb, and now Samsung's own stupidity has brought a queasiness sense of dread to an entire technology sector, putting everyone on edge. Hopefully, though, the verdict will act as a cold splash of Reality in the faces of technology design teams around the world. "Oh, shit, we've been mesmerized by Apple. Duh. OK, everyone lets get creative."
As a direct result of the decision, lawyers will undoubtedly play an even bigger role in technology design simply to prevent further patent legal issues. Is this really good for innovation, to have more legalese involved simply to make sure Technology A does not "steal" from Technology B? Do we really want lawyers designing our technology?
"No, the radius of the curve is 0.57. The i6 has a curve radius of 0.54. That is only an 8% difference; that will never hold up in court. Your going to have to use a chamfered corner, instead.
No, you cannot use rounded icons. Let me consult the list of open source shapes, and those shape which have yet to be patented. Hmm, well, octogons are out. The octogon shape has been patented by the UFC. Uhm, no pentagons, either. Homeland Security doesn't want terrorists to be constantly reminded of what the Department of Defense building looks like. No triangles, either; GLBT have patented all triangle variants and most shades of pink and purple. Well, I'm going to have to get back to you on this."
All of this might seem silly, yet in light of swimmer Ryan Lochte wanting to patent the word "Jeah!" my comments seem pretty realistic.
Patents, in a sense, create a monopoly for the owner. In a corporate sense, hegemony, which is worse. Hegemony means complete ownership and domination. An examination of Apple's suits worldwide, as I discussed earlier, almost argues Apple is looking not simply for protection of intellectual property but complete hegemony over the global telecommunications markets, using local, regional, national, and international court systems.
I realize the jury made their judgment based on current US legal doctrine. The judgment might be "lawful" but was their judgment "prudent?" Recently, the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Brievik was sentenced to 21 years in prison for his crimes, the maximum legal judgement in Norway. In the United States, with 100% surety Breivik would have spent his remaining days in prison, or been executed. In Norway, Breivik's sentence was "lawful" in that he was punished to the maximum Norwegian courts allow, but was his punishment in proportion to the deaths of 77 people, most of them schoolchildren? That is my point. Sometimes, what is lawful is not necessarily proportional to the crime nor prudent.
Sidenote: Breivik will probably never again see the light of day. After commenting in court he didn't kill enough people, the judges will most likely extend his sentence. In Norway, while the maximum sentence is 21 years, options exist for extending prison terms by 5-year increments.
Patents were designed to be granted for tangible objects which represent new and unique technologies developed from knowledge of the natural sciences. A CD, or DVD, or Blu-Ray, or SD card reflect patentable materials. However, patent laws in effect today have not changed much to account for technology, innovation, or rapidly changing global economies. Pharmaceuticals are in the same IP/Patent boat which affects the prices we pay for medication, potentially keeping them artificially higher than they should be.
The patent process needs to be fully examined to ensure fair and equitable standards are implemented which work to the benefit of designers, developers, and consumers.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Are You An Advanced Learner?
The other day I was reading an article, waiting for Curiousity to set-down on Mars. The author described two types of learners. Not there are only two types, but the author had identified two specific types of learners, "Novice" and "Advanced."
Suppose the nature of a project is to build the 2nd Generation Mars Rover. Engineers, geologists, chemists, physicists, whoever, gather to design and discuss the component details. Over the following 6 years the "iRover 2" evolves. Prototypes are built. Components designed, engineered, and fabricated. Software written. Problems and dilemmas addressed and solved.
August of 2019 sees three new rovers rolling over the Martian terrain capturing data in unprecedented detail. New cameras, new optics, new compression algorithms, new and robust materials reduce weight yet strengthen these new Rovers, Larry, Moe, and Curly. Larry, Moe, and Curly are semi-intelligent (like their namesakes) but unlike their namesakes, using the latest in state-of-the-art GPS and LiDAR for land navigation and route-finding, augmented by a flock of Albatross-class Mars drones capable of flying aloft for years collecting atmospheric aerosols and moderate-resolution LiDAR data.
NASA in 2019, as in 2012, finds unparalleled success in these endeavors. Costs have been minimized while the results are simply phenomenal. The scientific community revels in the unprecedented success of the scale and complexity of the Martian ecosystem of robotic vehicles charting our neighboring planet.
Yet, some are not enthusiastic. Engineers, chemists, computer scientists speak out against any more investment in Mars.
Enthusiastic folks intoxicated by the Rube Goldberg inspired deployment of Curiosity see ... the future. By the future, I mean "possibilities" and "potential" for growth in all sorts of new and unique fields. The commercial and industrial applications of Science, Engineering, Physics, and Chemistry fill adult minds with child-like fervor.
Every molecule of sweat equity poured into Curiosity translates lessons learned.
How much did we, and be we I mean Humanity in the form of NASA employees, engineers and the lot who all chipped into to make Curiosity a success, learn from our experience? How much will we learn? Whatever we learn from Curiosity may pale in comparison to what has already been achieved in simply getting a 1,500lb remote-controlled vehicle across 535 million miles of space and safely down and operational on another planet.
Advanced learners do not only see the problem, or task, at hand. Advanced learners see the task as an opportunity to learn something about the process. Even though Curiosity landed August 2012, the technology built into Curiosity was benchmarked to 2004. Like the Space Shuttles. I had more computing in my personal computer than at least two Space Shuttles. Perhaps all of the them.
But, Advanced Learners are not merely concerned with the nature of the task at hand. No, the entire process becomes an ecosystem for learning. Organizing teams, leadership, team management, the "human-side" of technology is only one part of the system. The technology, the engineering, and all of the other sciences come into play. What did we learn about what worked? Why did it work, and work so well? What did we learn about what broke? Why did it break? Now, and this is the key point, how can we take the sum total of our experience, both the tangibles and intangibles, and apply our ecosystem of knowledge to new and different problems?
But, to be an Advanced Learner does not mean putting a remote-controlled laser-arm buggy on a distance planet. To be an Advanced Learner one only needs to look around, really.
Here is an article from Floating Sheep about a group of college students who mapped tweets. What has mapping tweets to do with anything other than tweets, beer, and church?
Floating Sheep are a team of geographers. One of the team corralled some students and they all learned how to use the Twitter API and pull out geo-located tweets. The tweets of interest fell into two specific groups, those which dealt with "beer," and those which dealt with "church." A marvelous idea on the surface and as the article suggests a great way to introduce students to spatial statistics and research.
As I pitched this idea around, I discovered many folks who didn't see the need to map both "beer" and "church." Almost to a person, no one really saw the need to map beer and church and the inherent spatial auto-correlation between the two.
The mapping project was not about "beer" and "church" just like putting Curiosity on Mars was not really about putting Curiosity on Mars. These are not simply Proofs of Concepts, these are Proofs of Fruition, the fruition of hopes, dreams, and ideas made manifest. The maps of "beer" and "church" could have easily have been about "beer" and "DUIs" or "tequila" and "pregnancy" (I'd like to see that spatial auto-correlation). On a more serious note, the maps could have been about "weapons" and "dark knight" or "shoot" and "Obama."
Learning how to map the relationship between beer and church is not about mapping the relationship between beer and church. That is a side-effect, a by-product.
Curiosity is not about exploring Mars; that is a by-product. Everything which went into developing Curiosity was the real reward. The International Space Station is not about the International Space Station.
All of these endeavors are about putting our minds to work in uniquely challenging ways and expanding our potential to continue putting our minds to work in uniquely challenging ways.
Suppose the nature of a project is to build the 2nd Generation Mars Rover. Engineers, geologists, chemists, physicists, whoever, gather to design and discuss the component details. Over the following 6 years the "iRover 2" evolves. Prototypes are built. Components designed, engineered, and fabricated. Software written. Problems and dilemmas addressed and solved.
August of 2019 sees three new rovers rolling over the Martian terrain capturing data in unprecedented detail. New cameras, new optics, new compression algorithms, new and robust materials reduce weight yet strengthen these new Rovers, Larry, Moe, and Curly. Larry, Moe, and Curly are semi-intelligent (like their namesakes) but unlike their namesakes, using the latest in state-of-the-art GPS and LiDAR for land navigation and route-finding, augmented by a flock of Albatross-class Mars drones capable of flying aloft for years collecting atmospheric aerosols and moderate-resolution LiDAR data.
NASA in 2019, as in 2012, finds unparalleled success in these endeavors. Costs have been minimized while the results are simply phenomenal. The scientific community revels in the unprecedented success of the scale and complexity of the Martian ecosystem of robotic vehicles charting our neighboring planet.
Yet, some are not enthusiastic. Engineers, chemists, computer scientists speak out against any more investment in Mars.
What did we really achieve? they ask.Those are some paraphrased responses I either read or heard in subsequent to the successful Curiosity landing. Those also tend to exemplify the voices of those who fall into the "Novice" learner category.
Too much money was spent on these sexy missions with no real tangible benefits.
Yes, I helped write code; yes, I helped design and fabricate materials; yes, some new alloys and processes were used to improve strength and radiation shielding.
Could not the funds have been better spent on something else?
 |
| One of the first color images sent by Curiosity. Morse code in tread is clearly seen |
Enthusiastic folks intoxicated by the Rube Goldberg inspired deployment of Curiosity see ... the future. By the future, I mean "possibilities" and "potential" for growth in all sorts of new and unique fields. The commercial and industrial applications of Science, Engineering, Physics, and Chemistry fill adult minds with child-like fervor.
Every molecule of sweat equity poured into Curiosity translates lessons learned.
How much did we, and be we I mean Humanity in the form of NASA employees, engineers and the lot who all chipped into to make Curiosity a success, learn from our experience? How much will we learn? Whatever we learn from Curiosity may pale in comparison to what has already been achieved in simply getting a 1,500lb remote-controlled vehicle across 535 million miles of space and safely down and operational on another planet.
Advanced learners do not only see the problem, or task, at hand. Advanced learners see the task as an opportunity to learn something about the process. Even though Curiosity landed August 2012, the technology built into Curiosity was benchmarked to 2004. Like the Space Shuttles. I had more computing in my personal computer than at least two Space Shuttles. Perhaps all of the them.
But, Advanced Learners are not merely concerned with the nature of the task at hand. No, the entire process becomes an ecosystem for learning. Organizing teams, leadership, team management, the "human-side" of technology is only one part of the system. The technology, the engineering, and all of the other sciences come into play. What did we learn about what worked? Why did it work, and work so well? What did we learn about what broke? Why did it break? Now, and this is the key point, how can we take the sum total of our experience, both the tangibles and intangibles, and apply our ecosystem of knowledge to new and different problems?
But, to be an Advanced Learner does not mean putting a remote-controlled laser-arm buggy on a distance planet. To be an Advanced Learner one only needs to look around, really.
Curiosity is not about exploring Mars
 |
| What do tweets about beer and church have to do with anything? |
Here is an article from Floating Sheep about a group of college students who mapped tweets. What has mapping tweets to do with anything other than tweets, beer, and church?
Floating Sheep are a team of geographers. One of the team corralled some students and they all learned how to use the Twitter API and pull out geo-located tweets. The tweets of interest fell into two specific groups, those which dealt with "beer," and those which dealt with "church." A marvelous idea on the surface and as the article suggests a great way to introduce students to spatial statistics and research.
As I pitched this idea around, I discovered many folks who didn't see the need to map both "beer" and "church." Almost to a person, no one really saw the need to map beer and church and the inherent spatial auto-correlation between the two.
The mapping project was not about "beer" and "church" just like putting Curiosity on Mars was not really about putting Curiosity on Mars. These are not simply Proofs of Concepts, these are Proofs of Fruition, the fruition of hopes, dreams, and ideas made manifest. The maps of "beer" and "church" could have easily have been about "beer" and "DUIs" or "tequila" and "pregnancy" (I'd like to see that spatial auto-correlation). On a more serious note, the maps could have been about "weapons" and "dark knight" or "shoot" and "Obama."
Learning how to map the relationship between beer and church is not about mapping the relationship between beer and church. That is a side-effect, a by-product.
Curiosity is not about exploring Mars; that is a by-product. Everything which went into developing Curiosity was the real reward. The International Space Station is not about the International Space Station.
All of these endeavors are about putting our minds to work in uniquely challenging ways and expanding our potential to continue putting our minds to work in uniquely challenging ways.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
What Is Facebook Bankruptcy?
In 2003 or 2004, I can't remember which year, I signed up for Facebook. I found people who I remembered from my past, people I knew at that time, and people who shared similar interests of mine.
Facebook allowed me, like everyone, to share sites, information, jokes, etc. Keeping up with the lives of friends, family, acquaintances, and news from groups was a cinch.
The more people I added the more dis-enthused I became with Facebook. See, what happens when people share the mundane details of their lives is you begin to see how mundane people's lives are. Mundane is not a bad thing; perhaps mundane is not precisely what I mean. People are so caught up in going about their lives, grocery shopping, feeding kids, watching movies, etc. Their lives are so busy simply being led that being a well-informed critical-thinking person is nearly impossible.
And, being a well-informed critically thinking person take work. I know; I work hard at being both every day, and critical thinking does not come naturally to me, for sure.
I found the vast majority of people on my Facebook lacked information, were not critical thinkers, and were not really interested in overcoming ignorance or developing critical-thinking skills. Sad. The vast amount of dogma, their entrenched beliefs, and unwillingness to consider alternatives I found completely disheartening.
Then, to make matters worse, my contacts on Facebook had friends who were racists, bigots, and Christian fundamentalists. If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, its intolerance. My brain simply refuses to cooperate and communicate with people who cannot question and contemplate alternatives.
The defining straw was a man who declared himself to be a Vietnam Vet, a Green Beret, and a local gun-toting Baptist preacher. He essentially wants a white Christian America, with no Blacks, no other minorities, no foreigners, no immigrants, simply a White-bred America. Furthermore, no American should ever be taught another language, not Spanish, or French (oh, God, no), and certainly not Arabic. He proceeded to insult and berate a Muslim friend of mine, and was joined by other like-minded people in his verbal attack. I enjoined the conversation, but discovered we were not debating, and there was no chance of me even wedging an alternative thought into his tiny brain. And by tiny, I really do mean tiny, and probably damaged to be as hostile to other cultures as this purported Christian minister.
When I contemplated the shear volume of cultural ignorance I discovered on Facebook, and not just ignorance, but racism, and bigotry, and the overwhelming banality of Facebook, I resigned.
I resigned two years and I really haven't looked back.
Facebook is a graffiti-scrawled toilet stall in the Internet bathroom. My theory of cultural evolution states "society can claim to be only as advanced as the care given to its toilets." The reason Facebook's shares have fallen off might be explained by the fact no one wants to hang-out in a bathroom for very long. Gossip is spread in bathrooms, germs are spread in bathrooms. Who wants to buy advertising in a decrepit bathroom?
I doubt I will sign rejoin Facebook. I don't want to jump into an environment which is mostly toxic, full of poisonous ideas, and rampant with ignorance. I really don't want any more evidence which supports the notion 99% of people are mostly concerned with living their lives without encouraging others to be more adaptive and receptive to new knowledge.
I cannot handle the blind and raging ignorance of Facebook. I thought, for about two seconds, of selectively "unfriending" people on Facebook. However, people go bonkers when "unfriended." When unfriended on Facebook people take "unfriending" far too seriously and tend to make the connection to Real Life. Again, proof of the banality and insipid nature of Facebook.
And, I have Twitter. When I declared Facebook bankruptcy, I invested in Twitter. Twitter is superior to Facebook in that I do not really know who I follow, and I do not really know who follows me. I do care, though. But, I also realize people may follow or not as they wish, like moving through a crowded convention eavesdropping on conversations. No one's feelings get hurt if a person "unfollows," at least that is the rule.
I only follow people I think I can learn something from or who have something interesting to contribute to my Body of Knowledge. I use Twitter to follow scientists, astronomers, engineers, programmers, and a bunch of educators. I follow people in Geography, Archaeology, Astronomy, Computer Science, plus an array of science organizations, NASA, NOAA, Association of American Geographers, CERN, and a host of news agencies, and, best of all, creative writers and thinkers, like Neil Gaiman, Tony Lee, David Brin, Cory Doctorow, Liana Brooks, et. al.
Yes, I could do the same with Facebook. Yes, I have lost out on some contests, and my Farmville farm has been foreclosed on. But, I don't have to filter content, don't have to ignore contacts, or choose to "confirm" or "deny." I can follow or unfollow at will. And, I don't have the distractions of Farmville, or Petville, or Fishville, or Zombieville, or Ignorant-Pinhead-Racistville to distract me from learning and interacting with others from whom I can learn more. And, see, if I wanted to find junk on Twitter I could do so. I know I could find all the hate, bigotry, racism, and ignorance I could possibly stand, and then some. But, I don't go looking for it. And, while sometimes those elements do creep in to my Twitter feed, they are broadcast by unknowns, not by people who are supposed to be respectable "friends." Or, these elements retweeted by similar-minded people using such tweets as examples of ignorance in our society. I go looking for good people, good thinkers, good ideas, good technology, good organizations.
If I could figure out a way to do start-over from scratch, with a brand-new account on Facebook, with my true name, not an alias or Nom de Facebook, and "follow" people on Facebook from whom I could learn and be challenged, I might do that. If Facebook would allow a person to "reset" their account and all credentials back to zero, I might contemplate such. Maybe. I think that would be like giving the truck-stop toilet a good cleansing, though, knowing full well in a week or two its going to get filthy again.
If you are tired of Facebook drama, maybe Facebook bankruptcy is for you.
Facebook allowed me, like everyone, to share sites, information, jokes, etc. Keeping up with the lives of friends, family, acquaintances, and news from groups was a cinch.
The more people I added the more dis-enthused I became with Facebook. See, what happens when people share the mundane details of their lives is you begin to see how mundane people's lives are. Mundane is not a bad thing; perhaps mundane is not precisely what I mean. People are so caught up in going about their lives, grocery shopping, feeding kids, watching movies, etc. Their lives are so busy simply being led that being a well-informed critical-thinking person is nearly impossible.
And, being a well-informed critically thinking person take work. I know; I work hard at being both every day, and critical thinking does not come naturally to me, for sure.
I found the vast majority of people on my Facebook lacked information, were not critical thinkers, and were not really interested in overcoming ignorance or developing critical-thinking skills. Sad. The vast amount of dogma, their entrenched beliefs, and unwillingness to consider alternatives I found completely disheartening.
Then, to make matters worse, my contacts on Facebook had friends who were racists, bigots, and Christian fundamentalists. If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, its intolerance. My brain simply refuses to cooperate and communicate with people who cannot question and contemplate alternatives.
The defining straw was a man who declared himself to be a Vietnam Vet, a Green Beret, and a local gun-toting Baptist preacher. He essentially wants a white Christian America, with no Blacks, no other minorities, no foreigners, no immigrants, simply a White-bred America. Furthermore, no American should ever be taught another language, not Spanish, or French (oh, God, no), and certainly not Arabic. He proceeded to insult and berate a Muslim friend of mine, and was joined by other like-minded people in his verbal attack. I enjoined the conversation, but discovered we were not debating, and there was no chance of me even wedging an alternative thought into his tiny brain. And by tiny, I really do mean tiny, and probably damaged to be as hostile to other cultures as this purported Christian minister.
When I contemplated the shear volume of cultural ignorance I discovered on Facebook, and not just ignorance, but racism, and bigotry, and the overwhelming banality of Facebook, I resigned.
I resigned two years and I really haven't looked back.
I declared Facebook bankruptcy.
Facebook is a graffiti-scrawled toilet stall in the Internet bathroom. My theory of cultural evolution states "society can claim to be only as advanced as the care given to its toilets." The reason Facebook's shares have fallen off might be explained by the fact no one wants to hang-out in a bathroom for very long. Gossip is spread in bathrooms, germs are spread in bathrooms. Who wants to buy advertising in a decrepit bathroom?
I doubt I will sign rejoin Facebook. I don't want to jump into an environment which is mostly toxic, full of poisonous ideas, and rampant with ignorance. I really don't want any more evidence which supports the notion 99% of people are mostly concerned with living their lives without encouraging others to be more adaptive and receptive to new knowledge.
"society can claim to be only as advanced as the care given to its toilets."
I cannot handle the blind and raging ignorance of Facebook. I thought, for about two seconds, of selectively "unfriending" people on Facebook. However, people go bonkers when "unfriended." When unfriended on Facebook people take "unfriending" far too seriously and tend to make the connection to Real Life. Again, proof of the banality and insipid nature of Facebook.
And, I have Twitter. When I declared Facebook bankruptcy, I invested in Twitter. Twitter is superior to Facebook in that I do not really know who I follow, and I do not really know who follows me. I do care, though. But, I also realize people may follow or not as they wish, like moving through a crowded convention eavesdropping on conversations. No one's feelings get hurt if a person "unfollows," at least that is the rule.
I only follow people I think I can learn something from or who have something interesting to contribute to my Body of Knowledge. I use Twitter to follow scientists, astronomers, engineers, programmers, and a bunch of educators. I follow people in Geography, Archaeology, Astronomy, Computer Science, plus an array of science organizations, NASA, NOAA, Association of American Geographers, CERN, and a host of news agencies, and, best of all, creative writers and thinkers, like Neil Gaiman, Tony Lee, David Brin, Cory Doctorow, Liana Brooks, et. al.
I only follow people I think I can learn something from or who have something interesting to contribute to my Body of Knowledge.
Yes, I could do the same with Facebook. Yes, I have lost out on some contests, and my Farmville farm has been foreclosed on. But, I don't have to filter content, don't have to ignore contacts, or choose to "confirm" or "deny." I can follow or unfollow at will. And, I don't have the distractions of Farmville, or Petville, or Fishville, or Zombieville, or Ignorant-Pinhead-Racistville to distract me from learning and interacting with others from whom I can learn more. And, see, if I wanted to find junk on Twitter I could do so. I know I could find all the hate, bigotry, racism, and ignorance I could possibly stand, and then some. But, I don't go looking for it. And, while sometimes those elements do creep in to my Twitter feed, they are broadcast by unknowns, not by people who are supposed to be respectable "friends." Or, these elements retweeted by similar-minded people using such tweets as examples of ignorance in our society. I go looking for good people, good thinkers, good ideas, good technology, good organizations.
If I could figure out a way to do start-over from scratch, with a brand-new account on Facebook, with my true name, not an alias or Nom de Facebook, and "follow" people on Facebook from whom I could learn and be challenged, I might do that. If Facebook would allow a person to "reset" their account and all credentials back to zero, I might contemplate such. Maybe. I think that would be like giving the truck-stop toilet a good cleansing, though, knowing full well in a week or two its going to get filthy again.
If you are tired of Facebook drama, maybe Facebook bankruptcy is for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)