Saturday, July 18, 2009
John Taplin: "The trouble with democracy"
Read it for the content, but also read it because it includes the gem, "China is going to grow at 8% this year and we’ll be lucky if we grow at 1% and these assholes in Congress are fighting over the placement of deck chairs on the Titanic."
"Acoustic warfare: moths jam bats' echolocation"
I hate ripping off titles and the works of other people, so here's the link to a really neat article over at Nobel Intent on Arstechnica: "Acoustic warfare: moths jam bats' echolocation." Just, so, freaking, cool!
GE Works on the "Model A"
Self-sustenance has seemed something of an antiquated idea for over a century. Since the Industrial Revolution showed us how much more efficient large-scale production is compared to the small-scale, few people have seriously considered self-sustenance a practicable reality. We are all inter-connected and all reliant upon technologies, people, factories, and energy located far from home.
With the increased focus on OMG Global Warming Is Going to Kill Us All!TM, energy-efficiency finally is coming to the fore as a topic of serious consideration. The ugly truth is this: Energy is our capacity to produce. The more energy we have, the more we can produce. Reduce our consumption of energy, and you have reduced our economy and our lifestyle. This is where focusing on energy-efficiency, reducing the amount of energy that gets burned up unnecessarily and turned into waste heat, is appealing: If we can reduce the amount of energy produced for each unit of energy actually consumed, we can have our cake and eat it, too.
GE is betting that the best way to accomplish this (in the home) is to link together every energy-consumer in the house on a network, then try to strategically control the consumption of energy. This accomplishes a few strategic things:
With the increased focus on OMG Global Warming Is Going to Kill Us All!TM, energy-efficiency finally is coming to the fore as a topic of serious consideration. The ugly truth is this: Energy is our capacity to produce. The more energy we have, the more we can produce. Reduce our consumption of energy, and you have reduced our economy and our lifestyle. This is where focusing on energy-efficiency, reducing the amount of energy that gets burned up unnecessarily and turned into waste heat, is appealing: If we can reduce the amount of energy produced for each unit of energy actually consumed, we can have our cake and eat it, too.
GE is betting that the best way to accomplish this (in the home) is to link together every energy-consumer in the house on a network, then try to strategically control the consumption of energy. This accomplishes a few strategic things:
- It involves the resident in his energy consumption in a way that makes him more conscious of it and encourages him not to engage in wasteful behavior
- It allows for load-levelling of energy demand; by moving energy consumption away from "peak" hours to "off-peak" hours, the strain on local power plants goes down, allowing them to operate more efficiently (and hopefully saving the consumer costs, too)
- It allows for intelligent integration of eco-friendly energy sources into a home; specifically, an unoccupied house during the daytime is receiving maximal sun exposure during a period where the only energy needed is to run climate control systems for food and humidity control; solar power generated during this time could be sold off to the "grid" which is currently sucking energy to keep offices, etc. running in exchange for off-peak traditional power at night when the consumer is actually home
Stimulating classroom material
No, I'm not talking about sex-ed courses. I'm talking about doing something that would actually have an impact on the classroom, a positive one. First, let's start with what's wrong with our current primary education system: It is a disaster, mitigated only partially in some communities by parents concerned about the education of their children, who are active in their homes and in their schools. How do I draw this conclusion, well, the first is a nice editorial from IBD on the efficiency of our education system (read it now). The second is the much-complained-about-by-liberals fact that children who go to "rich" public schools do better than those who go to "poor" schools. This is not because the "rich" schools are unfairly advantaged, but rather, that all public schools are an embarrassment and a failure to their students, and only kids who go to "rich" schools have enough parents who do not have to work full time jobs that can volunteer at their local schools and help Johhny at home, too.
I say we damn the entire public education system as the failure it is and re-introduce the idea of school choice to the equation. Sure, we can still fund the kiddies education from the public purse, and each kid gets the same amount. Then let the schools duke it out. We'll quickly find that some models of education are far more successful than others (hint, those are the schools with lots of kids at them) and which ones are ineffectual (they'll look like less-crowded versions of today's schools).
I say we damn the entire public education system as the failure it is and re-introduce the idea of school choice to the equation. Sure, we can still fund the kiddies education from the public purse, and each kid gets the same amount. Then let the schools duke it out. We'll quickly find that some models of education are far more successful than others (hint, those are the schools with lots of kids at them) and which ones are ineffectual (they'll look like less-crowded versions of today's schools).
The global rise of localism
Couldn't resist the grandeur of the title, forgive me.
An article in the Economist suggests that the internet, despite its promise of increasing our reach throughout the globe, may in fact be limiting our horizons.
First, I will describe the research used to reach this startling conclusion, then I will offer my analysis of how that likely came to be, and then we'll finish up with a more general bit.
The research tracked baby names, specifically the frequency of names within geographies. What they noticed was an increase in localization of names that corresponded with the rise of the internet. They speculate that this tendency to choosing names already common within a geographic regions may be evidence of a broader trend toward a more local view of the world.
I would suggest that social networking sites, with their promise of keeping you connected with far-flung friends from long ago, actually succeed in promoting something of a ceaseless conversation among local friends. I have witnessed many people (supposedly working, since I've witnessed this at work) spending hours on social networking sites, gossiping not with their long-lost best friend in Anchorage, but instead with the mother of the children that live across the street. It seems that the internet has allowed people to become more aware of their local community and that function has trumped its global reach.
This is not entirely surprising. After all, for millennia we have lived in small, local communities that were generally tight nit. (For better and for worse!) Then, the industrial revolution happened, shifting the center of population towards large, unconquerable cities. You could never know everyone in your city, but you might be able to know everyone on your block. So as things changed, they stayed the same. Then, the suburban diaspora happened. The exodus of people from communal living in cities to free-standing, self-supporting homes located miles from community gathering places and traversed, not on foot or in communal mass transit, but individually by car, finally broke apart communities. People who grew up in suburbia rarely feel a particular attachment to their community; indeed, that is one of the greatest complaints about it.
But social networking (and the internet, in general) has allowed people to re-commune, even as our physical geography and topography discourage it, we finally have in the medium of the internet, a means of conquering suburbia and submitting it to our collective desire for a comprehensibly small community. It is little surprise then, that finally given a tool to allow us to do what we had done for centuries before, we should return to a more natural, comfortable state.
The internet is still a wonderful place for people to expand their horizons, its just that most people, given the choice of travelling the world or flying their long-lost cousins in for a family reunion, will choose the latter. As for me, I'm still longing to taste French wine while sitting fashionably at a Parisian cafe, watching the people go by. And when I tire of that, there are over two hundred countries left to visit, each with its appeal.
An article in the Economist suggests that the internet, despite its promise of increasing our reach throughout the globe, may in fact be limiting our horizons.
First, I will describe the research used to reach this startling conclusion, then I will offer my analysis of how that likely came to be, and then we'll finish up with a more general bit.
The research tracked baby names, specifically the frequency of names within geographies. What they noticed was an increase in localization of names that corresponded with the rise of the internet. They speculate that this tendency to choosing names already common within a geographic regions may be evidence of a broader trend toward a more local view of the world.
I would suggest that social networking sites, with their promise of keeping you connected with far-flung friends from long ago, actually succeed in promoting something of a ceaseless conversation among local friends. I have witnessed many people (supposedly working, since I've witnessed this at work) spending hours on social networking sites, gossiping not with their long-lost best friend in Anchorage, but instead with the mother of the children that live across the street. It seems that the internet has allowed people to become more aware of their local community and that function has trumped its global reach.
This is not entirely surprising. After all, for millennia we have lived in small, local communities that were generally tight nit. (For better and for worse!) Then, the industrial revolution happened, shifting the center of population towards large, unconquerable cities. You could never know everyone in your city, but you might be able to know everyone on your block. So as things changed, they stayed the same. Then, the suburban diaspora happened. The exodus of people from communal living in cities to free-standing, self-supporting homes located miles from community gathering places and traversed, not on foot or in communal mass transit, but individually by car, finally broke apart communities. People who grew up in suburbia rarely feel a particular attachment to their community; indeed, that is one of the greatest complaints about it.
But social networking (and the internet, in general) has allowed people to re-commune, even as our physical geography and topography discourage it, we finally have in the medium of the internet, a means of conquering suburbia and submitting it to our collective desire for a comprehensibly small community. It is little surprise then, that finally given a tool to allow us to do what we had done for centuries before, we should return to a more natural, comfortable state.
The internet is still a wonderful place for people to expand their horizons, its just that most people, given the choice of travelling the world or flying their long-lost cousins in for a family reunion, will choose the latter. As for me, I'm still longing to taste French wine while sitting fashionably at a Parisian cafe, watching the people go by. And when I tire of that, there are over two hundred countries left to visit, each with its appeal.
Taking this to its logical conclusion...
Google's willingness to encourage and try new ideas looks to have hit on something quite spectacular: A new data center that will fundamentally changes the "climate control" game. They are taking advantage of Belgium's cool climate, combining it with a global load-balancing system, and excising the expensive and power-hungry cooling systems usually needed to keep data center components from de-soldering themselves. (OK, the silicon bits will fail before that happens, but those computers put off a lot of heat.)
The estimate is that the center will only average seven days a year when equipment will need to be shut down due to high temperatures in Belgium. With a global system of backup and redundant servers, this is probably not much different than giving the Belgian crew an opportunity to do maintenance, anyway.
But, let's follow this out to its logical conclusion: If you could get a tube fat enough (remember, the internet is just a "series of tubes") with low-enough latency, why not stick every data center in Alaska, upper Canadia, or Siberia? (I guess I should include Antarctica, pardon the hemispherical bias, my friends down under.)
I only see a handful of troubles that need to be overcome:
Other than that, should work.
The estimate is that the center will only average seven days a year when equipment will need to be shut down due to high temperatures in Belgium. With a global system of backup and redundant servers, this is probably not much different than giving the Belgian crew an opportunity to do maintenance, anyway.
But, let's follow this out to its logical conclusion: If you could get a tube fat enough (remember, the internet is just a "series of tubes") with low-enough latency, why not stick every data center in Alaska, upper Canadia, or Siberia? (I guess I should include Antarctica, pardon the hemispherical bias, my friends down under.)
I only see a handful of troubles that need to be overcome:
- Tube + latency
- Energy on sight (portable, self-contained nuclear powerplants, you say?)
- Geeks trying to overclock their data centers during wintertime
- Geeks dying of sun exposure during summer (remember that whole sun-not-setting-in-the-summer thingy?)
Other than that, should work.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Obama Gets Schooled by Russia
Mr. Obama,
Now that you have had a chance to rest and reaquaint yourself with eastern standard time after your trip to Russia, I hope that you will take the opportunity to reaquaint yourself with a concept that you may not have thought about since your undergraduate days: Realpolitik. It's that messy idea, born in the ununified German states of the nineteenth century that suggests that practical considerations ought trump any other in global politics. Actually, let's use another phrase you may not have thought about since then, geopolitics. You know, that concept where you actually have to consider the relative strategic importance of various allies and resources. I know, these were probably dismissed as passé by your professors, but, while they are living out their days in the Ivory Tower, you are now leading a real country, in the real world, where there are real consequences to your decisions (and your lack thereof).
"Russia says no Iran sanctions for START deal," reports Reuters. Must have come as something of a shock to you, after how chummy you and President Medvedev (or was that President Putin? so easy to get the two confused, I guess) got during your visit. Welcome, my dear Mr. President, to the world of realpolitik. It matters not that these simple, practical, plebian considerations should play any part of your world of high-brow, dispassionately-intellectual, and well-intentioned desires for the world. If your enemy choses to play the game of realpolitik, you are in the match, by sitting the match out, you merely leave the board and all the turns to your opponent.
This might all seem very new to you, Mr. President. I am aware of that, and I come ready with an exercise that should speed you on your way to understanding the rules of the game of realpolitik. You must remember back to the days of Daley's Chicago (not a very distant memory, not nearly distant enough), you must remember how Chicago functioned. Favors, favoritism, bribery, lies, slander, et al., you know these blunt instruments of power well. Now imagine that the world is like Chicago, where you as an individual in Chicago are now America to the rest of the world. Mr. Putin, via President Medvedev has engaged you in this game. Now stop being naive and fight back! If you've forgotten the Chicago ways, I'm sure Mr. Emanuel will be able to remind you of them--he never lost his fighting spirit.
Take care, my dear Mr. President. I wish you the best on this new venture; it may not be one that you expected at the outset, but it is your task now. Oh, and don't forget: This is all part of growing into your office. Until you have, may I suggest you retain Mr. Kissinger's services to aid you in this regard.
Regards,
BlackCoffee
Now that you have had a chance to rest and reaquaint yourself with eastern standard time after your trip to Russia, I hope that you will take the opportunity to reaquaint yourself with a concept that you may not have thought about since your undergraduate days: Realpolitik. It's that messy idea, born in the ununified German states of the nineteenth century that suggests that practical considerations ought trump any other in global politics. Actually, let's use another phrase you may not have thought about since then, geopolitics. You know, that concept where you actually have to consider the relative strategic importance of various allies and resources. I know, these were probably dismissed as passé by your professors, but, while they are living out their days in the Ivory Tower, you are now leading a real country, in the real world, where there are real consequences to your decisions (and your lack thereof).
"Russia says no Iran sanctions for START deal," reports Reuters. Must have come as something of a shock to you, after how chummy you and President Medvedev (or was that President Putin? so easy to get the two confused, I guess) got during your visit. Welcome, my dear Mr. President, to the world of realpolitik. It matters not that these simple, practical, plebian considerations should play any part of your world of high-brow, dispassionately-intellectual, and well-intentioned desires for the world. If your enemy choses to play the game of realpolitik, you are in the match, by sitting the match out, you merely leave the board and all the turns to your opponent.
This might all seem very new to you, Mr. President. I am aware of that, and I come ready with an exercise that should speed you on your way to understanding the rules of the game of realpolitik. You must remember back to the days of Daley's Chicago (not a very distant memory, not nearly distant enough), you must remember how Chicago functioned. Favors, favoritism, bribery, lies, slander, et al., you know these blunt instruments of power well. Now imagine that the world is like Chicago, where you as an individual in Chicago are now America to the rest of the world. Mr. Putin, via President Medvedev has engaged you in this game. Now stop being naive and fight back! If you've forgotten the Chicago ways, I'm sure Mr. Emanuel will be able to remind you of them--he never lost his fighting spirit.
Take care, my dear Mr. President. I wish you the best on this new venture; it may not be one that you expected at the outset, but it is your task now. Oh, and don't forget: This is all part of growing into your office. Until you have, may I suggest you retain Mr. Kissinger's services to aid you in this regard.
Regards,
BlackCoffee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)