Excerpts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Excerpts category.

We often measure the intelligence of animals based on how much they’re like humans or how closely they can follow tricks we try to teach them. But their talents are really Other and often amazing. They have superpowers we can only dream of. Via the ever-wonderful Browser, here’s an excerpt from “The Brains of Animals,” Amit Majmudar’s Kenyon Review post:

“There may come a time when we cease to regard animals as inferior, preliminary iterations of the human—with the human thought of as the pinnacle of evolution so far—and instead regard all forms of life as fugue-like elaborations of a single musical theme.

Animals are routinely superhuman in one way or another. They outstrip us in this or that perceptual or physical ability, and we think nothing of it. It is only our kind of superiority (in the use of tools, basically) that we select as the marker of ‘real’ superiority. A human being with an elephant’s hippocampus would end up like Funes the Memorious in the story by Borges; a human being with a dog’s olfactory bulb would become a Vermeer of scent, but his art would be lost on the rest of us, with our visually dominated brains. The poetry of the orcas is yet to be translated; I suspect that the whale sagas will have much more interesting things in them than the tablets and inscriptions of Sumer and Akkad.

If science should ever persuade people of this biological unity, it would be of far greater benefit to the species than penicillin or cardiopulmonary bypass; of far greater benefit to the planet than the piecemeal successes of environmental activism. We will have arrived, by study and reasoning, at the intuitive, mystical insights of poets.”

Tags:

As David Remnick prepares to offer analysis of Russia’s Winter Games, which hopefully will be a safe and joyous event, here’s the opening of E.J. Kahn’s 1972 New Yorker reportage in the direct aftermath of the tragedy in Munich, the so-called “Serene Olympics” which became anything but:

“Into the unreal Olympic world, where inches and ounces and seconds are what traditionally matter most, the real world cruelly intruded at five o’clock three mornings ago. The first inkling most of the four thousand journalists here had of the dreadful events that should have terminated these now cheerless Olympics came just before 9 a.m. on Tuesday, at which hour we had been invited to attend a press conference with the American swimmer Mark Spitz, who, having won an unprecedented seventh gold medal the night before, has been crowned by the German press ‘der König von München.’ Like just about everything else around here, though, his gilt had been tarnished. He had carried a pair of brand-name athletic shoes to the presentation ceremony for the third medal, and had felt constrained—probably under pressure from the United States Olympic Committee and under at least indirect pressure from Avery Brundage, the crusty American octogenarian who is retiring this year after twenty years as president of the International Olympic Committee—to make a public apology to his teammates. On my way to the conference, I glanced at the first editions of the local morning papers. They featured a queen not just of Munich but of all West Germany—the sixteen-year-old high jumper Ulrike Meyfarth, who had never cleared six feet until the previous afternoon, when she went three and a half inches above that and won a hysterically applauded gold medal of her own. Her glory was brief, for we learned during our wait for Spitz to show up that the Olympic Village had been murderously invaded. While we were reeling from that shock, Spitz arrived and gave sober, clipped answers to a few meaningless questions. He remained seated throughout the session, and a factotum explained, ‘Mark Spitz does not want to come to the microphone, because of the Israeli incident.’ (He is Jewish, and nobody knew who, if anyone, might be the next target.) As a result, the swimmer’s responses were all but inaudible to us. It didn’t much matter, because must of the questions, dredged from the near-bottom of the sportswriters’ cliché barrel, were absurd and obviously irrelevant. Indeed, all the things that had been ceased to seem very consequential—even the prodigies of the regal Spitz himself.”•

________________________________________

“Our greatest hopes and worst fears are seldom realized”:

Tags: , ,

The opening of “Where Are They?” philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2008 essay explaining why the discovery of extraterrestrial life may spell doom for earthlings:

“When water was discovered on Mars, people got very excited. Where there is water, there may be life. Scientists are planning new missions to study the planet up close. NASA’s next Mars rover is scheduled to arrive in 2010. In the decade following, a Mars Sample Return mission might be launched, which would use robotic systems to collect samples of Martian rocks, soils, and atmosphere, and return them to Earth. We could then analyze the sample to see if it contains any traces of life, whether extinct or still active. Such a discovery would be of tremendous scientific significance. What could be more fascinating than discovering life that had evolved entirely independently of life here on Earth? Many people would also find it heartening to learn that we are not entirely alone in this vast cold cosmos.

But I hope that our Mars probes will discover nothing. It would be good news if we find Mars to be completely sterile. Dead rocks and lifeless sands would lift my spirit.”

Tags:

A follow-up post to the earlier one about Time‘s Michael Scherer seemingly being contacted by a telemarketing robot that was programmed to deceive him and deny being A.I. It may have not been a robot but a human telemarketer trying to hide a foreign accent by choosing pre-recorded answers. Alexis C. Madrigal of the Atlantic did a nice job in (perhaps) unraveling the mystery. From his article:

“The theory I heard — and keep in mind it is just a hypothesis to explain a perplexing situation — goes like this:

Samantha West is a human being who understands English but who is responding with a soundboard of different pre-recorded messages. So a human parses the English being spoken and plays a message from Samantha West. It is IVR, but the semantic intelligence is being provided by a human. You could call it a cyborg system. Or perhaps an automaton in that 18th-century sense.

If you’re reading this, you must be wondering: WHY?!?!

Well, while Americans accept customer service and technical help from people with non-American accents, they do not take well to telemarketing calls from non-Americans. The response rates for outbound marketing via call center are apparently abysmal.

So, Samantha West, could be the rather strange solution to this set of circumstances and technical capabilities.”

Tags: ,

Planes may not eventually need pilots, but hijackers likewise may not have to board to perform their machinations. On the former topic, an excerpt from Stephen Pope at Flying:

“Honeywell advanced technology guru Bob Witwer gave an interesting talk in Las Vegas this week in which he discussed the future of air travel and posed the intriguing question of whether airliners, cargo planes and business jets years from now will have a need for pilots or, indeed, even cockpit windows.

If the thought of the captain of your airliner being a software app that lives in the avionics gives you pause, you’re not alone. Still, as we shift to a satellite-based NextGen operating environment where airplanes can be controlled by computers in 4-D – that is, having the capability of hitting a specific point in space at a precise time, every time – will airliners really need two pilots? Will they even need one?

The idea that’s quietly gaining traction is that the ‘pilots’ would sit in an air-conditioned room in some central location on the ground and perform certain necessary flight duties via a comm link. Of course, we’ve already witnessed the rise of unmanned aerial vehicles, which have been used as killing machines in the airspace over foreign nations and for law enforcement and other duties here at home. The next logical step, many say, is to take aircraft that are currently piloted by humans and replace the pilots with computers. 

‘It’s kind of hard for me to imagine why we wouldn’t use unmanned vehicles 10 or 20 years from now to carry cargo if the infrastructure allowed us to move aircraft safely without a pilot,’ said Witwer, who is vice president for advanced technology at Honeywell Aerospace.”

Tags: ,

George Dvorsky of iO9 has a fascinating post about a telemarketing robot programmed to lie and deceive. An excerpt:

“Recently, Time Washington Bureau Chief Michael Scherer received a phone call from an apparently bright and engaging woman asking him if he wanted a deal on his health insurance. But he soon got the feeling something wasn’t quite right.

After asking the telemarketer point blank if she was a real person or a computer-operated robot, she chuckled charmingly and insisted she was real. Looking to press the issue, Scherer asked her a series of questions, which she promptly failed. Such as, ‘What vegetable is found in tomato soup?’ To which she responded by saying she didn’t understand the question. When asked what day of the week it was yesterday, she complained of a bad connection (ah, the oldest trick in the book).”

 

Tags: ,

Paper is too useful to ever completely disappear–and some think the scenario is even more sanguine than that–but could spying concerns mean a comeback for the dead trees? I think not, but not everyone agrees.  From Michael Lewis at the Toronto Star:

“Eugene Kaspersky said governments and corporations had already begun to elevate security concerns but revelations of U.S. spying activity contained in documents leaked over the summer by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden added a new sense of urgency.

‘Big enterprises were even talking about back-to-paper scenarios because of espionage attacks,’ Kaspersky said Wednesday after the company released is 2014 cyber threat forecast.

‘Enterprises, governments — they are really serious about extra levels of security, extra regulation, disconnecting their services from the Internet, maybe even getting some processes back to paper,’ Kaspersky said.

‘It’s a very visible step backward.'”

Tags: ,

As often as I’ve criticized Bud Selig and Joe Torre for not acting quickly enough to eliminate home-plate collisions from baseball, I should stop and praise them for finally eradicating the concussion-inducing crashes. It’s time for the sport to progress, and this step is a good one.

Football, on the other hand, like boxing, has no answer for what ails it. No helmet is going to stop brain injuries. Football is in trouble. From Joshua Shepherd’s Practical Ethics post about the moral role parents play in their children participating in contact sports:

“A number of ethical questions arise in connection with this growing awareness. (What should the governing bodies of sports leagues do to protect players? What do teams owe players in such sports? Is the decision to play such a sport, or to continue playing in spite of suffering a concussion, really autonomous? Should fans speak up about player protection, and if not, are they complicit in the harm done to players? And so on.) Here I want to consider one question that has received little attention. It involves the role of parents in fostering participation in high-impact sports.

Without parental encouragement, participation in such sports would dramatically decrease. Certainly, parental encouragement or discouragement can be trumped. In societies which highly value such sports, some adolescents would find a way to participate. But I will not consider here the (vexing) question of how best to respect an adolescent’s budding autonomy. Arguably, if an adolescent wants to participate in a high-impact sport, a parent should acquiesce. Whether that argument is plausible depends, in part, on the risks of playing the sport in question. The question I want to consider is the following: is it morally permissible for parents to encourage their children to play high-impact sports?”

Tags: , ,

I don’t know that we needed research to show that observing something and photographing that same thing affects our brains differently. Two distinct acts even from the same perspective will necessarily send disparate bits of information to the brain. Focusing your iPhone is not the same thing as focusing your brain sans iPhone. From Sarah Knapton at the Telegraph:

“Taking photographs at a birthday or a wedding has become as natural as blowing out candles or cutting the cake.

But our obsession with recording every detail of our happiest moments could be damaging our ability to remember them, according to new research.

A study has shown that taking pictures rather than concentrating fully on the events in front of us prevents memories taking hold.

Dr. Linda Henkel, from Fairfield University, Connecticut, described it as the ‘photo-taking impairment effect.’

She said: ‘People so often whip out their cameras almost mindlessly to capture a moment, to the point that they are missing what is happening right in front of them.”•

____________________________________________

Edwin H. Land brings instant gratification to photography, 1948:

Tags: ,

I’ve read a thing or two in the Hollywood trades that made the British anthology series, Black Mirror, sound like it’s right up my alley. Charlie Brooker’s Twilight Zone-ish program looks at the dark side of all things digital, which is a favorite topic of mine. (Though the bright side of technology is equally a fascination.) The first two paragraphs from Andy Greenwald’s wonderfully written Grantland consideration of the soul-shattering show and how we now live inside a series of screens, which seem like mirrors until we realize, perhaps too late, that they may be something else:

“Midway through ‘Be Right Back,’ the soul-cleaving fourth episode of the British anthology series Black Mirror, I sought refuge in a second screen. It happens sometimes when I watch TV, usually when things get too emotional, too painful, too intense. The mind can’t wander, so the hands do, fiddling with pens and scraps of paper, drumming on the desk. Eventually — inevitably — I found myself lifting up my iPhone, my thumb moving circles across its screen as if it were a rosary. The mindless swiping of Candy Crush Saga didn’t help me process my feelings about ‘Be Right Back,’ didn’t make it any easier to see Hayley Atwell’s face shattering like a dropped wine glass. But I guess it didn’t hurt much, either. Distancing myself made the experience of watching seem less passive. It restored a flickering feeling of control. I couldn’t handle what was coming at me, so I threw up a wall to stop it.

Modern life is full of little walls like that, tricks we can pull to blunt unwanted or unexpected impact. There’s always a game just a click away. Or a photo. Or a ‘friend.’ It’s actually what ‘Be Right Back’ is about. The episode begins by toying with our natural need to be distracted, placated, and protected from the world before demonstrating, in disturbing ways, how the world is increasingly designed to meet that need. It’s about how we’re willing to submerge ourselves in the comforting warmth of denial right up to the moment reality sidles up beside us and rips our hearts out of our chests. So was it ironic or inevitable the way I was idly crossing striped candies when Atwell yelled at Domnall Gleeson for not being fully present? (Gleeson played her boyfriend, or at least he had earlier in the episode. The specifics are both too confusing and too important to the overall experience to discuss here.) I was hovering on the edge of two screens, fully engaged in neither. Did that make me the viewer or the subject? Which one was the game and which was the drama? Was I consuming media or was the media consuming me?”•

__________________

The entire history of you:

Tags: ,

I remember when listening to a smart Grantland podcast Bill Simmons did with the excellent documentarian Alex Gibney, that the guest pointed out that even if every racer in the Tour de France was using performance-enhancing drugs, that they would all still be guilty. I’m not sure I agree, at least not always.

People who drank during Prohibition may have been technically guilty of a crime, but it was the law that was in error, and there was no way to imprison everyone who was sneaking a drink. The law was impractical because it was antithetical to human nature. It enforced a norm that wasn’t normal.

I think something like that is also true about the age of surveillance. If everyone is spying–individuals, corporations and governments–it will become difficult to fault anyone. And if millions upon millions of people are caught in behavior that is outside the norm–not anything illegal, just embarrassing–maybe the norms are changed. If everyone is guilty, no one is guilty.

But I think the concern that surveillance is going to make humans automatons won’t bear out. It certainly hasn’t so far.

Glenn Greenwald believes that governments can be transparent while individuals can have privacy. While I wish was that was the case, I seriously doubt that scenario occurs. From Edward Moyer’s Cnet interview with Greenwald:

Question:

Both you and Julian Assange have said it’s crucial for governments to be transparent and for individuals to have privacy. Talk about your views on privacy — how it’s important not just politically but also in terms of creativity and self-exploration.

Glenn Greenwald:

You know, I think it’s interesting because a lot of times people have difficulty understanding why privacy’s important…and so what I try to do is look at human behavior, and what I find, I think, is that the quest for privacy is very pervasive. We do all kinds of things to ensure that we can have a realm in which we can engage in conduct without other people’s judgmental eyes being cast upon us.

And if you look at how tyrannies have used surveillance in the past, they don’t use surveillance in support of their tyranny in the sense that every single person is being watched at all times, because that just logistically hasn’t been able to be done. Even now it can’t be done — I mean, the government can collect everybody’s e-mails and calls, but they don’t have the resources to monitor them all. But what’s important about a surveillance state is that it creates the recognition that your behavior is susceptible to being watched at any time. What that does is radically alter your behavior, because if we can act without other people watching us, we can test all kinds of boundaries, we can explore all kinds of creativity, we can transgress pretty much every limit that we want because nobody’s going to know that we’re doing it. That’s why privacy is so vital to human freedom.

But if we know we’re being watched all the time, then we’re going to engage in behavior that is acceptable to other people, meaning we’re going to conform to orthodoxies and norms. And that’s the real menace of a ubiquitous surveillance state: It breeds conformity; it breeds a kind of obedient citizenry, on both a societal and an individual level. That’s why tyrannies love surveillance, but it’s also why surveillance literally erodes a huge part of what it means to be a free individual.”

Tags: ,

Kevin Kelly’s AMAs on Reddit are always among the best: smart questions and smart answers. Here are a few exchanges from his latest one:

______________________

Question:

It seems you’ve been all over the world. I assume you’re already living in your favorite place to live. But if you couldn’t live there, what would be your second choice?

Kevin Kelly:

Singapore. I am half Asian now and Singapore is one of the few cities in Asia I could imagine living in. It’s vibrant, but still works, and it is far greener than you’d think. It’s not Disneyland with the death penalty.

______________________

Question:

Can you paraphrase your argument against The Singularity?

Kevin Kelly:

In short: Timing. Longer: it will happen but only be visible in retrospect. During the time, it will just seem like incremental change.

______________________

Question:

It seems like you spend a fair bit of time thinking about the future, probably just in general as well. Where’s your day-to-day “thinking time” look like? Do you have a time scheduled during the day to stop writing/beekeeping/whatever and just think? Do you focus on a particular problem or idea to think about or just let your mind run wild? Considering your quantified self connection, have you found any useful tips for finding your most creative moments?

Kevin Kelly:

I block out lots of time to 1) Read (books) 2) Think in silence 3) Sketch and doodle 4) Go for walks.

______________________

Question:

My question is, how do you see automation of the workforce transitioning to post-scarcity(if at all)?

Kevin Kelly:

Automation of work will create new scarcities while filling the world with plentitude in other ways. New scarcities will be such things as human attention, human relations, silence, errors, questions.

______________________

Question:

In a tweet, you once suggested that content we have today, say on Facebook and Twitter, will be gone in 25 or 50 years. Are you confident these companies will not be around and/or transition? Also, are you able to provide brief, clear, simple vision of how laypersons might expect to reliably store data in next 25 years? Thanks for consideration.

Kevin Kelly:

It is very unlikely that ANY company at its peak today will be around in 50 years. They just don’t have long lifespans.

______________________

Question:

Have you read The Circle? If so, what did you think of it?

Kevin Kelly:

I think The Circle is both brilliant and profound. I think the book will take its place alongside 1984 and Brave New World. It doesn’t have much chance of happening, but it is a cautionary tale to keep us honest.

______________________

Question:

What do you think contributed most to your success?

Kevin Kelly:

No TV.•

Tags: ,

Because of the Costas factor, I tend to mute or just block out a lot of NBC’s Olympics commentary, but hiring David Remnick, longtime Russia expert, for its coverage of the Sochi Games was a smart move by the network. Remnick tells Richard Deitsch, in his steadfastly excellent Sports Illustrated “Media Circus” column, what his role will be. An excerpt:

“[Jim] Bell said Remnick’s role for the opening ceremonies will come during what NBC calls the ‘creative part of the broadcast,’ where the host country usually tells a story about itself. Remnick served as a Moscow bureau chief for The Washington Post and earned a Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction and the George Polk Award for excellence in journalism in 1994 for his book Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire.

‘I have an interest in sports and I grew up in a time where the Olympics were highly charged events,’ Remnick said. ‘I’m 55 so I have pretty vivid memories of Mexico City. I remember Bob Beamon, as apolitical an act as there could be, and John Carlos and Tommie Smith. I think that everyone would have benefitted in 1968 from understanding what a gesture of black power meant in the context of a sporting event because not everyone was paying attention to the splits between the Black Panthers and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. What happens invariably at every Olympics is there is a kind of non-athletic aspect to it that gives it dimension.’

Remnick said he had been given assurances by NBC Sports that he would have editorial independence with his commentary. Among the topics he will surely address: LGBT issues within Russia, the relationship between Russia and the Ukraine and the nature of post-Soviet Russia.

‘There is nothing in the world — and I know they don’t intend to hinder me in this way — where I would not be honest in my analysis,’ Remnick said.”

Tags: ,

The flip side of the surveillance state is the Darknet–an online space where anything goes–which speaks directly to my contention that greater control and greater anarchy will be increasingly at war in the Digital Age. I wouldn’t even know how to get onto the Darknet if I wanted to and neither would most of you. But a lot of people are there, many innocuously and some to do all manner of harm. The opening paragraph of “Darknet: A Short History,” a Foreign Policy piece by Ty McCormick:

“Beyond the prying eyes of Google and Bing exists a vast cyberfrontier — by some estimates hundreds of times larger than the World Wide Web. This so-called “deepweb” is often more humdrum than sinister, littered with banal data and derelict URLs, but it is also home to an anything-goes commercial underworld, called the ‘darknet,’ that will make your stomach turn. It’s a place where drugs and weapons are openly traded, where terrorists link up, and where assassins bid on contract killings. In recent years, the darknet has found itself in government cross-hairs, with the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) cracking down on drug merchants and pornographers. Despite a series of high-profile busts, however, this lawless realm continues to hum along, deep beneath the everyday web. “

Tags:

From “How to End Global Income Inequality,” Charles Kenny’s Businessweek article that tries to figure out how we got this way and how we can get better:

“In order to close the gap between the global rich and poor, policymakers need to understand how the rich got that way in the first place. Over the last 20 years, there isn’t much evidence that the countries home to the top of global income distribution started saving so much more (PDF) or working so much harder. The vast majority of the global rich got their outsized portion of increases in planetary consumption because they started off rich in 1990. Many were helped along the way by reduced tax rates and—thanks to globalization—more opportunities to make money off investments in rapidly growing developing countries. It is great that this investment is occurring—without it the world’s poor would be poorer. But the distribution of benefits from that investment isn’t an act of God. It’s a decision of man— and it can be changed.”

Tags:

Just one more post about delivery drones, and then I promise I’ll stop for awhile. The opening of Alvin Powell’s Harvard Gazette interview with engineering professor Robert Wood, who sees not technical obstacles to such delivery systems but bureaucratic and legal ones:

Harvard Gazette:

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos said he’s serious about using flying robots to deliver packages, saying that the technology is almost there — within four or five years — and that Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] regulations might permit it by 2015. What was your reaction when you heard this?

Robert Wood:

The technology is actually quite close. My first reaction is that the technology is much closer than overcoming the FAA and liability barriers. Of course they will need to refine the vehicle and controller designs to first ensure safety and, second, to verify efficiency and efficacy of this method.

Harvard Gazette:

How realistic is the scenario of using flying robotic drones to deliver packages? I’m sure it seems completely ‘out there’ for most of the public. Is it?

Robert Wood:

I think technically this is quite reasonable. In a laboratory setting, moving an object from one position to another using a flying vehicle is something that has been demonstrated. When you start to move this out of a lab setting, there are tremendous challenges, including weather, turbulence when moving around buildings or objects, dynamic objects in the environment such as people or cars, and imprecise or unreliable sensor information. But the robotics community is working on solutions to all of these topics — [like] the ‘self-driving car’ — so I suspect the answers are not far off.”

Tags: ,

Imagine if the hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying money and political contributions that have been spent to try to dismantle Obamacare, which, despite initial website problems, has the potential to bring affordable health care to so many Americans in need, was instead spent on homeless children. (There are 22,000 of them in New York City alone.) Just think what a better nation would be. Not just more noble but better even in a practical sense.

From Sharon Machlis’ Computerworld piece about the need for calm in the storm of Healthcare.gov:

“Of course it’s a bit more important for the federal government to offer access to life-saving health insurance than it was for Twitter to offer 100% uptime back in 2008 or Apple to offer a superior map app. And in the case of a website tied to a specific event — say, a candidate’s Election Day campaign site meltdown — getting it right on day one matters.

But if a) you’re willing to forget about the politics and b) you’ve followed Web technology over the years, you know that, somewhat counterintuitively given the speed that the Internet moves, getting it right on day one isn’t always what matters. What’s important is getting things right soon enough.

So, I’m ignoring all the hysteria around healthcare.gov’s botched initial rollout — and if you care about the substance of the issue, not the politics, so should you. Instead, pay attention to whether the problems are fixed in a timely manner. That is what will tell you whether the program has a chance at success.”

Tags:

From Ryan Irwin’s Foreign Affairs appraisal of South Africa after Nelson Mandela, which argues that the late President was ideal for a transitioning nation but that the country needs a different kind of leader for its next phase:

“Turning Mandela’s pluralism into a coherent governing doctrine was difficult. Mandela is remembered today mostly for his symbolic acts, gestures that ‘made South Africans feel good about ourselves,’ in the activist Desmond Tutu’s words, such as embracing the country’s national rugby team, the Springboks, during the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Mandela developed actual government policy slowly as he negotiated his country’s constitution between 1994 and 1997, taking a hard line on multiculturalism while relinquishing his commitment to wealth redistribution. In Mandela’s words, it was at a World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 1992, when he ‘realized, as never before, that if we wanted investments . . . we had to remove the fear of business.’ Storytelling could only go so far.

South Africa today is a reflection of Mandela’s presidency and the grand strategy that preceded it. By cultivating such a pluralist stance toward anti-apartheid activism, Mandela’s ANC successfully ended the legitimacy of South Africa’s minority white government. These efforts, however, cultivated unusually high expectations among the supporters who embraced the ANC for reasons as diverse as South Africa itself. The resulting dissonance has made South Africa a paradox: imbued with a rich vocabulary of civil, political, economic, social, and human rights, the country remains plagued by pervasive income inequality, structural unemployment, and widespread poverty.

Another Nelson Mandela would not cure South Africa of these ills. To thrive in the twenty-first century, the country needs not hope and activism but technocrats and engineers who can develop workable solutions to the messy realities of urban blight and rural poverty. This perhaps would be Mandela’s message to the generation born after 1990. ‘There are good men and women in all communities,’ he reflected shortly after his retirement in 1999. ‘The duty of the real leader,’ he asserted, is not only to bring these people into the fold but also to ‘give them tasks of serving their community.’ Modern South Africa needs a leader who can do the latter.”

Tags: ,

Amazon’s delivery drones may just be hoopla for now, but other companies have similar designs. Question: Since these drones will be working in dense, urban areas, and those are mostly filled with apartment buildings, how exactly would that unfold? Would the drone auto-text the recipient when nearing the address so that person could come down to the door and collect the package? I would assume. From Nick Bilton at the New York Times:

“Even the serious technophiles like Mr. Bezos say delivery drones and their ilk are still years away. Many ordinary people probably think the idea sounds dangerous, maybe even a little creepy, given that these drones will have cameras. So far, the Federal Aviation Administration has resisted the idea. Swarms of computer-guided octocopters? As if the F.A.A. doesn’t have enough to do.

But given the explosive growth of e-commerce, some experts say the shipping business is in for big changes. United Parcel Service, which traces its history to 1907, delivers more than four billion packages and documents a year. It operates a fleet of more than 95,000 vehicles and 500 aircraft. The ubiquitous Brown is a $55 billion-plus-a-year business. And, like Amazon, U.P.S. is reportedly looking into drones. So is Google. More and more e-commerce companies are making a point of delivering things quickly the old-fashioned way — with humans.

Some of the dreamers in the technology industry are dreaming even bigger. It won’t be just drones, they insist. Robots and autonomous vehicles — think Google’s driverless car — could also disrupt the delivery business.”

Tags:

There are a million reasons why Detroit, that shining star, fell to the ground, but only one person charged with rescuing it–and he’s not an elected official. Bankruptcy lawyer Kevyn D. Orr must put the Motor City on the road to solvency in under a rear, all the while brushing away charges that he’s a puppet, even a traitor to his race. From Monica Davey and Bill Vlasic in the New York Times:

“The assignment is enormous, a peculiar mix of duties, some stated and others not, for a man who by all accounts had been leading a comfortable life as a bankruptcy lawyer. His new job? Urban planner, numbers cruncher, city spokesman, negotiator, politician, good cop, bad cop.

The job could not be more politically fraught. Mr. Orr’s harshest critics call him a ‘dictator’ (his authority trumps that of the city’s elected leaders), an ‘Uncle Tom’ (he is black and was sent to run this mostly black city by a white governor) and a ‘pension killer’ (he has said the city can no longer afford the pensions it promised retirees). But Mr. Orr, who was a partner at the law firm Jones Day until his wife and a mentor helped talk him into taking the Detroit job, seems unfazed by the storm around him. He is full of smiles and quips, coolly pressing on.

‘If we don’t do something to address the unfunded liability that we have, the 700,000 residents — some of them schoolchildren, some of them sort of skinny, dorky kids like I was, who got beaten up every day at the bus stop by the toughs, who have to walk home in the dark — don’t they deserve better services?’ said Mr. Orr, who grew up in Florida and visited Detroit as a youth.”

Tags: , ,

We treat each other like crap and what we do to animals is an atrocity. So why would we play nice with robots? Maybe because social robots can be programmed to simulate love and display signifiers that force us to feel empathy. But a starving child, or unarmed people with a gun pointed at them can do the same, and they aren’t always granted mercy. So perhaps machines will require a bill of rights, especially if they are embedded with biological material that can turn vandalism into killing. The opening of “Is It Okay to Torture or Murder a Robot?” a great article by Richard Fisher of the BBC:

“Kate Darling likes to ask you to do terrible things to cute robots. At a workshop she organised this year, Darling asked people to play with a Pleo robot, a child’s toy dinosaur. The soft green Pleo has trusting eyes and affectionate movements. When you take one out of the box, it acts like a helpless newborn puppy – it can’t walk and you have to teach it about the world.

Yet after an hour allowing people to tickle and cuddle these loveable dinosaurs, Darling turned executioner. She gave the participants knives, hatchets and other weapons, and ordered them to torture and dismember their toys. What happened next ‘was much more dramatic than we ever anticipated,’ she says.

For Darling, a researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, our reaction to robot cruelty is important because a new wave of machines is forcing us to reconsider our relationship with them.”

Tags: ,

Speaking of the dangers of income inequality and decentralized power, Morgan Brennan of Forbes looks at billionaire bunkers, the high-tech homes of America’s super-rich who feel the need to amp up security, just in case. The fear, of course, is that your average American won’t be satisfied with bread and Kardashians forever. The opening:

“Al Corbi’s residence in the Hollywood Hills has the requisite white walls covered in artwork and picture windows offering breathtaking views of downtown Los Angeles, but it has more in common with NSA headquarters than with the other contemporary homes on the block. The Corbi family doesn’t need keys (thanks to biometric recognition software), doesn’t fear earthquakes (thanks to steel-reinforced concrete caissons that burrow 30 feet into the private hilltop) and sleeps easily inside a 2,500-square-foot home within a home: a ballistics-proof panic suite that Corbi refers to as a ‘safe core.’

Paranoid? Perhaps. But also increasingly commonplace. Futuristic security technologies–many developed for the military but sounding as though they came straight from James Bond’s Q–have made their way into the home, available to deep-pocketed owners whose peace of mind comes from knowing that their sensors can detect and adjust for, say, a person lurking in the bushes a half-mile away.

 ‘If you saw this stuff in a movie you would think it is all made up,’ says Corbi, whose fortress-like abode doubles as the demonstration house for his firm, Strategically Armored & Fortified Environments (SAFE).”

It’s no small irony that the one who most staunchly fought the surveillance state is now the most spied-on, observed person in the world. Edward Snowden is like the rest of us, but writ very, very large. He’s a test case. How does constant observation change us, even if we’re not paying attention to it on the conscious level? From Janet Reitman’s new Rolling Stone article about Snowden and Greenwald:

“[Jesselyn] Radack nevertheless insists that Snowden is not being controlled by the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, nor has he become a Russian spy. “Russia treats its spies much better than leaving them trapped in the Sheremetyevo transit zone for over a month,” Radack recalled Snowden darkly joking to her.

Perhaps though, just because he’s not a spy, says Andrei Soldatov, one of Russia’s leading investigative journalists, doesn’t mean he’s free. ‘It is quite clear that Snowden is being protected by the FSB,’ says Soldatov, co-author of The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia’s Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB (2010). What this means is that every facet of Snowden’s communications, and his life, is likely being monitored, if invisibly, by the Russian security services. ‘The mansion where he met those whistle-blowers? Rented on behalf of the government. All of the safe houses, apartments and dachas where we’ve traditionally kept defectors are owned by the Russian security services. No one has been able to figure out where he works, if he actually has this job. The FSB would never let him do anything where they couldn’t monitor his communications.’ Even if Snowden were to decide he wanted to go to the U.S. Embassy and turn himself in, ‘it would be difficult for him to find a completely uncontrolled way of communicating with the Americans,’ Soldatov says.

Soldatov believes that Snowden might underestimate how closely he’s being watched, suggesting somewhat of a Truman Show-like existence. ‘To what degree has he been turned into a different person?’ he says. ‘Snowden is not a trained intelligence agent. But those who are can tell you, if you live in a controlled environment, you cease to be truly independent-minded because everyone and everything around you is also controlled. It doesn’t matter if you have your laptop.'”

Tags: , , ,

From a Carter Phipps post at Priceonomics which asserts that in a world of disappearing paper, authors will have to make their living from opportunities other than book sales:

What the book industry lacks in economic might, however, it makes up in intellectual mindshare. When it comes to culture, the book industry punches way above its weight. Just think how many major movies, culture-changing ideas, global trends, historically significant movements, and unforgettable characters were born in the pages of a book. Five hundred years after Gutenberg’s breakthrough changed the world, books are still, we might say, the intellectual unit of culture. They remain a critical medium through which ideas and memes propagate across our cultural landscape, and we all have a stake in how well that medium is functioning. 

Without question, the digital revolution has already changed the face of the book industry. Amazon’s rise, Border’s bankruptcy, the decline of the independent bookstore, the rise of ebooks–creative destruction is a force many in publishing are intimately familiar with.  

‘Call me a pessimist, call me Ishmael, but I think that book publishing is about to slide into the sea,’ wrote popular humorist and writer Garrison Keillor in the New York Times. ‘If you want to write a book, you just write it, send it to Lulu.com or BookSurge at Amazon or PubIt or ExLibris and you’ve got yourself an e-book. No problem. And that is the future of publishing: 18 million authors in America, each with an average of 14 readers, eight of whom are blood relatives. Average annual earnings: $1.75.’

Authors may not be quite as bad off as Keillor humorously projected. It says something about how fast the industry is changing that in the three years since those words were written, BookSurge has become Amazon’s CreateSpace and PubIt was effectively shut down. But just how are authors adapting and surviving amidst the technological changes that are revolutionizing the media landscape? Are they making money in today’s publishing industry?”

Tags:

Trying to force all chaos into order through top-down planning and engineering is a mistake, especially when talking about urban renewal or smart cities. From Anthony Townsend in the Economist:

“Rather than design and build a smart city like a mainframe, what if we built it like the web?

More than a century ago, debates over urbanisation during the Industrial Age asked this same question. In contrast to the precise technocratic order of Howard’s Utopia, Patrick Geddes, a Scottish biologist, promoted ‘conservative surgery’ to heal cities. Growth and decay were natural processes—but just as man had tamed the land, the avid gardener believed, we could cultivate the city. Geddes’s bottom-up view of urban revitalisation presaged today’s zeal for crowdsourcing. He didn’t think it would work without the full participation of every citizen.

Geddes’s vision is alive and well in the smart city movement. Yesterday’s grandiose blueprints and their tech-industry contractors are yielding to a bustling planet of 500,000 municipalities, which are home to millions of start-ups, NGOs and civic hackers. In the style of combinatorial innovation that, according to Google’s chief economist, Hal Varian, drives the creation of value on the internet, participants in these civic laboratories are patching together bits of open-source code, government data and consumer hardware to craft bespoke solutions to local problems. Websites like Barcelona-based CityMart, a kind of Amazon for smart-city solutions, show that these efforts are creating software and strategies that can be traded globally.

The case for more participation in building the smart city goes beyond innovation. Bubble-era smart-city launches are over; post-stimulus austerity in cities throughout the world has turned mayors from profligate spenders to penny pinchers. Currently, financing large-scale smart-city efforts with risk-filled, messy public-private partnerships is the only viable strategy. But new schemes for crowdfunding civic improvements will increase citizens’ ability to finance their own designs by passing the hat.”

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »