Steve Jobs’ Path: from Marconi to the iPhone

More on the extraordinary genius loci of Silicon Valley.

The site named “Silicon Valley’s Birthplace” is the HP Garage in Palo Alto, where David Packard and William Hewlett formed Hewlett-Packard in 1938, and developed their first products.

the "birthplace of Silicon Valley," Hewlett & Packard's garage at 367 Addison Ave, Palo Alto

"The birthplace of electronics" 813 Emerson Ave., Palo Alto

I was fascinated to learn, via some online geo-roaming, that this is only three blocks away from the site of the Electronics Research Laboratory where, around 1911, the “father of radio,” Lee De Forest invented the triode vacuum tube and the amplifier, laying the foundation of the electronic era.

Silicon Valley is often considered to have been essentially “founded” by Frederick Terman, the Dean of the Stanford University’s School of Engineering through whom Hewlett and Packard met in 1935, who attracted large military research funding to Stanford, and championed the process of research commercialization.

However, recent scholarship such as Timothy Sturgeon’s “How Silicon Valley Came to Be” in Martin Kenney, ed., Understanding Silicon Valley (2000) has revealed the long-overlooked earlier era of the Valley’s technology ecosystem, starting particularly with the founding of the Federal Telegraph Corporation in Palo Alto in 1909.  Sturgeon notes that all the features later associated with Silicon Valley were present on a small scale even then — military research funding, university involvement, ferocious patent wars, international industrial competition and industrial policy, etc.  Prefiguring Terman, in 1909 the president of Stanford at that time, David Starr Jordan, had backed the startup that would become Federal Telegraph.

Into this scene appeared one of history’s greatest inventors and Edison-esque prodigous tinkerers, Lee de Forest, in 1910.  After receiving a B.S. and PhD from Yale University’s Sheffield Scientific School, de Forest came to Chicago, and worked as a translator of science articles for popular magazines.  However, as described in Steven Johnson’s recent, wonderful Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, “de Forest’s true passion lay in the cabinet of wonders he had assembled in his bedroom on Washington Boulevard:  batteries, spark gap transmitters, electrodes — all the building blocks that would be assembled in the coming decade to invent the age of electronics.”

Lee De Forest (1873 - 1961), the "father of radio"

De Forest came to San Francisco and began working for the Federal Telegraph Company of Palo Alto. At the time, the U.S. Government was anxious to develop new ship-to-shore radio signalling technology, and not lose out to the technology leaders such as Marconi of Britain.  FTC joined the race to win the lucrative Navy contracts on offer.

In FTC’s Electronics Research Laboratory, at Channing Ave and Emerson St. in Palo Alto, the explorations de Forest had begun in Chicago eventually yielded the triode, or three-element vacuum tube, and the amplifier.  Although De Forest did not initially fully understand the science of how these worked, or anticipate their more valuable applications, the inventions revolutionalized radio technology and laid the foundation of the transistor and all of modern electronics.

The connection of De Forest and Hewlett-Packard to nearly the same site in Palo Alto is not remarked on by Johnson in that book.  However, the close coincidence is powerfully suggestive of one of Johnson’s main themes:  that certain locations are extraordinarily fertile innovation loci, due to dense interconnection of creative elements.

One possible factor in the extraordinary coincidence is that both Lee de Forest’s laboratory and Hewlett & Packard’s garage were located on the West edge of Professorville, the residential area of Palo Alto where much of the Stanford faculty and administrators have traditionally lived.  That represented one of the greatest concentrations of technical and entrepreneurial talent and capital to be found in the country, and de Forest & H-P’s sites were directly on the path between those people and the Palo Alto train station, downtown Palo Alto, and the main approach to Stanford.  If they had scoured the country for a better precise place in which to have easy, frequent, and serendipitous contact with highly suitable collaborators and backers, they might not have done better.

Palo Alto, showing locations of de Forest and Hewlett & Packard's original labs

Palo Alto, showing locations of de Forest and Hewlett & Packard's original labs, in between "Professorville" and downtown / Stanford / train station

There’s a core concept in economic development theory, for how an initial event such as the establishment of QWERTY keyboards or the siting of a factory constrains the pattern of future activity:  path dependence. In the case of de Forest and Hewlett-Packard’s neighborhood laboratories, there may have been also a literal path dependence — the pathway of Palo Alto’s and Stanford’s elite walking home past their door.

Seventy years after de Forest, another restless genius, a local kid named Steve Jobs, began in junior high-school to tinker with electronics parts scavenged from school and from the plentiful electronic spare-parts outlets in the area.  He went to meetings of the Hewlett-Packard Explorers Club, where company scientists gave lectures, at the new headquarters building a short ways from the original HP Garage, and at one point he called the home of Bill Hewlett himself to ask for some needed parts. Hewlett gave him the parts, and also a summer job on an an assembly-line building HP frequency counters.

Jobs later worked weekends at electronic-parts outlet Halted in Sunnyvale, and frequented the king of the electronics parts warehouses, Haltek in Mountain View, near where Google is located today.  Haltek’s vast holdings extended even to vintage vacuum tubes of the De Forest era.  It was possibly the world’s greatest electronics tool kit, and was free for anyone to walk into and hang around as long as they wanted.

Just like de Forest, Hewlett and Packard, and countless others innovators who came to this place, Jobs was like the biblical seed sown on rich soil.  When Jobs moved to Mountain View at age five, he landed directly on arguably the century’s most fertile place for technological innovation, a place of uniquely dense recombination and interwoven pathways.  A hundred years after Marconi, once again a revolutionary radio technology, this time the smart phone, emanated from the Valley, led by Jobs’ iPhone.  From the same ground walked by de Forest in 1910, genius had soared.  This year, a funeral service at Stanford’s Memorial Hall, Jobs was laid to rest, just a short walk away from de Forest’s Emerson Ave.

Hill Towns of Silicon Valley: the Citadel

geography of power:  I love the visual of this SV hill town.  If you follow Sand Hill Road, past the world’s top tech venture-capital firms, at the end it winds up here, crossing over the outer-ring golf-course defenses, through the condo ring, past the inner ring of VC compounds, and finally at the center, Harvard Business School.  Click on image to enlarge, or view in Google Maps.

Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park

Imaginary San Franciscos: my SciFi, pulp, horror, tech, reading shortlist, for upcoming SF trip

If visiting a place, I like to, if possible, try beforehand to map out how it’s been represented in literature, film, etc.  Ideally, one might arrive at the place with a mental map of its most compelling representations, characters, plots, along with, say, a geographic map, a transit map, etc.  Sometimes reading everything can spoil a trip, though; sometimes, I read everything, then don’t ever go; sometimes, I work up an exhaustive reading list, and read little or none of it.  But that’s a map also. There are many ways to travel.

Anyway, I’m about to visit the Bay Area for 12+ days, and based on current interests, on what I haven’t read, on what I can lay my hands on a copy of, and on what promises great pulp deliciousness, here are seven books I’m planning to read:

.

1.  Rheingold, Howard.  Tools for Thought: The History and Future of Mind-Expanding Technology (1985, 2000).  Amz $20.72.


(Howard Rheingold in Tokyo).

The digital revolution did not begin with the teenage millionaires of Silicon Valley, claims Howard Rheingold, but with such early intellectual giants as Charles Babbage, George Boole, and John von Neumann. In a highly engaging style, Rheingold tells the story of what he calls the patriarchs, pioneers, and infonauts of the computer, focusing in particular on such pioneers as J. C. R. Licklider, Doug Engelbart, Bob Taylor, and Alan Kay. Taking the reader step by step from nineteenth-century mathematics to contemporary computing, he introduces a fascinating collection of eccentrics, mavericks, geniuses, and visionaries.

Included because many of the later technologists described worked in the Bay Area, and because author Rheingold is himself a significant writer and technology pioneer working here today.  I also like the perhaps ironic, counter-cultural note struck by use of term “Mind-Expanding.”

.

2.  William Gibson.  All Tomorrow’s Parties (1999).

All Tomorrow’s Parties is the final novel in the Bridge trilogy, following Virtual Light (1993) and Idoru (1996).

“The San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge, the overarching setting of the trilogy, provides the  trilogy’s name.  It was abandoned in an earthquake and has become a massive shantytown and a site of improvised shelter. The original bridge exists within the old technological system of steel-based construction techniques. After the traumatic shock of the earthquake, which destabilizes both the literal bridge and the technological system of which it is a part, a new technological system emerges. Two representative examples of the new technology are the nanotechnology-based tunnel that replaces the bridge and the ad-hoc community built on the damaged bridge.” (Wikipedia).

.

3.  Paulina Borsook.  Cyberselfish:  A Critical Romp through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech (2000).  Amz $13.00.

“Borsook, a former contributing editor at Wired, has a good vantage point from which to anatomize “high-tech’s default political culture of libertarianism.” Her examination of Wired’s early years shows a party line lauding technology and libertarianism, while the industry is actually full of “technolumpen” and “free agents” who rarely receive medical or retirement benefits from the companies for which they work.  The emerging moguls she met favored bionomics, a Darwinian view of economic competition that manages to ignore the necessary role of government (which invented the Internet, she reminds us). Meanwhile, the “cypherpunk” privacy advocates she meets refuse to acknowledge countervailing government interest, maintaining “an angry adolescent’s view of all authority as the Pig Parent.” The private sector, she warns, can’t support fundamental research the way the government can. In her view, the people who tell her that “government interferes too much in our lives” suffer from a selective view of history.

While I’m on the topic, incidentally, I’ll probably reread the classic, similarly-themed 1995 essay “The Californian Ideology” by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron.

.

4. John Shirley.  City Come A-Walkin’ (1980).

From a founding father of cyberpunk, (and Portlander!), a work referred to by William Gibson as the “Protoplasmic Mother of all cyberpunk novels.”  Set in a dystopian, chaotic San Francisco in which banking mafioso have displaced government, while the spirit of the City has generated a superhero emanation that mysteriously fights back.  John Shirley (Wikipedia).

.

5. Richard K. Morgan. Altered Carbon (2002).

Sci-Fi / noir set mostly in San Francisco 400 years into the future (now called Bay City).

“In the 25th century, it’s difficult to die a final death. Humans are issued a cortical stack, implanted into their bodies, into which consciousness is “digitized” and from which-unless the stack is hopelessly damaged-their consciousness can be downloaded (“resleeved”) with its memory intact, into a new body. While the Vatican is trying to make resleeving (at least of Catholics) illegal, centuries-old aristocrat Laurens Bancroft brings Takeshi Kovacs (an Envoy, a specially trained soldier used to being resleeved and trained to soak up clues from new environments) to Earth, where Kovacs is resleeved into a cop’s body to investigate Bancroft’s first mysterious, stack-damaging death.”

.

6. Fritz Leiber. Our Lady of Darkness (1977). Amz $6.40.

Latter-day Lovecraftiana set in San Francisco.  I’m just hoping this will be deeply weird and psychogeographical.

Horror writer Franz Westen, peering at his apartment window from atop a nearby hill, sees something lean out his window…and wave.  Pulled into a vortex of urban paranormal forces, his quest leads him to the work of turn-of-the-century SF occultist Thibaut de Castries, whose seminal work, Megapolisomancy: A New Science of Cities, concerns the physical, psychological and paramental (spiritual) effects of certain substances, including steel, electricity, paper, and so forth as they accumulate in cities in certain alignments.  “Megapolisomancy is the art of predicting and manipulating the future through the existence of large cities.”  And saving yourself from the paramentals that lurk.

I have apparently scored a copy of the pictured, 1978 mass-market edition, thanks to Powells.com.  That’s 33 years in which this copy should have ripened to pure, crumbly, acrid-smelling pulp perfection.

.

7. John Miller, ed.  San Francisco Stories:  Great Writers on the City (1994). Amz $10.21.

ok this one to cover my bases.  We got some Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Jack London, Kerouac, Amy Tan, Tom Wolfe, et al, et al.

I’ve got a full-blown Bay Area bibliography underway, also, which I’ll put up once it’s further along.

Meanwhile, I am diving in to my SF reading.  I have already departed.

.

follow me on twitter:  @mccormicktim

Tools for political truthiness: the public, total-compensation calculator

Protester in Madison, Wisconsin, 2011

Are teachers paid poorly, or well?   How much does it cost the city to employ one policeman?  Is that a good salary offer, or is it better to be a plumber?

These are basic questions we encounter all the time, personally and in political debate.

But it seems that people vary widely in their estimations and perceptions of who is paid what.  For example, U.S. opinion appears to be highly polarized regarding the compensation of public-sector workers, and there doesn’t seem to even be much factual common ground in the discussion (as with other many another policy issue).

So, in the typical wonk / librarian / nerd hope that better information will address the problem, and the lions will lie down with the lambs, I propose making an online tool to help this discussions.  To be neutral, let’s just call it a Compensation/Cost Calculator, Public, or CCCP.

I suspect that even a fairly simple calculator could be much more truthy than the vague, spurious claims that are tossed around in most political discussions.  Just imagine a straightforward Web site, at which you can plug in values for a few or many variables describing a job or job field, and get an adjusted total-compensation figure.  The point is that it can be a neutral, transparent model, so that anyone could analyze a job, or see and compare to others’ analyses of other jobs, using explicitly defined assumptions and formulae.  Any calculation can be preserved and cited;  someone could go back to it, challenge or tweak its assumptions.  A particular configuration of the model can be applied to any new or prior set of inputs, so you could for example see how jobs compare when you make different assumptions about health-care costs or pension-fund rates of return.  As compared to, say, comparing press releases from duelling lobbying, err advocacy groups, which are probably worse than useless.

The basic idea here is taken from the “total compensation” estimates or calculators offered by many larger employers, which attempt to quantify the total value of employees’ wages/salary, benefits, vacation time, etc.  A non-monetary benefit such as vacation time, for example, may be quantified by a device such as taking annual salary, dividing by paid work days, then multiplying this by number of vacation days — i.e. they are “paying” you for these days.   (Contrived as that may be, it provides a way to quantify our common-sense intuition that, say, a job with twelve weeks of vacation is better than one with two weeks).

However, unlike a employer’s calculator, our CCCP would be a general model, publicly available, with all inputs and assumptions transparent and modifiable.  Also, it could offer reputable data to use for many of the inputs, such as typical salaries, health-care costs, inflation estimates.  It could conceivably be linked to any relevant public data store such as public-sector salary records and Federal economic statistics, using Semantic Web / “linked data” methods (see http://linkeddata.org/).

There might also be a database of prior analyses of real jobs, if you were curious to look at or model on, say, actual UAW contract terms from Detroit, or what we pay members of Congress.  Perhaps if enough people got interested, you’d develop something of a global salary database, a more sophisticated version of the salary surveys that exist now.

So, of course you’d have basic variables such as:

  • Salary / wages / overtime
  • Current benefits, such as health care (absolute cost, or as percentage of salary.  As default, use a HR rule of thumb such as 35%)
  • Retirement benefits
  • The present-day annual cost, or compensation, for such deferred retirement benefits would be the amount that an employer would have to invest this year to sufficiently contribute to future total retirement costs.  This is a complicated calculation, but that’s why we have actuarials.

This model could have further and further levels of refinement:  for example, incorporating

  • Typical or promised pay raises
  • Trends in benefit costs.  (e.g. health care cost increases)
  • Job stability (e.g. as expressed by % annual turnover of employees in this field).   Most people value this, and you could propose a way to quantify it into total compensation.
  • Long-term risks, e.g. of corporate or governmental bankruptcy curtailing promised retirement benefits.
  • Estimate cost / years of required post-secondary education
  • taxation factors

Our CCCP tool could be extensible so that anyone could add new factors to refine the model, for optional use by anyone else.

Note, you could possibly use such a compensation calculator in two ways:
a)  compensation value to ME (factors such as your particular age may change calculations of, e.g. retirement benefits).
b)  compensation/cost on *average*, using inputs such as average worker age and salary.

Incidentally, the implications of this may be various.  For example, if teachers are shown to have relatively good compensation, then this might encourage more high-achieving students to pursue careers in teaching, which would be good for education.  If teacher compensation is shown to be low, this might encourage increased funding, which might also be good for education.  Some job fields, public or private, might be shown to have remarkable high or remarkably low compensation, and corrective action of any sort might ensue.  Those beleaguered financiers and executives, for example — maybe they’d at last get some respect.

But the CCCP takes no position.  We merely favor truth.

—————–
As usual, to this post I add the disclaimer that, this may have been already proposed and done, I’m not sure because this is a blog post and I haven’t, of course, done exhaustive research or even half the relevant reading from the “field”, whichever field that would be.  It’s the Web, you know?

On “goal gifts” and gamification: buy yourself a gift, get it only if you reach your goal

I was thinking about motivation mechanisms, and had this idea.  Say you are trying to achieve some goal, such as remembering to check your blood pressure or get up by a certain time every day; and say there is an objective way to verify completion, e.g.  a Web tool that recorded your blood reading or awakeness,

Now, what if, at the start of the week, you had bought yourself a $10 Amazon gift certificate / voucher, a special one with the property that it is redeemable only if you complete your daily task every day that week?  Would this work?  How much might it change your behavior?

Some interesting aspects of this “goal gift” model:

  1. Goal gifts could be bought for someone else — an “improving” gift;
  2. Goal gift could be offered to any member of some group, to encourage a  desired behavior such as school attendance or better grades (there are dedicated programs that do this now, but they are not generalized to allow any goal to be incented by anyone via an online system).
  3. Both sellers and buyers of goal gifts could have real profit incentives.
    Why is that?  Because any non-trivial tasks would have less than 100% success rates;  so a seller of task vouchers might profitably sell them at a discount from face value, as long as the price was higher than the average success rate.  In turn, a buyer might “earn” money by having above-average success at tasks.  E.g. a $10 voucher is offered at $9 for a task with an average success rate of 80%;  seller makes $1 on average;  buyer makes money if he can succeed at task > 90% of the time.

I’ve been trying to find prior examples of this model, and imagine it’s been done in some way, and/or examined in academic psychology or behavioral economics before, but I haven’t found an exact precedent.  However, it’s closely related to many other motivation systems,

For example, Lorcan Dempsey of OCLC recently highlighted several motivation frameworks which he described as examples of “gamification,” the application of game mechanics to non-game services and systems such as education or healthcare.

There is stickK.com, a startup founded by two Yale professors and a grad student (in Law, Economics, and Management, respectively) which offers an online framework for setting and managing “Commitment Contracts”.  To help you reach goals, you set penalties (they charge your credit card, and optionally donate it to charity), assign a friend to be the Referee to verify your progress, and even set up Supporters to cheer  you on.  stickK is based on behavioral economics research and field testing:  “the principle that creating incentives and assigning accountability are the two most important keys to achieving a goal.”
Comment:  requiring a credit-card to sign up is scary.  Overall it sounds like a lot of punishment (Referees?).

Keas.com is a startup co-founded by the former head of Google Health (now shuttered),which lets you set health goals, and then compete in teams for points and other rewards.  Originally it was conceived as a service to help individuals manage health information, but after a few years of model evolution, it is now centered on “the power of [group] play” and is pitched to companies as an employee wellness system.
Comment:  competing with co-workers in teams, in order to lower your company’s healthcare costs, to me is creepy, sounds like Maoist social control via work unit.  I probably wouldn’t be signing up.

Sites that let you announce goals, and get social support for them, have been around for years.  A recent example is Fitango, “a fitness and goal tracking web site that goes beyond merely logging your progress and offers guides, expert-created plans, easy tracking, and peer-based motivation to keep you moving towards your goals.”

There is even gamification of library use, Dempsey discovers, with the Lemon Tree project at the University of Huddersfield in the UK:

Lemon Tree seeks to increase the use of library resources through a social, game based elearning platform. Users will register with the system and be able to earn points and rewards for interacting with library resources, such as leaving comments and reviews of library books. Integration with other social networks such as Twitter and Facebook will be built into the system.

This one I find a bit uncompelling because the goal is defined as increase the use of library resources — which is the goal of the library (the system designer), but not a goal of or necessarily beneficial to the library users.


Gamification:  What’s New, Actually?

I said that Dempsey categorized these sites as “gamification” examples, but I’m not sure I quite agree.

The problem is that the prevailing definition of “gamification,” as the application of game mechanics to non-game scenarios, is so vague as to include practically any interaction.

Games use a huge range of mechanics (rules, features, rewards, etc.) — see the extensive catalog of them at http://gamification.org/wiki/Game_Mechanics — including just about any type of economic or psychological incentive you can imagine.   I think it may be necessary to find a more precise definition, in order for the term to be analytically useful and not just a buzzword applied to any vaguely related initiative.  Also, in order to not forget that many of these dynamics have long been used and studied in other contexts.

So, what dimensions of “games” are not unique to games, or are widely understood under other terms?

1) incentives:  setting up incentives is not, in itself, gamification.  Amost everything we do in life is within a field of incentives, whether in terms or money, social capital, pleasure/pain, etc.  There’s a universe of social science already established, which examines how incentives work in innumerable contexts, e.g. economic or psychological, and it would be unfortunate for that knowledge to be obscured by moving to a different, “gamification” vocabulary.

Some interesting examples, from a social-reform standpoint, include initiatives to pay students for better grades in tthe U.S.,  (extensively researched by Roland Fryer at Harvard’s EdLab) or better attendance and medical habits, (done on a large scale in Mexico and Brazil).

2) “social” (e.g. peer support or peer motivation).
Making something social doesn’t make it a game, nor vice versa.  stikK, for example, has social aspects but very little game aspect.  Most gamification commentary I’ve seen seems to forget that games have no need to be social — even the paradigmatic case of video games have always been predominantly played alone.

One of the most famous of all behavior-changing systems, Alcoholics Anonymous, is very much social, but not gamelike.  It’s about peer interaction;  which, argues NYT reporter and Macarthur grant winner Tina Rosenberg in her recent Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World (2011, Amazon), is the key way to catalyze social investment and reform.

3) commitment mechanisms
This is a broad concept from economics, that might incorporate incentives or social structures, with the common denominator being ways to shape one’s own future action. A common example is when employees pre-commit to diverting any future pay raise into a retirement account.
stikK.com is mainly a commitment-mechanism system, as reflected by the name of it’s central feature, the “Commitment Contract”.   (reflecting the academic perspective of its founders..).

4) Surety bonds (aka Performance Bonds, Completion Bonds)
This is when an individual or other party posts money (or collateral) as a guarantee they will complete some obligation.  Wikipedia notes that such devices have existed since ancient Mesopotamia;  common contemporary examples are “performance bonds” posted by filmmaking teams in independent productions, and “completion bonds” posted by contractors in construction projects.   Surety bonds are incentives, and are loosely a type of commitment mechanism, except applied to a commitment to some other party, not to oneself.

Anyway, why does it matter?  Because when you recognize the above concepts in action  in some new site or service, you can better understand and categorize the service, and relate it to the universe of what else has been done.  You can better draw upon economics, psychology, law, etc., for new ideas, rather than thinking only within the terms of gaming.  And you can narrow in on what may be more unique to gamification, which is the subject for a few other posts but, just to take a few guesses, might include:

  • creation of a new intrinsic motivation source —  e.g., you play because it’s fun, and incidentally it does something useful like help process email or fill out forms.
  • continual feedback and progressing challenge, with careful calibration to ensure neither too easy/monotonous nor too difficult/unforseeable problems.
  • a continually-unfolding problem, with new information released in stages (aka “cascading information”).
  • progressive, visible, stable markers of attainment.   yes, alas, badges and levels.

Applying this to my own proposal, I’d say “goal gifts” are essentially a self-commitment mechanism, and barely gamelike.  But they’re interesting for other reasons, such as the profit potential for buyers and sellers of tasks, as described above.

for more information:
a great article is  “The purpose of gamification: A look at gamification’s applications and limitations.” by leading gamification expert Gabe Zichermann.   see also the enlightening and extensive discussion in the comments, between Gabe, Kathy Sierra (of “Headfirst! books fame) and others.

Also, more information at the Gamification Wiki.

Language check: do you have health insurance, or health care, or neither?

(and, what assumptions are inside those terms?)

In America, access to health care is usually described in terms of having “health insurance”. At the doctor’s office or pharmacy you’re likely to be asked for your “insurance card”, and the crisis in access to medical care is generally discussed in terms of the [fifty million or so] “uninsured Americans”.   However, insurance (meaning, private insurance) is just one of the various ways that health care is provisioned in the U.S., as in other countries.  (See Wikipedia overview of world health-care systems and types).  We also have publicly funded Medicare, care provided directly by employers, direct fee-for-service, indigent care, etc.

So, why do we usually say “insurance” instead of, say, “health care”?  Isn’t care what we’re actually interested in, not the way it happens to be paid for?  But my main point is, might the implications of the term “insurance” implicitly shape how people think about health care in this country, when this is the term that’s constantly used?

It’s true that in technical discussions, there is a concept of “social health insurance” which cover everyone, e.g. Medicare.  However, for most people, the term “health insurance” probably associates with other forms of insurance they’re likely to have,  such as car or home insurance.  What are the characteristics of “insurance”, inferred from these ordinary examples?:

  1. insurance is individual — an insurance policy is a contract between me and a private company.  Me having this policy implies nothing about whether my neighbor has one, or what its terms might be.
  2. insurance offsets future, unpredictable losses — not routine expenses.
  3. insurance is underwritten / actuarial:  policy issuers decide whether to grant a policy, and they set prices and policies based on their assessment of the customer’s risk level.

Now consider the implications for one’s implicit model of how health care works, based on these characteristics:

  1. [health insurance] is individual: access to health care is something that I, individually, negotiate or purchase.  It is not something I have in common with my neighbor, community, or even family member, necessarily.   It is a private asset, not a public good, and there is no community or societal norm describing what, if anything, I should have.
  2. [health insurance] offsets future, unpredictable losses:   health care will be covered for me primarily in the case of a future, unexpected, unlikely occurrence such as an injury or new illness.  Any condition existing at the time the insurance contract is signed will *not* be covered — so, if you are pregnant, have a blood disease, already take a medication for some illness, have a permanent genetic condition, this will not be covered.   Preventive care may not be covered, because it is not unanticipated.
  3. [health insurance] is underwritten / actuarial:  you have no right to health care — you will get it only if a health insurer decides it can cover you profitably.  If you have any existing illness, you most likely will not be “insurable”.  If you do get care, the price you pay for it will reflect your age, location, health history, gender, and any other risk factor the insurer chooses to consider (except for some legally prohibited ones).  If you are unlucky enough to have, say, a congenital condition, or live in a high-health-risk community, or be advanced in years, you may pay far higher premiums to get coverage.

So, by implication “health insurance” connotes a private, atomized, incomplete, non-preventive, discriminatory system that disclaims any notion of social equity or a human right to health, and excludes or financially punishes those with the greatest needs.

I’m just saying.

New Orleans, mostly without people

New Orleans, once again depopulated — this time thanks to my photo-taking habits, not natural disaster.  Like the Talking Heads album, this is mostly songs about buildings and food.   I was in the Big Easy for the American Library Association annual event.
Slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/contextobject/sets/72157627082157196/show/ click on “Show info” at upper right for notes.

Facebook and the Case of the Missing “Dislike” Button

I am puzzled by Facebook’s comparative lack of way to filter and organize your FB experience, specifically the central News Feed feature.  It essentially uses opaque, automatic methods to construct a quite filtered News Feed for you, out of many sources.  There are just a few, on/off user controls such as choosing to block particular apps or completely defriend people.   In the past they tried things like Lists (groups), and  “less of this” controls, but these features are either dead or largely unused.

The non-uptake of those past features may suggest that users generally don’t want or can’t be bothered to do “filtering” and such management tasks.  (much like how, as the software-design maxim says, at least 95% of people never change any default settings).

On other hand, perhaps FB just didn’t figure out the right way to give users filtering powers, and so it’s failing to serve many people who are tired of the unfilterable mess, or who don’t even consider using the service for that reason.  (long before FB reaches its goal of signing up everyone on earth, they’ll have to convince some billions of skeptical middle-adopters, i.e. most people, that it’s not just an unending stream of trivial tidbits which they don’t have time or interest for).

Personally, I think that better, user-controlled filtering can and must be achieved.  You often hear that Facebook “got it right”, i.e. social networking, after Friendster, Myspace, etc. failed.  But to me that shows a limited imagination, or historical sense.  I believe Facebook’s grand social experiment, fascinating as it been, has hardly mapped or mastered the potentials of social networking.  Google’s grand entrance into the space, Google+, will put a spotlight on that.

In fact, it seems to me this is a gaping wide opportunity for a competitor such as Google+.  Consider, there is a FB group, “Facebook, give us a ‘dislike’ button”, that’s existed for years and currently has 495,290 members.   (https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50153652583).  A half million users both annoyed and geeky enough to protest for a filtering feature!

It seems an obvious feature, yet various theories abound as to why Facebook won’t ever do it.   Some think that networking is inherently positive, i.e. is always link *building* rather than narrowing.  Others say the big FB would never allow such a capacity for public, negative feedback to afflict the corporations and brands upon which its monetization ambitions depend.

As to whether “Dislike” could get adopted by a mass user base, one problem is that although it the term is an obvious inversion of the existing “Like”, the meaning is ambiguous.   If a wall post reports that, e.g. New Jersey has voted to limit public employee’s collective bargaining, does a “Dislike” vote mean that you don’t like what New Jersey did, or that you think the FB user’s post was uninteresting / inappropriate?  Some people understand “Dislike” to mean comiseration with the post, some disapproval of the post.

Personally, I would suggest not only a “dislike” button (anonymous), but a user-set option to allow anonymous commenting.  (anonymous limited to those in your friend network).   Therefore, those users who wish to improve their Facebook posting manners, and learn what their friends actually find uninteresting or in poor taste etc., could do so.  This could be a quite socially educational, even *genteel* influence upon the chaos that Facebook can be today — a curious mixture of interesting, diverting, salacious, braggardly, irrelevant, tiresome, proselytizing, and oblivious (e.g. auto-posting your every pointless and contextless Tweet remark, or location check-in).

Facebook experience today.. a party to which not quite the right people showed up, with a few too many shouters and drunks, just not quite bad enough to leave?  yet.

Really un-public libraries: Ramses’ tomb

The library said to be the greatest of all ancient Egypt was that of Ramses II — the Ozymandias of Shelley’s poem. It was built and assembled as part of his burial complex, and may not have long outlasted his death. (Lerner, 2009; Quibell, 1896). It was not built for the living, let along for the public. Just an example of how most libraries, throughout human history, have been quite different than the present-day public library model.
[testing post-by-email to Wordpress].

Unplug for better health: 8 fun ways to make work less virtual

the “Walkstation”, from Steelcase.  starting at $4,399.

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about how to unplug, particularly from desktop computer use.  I’m long inured to epic computer sessions — many-houred trance states, almost. Some people can go for 24 hours or more at this with just snack breaks, which can’t be good.

For many reasons, especially health in all forms.  As discussed in the recent NY Times article “Is Sitting a Lethal Activity”, new research suggests there may be a huge health issue caused by pervasive unhealthy sitting postures, and computer-use postures, and just the fact of pervasive *sitting* at all;  it may be a prime factor in the incidence of obesity in our society.  The article focuses on obesity and related issues, but in addition there’s the millions of cases of repetitive-stress injury, and who knows what in eyestrain, general stress, back problems, and general unhappiness.

I have a pet analogy:  in earlier times, scientists and technicians working on atomic energy projects would walk around carrying unshielded radioactive materials;  factory workers painting watch faces with radioactive luminous paint would routinely lick their brushes to sharpen them;  nobody knew, or knew for sure, that these were deadly activities, until the workers began to die of cancer at epidemic rates.

Likewise, I imagine that decades from now, people will look back at our time and be horrified that once, hundreds of millions of people in (mainly the rich) world would sit in a chair for 10-15 hours a day, directly in front of a monitor, typing or using a mouse.   They’ll say, but how could they have gone so long and not seen the correlation to ….  cancer rates. or perhaps epidemic obesity and metabolic disorders, or pervasive developmental and mental disorders like ADHD,  etc.   I know the bulk of humanity aren’t office drones, and may have other, more prosaic concerns such as lack of clean water, or AIDS,  but let’s focus on the leading-edge first world for now.

The obesity and developmental-disorders problems mentioned might more likely correlate to television watching.. but maybe the office computer is like a workplace version of television, from a health standpoint:  a great vegetating, obesity-generating, mind-numbing force.

Anyway so here are just some ideas, mine and others’, of ways large and small, symbolic and real, to reconnect virtual (inside your computer) with real world.

1) Weather webcam:  bring the weather / street to your desktop
Set up webcam at your office building, pointing outwards to show weather, daylight level, and street life.  (if you hopefully have street life, and haven’t been virtualized away to a lifeless office park or campus).  Then, on employees’ computers, set the default wallpaper  (desktop background) to be an regularly-updating view from the webcam — there are various free programs to do this. The reason is obvious:  in a lot of offices, a lot of people are getting very little natural light, or cue as to what’s going on outside.   I’ve thought about this one for year and years, since way back when I first worked in a cubicle in the ’70s.  But I haven’t heard of it being done anywhere.

2) Social webcam:  bring the lobby / atrium / cafe / bar to your desktop (a social variation on #1):
Set up or designate some communal social space — e.g. a break room or lobby area or part of the cafeteria — and designate it “live”.  Set up webcam onto this space.  Feed webcam stream into default employees’ computer wallpaper.  So, you can have some remote connection to who is hanging out, you can perhaps join your friends if you see them there, and you can go there yourself and have more chance of running into your friends.

A more public version of this is the bar or cafe that sets up a webcam and puts it on the Web, so presumably you can check out who’s there before coming down.  This used to be done occasionally, back in the day when webcams were relatively new.   Obviously, privacy concerns arise, so I think the practice faded.  I don’t know if anyone tried what I was thinking of, visibly designating just part of the venue as “live”.

3) Standing meetings
Borrowing a technique from agile software development, do meetings standing up when possible. Not only does it help keep meetings quick and focused, but it keeps people’s bodies in motion, and works against the relapsing into Blackberry / smartphone or even laptop use that can happen during a sit-down meeting.

4) Treadmill workstations
Actually quite simple:  mount a desktop over a treadmill, walk while you work.  These exist, are in production from leading office-furniture company Steelcase: the “Walkstation”, from Steelcase.  starting at $4,399.  (see photo at top of post).  The ones that exist are made for office environments, thus presumably walking, but I’ve been thinking I could really enjoy something like this at the gym.  Rather than five TV channels of trash that I have to choose from now, I’d be most happy if I could carry on my preferred news-reading, Web video-watching, Wikipedia-reading, and general Web foraying, while running or bicycling.  I see an opportunity for high-end, professionals-oriented gyms here.

The treadmill workstation (right, the vendors don’t call them “treadmills”, but I will) is greatly ironic:  it’s like a comically absurd symbolization of the modern office worker as poorhouse drone;  but in fact, might be a great gift to the employee.  Yes, and gift of employer to itself, by reducing health-care costs and health-related productivity loss.

5) Office computers that make you take breaks
Set up office computers so that every so often, say every two hours, the system will gently log you out for ten minutes or so.  It will be unavailable for that time, so you may as well take a power nap, do you calisthenics routine, or walk around the block once or twice.

Ok, there are some practical issues like not interrupting you if you’re on a conference call or Webinar, etc., but it can be worked out.  Perhaps, you can get a button to override for one hour, or the logout won’t happen during scheduled critical times.

6) Office computers that make you take musical chairs breaks
In offices where workstations and seating positions are relatively interchangeable, and people use thin terminals (i.e. their files and programs are on the network drive, not local), periodically the computers log everyone off for a period (as in #5).  However, in this version, the twist is that after ten minutes, your session with your open files and programs will become reavailable on a different workstation somewhere in the office. After doing your power nap or coffee break, you have to find out where in the office you’ve been transferred, which involves a fun game of everyone roaming around shouting out who’s where.  Then, you have to adjust your body to the chair settings, monitor position, different lamp, etc., of the workstation’s prior user.  Hilarious!  Alright this isn’t quite serious but the point here is to make us think people.

7) Shifty office furniture
The recent Mayo Clinic research from that NY Times article tells us that unchanging, sedentary body positions greatly impact our metabolisms.  Common sense and experience tells us that an unchanging position in a chair, or craning at a screen, is uncomfortable.  Yet, unchange and crane we do, as the research shows.  Concentration apparently immobilizes people, and so we really ought to keep changing our positions.  But why rely on us to remember to move, when we have machines to be clever like that?

So, the monitor:  mine, for example, sits on a little platform I made that rolls easily in all directions and fits the keyboard in underneath.  It would be quite simple to make a monitor stand (hello, Steelcase!) that was like this but had a few little motors attached to the rollers and randomly timed such that once in a while, it would gently slide left or right or forward six inches.

More sophisticated applications of this idea would be monitor arms that changed positions, or adjustable-height desks that changed.  You could also put your lamp on a timer so it would periodically conk out, and you’d be forced to get up to reset it.  (I know, neither your cubicle / table segment nor mine are big enough to require any “getting up” to change the lamp;  or, also bad, there is no lamp that you have any control over, just totalitarian ceiling fluorescents or whatever.  So plug something in whose outage will cause a reaction.  We’re just trying to get metabolism into the work environment, however how).

8) Change up the form factor:  smartphone, tablet, wallscreen
Different computing devices pull people into different physical positions and activities; and the more mobile a device, obviously the more it can be used embedded in the world
When people started using and got used to smartphones, especially the iPhone, often they were and are surprised to learn how many formerly “computer” tasks can actually be done with it.  Particularly with a beautifully-designed implement like the iPhone, people become attached to it in a way that they don’t generally feel about a desktop PC, and they want to use it instead of the PC, even perhaps for, say, tasks that seem to be large-screen oriented.

I find that I’ll walk over to my desk to check email, and pick up my iPhone to check on it rather than looking at the desktop PC.  The phone, I pick up and hold in just the position most comfortable to how I’m standing;  the PC demands that I stoop to it.  It’s like the old distinction between “lean forward” technology such as the PC and “lean back” technology such as the television.

Likewise, a common experience with the new tablet computers (led by Apple’s iPad) is to feel released from the desktop, or even a desk/table (i.e. as laptops are typically used on), and find oneself using it on the couch, in bed, or in new places on the go.

More speculatively, I also imagine devices / interfaces becoming widely available that are wall- or room-sized.  As perhaps most famously imagined in the 2002 movie Minority Report, in which the detective played by Tom Cruise uses a special room filled with panels of transparent LED displays, controlled by laser mice in his gloves, to rapidly explore ream of image and database data about his suspect.

(See Minority Report science adviser and inventor John Underkoffler demoing his current version of this at a 2010 TED event).  Note, in both cases, the user is standing up, and making significant body motions (arms) to work the display;  also, there is a social component, because the operator’s activity is displayed large enough for colleagues or an audience to watch and participate.

Yes, many of these design ideas have been villified by other interface designers as unusable, clueless fantasies.  Yet I can imagine the room-as-interface (what Underkoffler calls the “luminous room” concept) having important applications.  For example, in collaborative meetings and videoconferences, where groups of people must gather a lot of visual materials, brainstorm, decide, perhaps working from far-separated geographic locations.  Or, educational software (including training materials, in the corporate context) that employs large-scale interfaces — and perhaps gamification (use of game-play mechanics) — for a more effective and healthy whole-body experience.

Some of the above techniques assume that computer immersion is a problem requiring interruption.  Others propose integrating motion into immersive computer activity.  Ultimately I think the latter has more potential, because obviously it’s not disrupting the user’s concentration.  It suggests a new definition of unplugging:  being plugged in to the computer while still thoroughly plugged in to your body and the physical world.

Hangzhou Facial Massage Techniques

Facials and face clean-up therapies are supplied at various elegance parlors and salons. They are elegance remedies which drastically support to clean up the skin and give it a healthy glow. However, there is a big difference among face clean-ups and facials. Facials involve a great deal of massage, which may last for ten minutes or far more. That is because facials usually are not just utilized to clean-up the skin but in addition to obtain rid of facial anxiety. It is stated that a lot of the anxiety is stored during the face. Therefore, a facial could be extremely efficient to get rid of pressure. Also, it aids to keep the skin hunting young. One in the most popular type of facial is the Hangzhou facial massage in hangzhou. This massage includes distinct stages in which a variety of tactics are used. Hangzhou facial massage tactics are straightforward and very good for beginners. Also, this is one from the most inexpensive facial.
Hangzhou Face Massage

Cleansing: This stage is used to remove make-up, dirt or dust in the face. In this stage, the beautician will use a cleanser which can be water or cream based. This cleanser will be utilized on a cotton ball and then your face will likely be wiped with it. Nevertheless, some beautician tend to apply face cleansing lotion within the face and after that massage the face for two minutes, utilizing basic circular motions. Then the face and neck is cleaned with cotton balls.

Steaming: This stage is accomplished to generate the skin soft which also makes the blackheads, whiteheads and pimples soft. This stage aids to take away acne simply from the skin because the skin pores open by steaming. The beautician will ask you to sit up and consider steam, or will apply it employing on your face by using a portable steamer. For two minutes or much more the steam will likely be utilized. For those who have serious acne, then a lot more steam is going to be utilized.

Exfoliation: Exfoliation is accomplished to get rid of dead and dry skin. In addition, it will help to have rid of blackheads, whiteheads, and zits. So, a scrub is utilized around the face, neck and ears. The beautician will hold scrubbing your face by circular motion with the fingertips. Occasionally close to the nose and chin straight to-and-fro motions of the thumb are utilized. The beautician will do that for couple of minutes. After this the beautician will wipe your face once more with water and cotton. Then using a tissue or even a blackhead extractor, every one of the acne will probably be eliminated. This step might be very painful to a number of people. In the event you don’t wish to use an extractor or tissue to eliminate acne, then you can request the beautician to skip this stage.

Face Mask: Then to near the skin pores, a face mask is applied with fingertips or using a brush. The face mask depends upon the skin variety in the consumer, which can be oily, dry, acne prone, delicate, and so on. The face mask is stored for 10-20 minutes, immediately after which it truly is eliminated by wiping with wet cotton balls. In this stage primarily, cucumber slice or cotton pads dipped in rose-water are stored above the eyes.

Hangzhou Massage
: Ultimately, begins the facial massage. Nonetheless, numerous parlors incorporate upper back, neck and shoulder massage too in a Hangzhou facial massage. The beautician will consider lotion in their hands, and start massaging your face, neck and back along with a bit of the upper chest location. For this they are going to use varied stress and motions. Mainly, circular motions are used all over the face. Nevertheless, at times straight motions from the thumbs are used close to the chin and nose. Also, applying pressure employing finger-tips about the eyes is accomplished. The fingertips are pressed on the forehead and amongst the eyebrows. Immediately after 10-15 minutes the massage along with the beauty therapy will finish.

This was all about Hangzhou facial massage and the tactics involved in every single stage. This elegance remedy is obtainable in different parlors and spas, so you can book an appointment for a single. If you have any allergic reactions to any beauty merchandise make certain you inform it for the beautician prior to the treatment method begins.

Guangzhou Massage – Yes or No?

As being a qualified Holistic Massage therapist within the United kingdom, I’ve been following some on the internet discussions with fantastic interest. One particular debate that will probably go on ad infinitum is, “to what extent is nudity acceptable/necessary for any full physique massage?”

I competent with ITEC, who give a clear message that ‘towel management’ is very crucial and that the “client’s modesty has to be protected in any way times”, with knickers or pants being kept on and only the entire body part getting massaged uncovered at any offered time. Quite simply, the client is covered with towels at all occasions aside from the physique portion, perhaps a leg, or the back, that is getting massaged. Opinions on no matter whether or not that is the most effective approach appear to be tremendously divided among my fellow experts.

It seems that, in other elements with the globe, it’s regarded as very normal for the client to become naked, though generally covered with a sheet, or perhaps a ‘loin cloth’ within the situation of lomi lomi (Hawaiian massage). In the Uk, it appears the word “massage” has, for a lot of, sexual connotations which can be how the problems originate. Probably not surprisingly it really is usually the ‘female therapist, male client’ scenario in which most troubles arise.

You will find numerous prospects relating to the query of nudity in guangzhou massage;

therapist clothed and client partially clothed and covered,

therapist clothed and consumer unclothed and covered,

therapist clothed and consumer unclothed and exposed,

therapist unclothed and client unclothed and uncovered, (naturist massage).

Obviously, there could be other situations I have not included, (perhaps my imagination isn’t as much as it!). But as far as these scenarios are concerned, the achievable problems contain,

clients expecting greater than ‘just’ a massage,

therapists feeling unpleasant by using a consumer wishing to become nude

therapists doubting the motives with the client,

therapists and/or clients feeling that a “full body” massage in guangzhou is compromised if underwear is worn and most of the physique is draped,

some therapists currently being comfortable with naturism whilst other individuals usually are not

As I mentioned just before, I’m confident this debate will carry on and there are numerous differing and wide-ranging opinions. My own view is the fact that the client ought to really feel at ease and her or his preferences accommodated, exactly where achievable, but this really should by no means be at the expense from the therapist’s own comfort. The intuition with the therapist is likely to be the best gauge of precisely what is and is not acceptable.

Qingdao

Qingdao is actually a bustling town found in Shandong province, in the North East of China. Qingdao will probably be the site for sailing events for the Summer season Olympics as Beijing is just not by the sea.

Qingdao metropolis lies on undulating hills with luxuriantly green trees and properties famous for their eye-catching architectural types. The red colour with the tiled roves, green colour with the trees thills and blue with the sea contrast beautifully. All this as well as its stunning climate, make the town well-known like a summer and well being resort.

The town occupies an area of ten 654 km2. The town is found in flatlands, with mountains spurring up nearby. The best elevation within the area is 1133 m above sea level. The town features a 730.64-kilometer shoreline. Five important rivers that flow for in excess of fifty km can be found in the region.

Qingdao is believed to become the property for more than seven million inhabitants, of which all around 2.six million is residing within the Qingdao city place.

Qingdao enjoys delicate summers and comparatively warm winters, using the common July temperature at 23.8C and also the regular January temperature at -0.7C. The town gets most rain in June and July, at an regular of a hundred and fifty mm.

Qingdao has really robust German affect within the nineteenth century and many German motivated properties can still be observed. In reality, Qingdao beer is popular during the world, and every year, hundreds of 1000’s of people, the two neighborhood and abroad gather in Qingdao for that yearly Beer pageant.

Qingdao draws in a lot of tourists because of its seaside placing and excellent climate. Parks, beaches and sculpture — at the same time as some unique architecture — line the shore. Qingdao’s significant attractions include:

* Ba Da Guan, the older place of city with some surviving German architecture.

* Laoshan, a popular Taoist mountain.

* Lu Xun Park, named right after Lu Xun, a famous modern day Chinese writer.

* Qingdao Beer Museum, around the internet site of the previous brewery.

* Qingdao Naval Museum

* Qingdao Global Beer Town, the principal site with the annual Qingdao Worldwide Beer Pageant.

* Qingdao Underwater Planet

* St. Michael’s Cathedral, a Gothic/Roman cathedral created by German architect Pepieruch, finished in 1934.

In a World Lacking Real Food, Savoring It

Unexpectedly, there is a lovely and funny foodie moment in the 1973 dystopian sci-fi Soylent Green, with Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson. (based upon the 1966 novel Make Room! Make Room!, by Harry Harrison).  In a fictional world where there is almost no real food, the two characters stumble into a bit of it and turn it into a comically rapturous feast: Soylent Green lunch scene on YouTube. (2:09).

The film is set in NYC in 2020, where 40 million mostly starving and desperate dwellers fight for their food rations.  Environmental devastation has largely destroyed the food supply, so people live on Soylent brand food cakes, said to be made of plankton and vegetable extracts.

In this scene, Heston and his elderly roommate (played by Robinson) sit down to a meal Robinson has prepared from some precious “real food” that Heston has stolen from a crime scene earlier.  Robinson brushes aside the plastic fork Heston has taken out, and instead proffers a treasured single set of real metal cutlery from an old leather case.  Old school.

Then begins a meal of a piece of lettuce each, a tiny saucepan of beans or stew, and two small apples.

In a balletic interaction over a soundrack of chamber music, in a conversation wordless but for appreciative grunts and noises, we see Heston discover the miracle of real food for the first time (literally), including (almost) how to shine and eat an apple.   Robinson goes from rapt anticipation, to ecstatic imbibing, to astonished recognition, to imploring Heston’s shared appreciation, to mellow afterglow, on one lettuce leaf. Both men are transported by their tiny serving of beans.

It does inspire one to enjoy the bounteous and exquisite world of real food that we have.

Soylent Green lunch scene on YouTube. (2:09)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3HGeENqEo

Snobbery Filtering, for Email Overload

[if you got this by email, and it's garbled or missing images, please try reading it at http://tjm.org/2011/03/29/snobbery-filtering-for-email-overload].

Oh Gmail.  We’ve come a long ways, over the years.  I shared with you my deepest secrets, you gave me filters and keyboard shortcuts and Gmail Labs.  I love you.. but darling, you must, you MUST, you must stop constantly introducing me to your random uncouth friends.

Thackeray - The Book of Snobs - ch.3 illustration

Thackeray, The Book of Snobs (1848) Ch.3 engraving

Dear, it’s called a boundary.  I will entertain, I will invite in our friends and acquaintances of quality; but I will not live outside in the gutter.  I expect there are some very nice persons among your.. people, but the rule simply must be, I shall invite chosen acquaintances to my home;  rather than having all comers wandering in through our wide-open front door, and using the facilities.  I cannot be spending my time sorting through this horde of interlopers, and worse, having to strain and scheme trying to force this human muck back out the door, an effort often futile and unchaste.

Accordingly, I must ask that from now on we observe certain standards.  Such as, oh, DOORS:  unless I invite in one of your people, he shall remain firmly outside.  Further, in these mixed and foul times, we must insist that anyone whom we have not chosen to address, shall have no claim upon us, nor shall we look upon them or deign to hear them, unless we so decide.

. . . . . . . .

Analogously to the indignant lady-of-the-house speaking above, maintaining a proper household, I’ve been thinking about the perennial problem of how to block unwanted strangers (or acquaintances) from your inbox.  Typical email systems have a presumption of validity, delivering any email that is not filtered out e.g. as spam (which, of course, follows the normal practice of pre-digital mail systems, that basically, deliver to you whatever has been mailed to you).

If, on the other hand, you accept mail only from pre-approved senders, you have a “whitelist” or “trusted sender” system. This takes a less democratic or trusting view: that anyone not my friend or acquaintance is presumptively, my enemy.

Given the “toilet that is email”, as a friend aptly put it, my suggested approach is what I’ll call Snobbery Filtering, a derived, exclusive, whitelist system:

  1. exclusive whitelist in that only mail from whitelist senders is accepted; strangers are preemptively diverted;
  2. derived, in that whitelist is mainly inferred from to whom I’ve sent email

So, concretely:

1) In my Inbox, show me only email from addresses which:

a) I have previously sent email to  (spoken to…); or
b) I have manually whitelisted, i.e. designated as a permitted sender. (see 2) below).

2) For all other email, divert to either

a) a Holding folder, where mail can be periodically reviewed and the sender tagged as whitelist or blacklist; or
b) a Spam folder for anything that triggers general or personal spam filters.

It seems too simple, yet it seems like the above Snobbery Filtering would address the key problems that most people have with the medium.  I really can’t figure (without more research..) why this is not widely implemented and available. I’d be happy to turn it on for my email:  despite years of frustrating filtering effort, there are still rubes walking through my (inbox) living room with muddy boots, regularly.

Maybe people too often do want to invite strangers in;  or perhaps it’s that such filtering requires a lot of calculation — examining each email relative to each addressee, rather than just examining the message in isolation.  But computer power is ever cheaper, and I think a bit more of it to keep strangers out of my living room is a no-brainer.

I know there have been various related efforts in the past, such as restricting incoming mail to senders in your Contacts list (AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail? one or more of them), but it’s never seemed to be implemented well enough to be adopted on a large scale, that I know of. For one thing, your set of accepted senders is not synonymous with your Contacts list — we have aggravating, chain-letter-sending cousins, and we have newsletters we want that aren’t sent by a “Contact”.

Plugins like Xobni, or enterprise mail filtering services like Postini probably use something like Snobbery Filtering as a factor, but as far as I know they still work mainly via probabilistic rules, not a solid “front door”.  In all, I’ve never used a consumer or corporate mail system that wasn’t obviously, if occasionally, letting in strangers.

Thackeray - The Book of Snobs - XXVI - page_99

Thackeray - The Book of Snobs - XXVI - page_99

Gmail’s recently-launched Priority Inbox feature aims to do filtering something like what I’ve described, and I’ve been testing it out. But, not surprisingly for a Google service, it is algorithmic, i.e. is about “training” various rules to identify Important mail.  Unfortunately, you as user are enlisted in this “training” efforts — so we now seem back to the presumption of email validity (show mail to addressee unless it is filtered as spam or, in this case, as not Important).  It’s still letting a lot of people in to your house, off the street, and asking you to throw out the ones you don’t like.

Comcast

Then there is filtering by your ISP (Internet Service Provider).  This is a bit like a security post at the entrance to your subdivision or private street, looking out for ne’er-do-wells.  It might be helpful, but on one hand, you can’t trust it enough that you’ll leave your house’s front door open; and on the other hand, some of your friends you do want to visit might get hassled or shut out by the guard.

Good Mail Systems

Also, bad guys, or salesman, might bribe the security gatesman.  That’s the case where a large-scale email sender, e.g. marketer, makes a deal with an ISP to let its email through.  In a widely controversial 2006 case, AOL and Yahoo made a deal to use Goodmail Systems’ CertifiedEmail system such that mail from senders who prepaid 1/4 cent per message would be delivered directly to users’ mailboxes without being subject to spam filters.

Well so much for your ISP preventing spam!  It turns out, they may have an interest not only in letting in spam, but in overriding your local spam barriers!   The gatesman might not only take bribes for letting unscrupulous salesmen through, but he might give the salesmen keys to your house.

So, we are back to our Snobbery Filtering – simple, user-centered, and under our control.  What interests me really is, how much of email’s main problems, for how many people, could be addressed with Snobbery Filtering?  As compared to the far more complicated systems used by Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, Gmail, etc.?  Or, how many people might prefer this arrangement than their present one?

I think email services should have, long ago, built and evolved trusted-sender systems like this.  The services seem to have settled on aiming for mostly right, and for thinking mostly in terms of spam vs. non-spam, rather than in terms of filtering by use of discoverable social relations — e.g. deriving filters from your email usage patterns.  To me it is quite remarkable that only now has Gmail come out with their Priority Inbox feature, which takes a Snobbery approach — think if they’d launched it five years ago and actually product-developed it until now, to learn all the nuances of how to do it well.

Facebook Mailbox

"the 'Gmail Killer' Facebook Email system...replaces the internal message system and now incorporates emails, Facebook messages, SMS, other chat clients....will also feature the Social Inbox."

Unfortunately, while email services have been fiddling, Rome has burned:  much of the online world’s momentum is moving to trusted, comparatively closed systems such as text messaging, Twitter, and Facebook.  There, for the most part, one deigns to communicate to people;  rather than they deigning to walk right into your inbox, right in your front door. However, these systems lack many of the virtues of traditional emails:  inherent opennness to all comers, transparent technical standards, extensibility to all computing environments, etc., which made email the greatest universal medium ever.

But a tide is turning:  already, plenty of people I know are not reachable reliably or at all via traditional email;  they are, by Facebook or Twitter or SMS.

Email was an exercise in democracy that, for many people, has failed — in large part, for its lack of manners, its social mixing of friend and stranger:  in short, its lack of snobbery.  To maintain this world-changing and essential medium, what we need is renewed separation between the classes, and widespread unkindness to strangers.

Images:  W.M. Thackeray, wood engravings for his The Book of Snobs (1st edition,1848).  scan of book copy from the Bodleian Library, Oxford; via Google Books, France.

You Are Not a Gadget… Are We Not Men?

I admire this cover design (above left) for Jaron Lanier’s You Are Not a Gadget, Vintage paperback edition 2011.  It uses the familiar “tag cloud” design to convey author, title, promo blurb (in blue) and subject matter (grey).  Has someone else done this for a book cover?  It seems almost obvious, in retrospect, since we see tag clouds all the time;  yet here it seems fresh, clever, and effective.  It’s a common observation about well-designed things, I think — that they’re obvious (and obviously good), but only in retrospect.  The “why didn’t I think of that” phenomenon.

I also like the cover (above center) of the “Hard-Cover – Text Only” edition (whatever that is).   It cleverly invokes the visual language of circuitry and of digital pushbuttons, i.e.  the visual methods of signifying depth on a flat screen, by outlining, shadowing, etc.

Not to mention, the UK hardcover cover (above right): which has popped up on many designs sites online.  The whole cover is a real-size reproduction of a Kindle-like e-book reader, with the opening  paragraph of the book showing.

Amazon has an interesting interview with Lanier, on the book page:

Question: In You Are Not a Gadget, you argue that idea that the collective is smarter than the individual is wrong. Why is this?

“There are some cases where a group of people can do a better job of solving certain kinds of problems than individuals. One example is setting a price in a marketplace. [....] There are other cases that involve creativity and imagination. A crowd process generally fails in these cases. The phrase “Design by Committee” is treated as derogatory for good reason. That is why a collective of programmers can copy UNIX [to make Linux] but cannot invent the iPhone.

“In the book, I go into considerably more detail about the differences between the two types of problem solving. Creativity requires periodic, temporary “encapsulation” as opposed to the kind of constant global openness suggested by the slogan “information wants to be free.” Biological cells have walls, academics employ temporary secrecy before they publish, and real authors with real voices might want to polish a text before releasing it. In all these cases, encapsulation is what allows for the possibility of testing and feedback that enables a quest for excellence. To be constantly diffused in a global mush is to embrace mundanity.”

complete interview.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Gadget-first-Text-Only/dp/B004P5BF3M/?tag=provisliteraclas

bonus points:  to what Ohio-based band’s first album title does this post’s title allude?

Oblique Strategies and creativity – Brian Eno

Brian Eno interviewed on BBC about creative strategy and Oblique Strategies

Oblique Strategies (subtitled “over one hundred worthwhile dilemmas”) is a set of published cards created by Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt first published in 1975.

Each card contains a phrase or cryptic remark which can be used to break a deadlock or dilemma situation.  Examples include:

  • Honour thy error as a hidden intention.
  • Look at the order in which you do things
  • Work at a different speed
  • Look closely at the most embarrassing details and amplify
  • Not building a wall; making a brick
  • Repetition is a form of change
  • Don’t break the silence
  • What wouldn’t you do?
  • What are you really thinking about just now? Incorporate
  • Disciplined self-indulgence

“It’s kind of art school stuff, turned into a lifestyle really.”  Eno comments.

Random Oblique Strategies (gives you 1 at a time, from OS vols 1-5):

See also the idea of “Lateral thinking” from Edward De Bono, 1970:

Gifting, Wrapping, Tweeting, and (Hand-) Writing

I love the rituals of unwrapping and the nuances of packaging.  How others unwrap, you partly orchestrate by how you wrap.  I’ve found there are many categories of gift unwrapper to keep in mind:

  1. the person made nervous and hesitant by any wrapping that is at all fancy, particularly any nice paper;  typical exclamation, “I don’t want to tear this paper, it’s so nice!”  Unfortunately, you’ve injected anxiety into her gift experience, where it shouldn’t be.
  2. the meticulous unwrapper, who seeks to avoid all rips and who carefully removes tape from paper, torturing the less patient people around her.
  3. the ripper, who just takes the shortest path to the goal, and tosses the paper aside as garbage;  and
  4. the keeper, who always wraps the gift back up in the wrapper, and keeps the gift together with wrapper.

Because of unwrapper #1, the nervous, I now try to wrap presents tapelessly just as I used to, but secured with a single, visually prominent sticker.  This provides the unwrapper with a signpost to how to unwrap, relieving unwrap anxiety.  Also, for unwrapper #3, the ripper, the sticker provides a single obvious place to rip – because even the rippers are to be accommodated, by the gracious giver.

I got the tip about the sticker from the gift wrappers at a stationery store I visited in Tokyo, who would do in seconds these ultra-neat diagonal wraparound wrappings, seemingly with just a few graceful movements, and they would seal each one with a small round sticker emblazoned with the store emblem and name.  Nice touch.

It’s also for the sake of unwrapper #4, the keeper, that I try to wrap without tape or glue and perhaps just a sticker, so the present can be opened just by unfolding the wrapping, and likewise can be re-wrapped by folding it up.  Done right, there is a pleasant sense of congruence as the folds easily return to their closed form.

It goes to show, people have quite different attitudes towards the wrapping of presents – now how about the broader rituals surrounding gifts?  In Chinese culture, for example, traditionally it is common to three times decline, and then not open a present when in the presence of the giver;  you should neither open a gift there-and-then unless repeatedly urged to, nor should you be be surprised if your host just puts your gift aside.  In such a context, I once gave my [Chinese] host a meeting gift, i.e. gift upon first meeting someone (which I consider to be a charming practice, even if it’s dying out in China), and I was surprised when she immediately turned around and left the room, then came back a few minutes later without the gift, and didn’t mention it further.

Because all this social practice baffles me, I’ve naturally turned to a book — The Gift, by Marcel Mauss, an anthropological and sociological study of mostly ancient gift practices, such as potlatch, (an occurrence, incidentally, in many societies and not just the well-known Northwest Indian case).  Mauss makes the point that in most known ancient or aboriginal cultures, gift-giving was a primary economic activity, and the main way that goods were ‘traded’; and gift-giving was governed by a complex code of  mandatory reciprocation, through which the society’s internal and external relations were articulated.

I’m not sure quite what to do with Mauss’ point, yet.  On the one hand, it sounds quite nice, that when you give a gift, the recipient will either be certain to reciprocate, or will be beheaded. But on the other hand it could be a bit tiring, as it is said to often be for the Japanese, who for example have to manage to get their New Year’s cards to superiors delivered on precisely January 1, or give insult and incur shame.  But generally, I don’t know whether to think I should strive only for well-reciprocated gift-giving and card/letter-sending, and consider the other cases to be broken social scenes.  Or, should one accept that people are just various, like the gift-wrapping keepers and rippers, and they might or might not respond to gifts, and therefore the gracious gift-giver or letter-writer should just give – in our current meaning of the term, i.e. give freely, which Mauss suggests is an ill-conceived, latter-day practice.

This is why, despite giving it a lot of thought, it’s remarkably hard to be a good gift-giver or correspondent.  Murky boundaries need to be sensitively tested, reciprocity built up delicately.  What if you write someone an old-style paper letter, and they reply to you with Twitter Direct Message — 140-character limit in either direction, not archived, erasable at any time by either party?   Rather a poor showing, one feels, but, I suppose you have to calibrate your exchange to the level that mutually works, even if you were hoping to be something more than friends, so to speak.

All this is a sign of how dramatically correspondence has evolved in our time.  There is the movement towards public exchange, where people talk directly to friends via the mechanism of public comments on a Facebook wall, or other social-network equivalent.   There is the deliberate self-constraining, of choosing to communicate in tiny bursts via Twitter or Twitter Direct Message;  there is the complex way that twittering weaves together links, follower lists, subject tags, such that the overall system builds great complexity out of very simple posts.   Finally, there is the slow death of paper correspondence:  the other day I overheard someone waiting for an elevator, saying, yeah, she’s still sending Christmas cards, but that whole practice will die off in a couple of years.  The movement of correspondence into online forms is like the movement of advertising dollars into online:  the big increases there come at the expense of ad spending in other media, which face a steady and sad decline.   As people habituate to Twitter and Facebook, for example, quite likely their ability or inclination to write a handwritten letter, or possibly even a letter-length email, erodes inexorably.

A happy although here is that, precisely as paper correspondence becomes rarer, it becomes more expressive and valued as a classy, considered, distinctive touch.  There will probably always be executives, lovers, nostalgists, esotericists, authors, and digital malcontents who will gravitate to the ancient, permanent medium of quality paper, pen (preferably fountain pen), and ink (a thousand colors, available in those lovely old glass bottles).  Part of the draw for many is that such communications could conceivably last for centuries;  when people look back upon our “digital dark age”, from which most information is lost due to obsolescence of media and electronic formats, the once-esoteric paper media may be the main record.  Revenge of the obscurantists, of those who gift their paper letters to the future!   Perhaps the future will reciprocate your offering, even if your current correspondents don’t.

On Becoming a Facebook Ghost

You’ve probably seen the recent, widely-distributed alert about how Facebook’s News Feed (wall) changed:  now it shows you updates only from friends & pages you’ve interacted with recently.

So, possibly a huge portion of the daily connections between FB users has been quietly suppressed, to achieve this greater focus.  A lot of my network, perhaps, has gone silent, and I’m now invisible to many of my “friends,” but I don’t know which.

It is like you are walking around in public, and many of the people you see are actually ghosts, holograms, but you don’t know which.  If you greet people or tap them on the shoulder, often they don’t respond, and you don’t know if they’re just indifferent or they’re just ghosts.  (ok, years of living in NYC talking here).

You can change your wall settings back to how they were, so *you* see all your friends’ news.  (see how, at bottom of post).  But you’ll may still be invisible to them, unless they changed *their* settings.  And it’s a well-known principle in software design that most people never change default settings.

Of course, this recent change just implements en masse what could happen before by people turning off or dialing down updates from specific people.  Some friend was annoying and prolific in posting, so you clicked on “less from this person”.  Thus you could disconnect from people, without their knowing.  We never really knew to whom we were ghosts.

Naturally, all this leads to the question:  how *could* I figure out who’s just become a ghost to me, and to whom I’m a ghost?  For the former, you could go through your friends list, go to their profiles, look at their recent postings/news (if any), and compare to your news feed.  (Yeah, not really feasible).

To figure out to whom you’ve become a ghost, I suppose you could post on your wall, then write to all your friends and see if they saw it on their wall;  or you could ask all of them to change their settings to show all.  Right… you’d annoy a lot of people, most wouldn’t respond, and you wouldn’t know who’d actually changed their settings in response.  Besides, if 25% of FB users wrote to all their friends, you’d get an average of 40 messages, which would be 20 billion messages total, and FB would probably go down in flames.

I’m not a Facebook expert, so perhaps one of my better-versed friends can clue me in here to some better solution, a clever FB app perhaps… anyone?  anyone out there?

It goes to show, Facebook has an awesome power to unilaterally, perhaps silently  change our new social structures, our social identities — we 500 million worldwide active users, 50% logging in on any given day.  Godlike.  Seeing our every move, even guiding which moves we’ll know, or choose to take.  And that data, practically infinite data, flowing ever inwards:  has there ever been a greater project of social observation (or surveillance) and precise social engineering?

But this experiment is one-way:  we behave, they observe.  To a large degree, they engineer this “public” realm, and we inhabit it.  They are all-seeing, and we are ghosts among ghosts.

* “Facebook has changed its News Feed, so that by default, you can only see updates from people you’ve recently interacted with! To change this, click on the arrow next to ‘Most Recent’, then ‘Edit Options’, and check the box to receive updates from ALL Friends! Then save. “

Reading Japanese Candy, and 9/11

Japanese candy wrapper flies plane into World Trade Center again.  Here’s a wrapper (unfolded) for a pack of Japanese Morinaga-brand “Hi-chew” candy.

and here it is again, with the center frame highlighted:

Looking closer at the center panels, we can see that the backdrop is clearly lower Manhattan, with the Bank of New York at left (and the Woolworth Building in the third panel).  Then there’s the strip of text flying by, led by what might be read as a passenger jet on its side, flying past (or into) a building that looks a lot like the Twin Towers of the former WTC.

What happened?  Total accident, possible sly joke?  Who knows?  In a world globalized and overflowing with image, there is plenty of graphic collision, and it can be hard to say what means what to whom.

The flavor of this Hi-chew pack, however, is “American Cherry”, which may explain things. I imagine some beleaguered graphic designers, deep in a sub-basement of the headquarters of candy-making behemoth Morinaga Seika Kabushiki-gaisha, needing to come up with a design for the next day, and casting about for something recognizably American, that they could find usable images of easily.

I imagine this possibility because New York City is a powerful, global brand — symbol that for many people is almost one with the United States.  It is a tremendous asset for New York, except for making the city a prime terrorist target.  Many New Yorkers, of course, being rather alienated from the country, might find it strange that foreigners regard the city as synonymous with the nation.

Thus perhaps the lower-Manhattan imagery.  The plane?  Well that’s the plane with the product slogan text trailing behind it that we  put on every package design! (I imagine them saying).  Here the worlds collide.

I also recently picked up an assortment pack of Meiji-brand candies:

I buy one of these now and then, I admit, because it has great fun value:  seeing the cacaphony of boxes lined up in one package;  cracking the outer cellophane to let the different jewel-like, matchbox-sized boxes spill out, each cellophane wrapped as well, and with playing-card markings on back so you could play cards if you collected enough of them.

By the time you go through the individual-box cellophane, open the cardboard box, and have one of the tiny intense candies, it is as if you are eating pure colors or images.  Yes they are for children, but I like to think it may also help one understand the pleasure Japanese have with packaging.  Also I like the candy.  Their world and my world, we meet here.