title
stringlengths 0
200
| text
stringlengths 11
100k
| reddit_scores
sequence |
|---|---|---|
Creating Passionate Users: Listening to users considered harmful? | « Blow your mind in Z-space | Main | We joined the 9rules family »
Listening to users considered harmful?
Is "listening to users" really the most important way to keep them happy and -- if we're lucky -- passionate? Is giving users what they ask for the best way to help them kick ass? Or should you create or modify a product based solely on what you believe in... even if it doesn't match what users tell you?
Last weekend I attended the sold-out Parelli Natural Horsemanship conference. I was surrounded by 2000 passionate fans (at least 75% of the people were wearing at least one Parelli-branded shirt, jacket, or hat). The conference was amazing (more on that in another post), but the real reason I went was to interview the founder/visionary Pat Parelli, for the Creating Passionate Users book. His hugely successful, multi-million dollar company is one of the few we've found that does virtually everything on our "reverse-engineering passion" checklists, without having first waited for the fans to do it themselves.
In the equestrian world (total annual impact of the horse industry on the US economy is $112 billion [yes, that's with a "b"]), Pat Parelli has so greatly outstripped the "horsemanship" competition that it doesn't even make sense to talk about competition. Software engineers will appreciate that horse training doesn't scale. So Parelli decided to teach others to do what he does, and of course sell those folks a ton of high-end equipment and training products to help them do it. Nobody -- absolutely no other individual "horse whisperer" or company -- comes anywhere near Parelli in size and scope of the business - Parelli has two training centers, one in Colorado and one in Florida (combined over 700 acres for the facilities), and hundreds of thousands of participants in the home-study programs, clinics, and club membership. Their Parelli Horseman's University is one of the only state-accredited "natural horsemanship" programs in the US.
So that's the backstory. I have weeks' worth of posts to make on what I learned from Pat about the ways in which they've become such a passionate user success story, but today's post is about something I had completely wrong when I interviewed him:
Me: "So, you've recently made drastic changes to your program--a program that was already extremely successful. It's obvious that you've been really listening to your members and taking their feedback and using that to make these sweeping changes."
Pat: "No, listening to our members was maybe 20% of it, but the other 80% was something else."
And then he said it:
"We changed our entire program because WE knew we could do better. Because WE were still frustrated that people weren't learning quickly enough or progressing through the higher levels as well as we thought they could. People still weren't having the kind of relationship with their horse that we knew they could have, even though our students were delighted with the progress they were making. So we changed it all."
It turned out that most of the major changes they made to their program came not from user requests and suggestions, but from the Parelli team's own innovations. He went on to explain that their members/students/users had no idea what was needed to make better, faster, deeper breakthroughs. In fact, many of the changes went against what their user feedback seemed to suggest. In other words, in many ways the Parelli team deliberately did not listen to users.
They trusted themselves, and did what they believed was right for their users, even if it meant doing things that on the surface seemed even less user-friendly.
Most of us realize that focus groups are notoriously ineffective for many things, but we still assume that listening to real feedback from real users is the best way to drive new products and services, as well as improve on what we have. But there's a huge problem with that -- people don't necessarily know how to ask for something they've never conceived of! Most people make suggestions based entirely around incremental improvements, looking at what exists and thinking about how it could be better. But that's quite different from having a vision for something profoundly new.
True innovation will rarely come from what users say directly.
This doesn't mean that you don't listen to users--because the truth is embedded in what they say...but you have to look for the deeper meaning behind what they ask for, rather than always taking them at their word. If they ask for "D", as an improvement to "C", you might have to dig deeper to find out what it is about "D" that they want. And in that answer, you might find the nugget that leads you--and only you--to come up with "S" as a solution. And the "S" solution looks nothing at all like "D", but gets to the heart of what users really wanted and needed when they asked for "D".
In the end, you might have to trust yourself, even in the face of users who either want more than you know would be good or something less or different than you know you can offer if you keep innovating in revolutionary--not just incremental--ways. Our Head First books are among the top-selling computer books today, virtually all of them occupy the #1 slot for their topic category. But not only did nobody ask for such a bizarre format for a technical book, we were warned that it would never work. We were told that people would hate these books. That they were too different, too pictorial, too... tacky to be taken seriously. But we knew the brain science and learning theory behind the format, and trusted that the principles worked. That for most (not all) readers, this format really did lead to faster, deeper learning. We trusted that people would look beyond the surface aspects of the implementation, and that if they got real results from the book, they'd tell others.
Two other publishers turned us down for the series before O'Reilly took the chance. And I was nearly fired from Sun for trying to sneak 5% of what's in Head First into Sun courseware.
Are users/readers too clueless to know what to ask for? Of course not. But it's not a potential Java programmer's job to be a learning theory expert, anymore than I could have helped conceive of the iPod. I could make incremental suggestions about most of the tools I use, sure, but I don't have the background, skills, or vision to suggest the kind of revolutionary changes that create breakthrough products and services outside of my own very narrow domain.
What sparked this post was a somewhat contentious (and bold) 37Signals post, but I also remembered this post by Wiley editor Joe Wilcox.
This is tricky, of course, because it's not always obvious which user complaints/suggestions are based on real problems with your product, vs. naive feature requests that would do more harm than good. (Don't forget the Happy User Curve)
And this is NOT about giving them simply what we know is good for them but that they really don't want, because they probably won't stick around. This is about giving them what they really DO want... but simply don't realize it because they had no way to imagine it.
So maybe the key is to listen not only to what users say, but more importantly to what is motivating what they say. The rest is up to us. If we really care about our users, they'll just have to trust us... but more crucially--we have to trust ourselves.
Posted by Kathy on September 15, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b44369e200d8345999ce69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Listening to users considered harmful?:
» People don't know how to ask for what they really want from Signal vs. Noise
Kathy Sierra has a wonderful story about horse-trainer Pat Parelli and his approach to workshops and training material. Commended on how well they were able to process user feedback, Pat responded that they really didn't do that too much. Their... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 4:01:18 AM
» People don't know how to ask for what they really want from Signal vs. Noise
Kathy Sierra has a wonderful story about horse-trainer Pat Parelli and his approach to workshops and training material. Commended on how well they were able to process user feedback, Pat responded that they really didnt do that too much. Their... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 4:03:29 AM
» Listening to users from Inline Comments
Other than the work we're doing right now, I believe the best major improvement we could make to Stellar is to restructure the materials, schedule and homework tools to be organized around class sessions. No one has asked for this change. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 7:35:32 AM
» CPU Looks Into The Shade from shaded
CPU Looks Into The Shade [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 7:51:45 AM
» CPU Looks Into The Shade from shaded
CPU Looks Into The Shade [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 7:52:46 AM
» Listening To Customers Isn't Customer-Centric from The Other Bloke's Blog
Listening to Customers must be good. Clearly it's much better than Not Listening To Customers. However Kathy Sierra in her blog, Creating Passionate Users, has a most though-provoking item, Listening to users considered harmful? [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 7:55:08 AM
» Innovation and listening to customers from chiefskipper
Innovation and listening to customers [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 2:34:19 PM
» Listening to Users considered harmful? from tonygoodson
Kathy Sierra has (yet another!) great post, about (not) listening to users. It turned out that most of the major changes they made to their program came not from user requests and suggestions, but from the Parelli team's own innovations. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 8:22:40 PM
» gebruikersgroep from elke's
[Read More]
Tracked on Sep 18, 2005 3:53:25 PM
» User triangulation: how to listen to customers from Hey Norton! - Ken Norton's blog
Quite by serendipity I've come across a few articles in the past week about listening to - and ignoring - users in the product development process. The first came from my friend Jonathan Alexander in a post to his blog:So [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 21, 2005 1:32:46 AM
» Listening to users considered harmful? from Geek Smithology
I read a post over on Kathy Sierras blog that really hit a high note with me. Go read the article right now and come back. Just in case you didnt read the article, heres a quote with the gist: we still assume that liste... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 26, 2005 9:43:04 PM
» Opinionated Software from Andreas' Blog
Durch Rails wurde der Begriff opinionated Software bekannt. Was man darunter versteht macht ein Zitat des Railsentwicklers David deutlich:I consider stored procedures and constraints vile and reckless destroyers of coherence. No, Mr. Database, you can [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 15, 2006 9:02:52 AM
Comments
Great post, K! Though distilling customer requirements into real products has always been the role of marketing. Innovation often comes from outside.
What's a horse, by the way?
W.
Posted by: Wally | Sep 16, 2005 4:43:34 AM
This is exactly what the book "innovator's Dilemma" is about. Clayton Christensen did extensive research on this. Great book I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Lee White | Sep 16, 2005 5:35:49 AM
That's exactly what I mean about searching the noise. Not the user feedback noise, but any noise.
Passion starts before you design a product, before you show up for work in the morning. It even starts before you eat breakfast, get out of bed, or shake last nights dream out of your mind. Passion is your destiny.
You can buy the uniform, stitch on all the badges and recite the pledge, but unless you are already passionate about what you do without the recognition, your improvement is going to be incremental.
This movie Contact is all about this. Ellie (Jodie Foster) does not find traditional incremental improvements of astronomy acceptable, and she is rewarded Passionate User style buy an eccentric billionaire who understands passion when he sees it and by an alien intelligence.
The Wright brothers threw all the incremental research pertaining to flight out the window, and as uneducated high school drop outs exceeded the progress of the greatest minds in the world.
What they did not do, is read Kathy's blog, which would have taught them how to nurture the passion of the following they created, their users, and obtain even greater heights with their wind.
Posted by: Shaded | Sep 16, 2005 8:19:10 AM
I always use this example...
150 year ago, when asked what they needed, farmers might have asked for bigger, stronger horses or maybe more horses. None of them would have thought to ask for a tractor.
IDEO, one of the worlds best design organizations, relies more heavily on observation of users actually using products instead of asking them questions. Not only do people not know what they want (or what's possible) they tend to answer in ways that hide the fact that they had difficulty in a (subconscious) attempt to not look stupid. For example, people that struggle with a particular UI element for several minutes might report that they found it intuitive in order to not feel (appear) stupid.
User feedback is important but it doesn't always mean what it appears to mean.
At the risk of sounding repetitive and predictable, great post.
-Matt
Posted by: Matt Galloway | Sep 16, 2005 8:56:13 AM
This post is dead on, and I thought it may be useful to point out an example of an effective way to listen to customers.
Mark Hurst provides an example here: http://www.goodexperience.com/blog/archives/000324.php
"In our non-directed listening labs, we ask customers to use the Internet in the way they normally use it at home or work. While we do have a goal for the research, we try to let the customers lead us to the answer, rather than the other way around."
Posted by: Eric | Sep 16, 2005 11:04:24 AM
OK, I'll take that risk of sounding repetitive... great post!
This all reinforces the point of how authenticity and transparency are so frickin' important in the marketing AND innovation process. It's still really difficult for users to accept that they are not being bullshat upon. The passion of the innovators and the execution of that passion, however, can trump any marketing plan. What Kathy states so well is that there is process to the marketing side that old-school marketers rarely, if ever, take into consideration.
Posted by: Mike H. | Sep 16, 2005 11:09:13 AM
Every time I read articles saying that user research is a panacea, I remeber the funny art project "The Most Wanted Paintings", by Komar & Melamid. They answered the question: how art would be if guided by user surveys? They have a nice site displaying the terrible paintings based in these surveys.
Hollywood blockbusters suffer a lot from it. How many mainstream movies would be better without a happy ending, or explaing too much, killing all serendipity. I believe they do user testing in pre-screen sessions, and 15% think the movie is too dificult, or too sad, so they change it to please everybody.
Gilberto Gil, a great brazilian musician and the country current minister of culture, has a verse that says: "The people knows what they want, but the people also wants what they don't know".
Posted by: Paulo Eduardo Neves | Sep 16, 2005 12:34:49 PM
User studies aren't much good for innovating. They are good, however, for making sure that the your design actually works. The user isn't "writing" the design so much as proofreading what you've already created.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that most user testing is done for one of two reasons:
1) To provide a plausible rationalization for doing what the designer already knows they need to do.
2) To make the design process seem less appealing for meddling managers and hangers-on who feel their business expertise translates directly into usability expertise. From their perspective designing things looks easy and fun. They want to stay and help. User testing looks boring and intimdating. They remember they have other things to do.
Posted by: Bryan c | Sep 16, 2005 1:45:07 PM
Another great post, Kathy. It goes against the grain of what you usually post and my brain was not expecting it. :)
Your mention of focus groups reminds me of "The Apprentice". Usually the team that wins is the one that uses focus groups. But I think this is because the teams are given tasks in industries that they've never worked in before. They have no clue what the users need because the team members have never gone through the frustrations that the users have experienced.
Great innovation blossoms from the belief that what we've got just isn't good enough.
I recently heard that Nintendo is completely redesigning their controllers. This is a perfect example of not listening to the users. Users demanded better graphics and the gaming industry acted accordingly. Now the gaming community complains that the games look great but aren't as fun as the games of long ago.
I think Nintendo discovered on their own that the better graphics demanded better interactivity. If a game can make me feel like I'm on a battlefield I don't want to shoot my gun by pressing 'A'.
On the original Super Mario Brothers we forced our own interactivity into the game by leaning when Mario ran or jumped (some people even bounced a little). We HAD to use our imaginations. The comparison of old games vs new [SMACKDOWN!] is much like that of books vs TV.
Our interactivity used to come from imagination but now that the experience has "improved" with visuals and sounds... well, we need something else to keep our brains stimulated. What we've got now just isn't good enough.
Posted by: Marc Peabody | Sep 17, 2005 7:13:15 AM
A great post.To innovate,we must go beyond what the users say.
Posted by: anand sharma | Sep 17, 2005 11:20:16 AM
Kathy - I'd like to take slight issue with your post. In your opening 'graph you ask, "Should you create or modify a product based solely on what you believe in... even if it doesn't match what users tell you?" I don't think that discounting user feedback is what Pat Parelli did.
I think the key distinction I want to make here is that users "tell" you what they want in any number of ways. This is a fine point, but I believe it is essential. Making feature requests, sending cards and emails, talking to developers... these are ways of communicating. But so is switching products, not upgrading your software, or even, in Parelli's view, not learning fast enough or having a deep enough relationship with your horse. Listening to your users means not just listening to what they say, but listening to what they do.
You report Pat Parelli as saying "WE were still frustrated that people weren't learning quickly enough or progressing through the higher levels as well as we thought they could." That's key: "as well as WE thought they could." To me, it seems that this has nothing to do with ignoring user requests; it has to do with paying attention to user behavior. Parelli's insight came from listening to his users on a deep level, listening beyond the words and accolades. Parelli kept his vision of user success firmly in mind, paid attention to the actual results his users were achieving, and changed his approach accordingly. THAT is what I call paying attention to user feedback.
I guess that's how I'd wish you would reframe your point: You've always got to listen to your users, but sometimes you've got to listen beyond the words.
Posted by: Stuart | Sep 17, 2005 3:37:15 PM
When I developing software for Blue Cross I wrote a project development methodology. It was not (and is not) focused on project management, but a pre-project innovation. The term I coined for what you are discussing is "The Myth Of Limitation".
Several comments above a reader speaks about farmers not knowing to ask for a tractor - this is a great analogy.
It is not that we should not listen to clients/users but we should not let their limited understanding of what is possible, limit where the solution/software/project can go. It is important to listen and draw additional information into the open. In this way, we can discover what is truly desired but never contemplated from the client's perspective.
The chapter on this methodology became the longest chapter of my book with Cisco Press, The IT Career Builder's Toolkit. It is a critical factor across many disciplines and specialties in Information Technology.
I'm glad I stumbled across this blog. I think I'll showcase you on my blog at IT Toolbox.
Thanks,
Matthew Moran
The IT Career Builder's Toolkit
http://www.cbtoolkit.com
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/pm/career/
Posted by: Matthew Moran | Sep 17, 2005 6:06:29 PM
Or as Nathaniel Borenstein put it (in his great little book Programming As If People Mattered): "Listen to your users, but ignore what they say."
Posted by: Matthew Morgan | Sep 17, 2005 8:02:14 PM
Fabulous. Everyone on the web should read that post. And read it again. Thanks.
Posted by: anon | Sep 18, 2005 8:24:45 PM
Excuse me, I didn't notice that html tags were stripped. Here is the funny link to Komar and Melamid Homepage The Most Wanted Paintings on the Web: http://www.diacenter.org/km/
Posted by: Paulo Eduardo Neves | Sep 19, 2005 10:28:53 AM
The comments about listening to what the users are saying, what they're not saying, and how it's being said reminds me of the quote by Claude Debussy, "Music is the silence between the notes."
Posted by: Tim | Sep 21, 2005 2:07:25 PM
I think there's a difference between normative desires and technical desires. A company/organization can guide the vision of a product through normative changes and this makes sense, it's THEIR product and they have the most expertise on it. But there's a technical aspect to the product, the logistics, the execution of distribution, marketing, and selling is a different field. This is the consumer's specialty, they are the ones best aware of what good customer service looks like, buying and interacting with companies is the consumer's expertise.
So while I agree with the premise of this post, let's not paint too broad a brush here.
Posted by: G. M. | Dec 8, 2005 4:53:10 PM
Only the retarded offspring of a village idiot and a TV weather girl would assume that "listening to users" is the same as "bowing down and licking the soles of your user's feet and then obeying their every command".
Listening to users is essential.
Understanding their real needs and desires (which may not be stated explicitly in short bullet-point format) is both a skill to be mastered and a critical detail.
Smart people generally know how to do their job, what they want to do, and what would make them happy. What they *don't* know is how to achieve that - we need to listen to them, understand them, and then keep up our end of the bargain by giving them something great.
Listening to users doesn't mean abdicating responsibility for design and implementation to the users.
Posted by: Bob McBob | Sep 4, 2006 4:17:41 PM
Although unpopular like an excerpt out of Bertrand Russell's 'Unpopular Essays', what determines the first success of a product is merely its marketing. A product can be as bad as hell: if you obsessively bring it before the attention of the public, the public shall buy it. Simply.
They buy everything, as long as you can enter their attention scope. In a scale economy, it's not really a matter of quality: it's a matter of noise in order to pick from the big numbers.
No matter how disagreeable this fact may be, it's still a fact.
A product can be good or very good. If it has no funds for marketing, no one will ever consider it - they may even mock at it.
It is true that you can't sell a non working product for long, but you can definitely sell for how long as you want (lawsuits allowing) a barely working one provided you have more money to invest in its publicity than you had to invest in its making.
The outcome is that who has money, will have more money also churning out lower products, and who puts all her/his efforts in a decent product, will have less money than she/he had at the onset, with no return.
Posted by: Alberto | Jan 30, 2007 3:17:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed. | [
10
] |
Let's Make Sudoku! | This page was moved to
http://www.pro.or.jp/~fuji/numplace/makeproblem/numplace01.html.en
when you do not change automatically,
please click the above-mentioned URL address. | [
4
] |
Vatican bid to find gays in seminary stirs concern | An effort by the Vatican to look for evidence of homosexuality in Catholic seminaries is alarming gay rights advocates but is pleasing conservatives, who are hoping that Pope Benedict XVI will soon issue a ban on gay men as future priests. (Full article: 1193 words)
This article is available in our archives: Globe Subscribers FREE for subscribers Subscribers to the Boston Globe get unlimited access to our archives. Not a subscriber? Non-Subscribers Purchase an electronic copy of the full article. Learn More $9.95 1 month archives pass
1 month archives pass $24.95 3 months archives pass
3 months archives pass $74.95 1 year archives pass | [
8
] |
Apple supports video podcasting | Apple surprised a few people in June when they rolled podcasting support into iTunes 4.9, giving users the ability to download recorded audio programs automatically through the iTunes Music Store. What is less known is that the company took another step and added support for video podcasts (or vodcasts, and some people call them). That's right. No longer do you only get to hear news and opinions read by people in their underwear, now you can watch them, too!
The quiet, fanfare-less launch of video podcasting (in fact, it's not even clear when it was launched) is a bit surprising for the company, but there may be a reason: there's not too many video podcasts out there in the wild. Furthermore, video podcasts are currently only playable on your computer, although it seems clear enough that a video iPod is on the way. If you didn't believe it before, you should definitely believe it now.
For now, it looks like video podcasting content available through the iTunes Music Store is limited. For instance, Crookz, a video podcast (iTMS link) spoof of Cops, appears to be one of the few video offerings out there that's actually working. However, you can bet that webcams and DV cameras around the world will be dusted off in the wake of this news. Everyone wants to be a radio-star killing video producer, don't they?
When podcasts first hit the scene, I was underwhelmed to say the least. I can read much faster than someone can read to me, and if I'm somewhere like the gym where reading isn't really possible, then I'd much rather listen to music. Still, podcasts have become all the rage, and plenty of sites are now offering podcasts. If enough people wanted them, we might do a weekly podcast for our readers, as well. Let us know.
The thing that occurred to me when podcasting caught on, however, was how we're basically headed towards the democratization of video content. A brief outline of the revolution (if we can call it that) is as follows: from text, to audio, to video. Blogging caught on once it became dead easy for non-techie types to publish online. Podcasting has followed in its wake: why read or write when you can listen or speak? (Or so the thinking goes.) And now, coming full circle in many ways, the video podcast is poised to take on other forms of video entertainment head-on. What's needed is that proverbial "killer app" that could make video production as easy and recording a podcast. And just who do you think is going to pull that off?
Would you be surprised to learn that Apple has applied for trademarks relating to the word iPodcast? According to AppleInsider:
The first filing seeks a trademark on the term iPodcast, which covers hardware-related goods, namely "computers, computer peripherals, hand held computers, computer terminals, personal digital assistants, electronic organizers, electronic notepads, apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of sounds, images, or other data; magnetic data carriers." A second filing requests that the iPodcast trademark cover services, including "telecommunications services; communication by computer, computer intercommunication; telex, telegram and telephone services; rental, hire and leasing of communications apparatus and of electronic mailboxes; electronic bulletin board services," etc.
If I look into my crystal ball, I see a video iPod launch accompanied by an iPodcaster application aimed precisely at producing and optimizing video podcasts. I'd suggest that it would be an addition to the iLife suit, but to be honest, I think success will hinge on Windows support.
Update: after digging a bit deeper, it looks like video Podcasting support has in fact been around for an indeterminate amount of time. The strange thing about it is, where's the love from Steve Jobs? Jobs will tout the saltiness of a peanut if he needs to, but Apple has been quiet enough on this front that most of us were caught off guard by the happenstance discovery. In fact, the reader who pointed this out to me said that the Wall Street Journal is also reporting on this topic today. | [
6
] |
Web-based IM with Meebo | Boss won't let you IM? School cracking down? Meebo comes to the rescue! Meebo is a new web-based IM system. The idea behind it is great: IM from your browser. Unfortunately, it's still in its infancy.
Advertisement
The problem is that it's still buggy and there seems to be too many people overwhelming the server. Regardless, it's a fantastic step forward and you'll want to check it out. Just pick an off hour to test it until they get out of "Alpha" development. Thanks to loyal reader Mike Hostetler for the tip.
Meebo | [
5
] |
Fears grow for Katrina insurers | The Financial Services Authority has launched an inquiry into the effects of Hurricane Katrina on insurers as fears grow that a number face financial collapse.
Industry sources say that underwriters are expecting the biggest hit in history, far exceeding the $32 billion cost of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Several insurance syndicates operating in the Lloyd's of London insurance market are understood to have been badly affected, as well as a number of UK-registered groups based in Bermuda.
The FSA has written to insurers and reinsurers - groups which take on underwriting risks from primary insurers - asking for information about their liabilities and about the likely impact of Katrina on their solvency ratios - key measures which determine an insurer's ability to meet its obligations.
The letters, leaked to The Observer, show the FSA has acted swiftly to ensure there is 'no systemic risk' to the smooth operation of the industry following the hurricane.
Goshawk Insurance Holdings, a UK-listed reinsurer with Bermudian operations, is exposed to Katrina and is reported to be looking at ways of raising fresh capital. The insurance group wants to prevent ratings agencies from downgrading its creditworthiness, which could make it harder to attract business. Another insurer, Alea, has said it may have to put itself up for sale after an agency removed its A rating.
The FSA has also written to the London offices of the big European reinsurance groups as it tries to gauge the financial fall-out.
Germany's Hanover Re, the world's fourth-largest reinsurer, has already warned that Katrina will affect its earnings forecasts; competitors such as Munich Re and Swiss Re have said they may be forced to revise upwards their estimates of how much Katrina has cost them.
But Bermudian reinsurers specialising in natural catastrophes may be the worst hit.
The ultimate insurance tally won't be known for some time as the cost of flood damage is picked up by the federal government. Analysts point out that there are bound to be arguments over what was destroyed as a result of the hurricane and what by flooding. Forecaster RMS published data last week suggesting that the final insurance bill would be between $40bn and $60bn.
Insurance companies in the region are to be forced to extend the claims period, to give residents of New Orleans more chance to get their affairs in order. The order, from the Louisiana state commissioner, means insurers will not be able to withdraw cover if further storms hit the stricken city.
Last week, Lloyd's insurer Beazley estimated its exposure to the disaster at $50 million. Chief executive Andrew Beazley, said profits could be hit by £20m.
Insurance premiums are set to rise sharply in the wake of the hurricane, say experts. | [
3
] |
After Talk of Comeback, Armstrong Rules It Out | Despite his recent hints that he might return for another Tour de France, Lance Armstrong, its seven-time champion, said yesterday that the firestorm over allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs has prompted him to rule out a comeback.
"There is no way I could go to France and get a fair shake on the roads, in doping control or in the labs," Armstrong said on a conference call from his home in Austin, Tex. "There's no way I could go back there. I would be crazy."
Armstrong's comments were made amid a new round of bickering over allegations raised by the French newspaper L'Equipe last month. The paper reported that a French lab had found the blood-boosting drug EPO in six of Armstrong's 1999 urine samples that had been saved, frozen and recently tested for a research project. Even though the samples were anonymous, the article's author said he had paperwork that linked the coded samples with Armstrong.
A few weeks ago, after L'Equipe's article appeared, Armstrong said he was considering a comeback because he thought it was the best way to anger the French. He has since reconsidered. | [
3
] |
Eye of the Storm: Defending class warfare |
But I forgot why, about a decade ago, I came to hate vast wealth in the first place. I'll get to the explanation some other day. At any rate, though, I was reminded two weeks ago.
Like so many other people, I was disgusted to see that the poorest and neediest of New Orleans' residents were
Here's one tale of horror:
Denise said she thought she was in hell. they were there for 2 days, with no water, no food. no shelter. Denise, her mother (63 years old), her niece (21 years old), and 2-year-old grandniece. when they arrived, there were already thousands of people there. they were told that buses were coming. police drove by, windows rolled up, thumbs up signs. national guard trucks rolled by, completely empty, soldiers with guns cocked and aimed at them. nobody stopped to drop off water. a helicopter dropped a load of water, but all the bottles exploded on impact due to the height of the helicopter.
the first day (Wednesday) 4 people died next to her. the second day (Thursday) 6 people died next to her. Denise told me the people around her all thought they had been sent there to die. again, nobody stopped. the only buses that came were full; they dropped off more and more people, but nobody was being picked up and taken away. they found out that those being dropped off had been rescued from rooftops and attics; they got off the buses delirious from lack of water and food. completely dehydrated. the crowd tried to keep them all in one area; Denise said the new arrivals had mostly lost their minds. they had gone crazy.
inside the convention center, the place was one huge bathroom. in order to shit, you had to stand in other people's shit. the floors were black and slick with shit. most people stayed outside because the smell was so bad. but outside wasn't much better: between the heat, the humidity, the lack of water, the old and very young dying from dehydration... and there was no place to lay down, not even room on the sidewalk. they slept outside Wednesday night, under an overpass.
Denise said yes, there were young men with guns there. but they organized the crowd. they went to Canal Street and "looted," and brought back food and water for the old people and the babies, because nobody had eaten in days. when the police rolled down windows and yelled out "the buses are coming," the young men with guns organized the crowd in order: old people in front, women and children next, men in the back. just so that when the buses came, there would be priorities of who got out first.
Denise said the fights she saw between the young men with guns were fist fights. she saw them put their guns down and fight rather than shoot up the crowd. but she said that there were a handful of people shot in the convention center; their bodies were left inside, along with other dead babies and old people.
Denise said the people thought there were being sent there to die. lots of people being dropped off, nobody being picked up. cops passing by, speeding off. national guard rolling by with guns aimed at them. and yes, a few men shot at the police, because at a certain point all the people thought the cops were coming to hurt them, to kill them all. she saw a young man who had stolen a car speed past, cops in pursuit; he crashed the car, got out and ran, and the cops shot him in the back. in front of the whole crowd. she saw many groups of people decide that they were going to walk across the bridge to the west bank, and those same groups would return, saying that they were met at the top of the bridge by armed police ordering them to turn around, that they weren't allowed to leave. I have class issues. I've never been comfortable with wealthy people and the notion of wealth. I recently told someone that my feelings are a result of my hatred of the relentless pursuit of material wealth--a soulless endeavor which I believe does not cause happiness, despite society's claims. I explained that the lifestyles of the rich and famous first create envy. This is followed by the empty pursuit of wealth. The conclusion of this sad quest is frustration and unhappiness.But I forgot why, about a decade ago, I came to hate vast wealth in the first place. I'll get to the explanation some other day. At any rate, though, I was reminded two weeks ago.Like so many other people, I was disgusted to see that the poorest and neediest of New Orleans' residents were left behind to fend for themselves when Hurricane Katrina came ashore. We live in a nation in which some people can afford a $1390 handbag from Prada ; we live in a nation in which certain wealthy people feel no qualms spending thousands on shoes; we live in a nation in which many are expected to spend exorbitant amounts of money on weddings. Yet we live in a nation that treats its most vulnerable citizens like sewer rats. This is morally reprehensible. It simply cannot be defended.Here's one tale of horror:
The amount of money Americans have donated in the wake of the hurricane to organizations such as the Red Cross is staggering. Their commendable generosity will undoubtedly help the victims of Katrina. However, these people have been victimized by society for years and nothing has been done. Think about it: While New Orleans's destitute were suffering, a wealthy American was probably shopping for a $55,000 Hummer. This person was able to frivolously waste money on a vehicle that will waste a colossal amount of fuel while poor New Orleans residents without cars were stuck in a soon-to-be war zone. How can this be? How can we treat them so callously?
Consider the following graph:
Source: Arthur B. Kennickell, "A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001"
This massive concentration of wealth at the very top fuels much of our economy. Because they are the captains of the economic ship, the wealthy are treated best. If we don't treat them exceptionally, they argue that they will become disenchanted and our economy will suffer. They are given absurd tax cuts and their corporations benefit from legislation that harms the general welfare of this nation. Therefore, the barons of industry are living the high life while many are struggling. So what if the bottom 50% struggles? They own less than three percent of the wealth, making their economic impact miniscule.
Of course, the captains still need passengers on their ship. These are the people who drive the consumer economy. Consider the following graphs:
Source: Washington Post
The people in the top fifth and, to a lesser extent, the fourth fifth, have always occupied more seats on the boat. As the wages of the top fifth continue to dramatically rise, these people become increasingly valuable in the eyes of the marketplace. Meanwhile, as the bottom fifth's wages become proportionally smaller, they are worth less in the eyes of the marketplace. Because America worships at the altar of the marketplace, the poor, therefore, are considered worthless people.
Allow me to use a different metaphor. The economic train will continue to run as long as enough people have an increasing supply of disposable income to fuel the train. The conductor doesn't care if the bottom fifth has no gas. He's getting plenty of fuel from the top two-fifths.
This information is no big secret. It's just that no one is paying attention. In fact, shortly before Katrina hit, while many Americans were still following the story of some inconsequential teenager in Aruba, the Wall Street Journal reported the following:
Although the U.S. economy grew robustly last year, the income of the median household slipped a bit, wages of full-time workers fell, the number of Americans living below the poverty line rose and more Americans went without health insurance, the Census Bureau said.
I know you must be thinking that I'm some kind of communist, advocating for an equal distribution of wealth. I'm not. I'm a fan of capitalism, and I believe a capitalistic system will inevitably cause wealth inequality. However, a civilized society must keep that under control. I don't know what the answer is, although I can tell you that abolishing the estate tax is not the answer.
Today on NPR, a fellow from the Brookings Institution offered a suggestion. It may be a start.
I wanted to include this quote from Franklin Roosevelt, but forgot:The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have little. | [
7
] |
Face value - The resurrection of Steve Jobs | ONE morning, about a year ago, a doctor told Steve Jobs that a cancerous tumour in his pancreas would kill him within months, and that it was time to start saying his goodbyes. Later that night, an endoscopy revealed that the tumour could be cut out. But for one day Mr Jobs, the boss of Apple Computer, as well as Pixar, the world's most successful animation studio, stared death in the face.
The experience seems to have invigorated him. Last week, gaunter but otherwise undiminished, he was on a stage in San Francisco, putting on a show (for that is what Apple product launches are) that was as flashy and dynamic as any as he has ever thrown. When businessmen try to rub shoulders with pop stars, the effect is usually embarrassing. But “Steve” had arranged to have his pal, Madonna, pop up on screen and kidded around with her with panache. Does she have an iPod? Of course she has! “That's so duh,” said the superstar playfully. Then Mr Jobs segued into his announcements—a new mobile phone from Motorola that has iTunes, Apple's music software, pre-installed and that represents a beachhead into the world of phones; and the “iPod nano”, a new digital music-player that is thinner than a pencil, but still holds 1,000 songs.
For Mr Jobs, the product launch seemed mainly to be an opportunity to drive home the message that his hold on downloaded and portable music now seems overwhelming. iTunes sells 2m songs a day and has a world market share of 82%—Mr Jobs reckons that it is the world's second-largest internet store, behind only Amazon. And the iPod has a market share of 74%, with 22m sold. For a man who helped launch the personal-computer era in 1976 with the Apple I, but then had to watch Microsoft's Bill Gates walk away with, in effect, the monopoly on PC operating systems (Apple's market share in computers today is less than 3%), this must be some vindication.
The odd thing about near-death experiences—literal or metaphorical—in Mr Jobs's life is that he seems actually to need them sporadically in order to thrive. Mr Jobs himself suggested as much when he addressed the graduating class at Stanford University in June. Until he turned 30 in 1985, Mr Jobs led a life that fits almost every Silicon Valley cliché. He dropped out of college (like Bill Gates and Michael Dell); he started a company with a friend in a garage (like everybody from Hewlett and Packard to the founders of Google); he launched a revolution (the PC era). Big deal. The interesting event occurred when he was 30 and got fired from his own company, after Apple's board turned against him. He was “devastated”. His career seemed dead.
Characteristically, though, Mr Jobs bounced back, once he realised, as he said at Stanford, that “the heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again.” He did something uninterrupted success might have made impossible: he became more creative. In 1986 he started two new companies, NeXT, a computer-maker that was always too far ahead of its time, and Pixar, an animation studio that went on to have a series of box-office hits. A decade later, ironically enough, NeXT was bought by Apple, and Mr Jobs was brought back to run the company he had founded.
Mr Jobs, a pescatarian (ie, a vegetarian who eats fish) with a philosophical streak and a strong interest in the occult, interprets these reversals as lessons. As befits a man who grew up in California in the 1960s, he proclaims his belief in karma and in love. Not necessarily love of his employees, apparently—some of whom have found working for him a nightmare—but love of one's ideals. Always do only what you love, and never settle, he advised the students at Stanford. His brush with cancer, in particular, seems to have focused his mind. “Death is very likely the single best invention in life,” Mr Jobs told his young audience. “All external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure—these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.”
Do not get the impression that Mr Jobs is now hugging strangers in random acts of kindness. He is still testy, irascible and difficult; he is still prepared to sue teenagers who publish Apple gossip on their websites for alleged abuses of trade secrets. But the reminders of mortality have changed him. “He was already softened” after his public humbling in 1985, says Bruce Chizen, the boss of Adobe Systems, a software company that is a long-time partner of Apple's. After the cancer, he says, “he's even softer” and, Mr Chizen reckons, even more creative.
New toys on the way
Mr Jobs's rivals may feel the same way. The digerati in Silicon Valley, Redmond (Microsoft), Tokyo (Sony), Seoul (Samsung) and other places now simply take it for granted that Mr Jobs has a top-secret conveyor belt that will keep churning out best-selling wonders like the iPod. What could these toys be? A portable video player is rumoured. A new and cooler sort of television is possible. A user-friendly and elegant mobile-phone handset would be nice, perhaps called something like “iPhone”.
Hollywood and music studios are also increasingly frightened. The music studios, which barely took him seriously when he launched iTunes in 2001, are sick of his power and are pressuring him to change his 99-cents-per-song flat rate for music. Slim chance. Disney, a long-time partner of Pixar whom Mr Jobs broke with when he got tired of its former boss, is now trying to worm its way back into his favour.
In short, Mr Jobs currently seems vivacious by anybody's standards. There are even rumours that he might run for governor of California (as a Democrat, presumably; Al Gore is on Apple's board). For somebody famous in large part for a spectacular defeat—to Bill Gates and Microsoft—all this must feel like a new lease of life, in every respect. | [
30
] |
California bans school junk food | High-fat foods will have to be replaced with healthier options
"We are going to terminate obesity in California once and for all," the former bodybuilder and actor said.
The new laws extend to high schools a ban on soft drinks already in place at primary schools.
New limits on fat and sugar content have also been set for vending-machine snacks and food sold in school stores.
Federal nutrition standards currently cover the lunches served by most state-funded schools.
Healthy options
Mr Schwarzenegger signed the bills after walking 1km (0.62 miles) with bicycle racing champion Lance Armstrong and hundreds of schoolchildren.
"California is facing an obesity epidemic," Mr Schwarzenegger said. "Today we are taking some first steps in creating a healthy future for California."
Schwarzenegger is a long-time health campaigner
Under the new rules, pizza, burritos, pasta and sandwiches must contain no more than four grams of fat for every 100 calories, with a total of no more than 400 calories.
From 2007, students will only be allowed to buy water, milk and some fruit and sports drinks that contain a controlled amount of sweeteners.
It is thought that the move could cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollar in lost income, as they receive money from companies in return for allowing them to sell their products in schools.
Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association, called the soda ban "unnecessary", and said that students would have been better served by a voluntary programme.
School nutritionists have welcomed the changes.
"We won't be selling 10oz (283g) burritos at 700 calories and shouldn't be," Marty Marshall, legislation chairwoman of the California School Nutrition Association, told the Los Angeles Times newspaper. | [
7
] |
Attack of the 800-pound pinnipeds | Situation vacant: town shooer required for small southern Californian harbour community. Must be prepared to work all hours. Should not be afraid of water or 800-pound pinnipeds.
Newport harbour, just south of Los Angeles, has a problem. A large problem. A large, blubbery problem, with fetid breath, bad manners and a propensity to bark deep into the night. Oh, and it likes to sink boats too.
Two weeks ago the Razzle Dazzle, a recently restored 1910 sailing boat, sank in Newport Harbour. It had been boarded by 18 of the sea lions who have adopted the harbour as their home. Unfortunately for Razzle Dazzle's owner, Jerry Dunlap, their combined weight was too much for the antique boat.
"I was kind of dumbfounded," said Dunlap. "This is a major setback. I'm 63, I don't know if I feel like working another two years to get a boat to work."
The sea lion invasion continues southern California's recent spate of encounters with the wonderful world of nature. The silly season, at least here, shows no sign of abating.
The Monster of Machado Lake - or Reggie the caiman, to give him his official name - is still at large in Harbor Park. Alligator wrangler Jay Young - the man brought in from Colorado to catch the overgrown house-pet - told news agencies at the weekend that he had successfully wrangled Reggie and had carted him off to the LA zoo.
"He put up a good fight," said Young, his alligator-tooth necklace glinting in the evening sun. Except, he hadn't. In fact, Young wasn't even in California at the time.
"To the best of my knowledge and all the reports I have received this morning, it was a hoax," said Ron Berkowitz, of the LA parks department. "There was no capture."
Fortunately for Berkowitz, Young and, indeed, Reggie, California's attention had been diverted a few miles south to the more visible threat posed by the marauding sea lions at Newport Harbor.
The sea lions appeared in May, and began doing all those cute sea lion things tourists love to see: basking in the sun, croaking in a general way at anything and nothing, and looking for food.
Unfortunately for the boat owners and residents, their chosen basking spot went from a flat spot near an anglers club to the decks of boats. Swim stairs, rather than being a deterrent, have merely enabled the sea lions to board the boats.
Boat owners have placed chairs and other barriers on their decks to deter the beasts, but to little avail. Two days before it was pushed to the bottom of the sea, Harbor Patrol deputies chased a sea lion from the Razzle Dazzle's cabin.
"We've done what we can," said the Harbor Patrol's Erin Giudice. "Hopefully, we can educate people that these are not nice animals that look cute."
It was time for drastic action. Unfortunately, Newport Harbor authorities are limited in what they can do.
Following the near disappearance of sea lions from the Californian coast, Congress passed the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, which forbade the killing or even the harassment of sea lions. The measure was so successful that there are now an estimated 400,000 of them lolling off the west coast of the US.
Fortunately, other communities have faced the be-whiskered threat before and have come up with an array of interesting if ineffective measures to deter the interlopers.
Seattle introduced "Fake Willy", a plastic whale plopped into Puget Sound to deter sea lions nine years ago. But the sea lions weren't fooled. Others have tried underwater fireworks and piped predator sounds, to little avail.
At a Harbor Commission meeting on Wednesday, one resident told how she scared the sea lions off by squirting them with a garden hose.
"These animals hate to get wet," said Monica DeAngelis of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "It's kind of funny."
The Commission voted to ask the city council to pass a law banning the feeding of sea lions. "The more you feed wild animals, the more they want to hang around," said Chris Miller, harbour resources supervisor.
And the idea of recruiting a sea lion shooer, to walk around banging a stick on the dock to disturb the beasts? It has been tried with some success in other places, but Newport's residents decided it would be too costly and, like the sea lions themselves, too noisy. | [
8
] |
Insurers being sued over Katrina | Emotions are running high over the post-Katrina clean-up
The claim has been made by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood who has launched legal proceedings.
He said representatives for the firms had been asking people to sign forms saying they sustained flood damage, which is not covered by their policies.
All five companies have strongly denied the accusations.
"I want the insurance companies to pay what they actually owe the people of Mississippi," he said, adding that he thought their representatives were "unconscionable".
Strong denials
The five companies being sued by Mr Hood are Nationwide Mutual Insurance, Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance, State Farm Fire and Casualty, Allstate Property and Casualty, and United Services Automobile Association.
Jim Hood has called the insurance firms 'unconscionable'
Mr Hood said that the firms are demanding policyholders sign the forms in order to gain an immediate cheque to cover living expenses.
"The allegations made by the Mississippi Attorney General are unfounded," said Nationwide Mutual Insurance.
"Our company is absolutely not asking policyholders to acknowledge damage is flood related in order to receive a cheque for living expenses." | [
3
] |
Schneier on Security | DUI Cases Thrown Out Due to Closed-Source Breathalyzer
Really:
Hundreds of cases involving breath-alcohol tests have been thrown out by Seminole County judges in the past five months because the test’s manufacturer will not disclose how the machines work.
I think this is huge. (Think of the implications for voting systems, for one.) And it’s the right decision. Throughout history, the government has had to make the choice: prosecute, or keep your investigative methods secret. They couldn’t have both. If they wanted to keep their methods secret, they had to give up on prosecution.
People have the right to confront their accuser. And people have the right to a public trial. This is the correct decision, and we are all safer because of it.
Posted on September 16, 2005 at 6:46 AM • 72 Comments | [
3
] |
Political Calculations: A Grand Plan for Rail in the West | Unexpectedly Intriguing!
Economically speaking, of all the ways to transport people between cities, rail is perhaps the stupidest. Nowhere else do we see the confluence of extraordinarily high infrastructure costs (land, construction, equipment, facilities, etc.) and extraordinarily high operating costs (labor, maintenance, fuel, utilities, overhead, etc.) combine with extraordinarily low demand by commuters to produce such little tangible benefit.
That's why the recent report by the Associated Press' Catherine Tsai of plans by a Denver group seeking to build a high-speed commuter rail line from Wyoming to New Mexico should light up big, bright, neon, flashing "WARNING" signs to responsible public officials who would be asked to contribute tax money to support the boondoggle.
The group, Front Range Commuter Rail, led by former Colorado state representative Bob Briggs is advocating connecting the cities of Cheyenne, Wyoming, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New Mexico with high-speed passenger rail service. Trains would travel over a 602 mile long route at speeds of 110 miles per hour in the group's plan.
The plan is being pushed forward to exploit the perceived good graces of Denver-area voters who voted last November to expand rail service in Denver's metropolitan area. The plan also has the support of Cheyenne LEADS, a private corporation that supports economic development in that city.
Tsai's report notes that the group has gained support from several members of Colorado's delegation to the U.S. Congress (links added):
This political support is necessary for the advancement of the project, since the rail lines that the group would seek to convert from freight to high-speed rail service would need to be designated as a high-speed rail corridor in order to obtain federal funding for the project. Initially, the funding would be used to conduct a study of the feasibility of the project, and later the conversion of the line from freight to high-speed passenger rail service.
The conversion of the existing freight rail lines to high-speed rail lines would be expensive, costing roughly $3 to $4 million dollars per mile. Assuming that all 602 miles of rail line would need to be converted puts the minimum cost of just installing the high-speed rail tracks at $1.8 to $2.4 billion dollars.
Tsai summarizes the group's goals for ridership:
The grand plan is to have a line offering one trip per hour, 18 hours a day, carrying 3.5 million to 4 million people a year, Briggs said.
Using these numbers, assuming 260 working days per year and 18 trips per day, Briggs is counting on moving an average 13,462 and 15,385 people per day, or between 748 to 855 people per trip.
By contrast, Amtrak presently carries roughly 64,000 passengers a day over its entire nationwide system. Chris Suellentrop of Slate provides additional numbers for comparison:
Amtrak carries about 64,000 passengers a day. That compares to 1.8 million passengers daily for domestic airlines and 984,000 passengers daily for intercity buses. That's right, more than 15 times as many Americans use intercity buses than use Amtrak. And those are just the mass-transit options for intercity travel. More people drive between cities than take a plane.
Unless the group is prepared to remove Interstate 25 from the western landscape, it's highly unlikely it would ever see anything close to these figures. Anyone with any opportunity to vote against this boondoggle should do so, especially in light of greater, real needs following Hurricane Katrina.
Previous Rail-Related Posts at Political Calculations
Labels: economics, public transportation | [
3
] |
'Chilli finger' pair plead guilty | Ayala faces up to nine years in jail over the chilli finger scam
Anna Ayala, 39, faces up to nine years in jail while her husband Jaime Placencia, 43, could get 13 years.
Ms Ayala's claim is said to have cost the third-largest US burger chain $2.5m (£1.3m) in lost sales.
The woman had claimed she had bitten into the finger at a Wendy's restaurant in San Jose, California, in March.
Investigators later found the finger belonged to construction worker Brian Rossiter, who had lost it in an industrial accident and sold it to Mr Placencia for $100.
Ms Ayala initially claimed she had bitten down on the finger which she described as "kind of hard, crunchy".
She said the incident had caused her "great emotional distress".
She has since withdrawn her lawsuit against Wendy's.
The fast food chain has insisted all along that the finger did not originate at one of its establishments as no staff had lost a digit and no suppliers had reported any accidents involving hands.
It says it has had to sack employees because of the loss in sales.
The couple have been in police custody since their arrest earlier this year. | [
3
] |
After Blocking the Bridge, Gretna Circles the Wagons | Little over a week after this mostly white suburb became a symbol of callousness for using armed officers to seal one of the last escape routes from New Orleans -- trapping thousands of mostly black evacuees in the flooded city -- the Gretna City Council passed a resolution supporting the police chief’s move.
“This wasn’t just one man’s decision,” Mayor Ronnie C. Harris said Thursday. “The whole community backs it.”
Three days after Hurricane Katrina hit, Gretna officers blocked the Mississippi River bridge that connects their city to New Orleans, exacerbating the sometimes troubled relationship with their neighbor. The blockade remained in place into the Labor Day weekend.
Gretna (pop. 17,500) is a feisty blue-collar city, two-thirds white, that prides itself on how quickly its police respond to 911 calls; it warily eyes its neighbor, a two-thirds black city (pop. about 500,000) that is also a perennial contender for the murder capital of the U.S.
Advertisement
Itself deprived of power, water and food for days after Katrina struck Aug. 29, Gretna suddenly became the destination for thousands of people fleeing New Orleans. The smaller town bused more than 5,000 of the newcomers to an impromptu food distribution center miles away. As New Orleans residents continued to spill into Gretna, tensions rose.
After someone set the local mall on fire Aug. 31, Gretna Police Chief Arthur S. Lawson Jr. proposed the blockade.
“I realized we couldn’t continue, manpower-wise, fuel-wise,” Lawson said Thursday. Armed Gretna police, helped by local sheriff’s deputies and bridge police, turned hundreds of men, women and children back to New Orleans.
Gretna is not the only community that views New Orleans with distrust. Authorities in St. Bernard Parish, to the east, stacked cars to seal roads from the Crescent City. But Gretna’s decision has become the symbol of the ultimate act of a bad neighbor, gaining notoriety partly from an account in the Socialist Worker newspaper by two San Francisco emergency workers and labor leaders who were in a crowd turned back by Gretna police.
Advertisement
Numerous angry e-mails to Gretna officials accuse them of racism. (Harris and Lawson are white.)
New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin said Thursday that Gretna officials “will have to live” with their decision.
“We allowed people to cross ... because they were dying in the convention center,” Nagin said. “We made a decision to protect people.... They made a decision to protect property.”
Paul Ribaul, 37, a New Orleans TV-station engineer from Gretna, said New Orleans and the suburbs have a complicated relationship.
Advertisement
“We say we’re from New Orleans, but we’re a suburb,” he said. “The reason we don’t live there is we don’t like the crime, the politics.”
Ribaul was among Gretna residents who praised the decision to close the bridge. “It makes you feel safe to live in a city like that,” he said.
Critics suspect a racial motive for the blockade. City officials heatedly deny any such thing.
Among black residents of Gretna, some say that although they get along with most of their white neighbors, a few of the neighbors harbor strong prejudices.
Advertisement
Some black Gretna residents also speak fearfully of New Orleans. “We don’t have as much killing over here as in New Orleans,” said Leslie Anne Williams, 42.
Nonetheless, Williams’ mother, a lifelong Gretna resident who is also black, disapproved of the Police Department’s decision. People fleeing New Orleans “probably had a better chance of survival over here,” said Laura Williams, 70, “especially with all that shooting” across the river.
When Katrina hit, about 5,000 of Gretna’s residents were still in town. Police zigzagged the trim streets of ranch houses and older wooden buildings, checking on those who had not evacuated.
Like New Orleans, Gretna lost power and water. Town officials pleaded unsuccessfully for help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Then they learned that New Orleans officials had told the thousands trapped in that city’s downtown, similarly deprived of food and water but also dodging gunfights and rising floodwaters, to cross to Gretna.
Advertisement
Not sure how to feed even their own residents, Gretna officials were overwhelmed by New Orleans’ evacuees. They organized bus caravans Aug. 31 to take the arrivals to Metairie, 16 miles away, where a food and water distribution center had been set up.
The evacuees waited for rides out of Gretna at the foot of the bridge, across the street from Oakwood Mall. As the hours ticked by and the crowd swelled, trouble began, Gretna authorities said.
Sometime on Wednesday, Aug. 31, a fire broke out in the mall, next to the local branch of the sheriff’s office, and police chased suspected looters out of the building.
Mayor Harris had had enough. He called the state police.
Advertisement
“I said: ‘There will be bloodshed on the west bank if this continues,’ ” Harris recalled. “ ‘This is not Gretna. I am not going to give up our community!’ ”
The following morning, Gretna’s police chief made his decision: Seal the bridge.
The San Francisco paramedics said in an interview and in their article that there were gunshots over the heads of people crossing the bridge from New Orleans’ convention center -- many of them elderly -- where they were stuck for days without food, water and working toilets.
Nagin, New Orleans’ mayor, said that he’d heard similar reports about gunfire, as well as people being turned back by guard dogs.
Advertisement
Chief Lawson said that he was unaware of any of his officers shooting over the heads of evacuees on the bridge but said that one black officer did fire a shot overhead to quiet an unruly crowd waiting to board a bus.
Harris said Thursday that closing the bridge was a tough decision but that he felt it was right.
“We didn’t even have enough food here to feed our own residents,” Harris said. “We took care of our folks. It’s something we had to do.”
*
Advertisement
Times staff writer James Rainey contributed to this report. | [
8
] |
Tongue-eating bug found in fish | The bug - which has the scientific name cymothoa exigua - was discovered inside the mouth of a red snapper bought from a London fishmonger.
The 3.5cm creature had grabbed onto the fish's tongue and slowly ate away at it until only a stub was left.
It then latched onto the stub and became the fish's "replacement tongue".
Excited
Scientists are very excited by the find.
Dr Jim Brock of the Horniman Museum in south London told Metro newspaper: "I have not seen this species in all my 13 years at the museum so it's a remarkable find."
What the bug looks like
The bugs are usually found off the coast of California, so it's possible the fish was imported to the UK.
Freaked out
But don't be too freaked out - scientists say the creature does not pose any threat to humans and only attaches itself to fish tongues. | [
11
] |
Seventeen ways to kill a sentence (idea) by Rancid_Pickle | Follow these 17 guideline s to kill the logic of any sentence. Start with this familiar example:
Jack and Jill climbed up the hill to fetch a pail of water.
Use weak verbs:
Jack and Jill went up the hill to get a pail of water. Use unfamiliar words:
Jack and Jill climbed up the hill to fetch a ewer of water. Put introductory phrases at the beginning to push the subject back:
To fetch a pail of water, Jack and Jill climbed up the hill. Keep the subject and the verb as far apart as possible:
Jack and Jill, to fetch a pail of water, climbed up the hill. Put the action at the end of the sentence:
Jack and Jill, to fetch a pail of water, climbed up the hill. Keep modifiers as far as possible from the words they modify:
Jack and Jill climbed to fetch a pail of water up the hill. Use passive voice:
The hill was climbed by Jack and Jill so that a pail of water could be fetched. Put the doer at the end of the sentence:
To fetch a pail of water, the hill was climbed by Jack and Jill. Introduce false subjects:
It was Jack and Jill that climbed up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Pile on the gobbledygook:
Jack and Jill ascended the acclivity to retrieve a vessel of Adam's ale. Turn verbs into nouns:
Jack and Jill did the hill climb for the purpose of water retrieval. Use unnecessary technical jargon:
Jack and Jill traversed the gradient to fetch an alembic of H2O. Feature inappropriate precision:
John Q. Wembley and Jillian Fitzgerald climbed 1.6093 kilometers to fetch 3.785 liters of water. Add wordy phrases:
Jack in the company of Jill climbed their way up the hill for the purpose of fetching water in the approximate amount of a pail's full. Multiply redundant words:
Both Jack and Jill climbed all the way up to the top of the hill's summit to fetch a pail filled to its capacity with water. Throw in clichés indiscriminately:
Jack and Jill, who need no introduction, climbed up the hill by leaps and bounds to fetch through their good offices a pail of water by hook or by crook String lots of nouns together to form the subject:
The Jack and Jill water retrieval hill climb was achieved.
Put all 17 together:
It was the Jack and Jill H2O retrieval in an alembic vessel that was achieved via the ascent of the acclivity up to its summit in leaps and bounds through the good offices of John Q. Wembley and Jillian Fitzgerald who need no introduction.
Email from Crassius of the Great Jazz Hall | [
17
] |
In New York Cribs, Jeff and Lisa Give Way to Ahmed and Chaya | It is not news that the ethnic makeup of New York City is changing and has been for decades. But the effects this has on the names of the city's newborns can be dramatic, and surprising. "When you look at the incredible diversity of the top of the New York naming list," said Laura Wattenberg, author of "The Baby Name Wizard" (Broadway Books, 2005), "there are two different phenomena working together. There is the rising diversity of the population and the willingness to use names from your ethnic background rather than adopting an Anglo name, which is a change from past generations. At the same time, there is a fall of the usage of the Anglo-Christian classics."
Names speak to parents' aspirations for their children. Everyone has one, and, of course, they are free, said Stanley Lieberson, a Harvard sociology professor who wrote "A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions and Culture Change" (Yale, 2000). And because few special interest groups have anything to gain in baby name selection, "It's clean from commercial influences and not simply a reflection of affluence," Professor Lieberson said.
According to the names released yesterday, Michael and Emily still hang on to their top positions, with Daniel and Ashley close behind. However, there were differences across groups, with Emily the most popular name among Asian-Americans, Ashley the top name for Hispanics, Kayla among blacks and Sarah for whites. And, just for the record, there were 27 Katrinas born last year, placing the name out of the top 300.
But look more deeply into the list, beyond the Top 10, and the ebb and flow of changes over the years becomes more apparent.
Religion is far and away the biggest influence on names around the world. Some of that is reflected in New York City, which attracts a wide cross section of Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Hindus, all of whom have strong religious naming traditions. | [
3
] |
Enthusiast uses Google to reveal Roman ruins : Nature News | Published online 14 September 2005 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news050912-6
News
Google Earth programme leads to remains of ancient villa.
Analysis of a Google map led to the discovery of a Roman villa like this one in Parma, Italy. © Cultural Ministry Emilia Romagna
Using satellite images from Google Maps and Google Earth, an Italian computer programmer has stumbled upon the remains of an ancient villa. Luca Mori was studying maps of the region around his town of Sorbolo, near Parma, when he noticed a prominent, oval, shaded form more than 500 metres long. It was the meander of an ancient river, visible because former watercourses absorb different amounts of moisture from the air than their surroundings do.
His eye was caught by unusual 'rectangular shadows' nearby. Curious, he analysed the image further, and concluded that the lines must represent a buried structure of human origin. Eventually, he traced out what looked like the inner courtyards of a villa.
Mori, who describes the finding on his blog, Quellí Della Bassa , contacted archaeologists, including experts at the National Archaeological Museum of Parma. They confirmed the find. At first it was thought to be a Bronze Age village, but an inspection of the site turned up ceramic pieces that indicated it was a Roman villa.
"Mori's research is interesting in its approach," says Manuela Catarsi Dall'Aglio, an archaeologist at the National Archaeological Museum of Parma. He says the find may be similar to a villa the museum is currently excavating at Cannetolo di Fontanellato, which was found during the construction of a high-speed rail network. "Only a scientific, archeological dig will tell," he adds.
The local authorities will have to approve any archaeological digs before they can take place. | [
4
] |
Recovering New Orleans’ dead subordinated to profit and politics | Recovering New Orleans’ dead subordinated to profit and politics
By John Levine
16 September 2005
One of the essential tasks in a disaster recovery operation—after evacuation and care for the living—is the removal of the dead. This is essential both to prevent the spread of disease and to identify the remains of those who were lost. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, however, federal and state authorities did not even begin the process for more than a week.
The delay in retrieving the bodies of Katrina’s victims is one of the most telling examples of the indifference of the authorities to the massive human suffering caused by the disaster.
Incompetence and negligence—combined with contracting out the task to a private company—have resulted in a situation where bodies have been allowed to literally rot beyond recognition in the fetid flood waters that still cover large parts of New Orleans.
A major factor contributing to the delay in carrying out this grim task has been the Bush administration’s concern about the impact that a rising body count will have on public opinion. Having already come under sharp criticism for the devastating consequences of its botched response to the hurricane, the administration sought to delay for as long as possible news and images of the bodies adding to the mounting death toll.
The ham-fisted attempt of the top military officer in New Orleans, Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, to block any news coverage of the recovery operation collapsed in the face of a legal challenge from the CNN cable television news network. Honore’s claim that the principal concern was “dignity” was belied by the blatant failure to do anything to collect bodies that littered the city’s streets in the previous days.
The operation was rendered even more sordid by bitter disputes between the local authorities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the private contractor—Kenyon International Emergency Services—over the terms of the commercial agreement struck for collecting corpses. Louisiana’s Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco and FEMA officials haggled for days with Kenyon over a business deal giving them exclusive rights to profits from body recovery.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune quoted David Passey, a spokesman for FEMA, telling the newspaper he “could not say why active-duty and National Guard soldiers have not been participating in the body collection process even though they constitute the largest relief personnel presence in the New Orleans area.”
The paper also cites Ricardo Zuniga, another FEMA spokesman, who “said Monday that the agency’s policy barred military and municipal police officers from touching the bodies, except to tag them and report their location to higher authorities.”
Spokesmen for Kenyon have said the company arrived in Louisiana in early September, but did not begin working until September 7, and then only on the basis of an oral contract.
The company then threatened to leave, according to Blanco, when FEMA would not provide it with an acceptable written contract. Governor Blanco stepped in, signing a deal with the company, even though she insisted that it was FEMA’s responsibility.
The fact that the sensitive and urgent task of retrieving victims’ bodies is contracted out to a private corporation is itself testimony to the contempt for Katrina’s victims. It is a prime example of how big business and its political representatives subordinate all aspects of social life to profit.
The operation was gripped by chaos as federal and local authorities conflicted over who was really in charge of signing the deal. In 1997, FEMA formed a working agreement with Kenyon to provide disaster relief services, including mobile morgues and body recovery services, according to a company spokesman. Governor Blanco, too, said, “recovery of bodies is a FEMA responsibility.”
Yet, according to FEMA spokesman David Passey, “From the beginning, the state had indicated that it will collect the bodies.” He directly contradicted Blanco, saying, “The collection of bodies is not normally a FEMA responsibility.”
He claimed that Blanco’s administration had indicated it would take responsibility for the corpses, but then changed its mind, asking for federal assistance. FEMA, according to Passey, then brought in Kenyon on an oral contract on September 7, nine days after the hurricane, while it continued negotiations with company officials.
FEMA offered Kenyon a written contract, but the company rejected the deal. “It was a business decision,” said Bill Berry, a spokesman for Kenyon. The company began work with roughly 115 workers based on the oral contract, which had been set to expire Tuesday. Berry complained that FEMA made no arrangements with the company to help it retrieve bodies.
After Kenyon threatened to withdraw its workers from the disaster region on Monday, the state of Louisiana signed its own contract with the company on Tuesday. According to Reuters, “The contract between the company and the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals runs from September 12 to November 15 at a daily personnel rate of $118,980, after a 10 percent discount. Kenyon also estimated expenses of around $639,000 for the first 31 days of its mission, covering everything from body bags to trailers to laundry services for its staffers.” It will also provide for housing closer to New Orleans.
The company says it will increase its staff by the “tens and twenties, if not more,” from its current 115. If it had 150 workers in the area, that would amount to an average of nearly $800 per employee per day, surely with the bulk of the funds going to company profits and salaries of top executives based in Houston, Texas. And this does not include expenses which will be charged to the state as the company deems fit.
Kenyon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Service Corporation International (SCI)—which runs one of the largest chains of funeral homes in the country—worked at the World Trade Center site in 2001 as well as in Thailand to retrieve Australian citizens after last year’s tsunami. It also had a contract with the United Nations in Baghdad in the initial stages of the war to provide “mortuary operations, family assistance and disposition of personal effects,” according its web site.
Based in Houston and publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, SCI owns 1,500 funeral homes throughout North America, and has been a close political supporter of George W. Bush since his days as governor of Texas.
SCI has been implicated in multiple scandals—involving unlicensed embalmers, the digging up and dumping of bodies to clear space for new graves and more profits and the stuffing of bodies sent for cremation into sheds.
When the company came under investigation in Texas during Bush’s term as governor, an SCI employee threatened the lives of state regulators. Nonetheless, Bush defended its CEO, Robert Waltrip, helping to scuttle the probe.
The Texas legislature, whose members also received political contributions from SCI employees, passed a law overhauling the Texas Funeral Service Commission, the agency in charge of regulating the funeral industry, and the investigators lost their posts.
The controversy led to a lawsuit by the commission’s director against Bush, charging the then-Texas governor with obstructing a legal investigation and having her fired for refusing to go along.
Playing a prominent role in the scandal was Joe Allbaugh, then governor Bush’s chief of staff and later his first appointment as FEMA’s director. Currently, Allbaugh’s private firm is “helping coordinate the private-sector response to the storm,” according to the Washington Post.
One of Allbaugh’s top clients is Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton (the company formerly run by Dick Cheney, the vice president), which is already profiting from reconstruction contracts in the Katrina disaster. | [
6
] |
Robert Byrd's "A Haunting Silence" speech | Here is the speech that United States Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) gave on the floor of the Senate on February 12, 2003.
This speech was given during the military mobilization for the 2003 Iraq War, where the United States and a few allies, most notably the United Kingdom (but specifically not France or Germany) invaded Iraq, in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein and rid the world of this threat to global security.
Or so the administration of President George W. Bush wanted us to believe. Most of the Democrats at the time were strangely, almost cowardly, silent, including eventual presidential candidate John Kerry, who ought to have known better. There were few mainstream Democrats who spoke out strongly against the war, before it happened. Byrd was one, and he spoke to try to shake the nation out of the war fever that was building.
Sadly, he failed. And over 1,000 U.S. and coalition soldiers and tens of thousands of non-combatant Iraqi civilians have died. Hussein is in prison, but the neo-conservative pipe dream of using Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East seems a long time off.
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, underfunding scores of essential programs for our people. This administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in healthcare for our elderly. This administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, international order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer-found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any president after the savage attacks of Sept. 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. | [
6
] |
Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas | [First published April 2005]
We all know someone who’s intelligent, but who occasionally defends obviously bad ideas. Why does this happen? How can smart people take up positions that defy any reasonable logic? Having spent many years working with smart people I’ve cataloged many of the ways this happens, and I have advice on what to do about it. I feel qualified to write this essay as I’m a recovering smart person myself and I’ve defended several very bad ideas. So if nothing else this essay serves as a kind of personal therapy session. However, I fully suspect you’ll get more than just entertainment value (“Look, Scott is more stupid than we thought!”) out of what I have to say on this topic.
Success at defending bad ideas
I’m not entirely proud to admit that I have a degree in Logic and Computation from Carnegie Mellon University. Majoring in logic is not the kind of thing that makes people want to talk to you at parties, or read your essays. But one thing I did learn after years of studying advanced logic theory is that proficiency in argument can easily be used to overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend the ridiculous. If the people you’re arguing with aren’t as comfortable in the tactics of argument, or aren’t as arrogant as you are, they may even give in and agree with you.
The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent’s friends) they’ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it’s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly attended funerals, whose headstones say “Well, at least I was right.”)
Until they come face to face with someone who is tenacious enough to dissect their logic, and resilient enough to endure the thinly veiled intellectual abuse they dish out during debate (e.g. “You don’t really think that do you?”or “Well if you knew the <insert obscure reference here> rule/law/corollary you wouldn’t say such things”), they’re never forced to question their ability to defend bad ideas. Opportunities for this are rare: a new boss, a new co-worker, a new spouse. But if their obsessiveness about being right is strong enough, they’ll reject those people out of hand before they question their own biases and self-manipulations. It can be easier for smart people who have a habit of defending bad ideas to change jobs, spouses, or cities rather than honestly examine what is at the core of their psyche (and often, their misery).
Short of obtaining a degree in logic, or studying the nuances of debate, remember this one simple rule for defusing those who are skilled at defending bad ideas: Simply because they cannot be proven wrong, does not make them right. Most of the tricks of logic and debate refute questions and attacks, but fail to establish any true justification for a given idea.
For example, just because you can’t prove that I’m not the king of France reincarnated doesn’t make it so. So when someone tells you “My plan A is the best because no one has explained how it will fail” know that there is a logical gap in this argument. Simply because no one has described how it will fail, doesn’t necessarily make it the best plan. It’s possible than plans B, C, D and E all have the same quality, or that the reason no one has described how A will fail is that no one has had more than 30 seconds to scrutinize the plan. As we’ll discuss later, diffusing bad thinking requires someone (probably you) to construct a healthier framework around the bad thinking that shows it for what it is.
Death by homogeny
The second stop on our tour of commonly defended bad ideas is the seemingly friendly notion of communal thinking. Just because everyone in the room is smart doesn’t mean that collectively they will arrive at smart ideas. The power of peer pressure is that it works on our psychology, not our intellect. As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the people around us behave, and the quality of our own internal decision making varies widely depending on the environment we currently are in. (e.g. Try to write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs. sitting on a bench in a quiet stretch of open woods).
That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring.
Some teams of people look to focus groups, consultancies, and research methods to bring in outside ideas, but this rarely improves the quality of thinking in the group itself. Those outside ideas, however bold or original, are at the mercy of the diversity of thought within the group itself. If the group, as a collective, is only capable of approving B level work, it doesn’t matter how many A level ideas you bring to it. Focus groups or other outside sources of information can not give a team, or its leaders, a soul. A bland homogeneous team of people has no real opinions, because it consists of people with same backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences who will only feel comfortable discussing the safe ideas that fit into those constraints.
If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas. Find people with different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, weights, heights, races, facial hair styles, colors, past-times, favorite items of clothing, philosophies, and beliefs. Unify them around the results you want, not the means or approaches they are expected to use. It’s the only way to guarantee that the best ideas from your smartest people will be received openly by the people around them. On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. Actually experience life by going to places you don’t usually go, spending time with people you don’t usually spend time with. Be in the moment and be open to it. Until recently in human history, life was much less predictable and we were forced to encounter things not always of our own choosing. We are capable of more interesting and creative lives than our modern cultures often provide for us. If you go out of your way to find diverse experiences it will become impossible for you to miss ideas simply because your homogenous outlook filtered them out.
Thinking at the wrong level
At any moment on any project there are an infinite number of levels of problem solving. Part of being a truly smart person is to know which level is the right one at a given time. For example, if you are skidding out of control at 95mph in your broken down Winnebago on an ice covered interstate, when a semi-truck filled with both poorly packaged fireworks and loosely bundled spark plugs slams on its brakes, it’s not the right time to discuss with your passengers where y’all would like to stop for dinner. But as ridiculous as this scenario sounds, it happens all the time. People worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time and apply their intelligence in ways that doesn’t serve the greater good of whatever they’re trying to achieve. Some call this difference in skill wisdom, in that the wise know what to be thinking about, where as the merely intelligent only know how to think. (The de-emphasis of wisdom is an east vs. west dichotomy: eastern philosophy heavily emphasizes deeper wisdom, where as the post enlightenment west, and perhaps particularly America, heavily emphasizes the intellectual flourishes of intelligence).
In the software industry, the common example of thinking at the wrong level is a team of rock star programmers who can make anything, but don’t really know what to make: so they tend to build whatever things come to mind, never stopping to find someone who might not be adept at writing code, but can see where the value of their programming skills would be best applied. Other examples include people that always worry about money despite how much they have, people who struggle with relationships but invest their energy only in improving their appearance (instead of in therapy or other emotional exploration), or anyone that wants to solve problem X but only ever seems to do things that solve problem Y.
The primary point is that no amount of intelligence can help an individual who is diligently working at the wrong level of the problem. Someone with wisdom has to tap them on the shoulder and say, “Um, hey. The hole you’re digging is very nice, and it is the right size. But you’re in the wrong yard.”
Killed in the long term by short term thinking
From what we know of evolution it’s clear that we are alive because of our inherited ability to think quickly and respond to change. The survival of living creatures, for most of the history of our planet, has been a short term game. Only if you can out-run your predators, and catch your prey, do you have the luxury of worrying about tomorrow.
It follows then that we tend to be better at worrying about and solving short term issues than long term issues. Even when we recognize an important long term issue that we need to plan for, say protecting natural resources or saving for retirement, we’re all too easily distracted away from those deep thoughts by immediate things like dinner or sex (important things no doubt, but the driving needs in these pursuits, at least for this half of the species, are short term in nature). Once distracted, we rarely return to the long term issues we were drawn away from.
A common justification for abuse of short term thinking is the fake perspective defense. The wise, but less confident guy says “hey are you sure we should be doing this?” And the smart, confident, but less wise guy says “of course. We did this last time, and the time before that, so why shouldn’t we do this again?” This is the fake perspective defense because there’s no reason to believe that 2 points of data (e.g. last time plus the time before that) is sufficient to make claims about the future. People say similar things all the time in defense of the free market economy, democracy, and mating strategies. “Well, it’s gotten us this far, and it’s the best system we have”. Well, maybe. But if you were in that broken down Winnebago up to your ankles in gasoline from a leaking tank, smoking a cigarette in each hand, you could say the same thing.
Put simply, the fact that you’re not dead yet doesn’t mean that the things you’ve done up until now shouldn’t have, by all that is fair in the universe, already killed you. You might just need a few more data points for the law of averages to catch up, and put a permanent end to your short term thinking.
How many data points you need to feel comfortable continuing a behavior is entirely a matter of personal philosophy. The wise and skeptical know that even an infinite number of data points in the past may only have limited bearing on the future. The tricky thing about the future is that it’s different than the past. Our data from the past, no matter how big a pile of data it is, may very well be entirely irrelevant. Some find this lack of predictive ability of the future quite frustrating, while others see it as the primary reason to stick around for a few more years.
Anyway, my point is not that Winnebagos or free market economies are bad. Instead I’m saying that short term bits of data are neither reliable nor a wise way to go about making important long term decisions. Intelligent people do this all the time, and since it’s so commonly accepted as a rule of thumb (last time + the time before that), it’s often accepted in place of actual thinking. Always remember that humans, given our evolution, are very bad at seeing the cumulative effects of behavior, and underestimate how things like compound interest or that one cigarette a day, can in the long term, have surprisingly large impacts despite clearly low short term effects.
How to prevent smart people from defending bad ideas
I spent my freshman year at a small college in NJ called Drew University. I had a fun time, ingested many tasty alcoholic beverages, and went to lots of great parties (the result of which of course was that I basically failed out and had to move back to Queens with my parents. You see, the truth is that this essay is really a public service announcement paid for by my parents – I was a smart person that did some stupid things). But the reason I mention all this is because I learned a great bit of philosophy from many hours of playing pool in the college student center. The lesson is this: Speed kills. I was never very good at pool, but this one guy there was, and whenever we’d play, he’d watch me miss easy shots because I tried to force them in with authority. I chose speed and power over control, and I usually lost. So like pool, when it comes to defusing smart people who are defending bad ideas, you have to find ways to slow things down.
The reason for this is simple. Smart people, or at least those whose brains have good first gears, use their speed in thought to overpower others. They’ll jump between assumptions quickly, throwing out jargon, bits of logic, or rules of thumb at a rate of fire fast enough to cause most people to become rattled, and give in. When that doesn’t work, the arrogant or the pompous will throw in some belittlement and use whatever snide or manipulative tactics they have at their disposal to further discourage you from dissecting their ideas.
So your best defense starts by breaking an argument down into pieces. When they say “it’s obvious we need to execute plan A now.” You say, “hold on. You’re way ahead of me. For me to follow I need to break this down into pieces.” And without waiting for permission, you should go ahead and do so.
First, nothing is obvious. If it were obvious there would be no need to say so. So your first piece is to establish what isn’t so obvious. What are the assumptions the other guy is glossing over that are worth spending time on? There may be 3 or 4 different valid assumptions that need to be discussed one at a time before any kind of decision can be considered. Take each one in turn, and lay out the basic questions: what problem are we trying to solve? What alternatives to solving it are there? What are the tradeoffs in each alternative? By breaking it down and asking questions you expose more thinking to light, make it possible for others to ask questions, and make it more difficult for anyone to defend a bad idea.
No one can ever take away your right to think things over, especially if the decision at hand is important. If your mind works best in 3rd or 4th gear, find ways to give yourself the time needed to get there. If when you say ” need the afternoon to think this over”, they say
“tough. We’re deciding now”. Ask if the decision is an important one. If they say yes, then you should be completely justified in asking for more time to think it over and ask questions.
Find a sane person people listen to
Some situations require outside help. Instead of taking a person on directly, get a third party that you both respect, and continue the discussion in their presence. This can be a superior, or simply someone smart enough that the other person might possibly concede points to them.
It follows that if your team manager is wise and reasonable, smart people who might ordinarily defend bad ideas will have a hard time doing so. But sadly if your team manager is neither wise nor reasonable, smart, arrogant people may convince others to follow their misguided ways more often than not.
And yet more reasons
I’m sure you have stories of your own follies dealing with smart people defending bad ideas, or where you, yourself, as a smart person, have spent time arguing for things you regretted later. Given the wondrous multitude of ways the universe has granted humans to be smart and dumb at the same time, there are many more reasons why smart people behave in stupid ways. For fun, and as fodder, here’s a few more.
If you have some thoughts on this essay, or some more reasons to add, leave a comment:
Smart people can follow stupid leaders (seeking praise or promotion)
Smart people may follow their anger into stupid places
They may be trained or educated into stupidity
Smart people can inherit bad ideas from their parents under the guise of tradition
They may simply want something to be true, that can never be
References | [
21
] |
Black holes and the Hawking paradox | Hawking has still to provide a fully worked mathematical proof
His popular science book A Brief History of Time was a publishing sensation, staying at the top of the best-seller lists longer than any other book in recent history.
But behind the public face lies an argument that has been raging for almost 30 years.
Hawking shot to fame in the world of physics when he provided a mathematical proof for the "Big Bang" theory.
This theory showed that the entire Universe exploded from a singularity - an infinitely small point with infinite density and infinite gravity. Hawking was able to come to his proof using mathematical techniques that had been developed by Roger Penrose.
However, Penrose's techniques were developed to deal not with the beginning of the Universe but with black holes.
Science had long predicted that if a sufficiently large star collapsed at the end of its life, all the matter left in the star would be crushed into an infinitely small point with infinite gravity and infinite density - a singularity.
Hawking realised that the Universe was, in effect, a black hole in reverse; instead of matter being crushed into a singularity, the Universe began when a singularity expanded to form everything we see around us today - from stars to planets to people.
Hawking realised that to come to a complete understanding of the Universe, he would have unravel the mysteries of the black hole.
Leaking holes
Hawking and his fellow physicist embarked on an extraordinary intellectual expedition - to tame the black hole. The period from the early 70s to the early 80s became known as the "Golden Age" of black hole research.
Slowly physicists were coming to understand its nature.
But Hawking realised that there was something missing from the picture that was emerging. All work on black holes to that point used the physics of the large-scale Universe.
The physics of gravity - first developed by Newton and then refined by Einstein's general theory of relativity. Hawking realised that to come to a full understanding of black holes, physicists would also have to use the physics of the small-scale Universe; the physics that had been developed to explain the movements of atoms and sub-atomic particles known as quantum mechanics.
The only problem was that no one had ever combined these two areas of physics before. This didn't deter Hawking. He set about developing a new way to force the physics of quantum mechanics to co-exist with Einstein's relativity within the intense gravity of a black hole.
After months of work, Hawking came up with a remarkable result. His equations were showing him that something was coming out of the black hole.
This was supposed to be impossible - the one thing that everyone thought they knew about black holes was that things went in but nothing, not even light itself, could escape.
The more Hawking checked, the more he was convinced he was right. He could see radiation coming out of the black hole. And it led him to the realisation that this radiation (later called Hawking radiation) would cause the black hole to evaporate and eventually disappear.
Shocking revelation
Although Hawking's theories about black hole evaporation were revolutionary, they soon came to be widely accepted. But Hawking felt that this work had far more fundamental consequences.
In 1976 he published a paper in Physical Review D called, "The breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse". In this paper, Hawking argued that it wasn't just the black hole that disappeared.
He said that all the information about everything that had ever been inside the black hole disappeared, too.
The understanding of black has accelerated in recent years
The reason physicists cling on to the idea that information can't be lost is that it's their link with either the past or the future. If information is lost then science can never know the past or predict the future. There are limits to what science can know.
For many years, no one took much notice of Hawking's ideas until a fateful meeting in San Francisco.
Hawking presented his ideas to some of the world's leading physicists, and in the audience were two particle physicists, Gerard t'Hooft and Leonard Susskind.
They were shocked. They both grasped that Hawking's "breakdown of predictability" applied not only to black holes but to all processes in physics.
The long search
According to Susskind, if Hawking's ideas were correct then it would infect all physics; there would no longer be any direct link between cause and effect. Physics would become impotent.
Since that meeting the "information paradox" has come to be seen as one of the most fundamental and most difficult problems in physics.
Arguments effectively boiled down into two camps. On the one side, Susskind and those who believed that Hawking was wrong and that information could not be lost - and on the other, Hawking and those who believed that physics would have to be re-written to take into account the uncertainty about information that Hawking had uncovered.
For 20 years, arguments raged. No side was willing to admit defeat... until a paper emerged written by a brilliant young Argentinean mathematician known as Juan Maldacena.
This paper claimed to be a rigorous mathematical explanation of what happened to information in black holes - and it showed that information was not lost. Hawking, it seemed, was on the losing side. But Hawking was not convinced.
Hawking set to work with a young research student, Christophe Galfard, to try to pick apart the Maldacena paper.
They thought they could use the same mathematical techniques employed by Maldacena to prove that information was in fact lost. But after two years' work, they still could not prove their thesis.
Then disaster struck, Stephen Hawking was taken ill with pneumonia and rushed to hospital; doctors feared for his life.
Hawking was kept in hospital for over three months. But whilst others fussed over his health, Hawking was thinking. Finally, on what many feared might be his death bed, he thought he'd come across what had eluded him for the past 30 years - a solution to the information paradox.
Bold claims
Once again, Hawking defied doctors' dire predictions and was soon at work, working on a new proof for the information paradox.
Then in July last year, at one of the most prestigious conferences in physics, Hawking made a dramatic announcement.
Hawking presented his new position in a Dublin lecture
Hawking presented the outline of a proof that he hoped would at last solve the problem that he had posed almost 30 years earlier. However, despite the bold claims, some physicists remain unconvinced.
Over a year has passed since the conference and Hawking has still not presented a fully worked mathematical proof to back up his ideas.
But Hawking is a stubborn man. If he is going to change his mind on a belief he held for almost 30 years then it will be with his own proof, in his own time.
In spite of failing health and increasing problems communicating with his colleagues, Hawking is still working on the proof.
If he succeeds in completing a proof that convinces his colleagues, he will not only have solved one of the most difficult problems in physics but he will have produced ground-breaking work at the very end of his career.
That would be a feat that even his hero Einstein could not accomplish.
Horizon: The Hawking Paradox was broadcast on BBC Two at 2100 BST on Thursday, 15 September. | [
16
] |
Great Programmers | Sun, Dec. 19th, 2004, 06:33 pm
Great Programmers I've seen a lot of discussion of great programmers, usually centering on how to find them, but usually what people really want to know is how to become one. Since I'm widely considered to be a great programmer, I'll give some advice.
First of all there's raw coding ability. For this, practice makes perfect. Implementing lots of algorithms from, say
There are only two coding skills which mostly people who are completely self-taught as a programmer miss out on: proper encapsulation, and unit tests. For proper encapsulation, you should organize your code so that changes which require modifying code in more than one module are as rare as possible, and for unit tests you should write them to be pass/fail so that all unit tests can be run as a comprehensive suite. And now you know everything you need to about those two things. Anyone who is taught the above guidelines, and decides they really want to learn those skills, will with sufficient practice become good at them.
Coding skill is all well and good, and you can't become a great programmer without it, but it's far from everything. I'm decent at raw coding, but I know many people who are better, and some of them are abysmal programmers. I in particular can't deal with being tasked with fixing up spaghetti code. My brain simply locks down and refuses to make any modifications which it isn't convinced will work, which is of course impossible when the source material is an incurably bug-ridden mess.
What truly separates the great programmers from the journeyman programmers is architecture. What's puzzling is that architecture appears to be one of the simplest parts of the whole process, requiring in most cases little more than some pencil and paper calculations and a willingness to change.
The simplest architectural problems to solve are the ones which for lack of a better theory most people ascribe to emotional or psychological problems. These are decisions for which there's no rational justification whatsoever. For example, writing a non-speed-critical program (which is most of them) in C or C++. A few years ago you could justify that because the other languages didn't have such extensive libraries, but today it's ludicrous. Another one is building one's protocol as a layer on top of webdav. And another one is building a transactional system for retrieving any subsection of any point in the history of an arbitrarily large file in constant time when that isn't part of project requirements. Yes, I'm making fun of subversion here. It's a great example of a project permanently crippled by dumb architectural decisions.
Half of these 'emotional' architectural decisions are dogmatically using a past practice in situations where it's inapplicable. The other half are working on interesting problems which have little or no utility in the finished product. Once decisions like these have been made, questioning them can become a political impossibility. If someone new comes in to a project with many man-years on it, and in their first week learns that there's a networking call which includes a parameter as to whether it should be blocking or non-blocking, and immediately declares that the entire codebase is a mess and difficult if not impossible to maintain, they'll almost certainly be correct and justified, but their opinion will likely be disregarded as as brash and ill-informed. After all, they haven't spent the kind of time on the codebase than everybody else. I've actually had this happen to me, and while others have claimed that there are more political ways of approaching such problems, my experience has been that once the truth becomes unthinkable a couple people need to get fired before any improvement can be made.
My advice about technically unjustifiable architectural decisions is to not do them. If you find yourself doing them, you probably need to get laid or see a shrink or have a beer.
But what if you're emotionally well-adjusted, and want to get better at software architecture? Logging more hours at work will get you nowhere. When I wrote BitTorrent multiple other people were working on the exact same problem, most of them with a big head start and a lot more resources, and yet I still won easily. The problem was that most of them simply could not have come up with BitTorrent's architecture. Not with 20 code monkeys working under them. Not with a decade to work on it. Not after reading every available book on networking protocols. Not ever.
Clearly this isn't because BitTorrent's architecture is terribly difficult to understand. The entire approach can be understood without any really hard thinking in about an hour, with the possible exception of the state machine for the wire protocol, and even that is extremely simple as state machines go. The realy difficulty in coming up with something like BitTorrent is that it involves fundamentally rethinking all of your basic approaches. This is very difficult for humans to do. We attack any new problem we encounter with techniques we already know, and try small modifications if difficulties turn up.
My suggestion for learning software architecture is to practice. Obviously you can't practice it by doing hundreds of projects, because each one of them takes too long, but you can easily design a hundred architectures for problems which only exist on paper, and where you strive to just get the solution to work on paper. Start by modifying the requirements of a problem you're working on. What if the amount of bandwidth or CPU was a hundredth what it currently is? What if it were a thousand times? A million? What if you had a thousand times as much data? A million? A billion? What if the users were untrusted and you had to either prevent them from damaging the system or have a means of fixing things when they did? It doesn't matter if these scenarios are totally unrealistic, what matters is that they're different and that when you try to find architectures for handling them you take the inputs just as seriously as if you were about to start writing a system with those requirements for work. Try to find as many different approaches as you can, and come up with scenarios in which the stranger ones would be better.
Learning these skills takes time, but is definitely worth it. I couldn't have come up with Codeville's architecture without first having spent a lot of time working on voting algorithms. Not that voting algorithms have anything to do with version control, but the process of coming up with example scenarios and defining the behavior which should happen in each of them carries over very well. I've seen a lot of discussion of great programmers, usually centering on how to find them, but usually what people really want to know is how to become one. Since I'm widely considered to be a great programmer, I'll give some advice.First of all there's raw coding ability. For this, practice makes perfect. Implementing lots of algorithms from, say Introduction to Algorithms can help sharpen your technical abilities, but really the important thing is to have some experience. Anyone with enough natural talent will get good at basic raw coding.There are only two coding skills which mostly people who are completely self-taught as a programmer miss out on: proper encapsulation, and unit tests. For proper encapsulation, you should organize your code so that changes which require modifying code in more than one module are as rare as possible, and for unit tests you should write them to be pass/fail so that all unit tests can be run as a comprehensive suite. And now you know everything you need to about those two things. Anyone who is taught the above guidelines, and decides they really want to learn those skills, will with sufficient practice become good at them.Coding skill is all well and good, and you can't become a great programmer without it, but it's far from everything. I'm decent at raw coding, but I know many people who are better, and some of them are abysmal programmers. I in particular can't deal with being tasked with fixing up spaghetti code. My brain simply locks down and refuses to make any modifications which it isn't convinced will work, which is of course impossible when the source material is an incurably bug-ridden mess.What truly separates the great programmers from the journeyman programmers is architecture. What's puzzling is that architecture appears to be one of the simplest parts of the whole process, requiring in most cases little more than some pencil and paper calculations and a willingness to change.The simplest architectural problems to solve are the ones which for lack of a better theory most people ascribe to emotional or psychological problems. These are decisions for which there's no rational justification whatsoever. For example, writing a non-speed-critical program (which is most of them) in C or C++. A few years ago you could justify that because the other languages didn't have such extensive libraries, but today it's ludicrous. Another one is building one's protocol as a layer on top of webdav. And another one is building a transactional system for retrieving any subsection of any point in the history of an arbitrarily large file in constant time when that isn't part of project requirements. Yes, I'm making fun of subversion here. It's a great example of a project permanently crippled by dumb architectural decisions.Half of these 'emotional' architectural decisions are dogmatically using a past practice in situations where it's inapplicable. The other half are working on interesting problems which have little or no utility in the finished product. Once decisions like these have been made, questioning them can become a political impossibility. If someone new comes in to a project with many man-years on it, and in their first week learns that there's a networking call which includes a parameter as to whether it should be blocking or non-blocking, and immediately declares that the entire codebase is a mess and difficult if not impossible to maintain, they'll almost certainly be correct and justified, but their opinion will likely be disregarded as as brash and ill-informed. After all, they haven't spent the kind of time on the codebase than everybody else. I've actually had this happen to me, and while others have claimed that there are more political ways of approaching such problems, my experience has been that once the truth becomes unthinkable a couple people need to get fired before any improvement can be made.My advice about technically unjustifiable architectural decisions is to not do them. If you find yourself doing them, you probably need to get laid or see a shrink or have a beer.But what if you're emotionally well-adjusted, and want to get better at software architecture? Logging more hours at work will get you nowhere. When I wrote BitTorrent multiple other people were working on the exact same problem, most of them with a big head start and a lot more resources, and yet I still won easily. The problem was that most of them simply could not have come up with BitTorrent's architecture. Not with 20 code monkeys working under them. Not with a decade to work on it. Not after reading every available book on networking protocols. Not ever.Clearly this isn't because BitTorrent's architecture is terribly difficult to understand. The entire approach can be understood without any really hard thinking in about an hour, with the possible exception of the state machine for the wire protocol, and even that is extremely simple as state machines go. The realy difficulty in coming up with something like BitTorrent is that it involves fundamentally rethinking all of your basic approaches. This is very difficult for humans to do. We attack any new problem we encounter with techniques we already know, and try small modifications if difficulties turn up.My suggestion for learning software architecture is to practice. Obviously you can't practice it by doing hundreds of projects, because each one of them takes too long, but you can easily design a hundred architectures for problems which only exist on paper, and where you strive to just get the solution to work on paper. Start by modifying the requirements of a problem you're working on. What if the amount of bandwidth or CPU was a hundredth what it currently is? What if it were a thousand times? A million? What if you had a thousand times as much data? A million? A billion? What if the users were untrusted and you had to either prevent them from damaging the system or have a means of fixing things when they did? It doesn't matter if these scenarios are totally unrealistic, what matters is that they're different and that when you try to find architectures for handling them you take the inputs just as seriously as if you were about to start writing a system with those requirements for work. Try to find as many different approaches as you can, and come up with scenarios in which the stranger ones would be better.Learning these skills takes time, but is definitely worth it. I couldn't have come up with Codeville's architecture without first having spent a lot of time working on voting algorithms. Not that voting algorithms have anything to do with version control, but the process of coming up with example scenarios and defining the behavior which should happen in each of them carries over very well. (Screened comment) Tue, Dec. 21st, 2004 08:03 am (UTC)
bramcohen That depends what sort of programmer you wish to become. If you want to dabble in computers because computers seem important to you, I suggest learning Python. If you want to learn computers because you're fascinated by their inner workings, I suggest learning C (not C++, that has a lot of extraneous cruft). Most people fall into the first category.
BitTorrent took two years of full time work to get to the not sucking stage, and another year to become reasonably mature. That depends what sort of programmer you wish to become. If you want to dabble in computers because computers seem important to you, I suggest learning Python. If you want to learn computers because you're fascinated by their inner workings, I suggest learning C (not C++, that has a lot of extraneous cruft). Most people fall into the first category.BitTorrent took two years of full time work to get to the not sucking stage, and another year to become reasonably mature. Tue, Dec. 21st, 2004 05:59 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Codeville architecture So how about a post about Codeville architecture, then, eh? ;-)
Your competito^Wcolleagues are curious!
(I guess the answer might be "then go to CodeCon", but while Graydon and I talked about it some, he's busy then and I was busy now (and don't really have $80 to throw at it anyway), so no Monotone submission. Maybe some other time.)
-- Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> Tue, Dec. 21st, 2004 08:11 am (UTC)
bramcohen Codeville's documentation, especially its architectural documentation, has lagged far behind its implementation, mostly because implementation is a higher priority that documentation, especially when we haven't even hit 1.0 yet, and there's still the occasional significant change.
What I'd really like to see is a paper comparing the architectures of Darcs, Monotone, and Codeville, although I'm not sure that there's a single person who's grokked two out of those three systems.
Are you local to the San Francisco area? Codeville's documentation, especially its architectural documentation, has lagged far behind its implementation, mostly because implementation is a higher priority that documentation, especially when we haven't even hit 1.0 yet, and there's still the occasional significant change.What I'd really like to see is a paper comparing the architectures of Darcs, Monotone, and Codeville, although I'm not sure that there's a single person who's grokked two out of those three systems.Are you local to the San Francisco area? Tue, Dec. 21st, 2004 10:19 am (UTC)
darkcode I can't help wondering- I'm 16, and in high school in San Diego, CA. I've been programming for perhaps 2 years, and have gotten fairly good at it for a kid, but nothing compared to most of the programmers I meet and talk to. After studying code in college, for example, does writing applications (especially with GUIs) get easier? Or should I give up for "not having the gift"? I know you're not a counselor, but answering this question would mean quite a lot to me.
- David I can't help wondering- I'm 16, and in high school in San Diego, CA. I've been programming for perhaps 2 years, and have gotten fairly good at it for a kid, but nothing compared to most of the programmers I meet and talk to. After studying code in college, for example, does writing applications (especially with GUIs) get easier? Or should I give up for "not having the gift"? I know you're not a counselor, but answering this question would mean quite a lot to me.- David Tue, Dec. 21st, 2004 10:49 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Age and development http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html Tue, Dec. 21st, 2004 03:52 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Age and development I learned how to program GUIs while I was still in high school. In fact, I had only known C++ for 5 months at the time. I think the key is the API you choose. I learned the BeOS API which was(is?) quite easy to wrap one's head around. I would recommend Qt nowadays.
As for the college question, nothing I learned in college really applies to GUI programming. College exposed me to many other languages and programming paradigms. While those are good experience, they aren't quite the same as learning an API.
So really, what I'm trying to say is that you are as ready to learn GUI programming now as you ever will be. Studying programming in in college is just 4 years of practice with fundamental theory thrown in for good measure. Sat, Dec. 25th, 2004 05:38 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Subversion Another one is building one's protocol as a layer on top of webdav. And another one is building a transactional system for retrieving any subsection of any point in the history of an arbitrarily large file in constant time when that isn't part of project requirements. Yes, I'm making fun of subversion here. It's a great example of a project permanently crippled by dumb architectural decisions.
Subversion also has a non-webdav server "svnserve" which uses the TCP based svnserve protocol. It's much faster. Many open source project repositories use plain svnserve. Not sure what you meant with your comments on transactions. Subversion also has a non-webdav server "svnserve" which uses the TCP based svnserve protocol. It's much faster. Many open source project repositories use plain svnserve. Not sure what you meant with your comments on transactions. Sat, Dec. 25th, 2004 06:35 am (UTC)
bramcohen Well, they've now gone halfway to admitting that using webdav has been a failure. The other half would be to stop supporting the webdav version. Unfortunately for them, the webdav view of the world was the basis for how files are handled, as a result of which subversion doesn't support file renames, and never will. Don't believe the feature list. Subversion does 'renames' as a copy and a delete of the old version, as a result of which if one person moves a file and another one modifies it the change will be dropped, which is even worse behavior than cvs has.
The whole transactional file store thing is covered in Tom Lord's post Well, they've now gone halfway to admitting that using webdav has been a failure. The other half would be to stop supporting the webdav version. Unfortunately for them, the webdav view of the world was the basis for how files are handled, as a result of which subversion doesn't support file renames, and never will. Don't believe the feature list. Subversion does 'renames' as a copy and a delete of the old version, as a result of which if one person moves a file and another one modifies it the change will be dropped, which is even worse behavior than cvs has.The whole transactional file store thing is covered in Tom Lord's post diagnosing subversion . One thing not covered in that post is that the way that data structure is built on top of berkeleydb is also comically stupid, even if you assume that it's a worthwile thing to build, which it isn't. Sun, Dec. 26th, 2004 07:29 am (UTC)
ghudson People regularly ask for the ability to run a repository on a remote-mounted filesystem (or worse, they try, using BDB, and get bizarre failures). Baldly asserting that it's not an important feature doesn't make it so.
Anyway, go ahead and finish writing Codeville. I think you'll find that a version control system that scales beyond basement projects is a lot tougher than you think, and that the vast majority of the user base doesn't have the same priorities as you do. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll be able to revisit this thread in a few years and be proud.
(In your review of the google results, you seem to have missed, among many other posts,
People regularly ask for the ability to run a repository on a remote-mounted filesystem (or worse, they try, using BDB, and get bizarre failures). Baldly asserting that it's not an important feature doesn't make it so.Anyway, go ahead and finish writing Codeville. I think you'll find that a version control system that scales beyond basement projects is a lot tougher than you think, and that the vast majority of the user base doesn't have the same priorities as you do. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll be able to revisit this thread in a few years and be proud.(In your review of the google results, you seem to have missed, among many other posts, http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2003-01/1199.shtml where Karl says "I think everyone agrees that true rename would be preferable than copy+delete." It's not a high priority, but it's definitely on the slate for the future.) Sat, Jan. 1st, 2005 06:03 pm (UTC)
da_x Finally I'm glad to see that someone of your caliber is sharing my opinions about software development. It's basically comes down to choosing the right approach (from practice and experience) and the suitable environment (e.g. the proper programming language for the job). I also think that 'evolutionary' development with rapid prototyping is sometimes most likely to brings you closer to the solution instead of a full-fledged top-bottom design. Sat, Mar. 26th, 2005 10:15 am (UTC)
college_coed really good words Fri, Nov. 4th, 2005 01:50 pm (UTC)
mr_mediocracy Hello there,
I try to grasp the meaning of your statement about "emotional or psychological problems" and being "emotionally well-adjusted" when doing architectural decisions.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean with that. How do emotions lead to technically unjustifiable architectural decisions?
Cheers
Daniel
Germany
PS: Maybe I just did not get your point because Englisch is not my native tongue. But I tried hard :-)
Fri, Nov. 4th, 2005 07:05 pm (UTC)
bramcohen The most common problem is that people can't admit when they're wrong The most common problem is that people can't admit when they're wrong Sat, Jan. 19th, 2008 05:57 pm (UTC)
sotomax There are only two coding skills which mostly people who are completely self-taught as a programmer miss out on: proper encapsulation, and unit tests.
While this is true, I believe that the top two skill that self-taught programmers are missing are documentation and naming, and decomposition. Good naming and good documentation can only be learned from working with others. Just yesterday I was reviewing someone's class for our new team (call it team Foo).
He called it FooEngine. I pointed out that we're already in a "Foo" directory -- and this is general code not specific to our team -- so he changed it to Engine. If you were a stranger and you saw a class called Engine, would you have the faintest idea what it was doing? It actually exports individual lines of a CSV file, with retries... if we weren't going to break it up into three classes (see below) then I'd call it ExportCsvLinesWithRetry.
Decomposition is another thing you rarely learn on your own. If only one person is working on the code at a time, you have to pay a moderate cost for decomposing your design into disconnected parts, and you don't see the benefit. But a key to cooperation with others and to maintainable software in general is to decompose the design into the smallest reasonable pieces.
In the case above, when you split up the Engine into three parts, it turned out that there were good solutions to each of the three parts already in the codebase. So in fact nothing might need to be written, but more likely, we'll add some useful new functionality into a couple of places where other people can use it. While this is true, I believe that the top two skill that self-taught programmers are missing are documentation and naming, and decomposition. Good naming and good documentation can only be learned from working with others. Just yesterday I was reviewing someone's class for our new team (call it team Foo).He called it FooEngine. I pointed out that we're already in a "Foo" directory -- and this is general code not specific to our team -- so he changed it to Engine. If you were a stranger and you saw a class called Engine, would you have the faintest idea what it was doing? It actually exports individual lines of a CSV file, with retries... if we weren't going to break it up into three classes (see below) then I'd call it ExportCsvLinesWithRetry.Decomposition is another thing you rarely learn on your own. If only one person is working on the code at a time, you have to pay a moderate cost for decomposing your design into disconnected parts, and you don't see the benefit. But a key to cooperation with others and to maintainable software in general is to decompose the design into the smallest reasonable pieces.In the case above, when you split up the Engine into three parts, it turned out that there were good solutions to each of the three parts already in the codebase. So in fact nothing might need to be written, but more likely, we'll add some useful new functionality into a couple of places where other people can use it. | [
41
] |
Language Log: The Dan Brown code | The Dan Brown code
Approximately three people still haven't read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code: Mark Liberman, David Lupher, and reportedly at least one other person (as yet unidentified).*
Regrettably, neither Barbara nor I are able to claim that the third non-reader is one of us. What can I say by way of excuse for this? I found the book was on sale really cheap in CostCo when we were about to leave on a trip to Europe. I bought it for the long, long flights that lay ahead of us, without knowing much about it except that it was supposed to be an intellectual mystery with cryptography and symbology and stuff and the blurbs said it was great. I didn't open it, I just grabbed one off a pallet of about 500 copies. Barbara was between mysteries at the time, so she grabbed it from me and rapidly read it over the next couple of days before we even left for the airport. I asked hopefully what it was like. She scowled and said something about the Hardy Boys. My heart sank; I understood her to mean it was pathetic but possibly of interest to the 11-year-old market. By the time we were on our plane she had made sure that her flight bag contained a new novel by Menking Hannell, and over southern Oregon she told me it was great as usual. Unfortunately I had no better idea of what to do with my time, so I opened The Da Vinci Code.
I am still trying to come up with a fully convincing account of just what it was about his very first sentence, indeed the very first word, that told me instantly that I was in for a very bad time stylistically.
The Da Vinci Code may well be the only novel ever written that begins with the word renowned. Here is the paragraph with which the book opens. The scene (says a dateline under the chapter heading, 'Prologue') is the Louvre, late at night:
Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.
I think what enabled the first word to tip me off that I was about to spend a number of hours in the company of one of the worst prose stylists in the history of literature was this. Putting curriculum vitae details into complex modifiers on proper names or definite descriptions is what you do in journalistic stories about deaths; you just don't do it in describing an event in a narrative. So this might be reasonable text for the opening of a newspaper report the next day:
Renowned curator Jacques Saunière died last night in the Louvre at the age of 76.
But Brown packs such details into the first two words of an action sequence details of not only his protagonist's profession but also his prestige in the field. It doesn't work here. It has the ring of utter ineptitude. The details have no relevance, of course, to what is being narrated (Saunière is fleeing an attacker and pulls down the painting to trigger the alarm system and the security gates). We could have deduced that he would be fairly well known in the museum trade from the fact that he was curating at the Louvre.
The writing goes on in similar vein, committing style and word choice blunders in almost every paragraph (sometimes every line). Look at the phrase "the seventy-six-year-old man". It's a complete let-down: we knew he was a man the anaphoric pronoun "he" had just been used to refer to him. (This is perhaps where "curator" could have been slipped in for the first time, without "renowned", if the passage were rewritten.) Look at "heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas." We don't need to know it's a masterpiece (it's a Caravaggio hanging in the Louvre, that should be enough in the way of credentials, for heaven's sake). Surely "toward him" feels better than "toward himself" (though I guess both are grammatical here). Surely "tore from the wall" should be "tore away from the wall". Surely a single man can't fall into a heap (there's only him, that's not a heap). And why repeat the name "Saunière" here instead of the pronoun "he"? Who else is around? (Caravaggio hasn't been mentioned; "a Caravaggio" uses the name as an attributive modifier with conventionally elided head noun "painting". That isn't a mention of the man.)
Well, actually, there is someone else around, but we only learn that three paragraphs down, after "a thundering iron gate" has fallen (by the way, it's the fall that makes a thundering noise: there's no such thing as a thundering gate). "The curator" (his profession is now named a second time in case you missed it) "...crawled out from under the canvas and scanned the cavernous space for someplace to hide" (the colloquial American "someplace" seems very odd here as compared with standard "somewhere"). Then:
A voice spoke, chillingly close. "Do not move." On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly. Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.
Just count the infelicities here. A voice doesn't speak a person speaks; a voice is what a person speaks with. "Chillingly close" would be right in your ear, whereas this voice is fifteen feet away behind the thundering gate. The curator (do we really need to be told his profession a third time?) cannot slowly turn his head if he has frozen; freezing (as a voluntary human action) means temporarily ceasing all muscular movements. And crucially, a silhouette does not stare! A silhouette is a shadow. If Saunière can see the man's pale skin, thinning hair, iris color, and red pupils (all at fifteen feet), the man cannot possibly be in silhouette.
Brown's writing is not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad. In some passages scarcely a word or phrase seems to have been carefully selected or compared with alternatives. I slogged through 454 pages of this syntactic swill, and it never gets much better. Why did I keep reading? Because London Heathrow is a long way from San Francisco International, and airline magazines are thin, and two-month-old Hollywood drivel on a small screen hanging two seats in front of my row did not appeal, that's why. And why did I keep the book instead of dropping it into a Heathrow trash bin? Because it seemed to me to be such a fund of lessons in how not to write.
I don't think I'd want to say these things about a first-time novelist, it would seem a cruel blow to a budding career. But Dan Brown is all over the best-seller lists now. In paperback and hardback, and in many languages, he is a phenomenon. He is up there with the Stephen Kings and the John Grishams and nothing I say can conceivably harm him. He is a huge, blockbuster, worldwide success who can go anywhere he wants and need never work again. And he writes like the kind of freshman student who makes you want to give up the whole idea of teaching. Never mind the ridiculous plot and the stupid anagrams and puzzle clues as the book proceeds, this is a terrible, terrible example of the thriller-writer's craft.
Which brings us to the question of the blurbs. "Dan Brown has to be one of the best, smartest, and most accomplished writers in the country," said Nelson DeMille, a bestselling author who has himself hit the #1 spot in the New York Times list. Unbelievable mendacity. And there are four other similar pieces of praise on the back cover. Together those blurbs convinced me to put this piece of garbage on the CostCo cart along with the the 72-pack of toilet rolls. Thriller writers must have a code of honor that requires that they all praise each other's new novels, a kind of omerta that enjoins them to silence about the fact that some fellow member of the guild has given evidence of total stylistic cluelessness. A fraternal code of silence. We could call it... the Da Vinci code; or the Dan Brown code.
_____________
* The third non-reader was unknown when this post was first drafted, but it has since been edited, and as of today (May 2, 2004) I can confirm that Bill Poser and Danny Yee are both claiming not to have read The Da Vinci Code. Fair enough. So at least four people have not read it. I just wish one of them was me.
[Update -- Additional Language Log posts about Dan Brown's novels and related topics:
"The sixteen first rules of fiction" (May 15, 2004)
"Dan Brown still moving very briskly about" (November 4, 2004)
"Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening sentence" (November 7, 2004)
"Oxen, sharks, and insects: we need pictures" (November 8, 2004)
"Thank God for film: Dan Brown without the writing" (December 2, 2004)
"Learning the ropes in the trenches with Dan Brown" (July 14, 2005)
"Don't look at their eyes!" (July 19, 2005)
"A five-letter password for a man obsessed with Susan" (September 10, 2005)
"Some striking similarities" (May 15, 2006)
"Is Mark Steyn guilty of plagiarism?" (May 15, 2006)
Cutting in line: what would Of Nazareth do? (May 16, 2006)
A tale of two copiers (May 17, 2006)
]
Posted by Geoffrey K. Pullum at May 1, 2004 03:43 PM
| [
24,
0
] |
A VC: Is Bill Gates the Cat with Nine Lives? | Conventional wisdom says tech companies rise and fall with the waves of innovation that lash the shores of the technology business. There are so many examples of this that I won't bother to repeat them.
But there is one cat out there that has so far avoided that fate. His name is Bill Gates and his company, Microsoft, is being talked about quite a bit in the blog world and the business rags this week.
Let's go back and look at the three lives that Microsoft has had so far.
PC 1.0 - Bill invented PC 1.0 when he got IBM to adopt his OS (not even sure it was his OS, but we'll leave that one alone) as the standard for the PC platform.
PC 2.0 - Apple created PC 2.0, threatening Microsoft's dominance. Bill retooled Microsoft to respond to the threat. The result was Windows and Office, the two franchises that even today power most of the Company's revenue and profits.
Web 1.0 - Netscape made the browser mainstream threatening Microsoft's dominance of the desktop. Now the browser was the place people lived on a computer. Bill went after Netscape with a vengeance, bundled Internet Explorer into the Windows OS, and put Netscape out of business and got himself in trouble with the Feds.
So far, this cat has had three lives.
So now we've got Web 2.0.
Is this cat going to get a fourth life? That's what inquiring minds want to know. It's a $280bn question.
Web 2.0 - Google invents the ultimate disruptive free web service with search and shows how it can be monetized like hell with paid search. Every entrepreneur worth their salt takes the LAMP stack and builds a lighweight web service to try their hand at the same trick. This isn't cool for Microsoft at all.
So the question is whether Microsoft's response, coming next year in the form of Vista (fka Longhorn) and supplemented with .net, Avalon, Ajax, and a host of other interesting web service oriented technologies, will bring them back to the leadership position they believe belongs to them.
My friend Brad Feld spent a day at PDC and came away saying that 2006 will be the year of Microsoft. Read his post, because it got me thinking, and it might get you thinking.
Earlier yesterday I had lunch with a friend who predicted that Vista will put a lot of these lightweight web services out of business the way that the Windows/Office juggernaut put a lot of PC software companies out of business in the early 90s and pissed the VCs off mightily.
So some smart people are clearly thinking that this cat has at least four lives.
But I am not so sure. I didn't go to PDC, I didn't work at Microsoft, I am not "technical", but my gut says that we are in a different place now and its going to be much harder for Bill to put this genie back in the bottle.
People ask me why all these smart developers are leaving Microsoft. I don't think its the "rats leaving the simking ship" phenomenon because Microsoft is not a sinking ship and even if it doesn't have nine lives will live a long time on its Windows/Office franchise.
I think its because software is becoming "organic". I believe Google started this movement. They released a free web service that people responded to in an emotional way. That created a phenomenon that drew developers and users to the Google franchise. Google opened up their APIs so people could build businesses on top of them. Now they have a whole ecosystem. This has happened with other software platforms too - Craigslist, Flickr, Skype, etc.
Microsoft may want to be part of this "organic" software world, but its not in their DNA. And I think many of their leading technology minds get this new way of being and want to be part of it. So they leave, some to Google, many to do startups.
Consumers get this too. They don't want to be locked in any more. Microsoft is the master of lock in. They want open software, open source, open potential. You don't have to look any farther than Firefox' market share to see this happening in the consumer market.
CIOs might not get this yet. I think Microsoft's franchise is the CIO going forward because they are risk adverse and are the least likely to move to this new developing organic software model. But consumers will lead the companies they work for into this world whether they like it or not. And eventually people will be using wikis and web based email and calendaring apps in their offices and Office will slowly matter less and less.
That's my view.
So does this cat have nine lives? It depends on the quality of life he's looking for.
I can see an IBM-like scenario for Microsoft in its fourth and possibly fifth life. But I can't see them at the top of the technology hill planting their flag again for the fourth time next year. It's just not going to happen that way this time. | [
17
] |
FOXNews.com - Sources: Pentagon Wants 'Able Danger' Hearings Closed - Politics | Sources: Pentagon Wants 'Able Danger' Hearings Closed
Friday , September 16, 2005
ADVERTISEMENT
WASHINGTON —
The Pentagon is pressuring the Senate Judiciary Committee to close to the public next week's hearings on a former secret military intelligence unit called "Able Danger," two congressional sources have confirmed to FOX News.
Witnesses from the Pentagon are expected to testify at that hearing; that's why they want it classified. FOX News has learned that committee Chairman Arlen Specter's office is vigorously resisting the request.
Some former Able Danger analysts and Rep. Curt Weldon (search) say the formerly clandestine intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta (search) and three other of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers one year before the attacks that left over 3,000 people dead. They also claim that their repeated requests to turn over the information to the FBI were ignored.
Weldon said a former Army officer will testify next week that he was also ordered to destroy data that included reference to Atta.
"In the summer of 2000, he was ordered and, or, he would go to jail if he didn't comply," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "He was ordered to destroy 2.5 terabytes of data specific to Able Danger, the Brooklyn [terror] cell and Mohammad Atta. He will name the person who ordered him to destroy that material."
Other witnesses will include an FBI agent who will testify that she set up three meetings in 2000 between the FBI's Washington field office and the Able Danger, but each was cancelled at the last minute, Weldon said.
The Pentagon has changed its position on this story, from originally questioning the very existence of Able Danger (search) to now confirming that the Defense Department has identified five former members of the unit who all say they remember Atta's picture or name, on a chart in 2000.
Weldon wrote a letter over the summer that ignited a debate over what the Sept. 11 commission (search) probing the attacks knew or didn't know about the intelligence group, and whether it ignored evidence that would have helped shed light on the timeline of investigations into the hijackers' presence in the United States. The commission also has been criticized for not including the Able Danger project in their report last summer.
"The Sept. 11 commission's statement that it does not believe a secret military intelligence unit discovered a group of future hijackers more than a year before the terrorist attacks is "a total denial of the facts," Weldon said Thursday. "For the 9/11 commission to say that this did not exist is just absolutely outrageous. It's a total denial of the facts."
The commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, said that the panel had acquired no evidence anyone in the government knew about lead hijacker Atta before Sept. 11, 2001.
According to Weldon and several members of Able Danger, the secret group identified Atta and three other hijackers as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City. Weldon and the Able Danger analysts — Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (search) and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott (search) — maintain that Pentagon lawyers rejected the unit's recommendation that the information be turned over to the FBI in 2000 based on immigration rules at the time.
Shaffer and Phillpott also say they met with staff members on the Sept. 11 commission about their findings. But commission members have denied that Atta was mentioned by name at those meetings, some of which were in October of 2002.
While the Pentagon says Shaffer and Phillpott are credible, the Defense Department says it has found no documents to back up their claims. However, the Pentagon confirmed this month that documents associated with Able Danger were destroyed because of strict regulations governing the collection of data on foreign visitors in the United States.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States , informally called the Sept. 11 commission, was set up in 2002 to investigate pre-attack intelligence and communication failures between U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies. On Wednesday, former members of the Sept. 11 commission said they weren't buying the story that the Able Danger group identified the hijackers so early.
"Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us," said Sept. 11 commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington state.
The panel had appeared at a news conference to argue that the response to Hurricane Katrina (search) might have been more successful if more of the recommendations it had made last year had been implemented.
During the press event, the commissioners criticized the government for not putting in place changes recommended last year for homeland security and emergency response. They pointed most notably to the failure to improve communication systems, which they said might have saved lives after Hurricane Katrina.
"It is a scandal in our minds that four years after Sept. 11, we have not yet set aside radio spectrum to insure that police, firefighters and emergency medical technicians can communicate reliably during any kind of attack or any kind of major disaster," Kean said.
The commissioners also faulted state, local and federal authorities responding to Katrina for not having a clear chain of command, leading to some of the same confusion that plagued the Sept. 11 rescue effort.
"Many of these recommendations proposed by the Sept. 11 commission one year ago might have made a difference in saving lives and preventing loss of lives in this hurricane," said member Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.
The commissioners, who now belong to the Sept. 11 Discourse Project (search) to oversee the translation of their recommendations into reality, also played down claims by the Defense Department's secret intelligence unit.
Earlier this month, the Pentagon confirmed in a briefing that it had identified five people involved with Able Danger who claimed they had either seen a picture of Atta or had seen his name on a chart prepared in 1999 by the intelligence unit. It was the first extensive briefing by Pentagon officials since questions about Able Danger began circulating last month.
But while Pentagon officials call these sources credible, they say that after interviewing some 80 individuals associated with Able Danger and reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, they still have not found such a chart and don't even know if it exists. The Pentagon said that documents associated with the project had been destroyed.
The Defense Department did confirm that documents associated with Able Danger were destroyed in accordance with strict regulations about collection, dissemination and destruction procedures for intelligence gathered on people inside the United States.The officials denied that military lawyers ordered the destruction of the documents.
Navy Commander Christopher Chope of the U.S. military's Special Operations Command added that the Pentagon investigation found no evidence to back up claims that the military refused to share key information gleaned by Able Danger with the FBI.
While the document review is now over, the Pentagon says it continues to interview and re-interview people associated with the program.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge and The Associated Press contributed to this report. | [
5
] |
A disturbing view from inside FEMA | A disturbing view from inside FEMA
Worker: Decision-makers lack disaster experience
Programming note: Watch CNN TV all weekend to help identify and reunite children displaced by Hurricane Katrina with their families.
(CNN) -- As Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast three weeks ago, veteran workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency braced for an epic disaster.
But their bosses, political appointees with almost no emergency management experience, didn't seem to share the sense of urgency, a FEMA veteran said.
"We told these fellows that there was a killer hurricane heading right toward New Orleans," Leo Bosner, a 26-year FEMA employee and union leader told CNN. "We had done our job, but they didn't do theirs."( Watch video of the whistleblower)
Bosner's storm warning came early Saturday, three days before Hurricane Katrina came ashore in eastern Louisiana.
"New Orleans is of particular concern because much of that city lies below sea level," he warned in his daily alert to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, then-FEMA chief Michael Brown and other Bush administration officials.
"If the hurricane winds blow from a certain direction, there are dire predictions of what may happen in the city," it said. FEMA's tepid response while Katrina's victims grew desperate, suffered and died has been acknowledged and widely criticized.
The agency's failure is a tragic element of the Hurricane Katrina story. But, according to Bosner, FEMA's troubles came as no surprise after its role and stature shifted when federal agencies were reshuffled in response to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Raised concerns
A longtime union leader, Bosner has been a whistle-blower before. This time, he says, colleagues are quietly thanking him for speaking out.
A year ago he raised concerns that Brown was in over his head. Brown stepped down earlier this month after he was removed from leading the government's Katrina relief effort. After resigning, he criticized local officials in an interview with The New York Times, saying the White House wasn't at fault.
"I have nothing personal against Mike Brown," Bosner told CNN. "I feel badly about the guy. But he took a job he was never trained for. The man was a lawyer."
FEMA, formerly an independent agency led by a Cabinet-level official, was among the 22 federal agencies shuffled into the Department of Homeland Security. Brown was an undersecretary who answered to the secretary of Homeland Security.
Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown had spent a decade as the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.
The Washington Post reported earlier this month that the top three FEMA officials had ties to Bush's 2000 presidential election campaign. Five of eight top FEMA officials had no crisis management experience, the newspaper said.
Chertoff and Brown have legal backgrounds but scant emergency management experience.
Brown came to work for FEMA in 2001 as legal counsel to his friend, then-FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, who was Bush's 2000 campaign manager. Brown assumed the top job when Allbaugh left FEMA in 2003.
Chertoff is a former federal prosecutor and appellate court judge. As a prosecutor, he was involved in developing legal strategies for dealing with terrorism following the September 11 attacks. He was appointed Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in February by a 98-0 Senate vote.
Chertoff worked from home the day Bosner first warned of the hurricane's catastrophic potential for New Orleans, CNN's Tom Foreman reported. Chertoff also has been criticized for writing a memo the day after Katrina struck, delegating authority to Brown and deferring to the White House rather than taking charge.
Chertoff has not commented, but a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said he was in touch with Brown the weekend Katrina approached New Orleans.
The homeland security spokesperson also defended the memo, saying it merely put in writing procedures already in place. But the national disaster plan states that Homeland Security is in charge of the response to disasters like Katrina.
Clamoring for reform
Committees in the House and Senate are looking into FEMA and the government's flawed response, and officials are clamoring for reform. Former President Bill Clinton, who revamped FEMA during his administration, is among them. (Watch video of Clinton on FEMA )
"Clearly, the FEMA response was slow and there are lots of reasons that I think that happened," Clinton told CNN on Friday. "I believe that there should be some reorganization there."
Clinton, and a national group of state disaster officials, say anyone who heads FEMA should be required to have emergency management credentials. Clinton added that the FEMA chief should answer to the president.
"It's sort of the standard thing," Clinton said, "but when an emergency strikes, that person becomes the most important person in the federal government."
The National Emergency Management Association, a non-profit association of state directors of emergency services, also lists crisis management qualifications as a must for the next FEMA head. In a posting on its Web site, it also called for the the FEMA chief to answer directly to the president ,rather than to the secretary of Homeland Security.
Bosner agrees. He wrote a memo in 1992 that raised red flags about FEMA and helped lead to reform during the Clinton administration.
"FEMA's biggest problem is that too few people in the agency are trained to help in emergencies," he wrote. "We have good soldiers but crummy generals."
For the rest of the 1990s, FEMA improved, Bosner said. But since 2001 the agency has again become demoralized and experienced disaster experts have left.
"At FEMA ... we have actually slid backwards," he said. | [
3
] |
Why Hawking's Brief History is about to get even briefer | The publishing industry now has an answer. It is bringing out new editions of some of the great, often unread, works with a fresh emphasis on 'accessibility'. Some may call it dumbing down. The books will be, well, simpler.
One of the first to receive the treatment is Tolstoy's War and Peace, republished this month by Penguin in a new, reader-friendly translation.
The work of Anthony Briggs, a professor of Russian at Birmingham University who took four and a half years to tackle the original text, the story has been billed by Penguin this time as 'the most melodramatic of soap operas'.
Later this month an even more radical reworking of another important doorstop book is to be launched on the market. Bantam Press is to bring out A Briefer History of Time, a condensed version of the science classic by Stephen Hawking that became an international bestseller - shifting more than ten million copies around the world. Bantam readily admits that 'in the years since its publication, readers have repeatedly told Professor Hawking of their great difficulty in understanding some of the book's most important concepts'.
The author, Bantam claims, now wishes to make its content accessible to readers as well as to update some of the research. The new edition is quite literally 'briefer'. Gone are the purely technical concepts Hawking introduced, such as the mathematics of chaotic boundary conditions, while whole chapters are given over to more popular scientific ideas, such as relativity and quantum theory.
Briggs's version of Tolstoy's epic story of love, passion and politics during the Napoleonic wars is the first major translation for nearly 50 years and, Briggs felt, was long overdue.
'I felt it needed refreshing and renewing,' he said. In translating the book he aimed to keep the reader in mind all the time. 'You should try to recreate for the reader in English an experience that is as similar to that the Russian reader would have had,' he said this weekend.
The original translations have the heroine Natasha looking in the mirror after her devastating illness and saying, 'Can this truly be I?' This is too slavish a translation for Briggs, who renders the same line as 'Can that really be me?'
'When you read one of the older translations you feel as if you are being read to by the Queen or by Lady Antonia Fraser,' said Briggs. 'I am very different to previous translators. I am a man, for a start, from a pragmatic, lower-class, Northern background, and I hope I have made it more readable for today.'
The third hefty book likely to receive the 'accessibility treatment' this autumn is Clarke's novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Although the book was a popular hit, its publisher Bloomsbury suspects there are readers out there who were put off by its size. They are planning to produce a triple edition paperback version of the work. The hope is that in digestible gobbets the story will be more approachable - much as Victorian epic novels were often produced in serial form rather than in one volume.
Other classic books which might find themselves repackaged in the future are Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Clarissa by Samuel Richardson, Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon and Underworld by Don DeLillo.
...but if you're really in a hurry
War and Peace
by Leo Tolstoy
The scene is Russia, 150 years before the birth of Roman Abramovich. Noble people, with names that all sound vaguely like Kalashnikov, dance and gossip and do evil things, sometimes all at the same time. Pierre Bezhukov, playboy bastard son of a rich count, rescues Natasha, falls in love, and marries her. Napoleon is meanwhile invading Russia, stupidly marching on Moscow, losing the war, and preparing to watch his army get cut to pieces by Cossacks on their way home.
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
by Susanna Clarke
The scene is England (about 150 years before the birth of Roman Abramovich). Mr Norrell is the last magician around, except for Jonathan Strange. Statues speak, a woman turns into a cat (and back again). Strange helped Wellington magic roads into existence and bring dead soldiers back to life. If he hadn't, Jacques Chirac would be in Downing Street.
A brief history of time
by Stephen Hawking
Einstein was a Swiss patent office clerk who got lucky with the equation e=mc2, but I'm smarter - that's called relativity. The universe started with a very big bang and is expanding. But due to the cosmological arrow, this won't last forever. Once the universe starts shrinking, it's probably best not to invest in buy-to-let properties. | [
7
] |
New trigonometry is a sign of the times | Mathematics students have cause to celebrate. A University of New South Wales academic, Dr Norman Wildberger, has rewritten the arcane rules of trigonometry and eliminated sines, cosines and tangents from the trigonometric toolkit.
What's more, his simple new framework means calculations can be done without trigonometric tables or calculators, yet often with greater accuracy.
Established by the ancient Greeks and Romans, trigonometry is used in surveying, navigation, engineering, construction and the sciences to calculate the relationships between the sides and vertices of triangles.
"Generations of students have struggled with classical trigonometry because the framework is wrong," says Wildberger, whose book is titled Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry (Wild Egg books).
Dr Wildberger has replaced traditional ideas of angles and distance with new concepts called "spread" and "quadrance".
These new concepts mean that trigonometric problems can be done with algebra," says Wildberger, an associate professor of mathematics at UNSW.
"Rational trigonometry replaces sines, cosines, tangents and a host of other trigonometric functions with elementary arithmetic."
"For the past two thousand years we have relied on the false assumptions that distance is the best way to measure the separation of two points, and that angle is the best way to measure the separation of two lines.
"So teachers have resigned themselves to teaching students about circles and pi and complicated trigonometric functions that relate circular arc lengths to x and y projections – all in order to analyse triangles. No wonder students are left scratching their heads," he says.
"But with no alternative to the classical framework, each year millions of students memorise the formulas, pass or fail the tests, and then promptly forget the unpleasant experience.
"And we mathematicians wonder why so many people view our beautiful subject with distaste bordering on hostility.
"Now there is a better way. Once you learn the five main rules of rational trigonometry and how to simply apply them, you realise that classical trigonometry represents a misunderstanding of geometry."
Wild Egg books: wildegg.com/
Divine Proportions: web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/book.htm
Source: University of New South Wales
Explore further Detecting changes in visual stimuli depends on increases in cortical spiking | [
23,
6
] |
Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly | Regina cried on the operating table.
Kori, 26, who was having her third abortion, asked to watch the procedure on the ultrasound monitor. "I wanted to see what it was like," she said. "It was O.K. to watch. Once you had your mind made up to do it, you just suck it up and go with it."
The solitary protester outside , Jim Dawson, 74, stood a court-mandated distance from the clinic with a video camera, taping women as they entered, and promising them hellfire if they went through with it -- as he has for a decade. Mr. Dawson drives 40 miles from Vilonia, Ark., bringing cardboard signs that say "Abortion Kills," and usually departs by midmorning. On days when the clinic is closed, he pickets the Clinton presidential library. "I don't stop many of them," he said, "but a little bit goes a long way."
The Women
At the clinic, patients allowed a reporter to attend their consultations and even operations, but most spoke only if they could use just their first names. "It's not something I would talk about," said "M," a high school teacher who agreed to be identified only by her middle initial. She wore a miniskirt and T-shirt, her blond hair pulled back from her forehead. She said she had never discussed abortion with relatives or colleagues. Only two friends knew she was here.
"I'd lose my job," she said. "My family's reputation would be ruined. It makes me nervous even being in the waiting room. You don't want to know who's here, you don't want to be recognized, and you don't want to see them ever again. Because in society's eyes, you share the same dirty secret."
Even most staff members at the clinic insisted on using only their first names -- "to protect my identity from the antichoice people," said Lori, a nurse practitioner. Several said they had not told family members what they did for a living, or were ostracized if they had.
"My oldest son won't let me see my grandchildren," said Sherry Steele, 57, a surgical assistant who started working at the clinic after her daughter had two abortions. The New York Times agreed to anonymity to encourage candor and to get a representative sample of women. (Those who volunteer their full names are by nature an unrepresentative minority.) On this August weekend, the women entering the Little Rock clinic resembled those who have abortions nationwide. They were mainly in their 20's, more likely to be poor and African-American than the area population. Most were already mothers, many single. They arrived as a result of failure of one sort or another: a poor sexual decision, a broken relationship, a birth control method that just did not work. More than half of all women who have abortions say they used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
While abortion rates have been falling generally since 1990, the decline has been steepest among teenagers, and rates are lowest among educated, financially secure women. Researchers attribute the drop in teenage abortion to reduced rates of pregnancy, as a result of better access to contraception -- including the three-month Depo-Provera injections -- and abstinence. | [
12
] |
Opinion | Message: I Care About the Black Folks | The cashiering of "Brownie," whom Mr. Bush now purports to know as little as he did "Kenny Boy," changes nothing. The Knight Ridder newspapers found last week that it was the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, not Mr. Brown, who had the greater authority to order federal agencies into service without any request from state or local officials. Mr. Chertoff waited a crucial, unexplained 36 hours before declaring Katrina an "incident of national significance," the trigger needed for federal action. Like Mr. Brown, he was oblivious to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in the convention center, confessing his ignorance of conditions there to NPR on the same day that the FEMA chief famously did so to Ted Koppel. Yet Mr. Bush's "culture of responsibility" does not hold Mr. Chertoff accountable. Quite the contrary: on Thursday the president charged Homeland Security with reviewing "emergency plans in every major city in America." Mr. Chertoff will surely do a heck of a job.
WHEN there's money on the line, cronies always come first in this White House, no matter how great the human suffering. After Katrina, the FEMA Web site directing charitable contributions prominently listed Operation Blessing, a Pat Robertson kitty that, according to I.R.S. documents obtained by ABC News, has given more than half of its yearly cash donations to Mr. Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. If FEMA is that cavalier about charitable donations, imagine what it's doing with the $62 billion (so far) of taxpayers' money sent its way for Katrina relief. Actually, you don't have to imagine: we already know some of it was immediately siphoned into no-bid contracts with a major Republican donor, the Fluor Corporation, as well as with a client of the consultant Joe Allbaugh, the Bush 2000 campaign manager who ran FEMA for this White House until Brownie, Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate, was installed in his place.
It was back in 2000 that Mr. Bush, in a debate with Al Gore, bragged about his gubernatorial prowess "on the front line of catastrophic situations," specifically citing a Texas flood, and paid the Clinton administration a rare compliment for putting a professional as effective as James Lee Witt in charge of FEMA. Exactly why Mr. Bush would staff that same agency months later with political hacks is one of many questions that must be answered by the independent investigation he and the Congressional majority are trying every which way to avoid. With or without a 9/11-style commission, the answers will come out. There are too many Americans who are angry and too many reporters who are on the case. (NBC and CNN are both opening full-time bureaus in New Orleans.) You know the world has changed when the widely despised news media have a far higher approval rating (77 percent) than the president (46 percent), as measured last week in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
Like his father before him, Mr. Bush has squandered the huge store of political capital he won in a war. His Thursday-night invocation of "armies of compassion" will prove as worthless as the "thousand points of light" that the first President Bush bestowed upon the poor from on high in New Orleans (at the Superdome, during the 1988 G.O.P. convention). It will be up to other Republicans in Washington to cut through the empty words and image-mongering to demand effective action from Mr. Bush on the Gulf Coast and in Iraq, if only because their own political lives are at stake. It's up to Democrats, though they show scant signs of realizing it, to step into the vacuum and propose an alternative to a fiscally disastrous conservatism that prizes pork over compassion. If the era of Great Society big government is over, the era of big government for special interests is proving a fiasco. Especially when it's presided over by a self-styled C.E.O. with a consistent three-decade record of running private and public enterprises alike into a ditch.
What comes next? Having turned the page on Mr. Bush, the country hungers for a vision that is something other than either liberal boilerplate or Rovian stagecraft. At this point, merely plain old competence, integrity and heart might do.
Op-Ed Columnist Correction: October 2, 2005, Sunday Op-Ed columns by Paul Krugman (Sept. 5 and 9), Maureen Dowd (Sept. 10) and Frank Rich (Sept. 18) said Michael Brown, the former FEMA director, was a college friend or college roommate of Joe Allbaugh, his predecessor. They went to different colleges and later became friends. | [
4
] |
Opinion | A Fatal Incuriosity | How many places will be in shambles by the time the Bush crew leaves office?
Given that the Bush team has dealt with both gulf crises, Iraq and Katrina, with the same deadly mixture of arrogance and incompetence, and a refusal to face reality, it's frightening to think how it will handle the most demanding act of government domestic investment since the New Deal.
Even though we know W. likes to be in his bubble with his feather pillow, the stories this week are breathtaking about the lengths the White House staff had to go to in order to capture Incurious George's attention.
Newsweek reported that the reality of Katrina did not sink in for the president until days after the levees broke, turning New Orleans into a watery grave. It took a virtual intervention of his top aides to make W. watch the news about the worst natural disaster in a century. Dan Bartlett made a DVD of newscasts on the hurricane to show the president on Friday morning as he flew down to the Gulf Coast.
The aides were scared to tell the isolated president that he should cut short his vacation by a couple of days, Newsweek said, because he can be "cold and snappish in private." Mike Allen wrote in Time about one "youngish aide" who was so terrified about telling Mr. Bush he was wrong about something during the first term, he "had dry heaves" afterward.
The president had to be truly zoned out not to jump at the word "hurricane," given that he has always used his father's term as a reverse playbook and his father almost lost Florida in 1992 because of his slow-footed response to Hurricane Andrew. And W.'s chief of staff, Andy Card, was the White House transportation secretary the senior President Bush sent to the rescue after FEMA bungled that one.
W. has said he prefers to get his information straight up from aides, rather than filtered through newspapers or newscasts. But he surrounds himself with weak sisters who don't have the nerve to break bad news to him, or ideologues with agendas that require warping reality or chuckleheaded cronies like Brownie.
The president should stop haunting New Orleans, looking for that bullhorn moment. It's too late. | [
3
] |
'The Universe in a Single Atom': Reason and Faith | That is an extraordinary concession compared with the Christian apologias that dominate conferences devoted to reconciling science and religion. The "dialogues" implicitly begin with nonnegotiables -- "Given that Jesus died on the cross and was bodily resurrected into heaven. . ." -- then seek scientific justification for what is already assumed to be true.
The story of how someone so open-minded became the Tibetan Buddhist equivalent of the pope reads like a fairy tale. When the 13th Dalai Lama died in 1933 he was facing northeast, so a spiritual search team was sent in that direction to find his reincarnation. The quest narrowed further when a lama had a vision pointing to a certain house with unusual gutters. Inside a boy called out to the visitors, who showed him some toys and relics that would have belonged to him in his previous life. "It is mine!" he exclaimed, like any acquisitive 2-year-old, and so his reign began.
Once installed in Lhasa, the new Dalai Lama happened upon another of his forerunner's possessions, a collapsible brass telescope. When he focused it one evening on what Tibetans call "the rabbit on the moon," he saw that it consisted of shadows cast by craters. Although he knew nothing yet about astronomy, he inferred that the moon, like the earth, must be lighted by the sun. He had experienced the thrill of discovery.
Before long he was dismantling and repairing clocks and watches and tinkering with car engines and an old movie projector. As he grew older and traveled the world, he was as keen to meet with scientists and philosophers -- David Bohm, Carl von Weizsäcker, Karl Popper -- as with religious and political leaders. More recently his "Mind and Life" conferences have brought physicists, cosmologists, biologists and psychologists to Dharamsala, India, where he now lives in exile from the Chinese occupation of Tibet. He and his guests discuss things like the neuroscientific basis of Buddhist meditation and the similarities between Eastern concepts like the "philosophy of emptiness" and modern field theory. In "The Universe in a Single Atom" he tells how he walked the mountains around his home trying to persuade hermits to contribute to scientific understanding by meditating with electrodes on their heads.
But when it comes to questions about life and its origins, this would-be man of science begins to waver. Though he professes to accept evolutionary theory, he recoils at one of its most basic tenets: that the mutations that provide the raw material for natural selection occur at random. Look deeply enough, he suggests, and the randomness will turn out to be complexity in disguise -- "hidden causality," the Buddha's smile. There you have it, Eastern religion's version of intelligent design. He also opposes physical explanations for consciousness, invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an idea rejected long ago by mainstream science. Some members of the Society for Neuroscience are understandably uneasy that he has been invited to give a lecture at their annual meeting this November. In a petition, they protested that his topic, the science of meditation, is known for "hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigor." | [
12
] |
Aspects of Finnish society that may be new to you (idea) by vuo | Meeting Finns There is no ritual greeting. Usually there is a short greeting "terve!", "huomenta", "päivää" or "iltaa" ("health!", good morning, day and evening respectively). A ritual greeting produces unpredictable results: the Finn may interpret it as a start for a conversation. If you want to start a conversation, then you can use the ritual greeting. If you speak only English, use English, because if you do not speak Finnish and utter a Finnish greeting, Finns may assume that you speak Finnish. When two people have met once in a morning or afternoon, they usually do not greet each other again, unless they wish a conversation. Men usually shake hands with each other when they are introduced or meet in a formal occasion when they have not seen each other for a long time. Men usually shake hands with women and women shake hands with one another. Finns, especially men, frequently try to avoid using names personally. If they have to, they use only the last name. The first name is thought as personal and not used in a business context or in the workplace, unless the people know each other already. Politeness is expressed by avoiding a direct reference to the addressee. There is no Finnish equivalent of honorifics, like "mister", "sir", "miss", "doctor" and so on. Only in the army and in the parliament people address each other as "herra luutnantti" or "rouva ministeri" (Lieutenant Sir and Minister Ms respectively). The use of "nicknames" is common among Finns, but only in close circles. A nickname is not the person's real name but a name given to the person based on his real name or some in-joke, etc. Finns may expect you to come up with a shortened form your name if they find it difficult to pronounce. Being called by a nickname is not usually uncomplimentary. Instead, it may indicate that you are viewed with respect and even affection. Finns are usually reserved and straightforward when they are with one another. Unless they are very close friends, "being quiet" is usually noticed and the discussion is ended. Long silences are usually uncomfortable to Finns, if the discussion is not ended with mutual agreement. Before any serious conversation, "making small talk" is not mandatory, and frequently Finns prefer to go straight to the point. When Finns talk to one another they are usually not afraid to establish eye contact and keep a distance of 1,3 meters. Only friends are admitted closer. It is extremely uncomfortable for most Finns to talk with someone who stands "too close" to them and you will find them backing away from such a situation. Physical contact, other than shaking hands, for most Finns connotes sexual attraction or aggressiveness and this is usually not done.
Visiting Finns You may receive a verbal or written invitation from an Finn to visit his or her home. You should always answer a written invitation. Do not say that you will attend unless you plan to do so. It is acceptable to ask your host about appropriate clothing. It is important to arrive on time for special dinners and parties. If you will be late, call your host to explain. When you visit an Finn, especially for dinner, you will be asked what you would like to drink. You do not need to drink an alcoholic beverage. If you have any dietary restrictions you should tell the host at the time you accept the invitation. It is not necessary to bring a gift, unless it is a special occasion - a birthday or an important holiday, like Christmas. However, you may always politely ask your host if there is anything you can bring. It is also nice to give a small gift, such as a bottle of wine from your country, if you are invited as a house guest for an extended visit. When you are invited to someone's home, you may always ask if there is anything you may do to help in preparing the meal or cleaning up afterwards. Most Finns consider it polite for guests to leave one or two hours after dinner unless a special party has been planned or you are asked to stay longer. You may call the person or say something when you see them again. As a rule, you are expected to take your shoes off when entering another's home. Among university students there are often many parties. These usually begin at night, often after 18.00, and continue for several hours. Some of these are informal and it is not as important to be on time or to dress formally. Most students will wear jeans to these parties. Usually the organisation that arranges the party collects the money needed and buys the food for the party. The exception is alcohol, which is sold separately in an house party. Finnish students like to drink beer and eat "munchies" - potato chips, grilled sausage, etc. Some traditional student organisations arrange also highly formal parties, where the dresscode is posted in the invitation.
Gifts As a rule, gifts are given only to relatives and close friends. It is acceptable to give a gift to a host or hostess or to someone with whom you have a more casual or friendly relationship, but it is not strictly required to do so. Gifts are not usually given to people in official positions; such a gift may be misinterpreted as a way to gain favor or special treatment. It is acceptable to give teachers a gift to show your appreciation, but it is better to do so after you have completed the course. Finns usually give gifts to family and friends at Christmas, birthdays, weddings, graduations and child-births. Gifts are also sometimes given to someone who has moved into a new house or is moving away. Greeting cards may given to acquaintances who are not close friends. Gifts are not expected to be very expensive. More expensive gifts are acceptable between people who are close to one another. We usually give something which the recipient needs, wants or would enjoy. Finns may or may not open gifts in the presence of the giver. A verbal expression of thanks is appropriate. If the gift is opened in the absence of the giver, the next time you contact the giver, thank him and specifically mention the gift.
Time Schedules In general, you can telephone Finns between 9.00 and 21.00 without awakening them. If you have to call someone after 21.00, apologise for the late time of night at which you had to call.
Tipping Service charges (tips) are always included in the bill and they are not expected. If something has a price, the it is posted in clear view, such as in coat rooms of theaters or restaurants. | [
11
] |
The 6 Percent Solution: Skip Real Estate Agents | But some buyers just freeload. (The Internet has a way of encouraging this behavior.) They can search the M.L.S. for a house with no brokerage firm listed, meaning it's being sold by the owner, and then work out a no-commission deal directly with that owner. So you can see where this is headed. If agents want to protect their commissions, they have to restrict access to the M.L.S. to sellers who are working with them, not going it alone.
Local realty groups have tried suing agents or brokerage firms that put "for sale by owner" listings in the M.L.S., accusing them of copyright infringement. Those agents have countersued, charging restraint of trade. Then two years ago, the Realtors association found what it thought was a better solution. It passed rules that essentially allowed a local M.L.S. service to block access to the listing service to any brokerage firm who discounted commissions or who posted listings for homeowners who intended to sell their own houses. The antitrust division of the Justice Department cried foul. This month it sued the Realtors' trade group, asserting that the rules stifled competition and hurt consumers.
The Realtors changed the rules just as the federal case was filed. But J. Bruce McDonald, deputy assistant attorney general, said that the group's policies continued to discriminate against innovative brokers and "stifle competition at the expense of home buyers and sellers."
In a news release, the Realtors association said it was "at a loss to understand" the Justice Department's legal action. "Many of the changes incorporated in the new policy are in direct response to concerns they have raised over the course of the two-year investigation," it said.
The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have successfully fought state real estate boards that tried to limit consumer choices by imposing service requirements or forbidding commission rebates, but the fight goes on. Realtors have lobbied for and won state laws that prohibit commission rebates to buyers and require minimum levels of service, like requiring that an agent handle all negotiations or house showings. Federal regulators can't fight that.
Aaron Farmer, a discount real estate broker in Austin, Tex., has battled local and state realty boards to offer cheaper services. The Justice Department and the F.T.C. intervened to help him. Nevertheless, he has had to raise his fees to $700 from $600 because of the minimum service levels required by a law recently passed by the Texas Legislature. (Eight states have enacted such laws, accepting the real estate industry's argument that they are needed to protect consumers.) "All of these fights are over the M.L.S.," he said. "They don't want price wars."
But price wars are coming. No doubt about that. Here are a few suggestions on how to take advantage of the changing environment to sell your home with minimum services from -- and fees to -- a broker:
Set the price Being a nosy neighbor is still the best way to know the market. Walk though every open house and find out later what the house sold for. | [
47
] |
Talking in the Dark | To make matters worse, phone systems are rarely designed to allow more than 10 percent of the population to talk simultaneously, and far more people than that rush to the telephone in an emergency. In the New York City blackout of 2003, while most land lines continued to function, the cellphone circuits were overjammed.
Katrina posed even worse problems. As phone traffic surged, the water was destroying a vast area, including underground phone lines. Mobile-phone networks, too, were ruined, because they're routed through communication towers that crumpled like paper in Katrina's 140-mile-an-hour winds. As a final insult, Katrina knocked out the power grid in swaths of the Gulf Coast -- which was fatal for phone systems that require thousands of watts of juice. The surviving mobile-phone sites in New Orleans could run on diesel-generator backup, but with just one tank of gas each, they were capable of operating for only a few days. Even the mayor nearly lost contact with the outside world. After their satellite phones ran out of power, employees of the mayor's office broke into an Office Depot and lifted phones, routers and the store's own computer server.
WiFi meshes elegantly dodge our phone system's central problems. They're low-power and ultracheap -- and decentralized like the Internet itself, which was initially conceived to withstand a nuclear attack. You can use WiFi to build a do-it-yourself phone system that is highly resistant to disaster.
In Chicago, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a nonprofit organization, hooked up dozens of households in the neighborhoods of North Lawndale and Pilsen with WiFi nodes that form a mesh. Each node can communicate with its neighbor a few hundred feet away; by cooperating in this fashion, they form an enormous bucket brigade, each passing the data signal along until everyone is sharing it. If one single household connects to the Internet, all the other households can instantly dip in. Best of all, the WiFi mesh can handle not only data but also phone calls -- via the magic of "voice over IP," an increasingly popular technique for transmitting conversation over the Internet. Should the local phone lines suddenly collapse, the residents of these neighborhoods can still make calls to one another using headsets attached to their computers. In essence, they are their own backup phone company.
Unlike a normal land-line or mobile phone system, a WiFi mesh has no single weak point. Knock out any single node in one of the Chicago neighborhoods -- destroy an entire house, for that matter -- and the mesh has enough redundancy to work around the missing link. The nodes are also durable; they're tiny shoe-box-size devices, which means they're far less likely to be wiped out by hurricanes than enormous mobile-phone-company antennas. "We've been running these little Apollo 13 disaster scenarios where a bunch of our nodes get taken out, and the whole system just reconfigures itself automatically," said Paul Smith, who helped build the Chicago networks. | [
3
] |
The Slow Crash | [Edited and annotated December 7, 2012. This is a nice work of fiction, and an interesting view of cutting edge doomer thinking in 2005. I can see now that my timeline was still much too fast, my vision of the changes was too catastrophic, and I was too optimistic about popular adaptations.]
Imagine the end of the world in moderation. It's hard. We tend to imagine that either the "economy" will recover and we'll go on like 1999 forever, plus flying cars, or else one day "the apocalypse happens" and every component of the industrial system is utterly gone.
I'm not ruling out a global supercatastrophe, like an asteroid impact, an accidental nuclear war, or runaway climate change leading to an anoxic event. But what I'm focusing on here is the scenario that includes only events we're reasonably sure about: the end of cheap energy, the decline of industrial agriculture, economic collapse, wars, famines, infrastructure failures, and extreme weather.
If that's all we get, the crash will be slower and more complex than the kind of people who predict crashes like to predict. It won't be like falling off a cliff, more like rolling down a rocky hill. There won't be any clear before, during, or after. Most people living during the decline and fall of Rome didn't even know it. We're told to draw a line at the sack of Rome by the Visigoths, but to Romans at the time it was just one event -- the Visigoths came, they milled around, they left, and life went on. After the 1929 stock market crash, respectable voices said it was a temporary adjustment, that the economy was still strong. Only years later, when we knew they were wrong, could we draw a line at 1929.
I suggest we're already in the fall of civilization. In 2004 the price of oil doubled, bankruptcies and foreclosures accelerated, global food stockpiles fell to record lows despite high harvests, and we had record numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes -- and a big tsunami to top it off. If every year from here to 2020 is half as eventful, we'll be living in railroad cars, eating grass, and still waiting for the big crash we've been led to expect from watching movies designed to push our emotional buttons and be over in two hours.
You know the story: Electricity and water and heat are off and not coming back on. Food and fuel will never again be coming into the cities. People run wild in the streets killing and looting. If you live in the city, you will have to kill people to steal their food, or even eat them, and they'll be trying to do the same to you. If you live in the country, you'd better have a big gun to fend off the hordes of starving urbanites scouring the countryside. This condition will last until a strong leader rebuilds civilization.
This is a web of lies. The first lie is the assumption that breakdowns will be sudden and permanent. More likely it will go like this: As energy gets more expensive and the electrical infrastructure decays, blackouts will be more frequent and last longer, but power will come back on. By the time the big grids go down permanently, the little grids, patched together from local sources, will be ready to take their place. They will be weaker, less reliable, and more expensive, and they won't cover the slums, but by then we'll all be experts at living without refrigerators and running laptop computers from car batteries scavenged from junked SUV's and recharged with solar panels. Electricity is a luxury, not a necessity. When the lights go out, we won't go berzerk -- we'll go to bed earlier.
[Why did I think the grid would eventually go down everywhere? Because that's easier to imagine than the grid in the most energy-rich areas mostly staying up, and then re-extending after the tech system adjusts to renewable energy. Then it's just a question of how much of the grid stays mostly up. One percent? Ninety percent? ]
Likewise with gasoline. The oil's not running out -- it's just getting more scarce and expensive. People who want it will not form motorcycle gangs that chase tankers and fight to the last man. They'll do what my dad did in 1973 -- wait six hours for a fill-up. If you already know how to get by with a bicycle, you just won't have as many cars to deal with.
Water supplies are mostly gravity-fed. If something stops the flow, someone will be fixing it. Even the worst places, like Phoenix or Las Vegas, will not suddenly and permanently run out of water. As with electricity and fuel, water will get lower quality, more expensive, and unpredictably available. People will learn to store it and to stop wasting it by watering lawns and washing cars and shitting in drinking water. Adaptable people will learn to catch rainwater. With only 12 inches a year, a 10x10 foot square metal roof feeding a storage tank will gather 100 cubic feet, or about 800 gallons, enough for one person to have more than two gallons a day.
Food is more difficult. It doesn't fall from the sky, and industrial agriculture can't possibly continue to feed everyone. It would be easy to feed even our present bloated population if we converted every lawn and golf course to a food forest, but that's not going to happen. Populations have died in famines before and will do so again. The lie here is that the food supply will end suddenly and permanently, when really, like everything else, it will end in a series of small collapses and partial recoveries.
[I was underestimating industrial agriculture, which is becoming more efficient as it becomes more automated. It takes less energy to maintain and power machines, than to maintain human workers at a decent standard of living, so energy decline will not destroy automation. Solar panels feeding motors can already turn sunlight into work more efficiently than photosynthetic crops feeding animal muscles. There will be a few decades when the world has scarcer and more expensive energy than during the age of cheap oil, but this will not make energy-dependent systems disappear. They will just pull back and abandon the poorest populations.
Also, when there's a famine, most deaths are not from starvation. They're from disease or violence as people short of food become weaker and take more risks. I argue below that people rarely do premeditated murders to steal food, but lack of food makes them fight with each other for all kinds of other reasons.]
The other lie is that people will kill each other to steal food. I haven't heard of anyone doing it in areas hit by the tsunami. In the 1984 Ethiopian famine, in the siege of Sarajevo, even in the Irish potato famine, when Ireland was producing enough meat and grain to feed everyone and exporting it to wealthy Englishmen, when people would have been morally justified in killing for food, they did not kill for food. The Donner party ate their own dead but did not kill for food. Napoleon's soldiers retreating from Moscow would cut the organs from fallen men and horses, sometimes before they were quite dead, but did not kill each other to steal food. Nations have gone mad and killed millions for empty abstractions of race and religion and politics, but even in Rwanda or Nazi Germany or post-revolution France, it was uncommon that anyone would kill for food.
I can't explain it, why people will kill for ideas and then, when their life is at stake, will quietly starve. Maybe hunger comes on so slowly that by the time they're ready to kill, they're too weak. Maybe, in a real famine, the elite keep the food so well guarded that there's no point trying to take it, and the non-elite, not corrupted by power, would rather share what little they have than fight to the death.
Imagine yourself in that position. Whatever stopped the food coming into the city, it's probably regional and temporary, and you'll be expecting it go to back to normal soon, or at least expecting help. Exposure kills people much faster than starvation, so you'll want to stay in the place you know and try to get a piece of the aid shipments. If you leave the city you'll be headed for a particular place like a cabin or a friend's house, not roaming the countryside looking for a cornfield. I've gone by bicycle from central Seattle over Stevens Pass to near Wenatchee, and over Snoqualmie all the way to Spokane. I rode freeways, highways, dirt roads, and gravel trails, and I think I saw two fields of edible crops, neither in season.
What about stealing from other people in the city? Again, put yourself in that position. Do you know which houses have food? Which have guns? Would you really go to a random house and knock the door down? If you're even thinking about it, you'll be expecting other people to do the same, and you'll make a defensive alliance with your neighbors. If you're allied and you need each other for survival, you're going to share food. Those with the most food, if they're smart, will give some away to earn respect and loyalty. The situation will be all about social dynamics among neighbors, not physical conflicts against roving gangs.
The popular image of "anarchy" is another lie, an elitist caricature of lower class people as stupid and randomly dangerous, mindless and incomprehensible like a tornado. In reality, in the Rodney King riots, people were intelligent enough to not harm the Korean grocery stores where the owners had been nice to them. I was in the Seattle WTO protest, and the destructive actions were not mindless and crazy, but calm, deliberate, and focused.
Notice the propaganda use of the word "streets": "mean streets", "I grew up in the streets", "rioting in the streets". Where else are we going to riot? The lawn? We're led to believe that the most dangerous thing in the streets is people on foot with free will. The most dangerous thing in the streets is the automobile. How many people have been invisibly killed in car crashes in the same intersection where the big media spent days showing Reginald Denny being beaten by black people?
The function of propaganda is not to tell us what to think but to sink us deeper in what we already thoughtlessly believe: in this case, that in the absence of central control we get a dog-eat-dog universe full of shocking crimes. That's what we have now. The every-man-for-himself morality is a symptom of a culture that uses excess wealth and zero-sum competition to maintain hierarchy. In the absence of wealth and control, people get nicer. We learn to take responsibility, to work together, to help each other... until a new dominator appears and crushes us down.
[A recent book on this subject is A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit. She focuses on short-term disasters, and people might have more trouble holding together cooperative networks when there is no recovery in sight. I think it depends on their emotional intelligence and empathy, and in most of the world today, I would expect a long-term disaster to eventually turn into rule by warlords.]
All the worst mass-killings of history have been top-down. Genocide happens not when central control stops but when it stops holding back. If the killers are not direct agents of government or industry, they are ordinary people who know they have both the protection and the ideological guidance of the biggest bad-ass of the moment. Usually the ideology is utopian: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, French revolutionaries, and American "settlers," all justified their mass murders with a grandiose vision of a noble conflict to wipe the world clean and build heaven. The danger is not "terrorism" or "chaos" -- the danger is a new order that declares you the danger.
Still, the interesting question is not "How will people die?" but "How will people live?" In the town next to the mass grave, what will we do all day? Process data and feign enthusiasm? Get on the internet? Make crossbows? Tend fruit trees? The best I can figure it out is to look at a bunch of more and less likely modifiers to the world as we know it, and think through how they could change things.
Peak Oil. Global oil extraction will peak in the next year or two, if it hasn't already. By 2008 it will be clearly in decline, though some will argue that it's only a temporary adjustment. Oil sellers will exploit the hype by raising prices even more than they have to. We will not figure out some new cheap energy source, but we will figure out that hydrogen is just a storage method, and not a very good one.
[Did oil peak? We can't answer this without getting into the difficulty of defining "oil". Now there's a surge of cheap natural gas. The more important thing is that the cost of energy will continue to rise more often than it falls.]
But life will change less than the peak oilers are predicting, because we have so much room to cut out waste: to drive less often in more efficient cars, ride bicycles, turn off the heat and air conditioning, take the machines and industrial chemicals out of agriculture, stop flying food around the world. Gradually, more people will grow their own food, raise their own kids, tend their own health, do stuff with their own bodies instead of machines, and turn their attention from the stock market and TV characters to their more real lives. Those who can adjust mentally will recognize this as an improvement.
[In the paragraphs above and below, just because these adaptations are available and helpful, doesn't mean average people will change. Jared Diamond has written that the Vikings in Greenland starved to death rather than change their culture to eat fish. I think something like this will happen with American lawns and cars, except the government will prevent starvation by subsidizing industrial agriculture, and most people will just become more poor and sick and unhappy. So these utopian visions are bad predictions, but still good advice.]
When energy gets so expensive that people can't afford to drive their cars at all, or to buy the new super-efficient cars, they will abandon the suburbs to enterprising bicyclists or drug gangs or squatter communities or farmers. The abomination of the lawn will turn out to have preserved a lot of precious topsoil... which will now be depleted by moderately unsustainable agriculture. I don't see any likely way for us to resume the stone age lifestyle for which our bodies are made. It's not that we can't, but that most people will choose not to as long as they have other options.
Economic De-repression. There are many economies, and the one that's failing is the control economy. The dominant media will not even call it a depression, but some kind of temporary crisis, when really it's the permanent end of the centralized techno-industrial order. What they'll call temporary "unemployment" will be a permanent transition to self-employment in the meaningful activities of subsistence.
[Again, you and I can do this, but I fear most people will just become poorer and unhappier in their dependence on a techno-industrial order that continues to chug along. Technologies like 3D printers will threaten to make the tech system less centrally controlled, but I think it will respond by blocking autonomous manufacturing through expanded intellectual property.]
The dollar will continue to slide, until non-wealthy Americans will no longer be able to buy anything imported. Americans will have to learn how to make stuff again, and we could get a renaissance in light manufacturing. We'll start local currencies, like Ithaca Hours, or if the rulers jealously forbid it, we'll build underground barter and gift economies. All this will be good for us. Meanwhile, economies that depend on selling stuff to Americans will also decline.
Interest rates will rise and pop the housing bubble, and so many people will default on their mortgages that it will be impossible to evict them all, or to keep squatters out of all the vacant bank-owned houses. The elite will try to repress squatters enough to preserve their property/power, but not so much that it fuels a movement for land reform. Something similar will happen with credit card debt, but milder, because the elite are always more willing to forgive debt than to give up their claim on land.
[It is turning out to be surprisingly easy to keep homeless people out of abandoned houses, and to continue making claims on unpayable debt. The ruling system seems to be getting better than ever at keeping us under control without killing us. Bob Calvert said it best in 1978 in Hawkwind's song High Rise: "It's a human zoo, a suicide machine."]
Serial Fallujah. If we get overt mass-killings in America, this is my pick for how it will happen. The rulers will pick off cities one by one, feeding the bloodlust of the public in a ritual as old as civilization: demonize them, seal them in, and kill them all. If a volcanic eruption cuts off food to your city, hold tight -- you'll be fine. If the bodies of soldiers or police are dragged through the streets of your city, get out and never expect to return.
Disease. An epidemic that kills 10% will slow down or stop many systems, especially the medical system, but in a few months or years it will all go back to almost how it was before. One that kills 50% will reorder society in ways we can't predict -- when people think they're about to die, they do unpredictable things.
[Now I think that instant global communication greatly reduces the threat of disease epidemics, by making them easier to quarantine.]
Another factor is if the dead and the survivors have different cultural profiles. Almost any disease will go easier on people with healthier lifestyles -- in fact, this might already be happening, if sugary overprocessed foods are causing mental and emotional instability that makes people do stupid things that tend to get them killed.
Weather. Overall global temperatures will continue to rise, but in any particular spot, it will look more like crazy weather than warm weather. Everyone will get faster winds, bigger storms, wetter floods and drier droughts. And if the climate is being affected, directly or indirectly, by CO2 emissions, then there will be a lag, just like the lag between turning the hot water up in the shower and feeling it, but much longer because the atmosphere is so much bigger. If the lag is as long as 30 years, then what we're getting now is the effect of the relatively mild emissions in the 1970's. What will it be like when the giant car fad comes back to bite us?
[Stuart Staniford has argued that some regions, presently highly populated, will become so hot in the summer that anyone without air conditioning will die. Preventing deaths will require some combination of massive energy use and massive emigration.]
Astronomy. Eventually a mass-extinction-sized asteroid will strike the Earth. The chance that it will do so in the next 100 years is not worth bothering about. But some other cosmic events may be. A fringe theory of comets is that they are not "dirty snowballs" but hot and enormously charged with energy, and that a near pass of a comet can influence Earth in ways we don't understand. There could be all kinds of cosmic disasters that we don't know about because their physical traces are not as obvious as a giant crater or a layer of ash.
One event that is accepted by dominant science, somewhat likely, and could actually give us a sci-fi apocalypse that kills the system and leaves people unharmed, is a giant solar flare. The solar storm of 1859 fried the telegraph system by overwheming the wires with electric charge. What would that do to our computers? Solar flares are associated with sunspots, and sunspots will peak in 2012.
[Telegraph lines are more susceptible to solar storms than computers because the wires are so long. But a big enough solar storm would kill a lot of satellites. And there are possible weapons, not yet in use, that could make local electromagnetic pulse strikes strong enough to destroy computers.]
Human Consciousness Shift. We won't necessarily become better, but different. This one is fun to think about, and easy to argue for or against, because there are so many ways we are already smarter, stupider, or no different than we were before. Without some kind of shift in consciousness, it's hard to see how we can avoid falling out of balance and crashing until we go extinct. And with a shift, it's wide open.
| [
12
] |
The New Boss | If John G. Roberts Jr. is confirmed as William H. Rehnquist's successor on the Supreme Court, the country will have not only a new chief justice but also a new political entity: the Roberts Court. We speak easily of the Rehnquist Court or the Warren Court, managing to identify those complex institutions with a single individual. But how does a chief justice put his stamp on the court?
At a political moment that is as polarized as any in recent memory, many Americans crave a court that, unlike the current White House and Congress, will follow a moderate path, and they are looking anxiously to Roberts's ideology for hints about the court's direction. A chief justice's judicial philosophy is important; but at the end of the day he has only one vote among nine. The most effective tools that a chief justice has at his disposal for shaping a court have less to do with his ideology than with his temperament, which shapes his personal skills as a cajoler, diplomat and unifier -- in other words, as a boss for an unusually independent group of prima donnas.
Throughout history, the chief justices who have been best able to preserve the court's reputation and legitimacy have been those with the most judicious dispositions. A chief justice's responsibilities are mostly procedural and organizational; it's his prerogative, when he is in the majority, to write the opinion for the court or to assign the opinion to a justice he believes will reflect his legal views, as part of his broader efforts to build consensus behind the scenes. John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835 and is widely considered the greatest chief justice in American history, was especially deft in exercising these powers. Marshall took office without judicial experience (in fact, 11 of the 16 chief justices have been appointed to the court without previously serving on it as associate justices), but like John Roberts, he had a reputation for an ability to argue both sides of an issue, for his bipartisan friendships and, above all, for a lack of pretense and a good nature. ("I love his laugh -- it is too hearty for an intriguer," wrote his friend and colleague Joseph Story.)
Marshall's skill in establishing convivial personal relations among his fellow justices helped him to cement the court's authority at a vulnerable moment in its early history. Recognizing the virtues of leading with a light touch, Marshall wore a simple black robe rather than the scarlet and ermine that were traditional at the time. And he insisted that his colleagues room together in the same boarding house, so that they could discuss cases over glasses of his excellent Madeira. As a result of his sensitivity to the views of his political antagonists (with the notable exception of Thomas Jefferson, whom he detested), Marshall was able to steer the court toward a middle ground and to speak for a unanimous court on the most divisive issues of his age. | [
3
] |
note from Prof Knuth from Maggie McLoughlin on 2005-09-17 ([email protected] from September 2005) | From : Maggie McLoughlin < : Maggie McLoughlin < [email protected]
Message-Id : <[email protected]>
To : [email protected]
Dear Validators, I've been happily using your service for many years --- even before w3c took it over. I've had a collection of web pages at Stanford since 1995 or so; it now amounts to hundreds of pages, dozens of which have tens of thousands of hits, several of which have hits in the millions. Every time I make a nontrivial change, I've been asking the validator to approve it. And every time, I've won the right to display the "HaL HTML Netscape checked" logo. Until today. Alluva sudden you guys have jerked the rug out from under my feet. I protest! I feel like screaming! Unfair! I'm not accustomed to flaming, but I have to warn you that I am just now more than a little hot under the collar and trying not to explode. For years and years, I have started each webpage with the formula I found in the book from which I learned HTML many years ago, namely <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//Netscape Comm. Corp.//DTD HTML//EN"> Today when I tried to validate a simple edit of one page, I found that your system no longer is happy --- indeed, it hates every one of my webpages. (If you need a URL, Google for "don" and take the topmost page, unless you are in France.) For example, it now finds 19 errors on my home page, which was 100% valid earlier this month. The first error is "unknown parse mode!". Apparently Stanford's Apache server is sending the page out as text/html. You are saying text/html is ambiguous, but that you are going to continue as if it were SGML mode. Fine; but if I get the Stanford folks to change the MIME type to SGML mode, I'll still have 18 more errors. The next error is "no DOCTYPE found". But guys, it is there as plain as day. Henceforth you default to HTML 4.01 Transitional. Then you complain that I don't give "alt" specifications with any of the images. But the Netscape DTD I have used for more than 3000 days does not require it. Then you don't allow align="absmiddle" in an image. I went to your help page trying to find another DTD that might suit. Version 2.0 seemed promising; but no, it failed in other ways --- like it doesn't know the bgcolor and text color attributes in the <body> of my page. Look folks, I know that software rot (sometimes called "progress") keeps growing, and backwards compatibility is not always possible. At one point I changed my TeX78 system to TeX82 and refused to support the older conventions. But in this case I see absolutely no reason why system people who are supposedly committed to helping the world's users from all the various cultures are suddenly blasting me in the face and telling me that you no longer support things that every decent browser understands perfectly well. To change all these pages will cost me a week's time. I don't want to delay The Art of Computer Programming by an unnecessary week; I've been working on it for 43 years and I have 20 more years of work to do, and who knows what illnesses and other tragedies are in store. Every week is precious, especially when it seems to me that there is no valid validation reason for a competent computer system person to be so fascistic. For all I know, you'll be making me spend another week on this next year, and another the year after that. So, my former friends, please tell me either (i) when you are going to fix the problem, or (ii) who is your boss so that I can complain at a higher level. Excuse me, that was a bit flamey wasn't it, and certainly egocentric. But I think you understand why I might be upset. Sincerely, Don Knuth | [
12
] |
Blair attacks BBC for 'anti-US bias' | Blair allegedly made the remarks privately to Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, which owns the rival Sky News.
The comments threatened a new rift between the government and the BBC following the Andrew Gilligan affair over events leading to the Iraq war and recent criticisms of ministers Today presenter John Humphrys, which were controversially leaked to the press.
Downing Street said last night it had no comment on the report in the Financial Times. The BBC said that its coverage had been 'committed solely to relaying the events fully, accurately and impartially'.
Murdoch, a long-standing critic of the BBC, was addressing the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. Chuckling, he said: 'I probably shouldn't be telling you this' before recounting a recent conversation with Blair. He said the Prime Minister was in New Delhi when he criticised BBC coverage of the catastrophe in New Orleans: 'He said it was just full of hatred of America and gloating at our troubles.'
Bill Clinton, the former US President who was hosting the conference, also attacked the tone of the BBC coverage at a seminar on the media. He said it had been 'stacked up' to criticise the federal government's slow response.
Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony Corporation and a former head of CBS News, said he had been 'nervous about the slight level of gloating' by the corporation.
The disapproval will come as a blow to BBC executives, who had declared themselves delighted with the hurricane coverage, led by Matt Frei. They believed they had learnt the lessons from the Boxing Day tsunami in Asia, when the BBC was regarded as being slow off the mark.
Blair's reported comments were strongly criticised last night by Martin Bell, the former BBC war correspondent and former MP.
Bell said: 'Assuming it's accurate - it may of course be that Tony Blair was simply telling Rupert Murdoch what he thought he wanted to hear. If he really does have a gripe with the BBC coverage, there is no shortage of forums in which he can say so publicly. But the last time he picked a fight with the BBC, as I recall, the government came off rather badly.'
He added: 'I think Matt Frei's reporting was absolutely immaculate and reflected the fact that one of the things the BBC is there for is to report events as they happened rather than as politicians may want them perceived to have happened. If Tony Blair does want to confront the BBC over this, I'd be surprised - because he would find absolutely zero support, except perhaps among his usual henchmen.'
Charles Wheeler, the veteran former US correspondent for the BBC, said: 'I don't believe Murdoch actually said that. It doesn't sound like Blair to me. The coverage I saw was extremely good and got better and better. Matt Frei was very good. He got quite angry, which is what might have annoyed people.
'I don't see why people should be unemotional; I never was. You have to tell people what you feel and what you hate - that's part of legitimate reporting.'
A spokesman for the BBC said last night: 'We have received no complaint from Downing Street, so it would be remiss of us to comment on what is reported as a private conversation.' | [
6
] |
'Invisibles' mar California democracy |
By Robin Lustig
BBC News, Santa Ana
In a season of programmes called Who Runs Your World?, the BBC is examining the nature of power in the world today. Here, in the first of a series of five articles entitled Looking for Democracy, the BBC's Robin Lustig examines "democracy" at work in five very different ways around the world, beginning in California.
Voters know prominent political figures but not their local elected officials
He is the man voters chose to look after the water and sewage services in a large swathe of Orange County, California, one of the richest places on the planet, and, arguably, one of the most democratic.
I say arguably, because it depends how you define democratic.
Yes, they have lots of elections - not only do they vote for Mr Miller, who runs the Irvine Ranch Water District, but they also vote for the people who run the local schools, and for the judges who sit in the courts.
So if lots of elections mean lots of democracy, then Orange County comes top of the league.
But in Santa Ana, the biggest town in the county, things do not look democratic at all.
'Underclass'
A third of the town's 350,000 residents - some estimates put the figure even higher - are, to put it politely, "undocumented".
In other words, they entered the US illegally, smuggled across the border from Mexico. They have no papers, no official identity, and no right to vote.
When President Bush talks of spreading democracy and freedom across the world, is Californian-style democracy what he has in mind?
Read Robin Lustig's introduction to this series
Yet Santa Ana - probably the whole of Orange County - would collapse without them.
They are the gardeners, the nannies, the cleaners, the cooks, the waiters.
They are a bit like the slaves of ancient Greece, where democracy was invented: they are, politically, invisible.
Applying for legal residence and, in the fullness of time, US citizenship does not come cheap - a $1,000 (£555) fine to change your status from illegal to legal - and then another $390 to become a citizen.
Mr Miller and his fellow directors are elected because their company has no shareholders - it is owned by its customers, the voters.
But when I stopped a random selection of shoppers not far from his state-of-the-art water treatment plant, they had not a clue who he was.
They knew President George Bush and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but not Mr Miller, who provides the water that comes from their taps, and takes the waste away from their kitchens and bathrooms.
'Immigrant-makes-good'
Miguel Pulido, on the other hand - well, that is a very different story. He is the mayor of Santa Ana: Mexican-born, smooth-talking and very much at home with the trappings of power.
On the walls of his office are photos of him with President Clinton and President Bush: Mayor Pulido is the Mexican-immigrant-makes-good story personified.
Pulido (r) is the Mexican-immigrant-makes-good story personified
And he is candid enough to acknowledge that life would be a lot simpler as mayor if he did not always have to stitch together coalitions to get his way.
When President Bush talks of spreading democracy and freedom across the world, is Californian-style democracy what he has in mind?
Does he want the people of Iraq to elect their sewage officials, the people of Afghanistan to choose their judges?
In his presidential inauguration speech last January he said:
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
So perhaps Orange County, California, or something like it, is the future. | [
7
] |
Why Nintendo Gets It, or Why Sony Should Start Trying | Why Nintendo Gets It, or Why Sony Should Start Trying
date posted: 10:19 PM Sat Sep 17th, 2005
last revision: 12:24 AM Tue Sep 20th, 2005
And I thought they had logged out:
Know your roots
And that brings us to the present
The \"next\" generation
It blows my mind that Nintendo has so effectively proven that they \"get\" it. How so? The Revolution controller. What? Yeah, that magic wand thing probably is the future of gaming. And furthermore, in the \"next-gen\" launch lineup it is starting to look like Nintendo is the only company that will deliver a truly next-gen gaming platform. Compared to the Revolution, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are simply expensive upgrades to existing platforms.Nintendo \"gets\" it. Microsoft and Sony don\'t understand that a new generation of gaming machine does not automatically beget a new generation of gaming. A \"next\" generation requires a significant change in gaming itself. Gamers care about hardware and hardware generations only insofar as those generations mark major changes in the way games are made and played. Gamers care about framerate only insofar as framerate is connected to the limit of a player\'s reflexes. The interaction of technology and creative expression and experience is complex terrain, which often understood in a highly intuitive array of impulses on the part of gamers. This intuitive understanding of the relationship between tech and game leads easily into fetishization of game hardware: Witness the hip NES controller belt buckles sold in mall shops worldwide or the Xbox 360 faceplates. All tech-dependent art forms fetishize the mechanical aspects of their practice: photography, computers, sports, music. In each case one can see similar devotion to the objects and implements of the practice on the part of the practitioners.Deep down, however, gamers are ambivalent about this coming generation of gaming hardware. A part of that ambivalence, whether conscious or subconscious, is the feeling that games are not going to be significantly different. Gamers are often after the next, newest, more engaging, more immersive experience. But in order to sell this new hardware cycle to many gamers, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo need to think big. Graphics are already pretty. Sound is already awesome. Online gameplay is already fairly optimized. What\'s next?But to really understand where I\'m coming from and where I\'m going with this, let\'s take a brief trip back through major generational shifts that have come before in gaming history.Let\'s revisit some historical generational shifts: If we assume the Odyssey (1972) and Pong (1975) were first generation, then we can cite the Atari 2600\'s (1977) advancement of removable game media, which allowed the whole game publishing industry to be created apart from the hardware manufacturing industry. The Atari 5200 (1982) is viewed as an upgrade, and although systems such as Colecovision (1982) and Intellivision (1980) came out during the heyday of Atari\'s popularity, we generally speak of all of these systems as being in the same \"generation\" of gaming.The next major evolution is the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES - 1985). Nintendo revived the American games industry (currently the largest market in the world for games) with a fresh take on game design accompanied by a major technical upgrade that facilitated better graphics. Insofar as technical enhancements allow new kinds of game designs, they contribute to new generations of gaming. This generation was also populated by the Sega Master System, which was the largest competition for Nintendo and lagged far behind.In the first formal generational shift, the NES was followed by the SNES (1991). We gained four new buttons on the controller, and Sega followed suit adding more buttons to the Genesis (1989) controllers. Games became better looking and smarter, and because we had so many more options for control, games as diverse as Actraiser and Mortal Kombat are possible and become popular. This change brought a whole new level of physical and conceptual complexity to console gaming. Role-playing games became much more complex and early 3D experiments are born.There were many attempts to push a generational shift to the CD-era, including most notably the SegaCD (1992) and Panasonic\'s 3D0 (1993). But it wasn\'t until Sony launched the PlayStation (1995) that the concept of CDs took off. This led to game design developments that have shaped much of the current gaming landscape: Cutscenes became more beautiful and cinematic, appreciated as works of art in their own right. The ability to include a lot of dialogue and video led to the general movement of \"games as cinematic experience\" design. The early addition of an analog joystick to the controller was first seen in the Nintendo 64 controller, and gamers were especially sold on it after Mario 64 demonstrated a 3D approach to platform gaming. But it was Sony\'s Dual Shock controller that made dual analog joysticks and force-feedback a standard feature of console controllers. Games continued to become more complex and textured, and the number of gamers continued to grow. In this generation the Nintendo 64 (1996) stayed with their cartridge-based format, which, in the end, cost them the number one spot in the gaming industry. Cartridges just didn\'t have as many advantages as CDs ? the ability to store so much data had become crucial to game design and development, and gamers quickly grew to love these new qualities of games.The current generation is marked by the release of the Microsoft Xbox (2001), Sony\'s PlayStation 2 (2000) and Nintendo\'s GameCube (2001), which are all disc-based systems. Online play was a mantra for Microsoft and Sony, both of whom managed to make that pay off to a greater extent than ever before. However, at the same time, gamers didn\'t flock to online play the way they flocked to Final Fantasy VII (often cited as a crucial title in the rise of gamer\'s expectations of graphical and cinematic quality). All of the platforms have benefited from another increase in technical power, allowing more enemies, more complex AI and game behaviors, and, most visibly, better graphics. The graphical fidelity achieved in the current generation of 3D modeling and animation has eliminated much of the need for artificial game design mechanisms (such as the ubiquitous sparkle as illustrated in games such as Resident Evil) ? now the game graphics are so clear we can just see the game-world objects we might be interested in.Nintendo\'s rejection of the online arena has just added to their image as an eccentric tinkerer who makes toys of the highest quality. The problem is they aren\'t very fast, and sometimes they are just plain weird. The idea of connectivity and connecting the Game Boy Advance to the GameCube never really caught on. And the only bright spots in Nintendo\'s last few years have been some standout first-party titles for GameCube and their handheld gaming hardware, which continues to dominate the handheld side of the industry.The current generation of game hardware has largely been a letdown. There have been some amazing games created, but the vast majority of games still doggedly pursue the cinematic approach to game design and confusing pervasive gaming with game-themed marketing. Every time Microsoft wants to sell us anything it creates a game. And it\'s painfully ironic that the genre of alt-reality games (often lauded as a critical darling and game design breakthrough) has mainly been used to sell us more games and game hardware.Online gameplay has failed to really take off. Sony\'s online games have been plagued with various cheats and hacks, and the network adapter has not sold through to as many PS2 owners as the company would have liked. Microsoft is in a similar position, fully acknowledging that the vast majority of Xbox owners have never logged into Xbox Live, in spite of critical raves about the quality of service. In part, game design has not really figured out the parameters of online console gaming, and in part online plans have been too focused on providing a few extra maps or skins as enticement to keep playing. Heck, not much has happened in the way of unique online gaming ideas since Doom. Rather than pursue an innovative game design model, game publishers have followed an expansion and enhancement model of business which has generally been a warm-up to full-fledged console-based e-commerce in the coming generation. The problem is that online shopping has very little to do with the evolution of game design.Combine all of this with an incredibly conservative atmosphere in the mainstream gaming industry, and we can easily understand why the industry is like it is these days. Most games that come out are sequels to proven game design concepts. A majority of games are based on franchises native to other media formats ? movies, comic books, cartoons, celebrities, TV shows. With over $7.3 Billion at stake, the industry is loathe to take risks. And with a firm grip on a target demographic most industries pay through the nose to access, game publishers have little reason to try to expand their audience. It\'s a classic example of the economics and rationale of the industry working against itself, just as we\'ve seen in the music and film industries and their struggles to deal with online distribution and marketing.Regardless of Nintendo\'s lagging position in the current home console race, in the next-generation of home consoles it looks more and more with every announcement like Nintendo is poised to regain a much more competitive role in the industry. Of course, the biggest hurdle Nintendo has to get over is the ballyhoo hurdle. In many ways games can learn from the history of other media forms, and the showmanship (aka balyhoo) of 1950s cinema provides an example of how gimmicks might entice audiences for a short time, but ultimately cannot become longstanding conventions of the form. Think of 3D movies, Cinerama, or Smell-O-Vision. A classic example is(1959, dir. William Castle) which used buzzers inserted into the seats of theaters to add a \"shocking\" real-world special effect to the movie. This, of course, didn\'t catch on to become a staple of the cinematic experience.But sometimes innovation happens. The whole reason behind 1950s cinema ballyhoo was a drive to make the theater experience different from TV. Experiments like Cinerama (an extreme multi-channel projection that gave a \"surround-view\" effect) eventually evolved into what we consider \"widescreen\" or the theatrical aspect ratio. It can be argued that the widescreen format is more immersive, that it better emulates our natural field of vision. Less charitable analysis might conclude that it was simply one of the ballyhoo techniques that was easiest to accommodate in production and distribution of films (it\'s much easier than wiring theaters with seat buzzers). And it seems clear that part of the reason widescreen format has caught on for television and videogames has a lot to do with the small screen\'s gradual mutation into a very private large screen, and an aspiration of television and games to be as \"good\" as movies. So in this case, we can see things coming full-circle into the birth of a well-defined convention: the aspect ratio of the future is 16:9, no longer 4:3.But I digress.Nintendo needs only to make their system do all the work of translating stock gaming commands from the other systems in order to make multiplatform releases painless to port to Revolution, and then they must provide developers with an easy kit to take advantage of the more complicated interactive potential offered by the Revolution. As we\'ve seen with the NES, SNES and PlayStation One, a new controller design is definitely a viable avenue for game hardware innovation. It is no mistake that every controller on the past five home consoles manufactured in the 10 years since Sony launched the Dual Shock controller has featured two analog joysticks and rumble features.Microsoft has never been an innovator in the area of games. They have been a standardizer and an optimizer, and in such a role they have helped create a clear set of conventions in the industry, mainly imitating the best qualities of all their rivals and adding to it their expertise in home computing. The Xbox is more versatile, more powerful, and by all accounts is one of the easiest platforms to develop for. Plus, it has the added benefit of easily porting to Windows and various Windows-derivative platforms. Windows is THE gaming platform for PCs. We often forget that in many ways Microsoft has already won in another games-industry war for domination.Granted, games have been developed for Xbox that are brilliant, but even a look at the flagship franchise for Xbox, Halo, reveals the quintessential lack of innovation inherent in the vast majority of Xbox titles. That lack of innovation stems from the hardware itself. Halo is a game about saving Earth from impending destruction. Who wants to destroy Earth? Some aliens. At its best, Halo is a wonderful reprise of very old science fiction plots, much likeis a wonderful reprise of very old adventure plots. At its worst, Halo is a much prettier version of Space Invaders: shoot, shoot, dodge. What Halo offers is not any innovation in game design; Halo is just extremely well-made. If it innovates, it innovates in how well it integrates with the rest of your life: You can track games and stats online, create whole websites dedicated to clans using Bungie.net\'s free tools, and have game stats and invites messaged directly to your cell phone or MSN-aware smart device. Halo has loads of options for multiplayer and has received plenty of post-release attention in the form of both free and pay-for-download map packs and game expansions. All of these are enhancements of longstanding game design models.In all reality, this is what Microsoft promised, and this is what it has delivered: Easy for developers to make games for. And if a developer has a good idea, it can work well on the Xbox ? it\'s easier to make, quicker to get out, looks great. The hard drive in the Xbox has not facilitated great advances in game design as was initially hoped ? it\'s been used to speed up load times and offer more post-release enhancements. As I mark it, those features fall squarely on the optimization end of the spectrum. The Xbox 360 does not look to deviate from this: Everything that is already on the Xbox will return in a better form, and we can look forward to at least one more new device: the Xbox 360 camera. But not much is known about this, and the game press assumes this device will be used for Eye Toy-like game control. Again, not an original innovation, although a welcome addition which Xbox 360 will hopefully make great use of.Microsoft is looking strong to maintain its second-place position in the industry. With luck, that share will grow somewhat. Gamers can appreciate optimization and convenience, and are always very discerning about overall quality. Xbox has always delivered on this (for the most part).No, the company that needs to be looking over its shoulder is, obviously, Sony. It\'s lonely sitting on such a big, giant peak, and there\'s only one way to go from there. With two big competitors coming out swinging, Sony needs something more than a boomerang controller redesign. Thankfully, the company has recently announced that the PlayStation 3 controller will likely change before release. Will it become a motion-sensing pointer/wand? That seems unlikely. But the PS3 will need something more than online shopping integration to pull this one out. Many gamers have stuck with PlayStation because of the wide variety of niche titles available: The bigger selection of quirky games has helped Sony stay on top. But if those game developers start working more with Nintendo, and if Microsoft delivers the better \"traditional\" gaming experience, the market could make a major shift.The PlayStation platform does enjoy the benefit of having led to two major game controller innovations already: The Dual-Shock analog controller and the Eye Toy. Both of these were after-market add-ons to existing systems (the Dual-Shock for PS1 and Eye Toy for PS2). Future plans have been announced to add a \"wand\" to the Eye Toy control scheme in order to compensate for the issues caused by varying room quality. And I should admit up front that I\'m stepping out somewhat to call the Eye Toy a true gaming innovation. My reasoning goes like this: Cameras and machine vision are unavoidable future components of any computing system, so even if Eye Toy never comes out with a truly perfected version, the idea of this technology is here to stay.It is increasingly looking like Nintendo might just be next year\'s Sony and next year\'s Sony might look a lot like this year\'s Nintendo. Or perhaps Sony can pull out something to surprise us all. This is definitely a two-console market at this time. Most gaming households will own at least two gaming consoles. There is a better chance they will upgrade to the next generation of the system they currently own, so Sony has a great advantage there. And in the end, economics may dictate user\'s decisions more than anything else, which would play a role in people\'s decisions about which next generation console to buy. And a modestly priced Revolution, with retro games to appeal to parents and an approachable controller to appeal to non-gamers, could do well is such economic climates.To further complicate predictions either Microsoft or Sony could decide to create an after-market peripheral that adds the same functionality as the Revolution controller. We also haven\'t really seen much of Sony\'s PlayStation 3, so we can\'t be completely confident in our analysis of its hardware. But it\'s clear that Sony is really the only company that has anything to lose in the coming console war. And its clear that Nintendo is not simply rolling over in submission as so many have predicted they would.We won\'t know for sure about the Revolution or its revolutionary controller until we get it in our hands. The tightness ? the \"goodness\"? of the control will undoubtedly be the deciding factor in the success or failure of Nintendo\'s grand experiment. Anything less than 100% reliability and impeccable responsiveness will be unacceptable to gamers. But it\'s good to see that one of the big three are finally thinking big about gaming. It\'s high time somebody put the games ahead of the marketing tie-ins. If your idea of gaming enhancements is supporting high-end movie discs or touting your online shopping site, then you need to get new people to think about gaming for you. Yeah, I\'m looking at you Microsoft and Sony ? the gauntlet is down. What do you got for us now? | [
17
] |
How the penguin's life story inspired the US religious right | Antarctic family values: Is the emperor penguin an enemy of Darwin? America's surprise film hit was meant to be a nature documentary. Now it's a pawn in the war on evolutionary theory
In the following article we misquoted Steve Jones, professor of Genetics at University College, London, mentioning a malaria 'virus'. Malaria is, in fact, caused not by a virus but by a protozoan parasite. Apologies.
It is an odyssey to rival Scott's in the Antarctic, albeit with a happier ending. Fierce snowstorms rage, icy blasts flick across the screen. March of the Penguins, an epic nature documentary with a cast of thousands, was the surprise usurper of summer blockbusters at the American box office and is tipped to be the hit family film in Britain this Christmas.
To many, it will be no more nor less than a life-affirming portrayal of Mother Nature, reminiscent of Sunday-evening television with Sir David Attenborough whispering from the undergrowth. To some, however, the mesmerising images of birds waddling, mating and nurturing their young have become cinema's most politically charged parable since Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/1.
Conservatives in America claim to have seen God in the emperor penguin. They have rejoiced in the way the film shows penguins as monogamous upholders of traditional family values. They presumably welcomed the screenwriters' decision not to pursue arguments about climate change. They have even pointed to the heroically resourceful penguins - blinded by blizzards, buffeted by gales, yet winning against the odds - as proof of 'intelligent design', the religious belief system that aims to challenge Darwin's theory of evolution.
Audiences and critics of the £4.4 million French-made film have found themselves uplifted by the sight of emperor penguins trudging 70 miles, in single file, to their breeding ground during the harsh Antarctic winter in temperatures of -40C. The creatures' comical gait and tuxedo-like plumage have amused children, while their fortitude and tenderness in raising their offspring have had parents sighing in recognition. One reviewer gushed: 'It's impossible to watch the thousands of penguins huddled together against the icy Antarctic blasts ... without feeling a tug of anthropomorphic kinship.'
Now America's religious right has weighed in. Film critic Michael Medved was quoted by the New York Times calling it 'the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child-rearing'. Speaking of audiences in America's heartland who often feel snubbed by liberal Hollywood, he added: 'This is the first movie they've enjoyed since The Passion of the Christ. This is The Passion of the Penguins.'
As happened with Mel Gibson's Christian blockbuster, churches have block-booked cinemas and organised visits for their members. The 153 House Churches Network in Sidney, Ohio, runs a March of the Penguins Leadership Workshop after screenings of the film. Its website, www.lionsofgod.com, provides a form that can be downloaded and taken to the cinema. It advises: 'Please use the notebook, flashlight and pen provided to write down what God speaks to you.'
Ben Hunt, a minister at the network, said of the penguins' struggle for survival: 'Some of the circumstances they experienced seemed to parallel those of Christians. The penguin is falling behind, like some Christians are falling behind. The path changes every year, yet they find their way, like the Holy Spirit.'
A contributor to the Christian Science Monitor wrote: 'The penguins' way of life has illustrated to me some aspects of how God is parenting us.' On WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative website, an opponent of abortion wrote that the film 'verified the beauty of life and the rightness of protecting it'. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, told a conference of young Republicans: 'Penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. The dedication of these birds is amazing.'
The 80-minute film - which grossed £37m in the US, the second-highest total by a documentary - movingly shows female penguins laying a single egg, then trekking back to the ocean to feed, while the males keep the eggs cradled on their feet, huddling together for warmth during a two-month vigil without food. The female must return in time to feed her hatchling for it to survive, at which point it is the starving male's turn to make the 70-mile trek to the sea.
Andrew Coffin, writing in the Christian publication World Magazine, said such miracles of nature were evidence that life is too complex to have arisen through Darwinian random selection: 'That any one of these eggs survives is a remarkable feat - and, some might suppose, a strong case for intelligent design. It's sad that acknowledgment of a creator is absent in the examination of such strange and wonderful animals. But it's also a gap easily filled by family discussion after the film.'
The only contradiction of the Bible in March of the Penguins is near the beginning, when the narrator says: 'For millions of years, they have made their home on the darkest, driest, windiest and coldest continent on earth. And they've done so pretty much alone.'
But the film's makers say they are strong believers in evolution, and its American distributors, Warner Independent Pictures and National Geographic Feature Films, insist that it is simply a tale about penguins. Laura Kim, a vice-president of Warner Independent, said: 'You know what? They're just birds.'
Adam Leipzig, president of National Geographic Feature Films, said: 'These penguins are model parents. What they go through to look after their children is phenomenal, and no parent who sees it will ever complain again about the school run. There are parallels with human nature and it is moving to see.'
Leipzig pointed out that this species of penguin, the emperor, is usually monogamous for a year, but not for life: the following year, it takes a different partner. He added: 'People read it into what they want. There are universal truths about parenting and bonding with offspring, but it's not a film with a political and social agenda. When we put the English-language version together, we never once had a discussion about social, religious or cultural points of view. We wanted to get the audience involved to follow the penguins' lives.'
The film's director, Luc Jaquet, a French biologist who shot 140 hours of footage on land and 30 hours underwater, added: 'It's obvious that global warming has an impact on the reproduction of the penguins. But much of public opinion appears insensitive to the dangers of global warming. We have to find other ways to communicate to people about it.'
Scientists in Britain, where the film will premiere at next month's London Film Festival, with general release in December, dismissed the intelligent design lobby's expropriation of the film. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London and an atheist, said: 'I find it sad that people with intrinsically foolish viewpoints don't recognise this as a naturally beautiful film, but have to attach their absurd social agendas to it.
'The problem with intelligent design is that there is no conceivable observation in nature that can disprove the idea. It's not part of science, which is why scientists are not interested in it. A group of penguins standing upright looks like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it's a classic Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful than that of a malaria virus is absurd.
'Supporters of intelligent design think that if they see something they don't understand, it must be God; they fail to recognise that they themselves are part of evolution. It appeals to ignorance, which is why there is a lot of it in American politics at the moment.'
Penguins: the facts (and a joke)
There are 17 penguin species, of which the emperor is largest. Penguins have adapted to more habitats than any other animal, including the frozen wastes of Antarctica and the sandy beaches of Africa.
Penguins cannot fly but, shaped like a torpedo, they can swim about 15 miles per hour. They spend as much as 75 per cent of their time underwater, searching for food.
Navy pilots in the Falklands conflict reported that penguins craned their necks so far back to watch passing aircraft that they toppled over. The claim was later disproved by scientists.
Children's love of penguins owes much to the antics of the TV character Pingu.
There are several websites devoted to penguin jokes. Among them is http://monyscurry.tripod.com/pengfun.htm which provides the following:
A man driving a van spots a crashed truck, with penguins hopping on it, looking lost. He takes pity and loads them into his van.
The police see the van and pull it over. 'What's with the penguins?'
The man replies: 'I saw them on the road and I picked them up.' The policeman said: 'Take them to the zoo.' Later the policeman sees him driving past again with all the penguins in bathing suits.
'I thought I told you to take them to the zoo,' he says.
'I did,' said the driver. 'We had so much fun, that I'm taking them to the beach.' | [
11
] |
Muslims and the Holocaust | RECENTLY IN England, four Muslim-staffed committees appointed to advise Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Cabinet on issues related to Islam have come up with a recommendation: Get rid of an official event viewed as offensive to Muslims. What event would that be? A celebration of the Crusades, perhaps? No, Holocaust Memorial Day.
In the words of one committee member, ''The very name Holocaust Memorial Day sounds too exclusive to many young Muslims. It sends out the wrong signals: that the lives of one people are to be remembered more than others."
That ''one people," of course, are the Jews.
The committees aren't exactly proposing that the Holocaust commemoration be scrapped outright. They want it to be folded into a ''Genocide Memorial Day" that will also include such crimes as the slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda and the massacres of Bosnian Muslims by the Milosevic regime.
Unfortunately, even against the bloody backdrop of the 20th century, there are strong reasons to regard the Nazi extermination of the Jews as a unique atrocity. It was the first, and so far the only time that, as Cornell University historian Stephen Katz put it in his 1994 book ''The Holocaust in Historical Context," that ''a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people."
But the problem with the proposal goes far deeper. The other ''genocides" for which they want recognition include the Israeli killings of Palestinians.
Clearly, Palestinians have suffered under the occupation. Over 4,000 have been killed since the renewal of violence five years ago. Some of these dead were completely innocent victims; others were fighters, violent protesters, or suicide bombers. (Nearly 1,000 Israelis have died as well.) This death toll is tragic; but to call it ''genocide" is to cheapen the word.
Any equation between the Holocaust and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is absurd. The effect of such a parallel is not to promote ''inclusiveness" -- it is to erase and minimize the tragedy of the Jews as past victims of genocide by slanderously assigning them an equal role as its present-day perpetrators.
The committees are formally presenting their proposal (backed by the head of the Muslim Council of Britain) to the government later this week; the Home Office has already reportedly indicated that it does not plan to act on the recommendation. What's frightening, however, is that such a proposal could come from a group of people charged with the task of helping the government combat extremism.
Alas, this is not a unique case. The same issue of the London Daily Telegraph that reported the attack on Holocaust Day carried another remarkable story. Ahmad Thomson, deputy chairman of Britain's Association of Muslim Lawyers and occasional adviser to the prime minister, recently claimed that Blair had been pressured into entering the Iraq war by a sinister conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons. In his 1994 book, ''The Next World Order," Thomson (a convert to Islam) claimed that the Holocaust is a ''big lie" and that the presence of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia is especially outrageous because many of them are Jewish.
These two stories illustrate an uncomfortable truth: The infection of anti-Jewish bigotry is alarmingly widespread in the Muslim community today, not only in predominantly Muslim and Arab countries -- where the media routinely circulate anti-Semitic libels and conspiracy theories while preachers and editorialists compare Jews to pigs and monkeys -- but in Western democracies as well. Some apologists on the left blame this virulent hatred on the Israeli occupation of the territories. But is it plausible to believe that a state of Israel within its 1948 borders would be less hated by those who believe all of its land rightfully belongs to Muslims?
This is not to tar all or most Muslims with the same brush, or to deny that anti-Muslim bias and paranoia exists, too. (In the United States, some right-wing bloggers have been shrieking that the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11's Flight 93 is shaped like -- horrors! -- a crescent.) Nor is it to say that Islam is inherently intolerant: All religions and ethnic groups have their bigots and haters. For a variety of reasons, the bigotry and hate in Islam are perilously close to the mainstream.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. | [
4
] |
Great Hacker != Great Hire | Great Hacker != Great Hire
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Paul Graham's recent essay Great Hackers. His sermon is well-written, and I assume it played very well when he preached it to the choir at OSCON.
Graham describes the notion of a "great hacker", which he seems to roughly define as a programmer who is several times more productive than average. (Please note that some people use the word "hacker" to describe programmers who engage in illegal activity. That connotation is not applicable here or in Graham's essay.) He then asks the following questions:
How do you recognize [great hackers]? How do you get them to come and work for you?"
Note carefully: Graham proceeds from the assumption that we do in fact want to hire these great hackers, but he never explains why.
I concede that this assumption is intuitive. After all, doesn't every company want the most productive employees they can hire?
But this assumption deserves to be examined and challenged.
For the love of the code
Graham begins his description of great hackers by explaining the intrinsic motivation and passion they have for writing code:
Their defining quality is probably that they really love to program. Ordinary programmers write code to pay the bills. Great hackers think of it as something they do for fun, and which they're delighted to find people will pay them for.
On this point, we agree. The best developers simply love to create software. They get paid, and their compensation is important, but it isn't really the primary reason why they write code. They wrote code before they were getting paid for it. They would continue to write code even after winning the lottery. When I hire developers, I am looking for this quality.
However, the remainder of Graham's essay does a pretty good job of explaining why many small ISVs might not want to hire a "great hacker". In a nutshell, great hackers are often very fussy people.
Fussy about tools and platforms
Graham explains the well-known fact that great hackers are extremely picky about the tools, platforms and technologies they use:
Good hackers find it unbearable to use bad tools. They'll simply refuse to work on projects with the wrong infrastructure.
Bad tools? Wrong infrastructure? Graham sounds like he is right on the money. Nobody could object to the idea that great hackers care deeply about these kinds of choices, right?
Unfortunately, Graham goes on to explain what great hackers mean by "bad tools" and "wrong infrastructure". Painting with a very wide brush, he observes that great hackers don't use technologies like Windows and Java. They prefer languages like Python and Perl. They prefer to use open source technologies whenever possible.
I'm not saying I am a great hacker, but I do sympathize with this fussiness. I have similar religious preferences about technologies. I really do like Python. My personal server runs Debian. The first things I install when I repave my Windows machine are emacs and cygwin.
However, I work at an ISV. I love building software, but SourceGear is not my hobby -- it is my profession. We sell products to users. We have learned to value the needs of the users over our own preferences.
Graham seems to suggest that if we choose to build our products on the technologies that great hackers prefer, then it is more likely that we will be able to hire them. This opinion may be true, but it ignores the fact that technology choices have marketing implications. I've written about this topic several times now:
Law #21: "These may not seem like marketing decisions, but they are. Technology choices have big marketing implications. When you choose a platform, you define the maximum size of your market." Geek Gauntlets: " We need to talk about what customers want, but our own preferences get in the way. We bring our technology prejudices and biases to the discussion, often without ever being aware of the problems they can cause." Be Careful Where you Build: "As developers in a small ISV, our productivity is important, but it must be secondary to the comfort and preferences of our users."
The higher productivity of a great hacker is a big advantage, but probably not big enough to overcome our attempts to sell something that users don't want.
If Graham is right, a great hacker is someone who believes that his own preferences are more important than doing what is best for the users. Small ISVs don't need people like that.
Fussy about doing interesting projects
Graham goes on to explain how important it is for great hackers to be doing interesting projects:
Along with good tools, hackers want interesting projects. It's pretty easy to say what kinds of problems are not interesting: those where instead of solving a few big, clear, problems, you have to solve a lot of nasty little ones. One of the worst kinds of projects is writing an interface to a piece of software that's full of bugs.
Here again, I am sympathetic. I like interesting stuff too. My To-Do list tells me that I am supposed to be working on some enhancements to our online store website. Frankly, that programming task doesn't interest me very much. I'll confess that I'm procrastinating on that particular task.
However, I work at an ISV. I love building software, but SourceGear is not my hobby -- it is my profession. We sell products to users. The reality is that lots of highly profitable software development tasks are just not very interesting.
Graham strikes particularly close to home when he says, "One of the worst kinds of projects is writing an interface to a piece of software that's full of bugs." Our SourceOffSite product provides an Internet-based interface to a piece of software that's full of bugs (SourceSafe). That same product supports integration with IDEs by means of a piece of software that's full of bugs (the MSSCCI API). If we had been great hackers and refused to do this work because it is not interesting, we would have missed out on millions of dollars of revenue.
If Graham is right, a great hacker is someone who is not willing to do any of the un-fun things that need to be done. Small ISVs don't need people like that.
Fussy about interacting with users
Graham characterizes great hackers as people don't want to be involved with users:
Bigger companies solve the problem by partitioning the company. They get smart people to work for them by establishing a separate R&D department where employees don't have to work directly on customers' nasty little problems. You may not have to go to this extreme. Bottom-up programming suggests another way to partition the company: have the smart people work as toolmakers. ... This way you might be able to get smart people to write 99% of your code, but still keep them almost as insulated from users as they would be in a traditional research department.
This kind of attitude is a big problem in a small ISV. I concede that it is frustrating to be interrupted when I'm working on a coding problem. I concede that users sometimes ask dumb questions. I concede that writing a great piece of code is more fun than figuring out how somebody screwed up their Web.config file.
However, I work at an ISV. I love building software, but SourceGear is not my hobby -- it is my profession. We sell products to users. Nothing here is more important than our users. Nothing.
Last year I wrote an article in which I claim that small ISVs should only hire "developers", which I define as "programmers who also contribute in non-coding ways". The thesis statement of this article said:
" For the purpose of this article, a "programmer" is someone who does nothing but code new features and [if you're lucky] fix bugs. They don't write specs. They don't write automated test cases. They don't help keep the automated build system up to date. They don't help customers work out tough problems. They don't help write documentation. They don't help with testing. They don't even read code. All they do is write new code. In a small ISV, you don't want any of these people in your company."
If Graham is right, a great hacker is someone who is not willing to help the people who use the software he creates. Small ISVs don't need people like that.
Bottom Line
Like I said, I enjoyed Graham's essay very much. He describes great hackers by enumerating all of their worst qualities, and yet, the essay still makes us want to admire these super-productive people. That's good writing.
But the essay causes concern. I worry that lots of small ISVs will read his article and believe that they need to hire great hackers. When great hackers are as fussy as Graham says they are, they're not worth the trouble. We want the super-productivity, and we want the innate love of software development, but we don't want all the extra baggage. Instead:
Hire people who care about users.
Hire people who understand the difference between a job and a hobby.
Hire people who want to contribute in lots of different ways to the success of the product.
It's okay to be in awe of these great hackers. But as a practical matter, small ISVs would be much better off hiring professionals. | [
74
] |
Coles: I am a survivor of sexual abuse | New York Jets wide receiver Laveranues Coles is a survivor of sexual abuse.
In a profile in Sunday editions of The New York Times, Coles said he was molested between the ages of 10 and 13 by a man his mother later married.
The Pro Bowl wide receiver thought he was alone in his inner
struggles, and too proud to let any outsiders into his personal
prison. But Coles recently decided to free himself of his secret in the hopes it might help other children who have endured abuse.
"I haven't talked about it in ... forever, but I know that
holding something like that inside has been a burden for so long,"
Coles said Sunday after helping the Jets beat Miami 17-7. "For me
to get on this platform that I have, having been in the league and
have all the media attention that we have, I think it's something
that should be said.
"If it gets one kid to come out and say, 'Look, this is
happening to me,' ... I think it's right."
Coles remained silent about the abuse for years,
instead using it to drive him to become one of the NFL's best receivers. He said even close friends on the Jets were unaware that he had been abused.
According to the Times, Coles' stepfather, whose name the
receiver didn't want to reveal, was sentenced to nine years in a
Florida prison in 1992 after pleading guilty to the crimes. He
served 3½ years,but was later convicted of another crime and has
been in prison since 2001.
Coles' mother, Sirretta, divorced her husband when the abuse was
first revealed and sought counseling for the youngster. Coles
realizes that coming out with this now publicly will reopen old
wounds for the family.
"We'll talk about it," Coles said. "I love my mom and we love
each other and we'll talk about it briefly and put it behind us
again."
Coles told The Times that he received counseling, but it clashed with the athletic mentality of shrugging off injuries.
"You just want to put it behind you," he said. "I think, you know, as a man, when you're violated in that way, you don't know how other people are going to take it, how other people are going to view you. There's so much that comes with revealing that part of your life and story."
Coles doesn't worry about what others might think or say about
what he went through. He's proven himself to be a star on the
football field, now in his sixth NFL season -- and second stint with
the Jets after spending the last two years with Washington.
"I think with age comes maturity, and I think now that I'm a
little older, I think I can deal with it a little better and I just
want to help kids because I think it happens to more people in this
world than we actually allow ourselves to believe," said Coles, 27.
"Coming up, I always felt like I was the only one that ever
happened to. Then, when I started going to different sessions, they
let me know that it happens to a lot more people."
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. | [
13,
10
] |
The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page | SYNOPSIS: A discussion of the ugly truth about race and the lethally inept Katrina response
By three to one, African-Americans believe that federal aid took so long to arrive in New Orleans in part because the city was poor and black. By an equally large margin, whites disagree.
The truth is that there's no way to know. Maybe President Bush would have been mugging with a guitar the day after the levees broke even if New Orleans had been a mostly white city. Maybe Palm Beach would also have had to wait five days after a hurricane hit before key military units received orders to join rescue operations.
But in a larger sense, the administration's lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina had a lot to do with race. For race is the biggest reason the United States, uniquely among advanced countries, is ruled by a political movement that is hostile to the idea of helping citizens in need.
Race, after all, was central to the emergence of a Republican majority: essentially, the South switched sides after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Today, states that had slavery in 1860 are much more likely to vote Republican than states that didn't.
And who can honestly deny that race is a major reason America treats its poor more harshly than any other advanced country? To put it crudely: a middle-class European, thinking about the poor, says to himself, "There but for the grace of God go I." A middle-class American is all too likely to think, perhaps without admitting it to himself, "Why should I be taxed to support those people?"
Above all, race-based hostility to the idea of helping the poor created an environment in which a political movement hostile to government aid in general could flourish.
By all accounts Ronald Reagan, who declared in his Inaugural Address that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," wasn't personally racist. But he repeatedly used a bogus tale about a Cadillac-driving Chicago "welfare queen" to bash big government. And he launched his 1980 campaign with a pro-states'-rights speech in Philadelphia, Miss., a small town whose only claim to fame was the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers.
Under George W. Bush - who, like Mr. Reagan, isn't personally racist but relies on the support of racists - the anti-government right has reached a new pinnacle of power. And the incompetent response to Katrina was the direct result of his political philosophy. When an administration doesn't believe in an agency's mission, the agency quickly loses its ability to perform that mission.
By now everyone knows that the Bush administration treated the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a dumping ground for cronies and political hacks, leaving the agency incapable of dealing with disasters. But FEMA's degradation isn't unique. It reflects a more general decline in the competence of government agencies whose job is to help people in need.
For example, housing for Katrina refugees is one of the most urgent problems now facing the nation. The FEMAvilles springing up across the gulf region could all too easily turn into squalid symbols of national failure. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which should be a source of expertise in tackling this problem, has been reduced to a hollow shell, with eight of its principal staff positions vacant.
But let me not blame the Bush administration for everything. The sad truth is that the only exceptional thing about the neglect of our fellow citizens we saw after Katrina struck is that for once the consequences of that neglect were visible on national TV.
Consider this: in the United States, unlike any other advanced country, many people fail to receive basic health care because they can't afford it. Lack of health insurance kills many more Americans each year than Katrina and 9/11 combined.
But the health care crisis hasn't had much effect on politics. And one reason is that it isn't yet a crisis among middle-class, white Americans (although it's getting there). Instead, the worst effects are falling on the poor and black, who have third-world levels of infant mortality and life expectancy.
I'd like to believe that Katrina will change everything - that we'll all now realize how important it is to have a government committed to helping those in need, whatever the color of their skin. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Originally published in The New York Times, 9.19.05 | [
3
] |
US plans first face transplant | The procedure would take about 10 hours
Doctors in the US have already carried out the procedure on bodies donated for medical research.
Now the Cleveland Clinic team will choose a patient whose face is disfigured to receive a "new" face from a dead donor.
The chance it will work is around 50% and experts have expressed safety and ethical concerns about the procedure.
A new face
The recipient would have to take powerful anti-rejection drugs for life, which carry considerable long-term health risks, says the Royal College of Surgeons of England, which formed a working party to look at the issue earlier this year.
Also, it is not known how well an individual and their loved ones would adapt psychologically to a completely new face.
There are a great many questions to which answers are needed
Changing Faces charity
It is hard to predict what the person would look like after a face transplant.
The procedure would involve taking skin and underlying tissues from a dead donor and placing them on the living recipient.
Computer modelling suggests the new face would neither resemble the donor nor recipient's pre-injury self.
The face should take on more of the characteristics of the skeleton of the recipient than the soft tissues of the donor.
The recipient should be able to eat, drink and communicate again through a wide variety of facial expressions and mannerisms.
Picking a patient
The working party said it was not against facial transplants in theory, saying they could offer a major breakthrough in restoration of quality of life to those whose faces have been destroyed by accidents or disease.
You want to choose patients who are really disfigured, not someone who has a little scar
Surgeon Maria Siemionow
But it cautioned: "Until there is further research and the prospect of better control of these complications, it would be unwise to proceed with human facial transplantation."
After a year of discussions, the Cleveland Clinic won approval to go ahead with the operation from an internal review board, which included surgeons, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, nurses and patient advocates.
Surgeon Maria Siemionow and her team will interview five men and seven women as potential candidates for the 8-10 hour operation.
Dr Siemionow told Associated Press: "You want to choose patients who are really disfigured, not someone who has a little scar."
Yet they will have to have enough healthy skin for traditional grafts in case the transplant fails.
They will be told that their face would be removed and replaced with one from a cadaver, matched for tissue type, age, sex and skin colour.
Charity Changing Faces said: "There are a great many questions to which answers are needed before this extremely risky and experimental surgery could be considered a viable option for patients with severe facial disfigurements.
"It is our view that today's excellent conventional surgery combined with the very best psychological and social rehabilitation programmes can very effectively enable patients with severe disfigurements to live full and active lives.
"The continuing speculation about face transplants is not helpful for people with disfigurements." | [
4
] |
Conan O'Brien's Commencement Speech for the Harvard Class of 2000 | "I'd like to thank the Class Marshals for inviting me here today. The last time I was invited to Harvard it cost me $110,000, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious. I'd like to announce up front that I have one goal this afternoon: to be half as funny as tomorrow's Commencement Speaker, Moral Philosopher and Economist, Amartya Sen. Must get more laughs than seminal wage/price theoretician.
Students of the Harvard Class of 2000, fifteen years ago I sat where you sit now and I thought exactly what you are now thinking: What's going to happen to me? Will I find my place in the world? Am I really graduating a virgin? I still have 24 hours and my roommate's Mom is hot. I swear she was checking me out.
Being here today is very special for me. I miss this place. I especially miss Harvard Square - it's so unique. Nowhere else in the world will you find a man with a turban wearing a Red Sox jacket and working in a lesbian bookstore. Hey, I'm just glad my dad's working. It's particularly sweet for me to be here today because when I graduated, I wanted very badly to be a Class Day Speaker. Unfortunately, my speech was rejected. So, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to read a portion of that speech from fifteen years ago:
"Fellow students, as we sit here today listening to that classic Ah-ha tune which will definitely stand the test of time, I would like to make several predictions about what the future will hold: "I believe that one day a simple Governor from a small Southern state will rise to the highest office in the land. He will lack political skill, but will lead on the sheer strength of his moral authority."
"I believe that Justice will prevail and, one day, the Berlin Wall will crumble, uniting East and West Berlin forever under Communist rule."
"I believe that one day, a high speed network of interconnected computers will spring up world-wide, so enriching people that they will lose their interest in idle chit chat and pornography."
And finally, I believe that one day I will have a television show on a major network, seen by millions of people a night, which I will use to re-enact crimes and help catch at-large criminals."
And then there's some stuff about the death of Wall Street which I don't think we need to get into....
The point is that, although you see me as a celebrity, a member of the cultural elite, a kind of demigod, I was actually a student here once much like you. I came here in the fall of 1981 and lived in Holworthy. I was, without exaggeration, the ugliest picture in the Freshman Face book. When Harvard asked me for a picture the previous summer, I thought it was just for their records, so I literally jogged in the August heat to a passport photo office and sat for a morgue photo. To make matters worse, when the Face Book came out they put my picture next to Catherine Oxenberg, a stunning blonde actress who was accepted to the class of '85 but decided to defer admission so she could join the cast of "Dynasty." My photo would have looked bad on any page, but next to Catherine Oxenberg, I looked like a mackerel that had been in a car accident. You see, in those days I was six feet four inches tall and I weighed 150 pounds. Recently, I had some structural engineers run those numbers into a computer model and, according to the computer, I collapsed in 1987, killing hundreds in Taiwan.
After freshman year I moved to Mather House. Mather House, incidentally, was designed by the same firm that built Hitler's bunker. In fact, if Hitler had conducted the war from Mather House, he'd have shot himself a year earlier.
1985 seems like a long time ago now. When I had my Class Day, you students would have been seven years old. Seven years old. Do you know what that means? Back then I could have beaten any of you in a fight. And I mean bad. It would be no contest. If any one here has a time machine, seriously, let's get it on, I will whip your seven-year-old butt. When I was here, they sold diapers at the Coop that said "Harvard Class of 2000." At the time, it was kind of a joke, but now I realize you wore those diapers. How embarrassing for you.
A lot has happened in fifteen years. When you think about it, we come from completely different worlds. When I graduated, we watched movies starring Tom Cruise and listened to music by Madonna. I come from a time when we huddled around our TV sets and watched "The Cosby Show" on NBC, never imagining that there would one day be a show called "Cosby" on CBS. In 1985 we drove cars with driver's side airbags, but if you told us that one day there'd be passenger side airbags, we'd have burned you for witchcraft.
But of course, I think there is some common ground between us. I remember well the great uncertainty of this day. Many of you are justifiably nervous about leaving the safe, comfortable world of Harvard Yard and hurling yourself headlong into the cold, harsh world of Harvard Grad School, a plum job at your father's firm, or a year abroad with a gold Amex card and then a plum job in your father's firm. But let me assure you that the knowledge you've gained here at Harvard is a precious gift that will never leave you. Take it from me, your education is yours to keep forever. Why, many of you have read the Merchant of Florence, and that will inspire you when you travel to the island of Spain. Your knowledge of that problem they had with those people in Russia, or that guy in South America-you know, that guy-will enrich you for the rest of your life.
There is also sadness today, a feeling of loss that you're leaving Harvard forever. Well, let me assure you that you never really leave Harvard. The Harvard Fundraising Committee will be on your ass until the day you die. Right now, a member of the Alumni Association is at the Mt. Auburn Cemetery shaking down the corpse of Henry Adams. They heard he had a brass toe ring and they aims to get it. Imagine: These people just raised 2.5 billion dollars and they only got through the B's in the alumni directory.
Here's how it works. Your phone rings, usually after a big meal when you're tired and most vulnerable. A voice asks you for money. Knowing they just raised 2.5 billion dollars you ask, "What do you need it for?" Then there's a long pause and the voice on the other end of the line says, "We don't need it, we just want it." It's chilling.
What else can you expect? Let me see, by your applause, who here wrote a thesis. (APPLAUSE) A lot of hard work, a lot of your blood went into that thesis... and no one is ever going to care. I wrote a thesis: Literary Progeria in the works of Flannery O'Connor and William Faulkner. Let's just say that, during my discussions with Pauly Shore, it doesn't come up much. For three years after graduation I kept my thesis in the glove compartment of my car so I could show it to a policeman in case I was pulled over. (ACT OUT) License, registration, cultural exploration of the Man Child in the Sound and the Fury.
So what can you expect out there in the real world? Let me tell you. As you leave these gates and re-enter society, one thing is certain: Everyone out there is going to hate you. Never tell anyone in a roadside diner that you went to Harvard. In most situations the correct response to where did you to school is, "School? Why, I never had much in the way of book larnin' and such." Then, get in your BMW and get the hell out of there. You see, you're in for a lifetime of "And you went to Harvard?" Accidentally give the wrong amount of change in a transaction and it's, "And you went to Harvard?" Ask the guy at the hardware store how these jumper cables work and hear, "And you went to Harvard?" Forget just once that your underwear goes inside your pants and it's "and you went to Harvard." Get your head stuck in your niece's dollhouse because you wanted to see what it was like to be a giant and it's "Uncle Conan, you went to Harvard!?"
But to really know what's in store for you after Harvard, I have to tell you what happened to me after graduation. I'm going to tell you my story because, first of all, my perspective may give many of you hope, and, secondly, it's an amazing rush to stand in front of six thousand people and talk about yourself.
After graduating in May, I moved to Los Angeles and got a three-week contract at a small cable show. I got a $380 a month apartment and bought a 1977 Isuzu Opel, a car Isuzu only manufactured for a year because they found out that, technically, it's not a car. Here's a quick tip, graduates: no four cylinder vehicle should have a racing stripe.
I worked at that show for over a year, feeling pretty good about myself, when one day they told me they were letting me go.I was fired and, I hadn't saved a lot of money. I tried to get another job in television but I couldn't find one. So, with nowhere else to turn, I went to a temp agency and filled out a questionnaire. I made damn sure they knew I had been to Harvard and that I expected the very best treatment. And so, the next day, I was sent to the Santa Monica branch of Wilson's House of Suede and Leather. When you have a Harvard degree and you're working at Wilson's House of Suede and Leather, you are haunted by the ghostly images of your classmates who chose Graduate School. You see their faces everywhere: in coffee cups, in fish tanks, and they're always laughing at you as you stack suede shirts no man, in good conscience, would ever wear.
I tried a lot of things during this period: acting in corporate infomercials, serving drinks in a non-equity theatre, I even took a job entertaining at a seven year olds' birthday party. In desperate need of work, I put together some sketches and scored a job at the fledgling Fox Network as a writer and performer for a new show called "The Wilton North Report." I was finally on a network and really excited. The producer told me the show was going to revolutionize television. And, in a way, it did. The show was so hated and did so badly that when, four weeks later, news of its cancellation was announced to the Fox affiliates, they burst into applause.
Eventually, though, I got a huge break. I had submitted, along with my writing partner, a batch of sketches to Saturday Night Live and, after a year and a half, they read it and gave us a two week tryout. The two weeks turned into two seasons and I felt successful. Successful enough to write a TV pilot for an original sitcom and, when the network decided to make it, I left Saturday Night Live. This TV show was going to be groundbreaking. It was going to resurrect the career of TV's Batman, Adam West. It was going to be a comedy without a laugh track or a studio audience. It was going to change all the rules. And here's what happened: When the pilot aired it was the second lowest-rated television show of all time. It's tied with a test pattern they show in Nova Scotia.
So, I was 28 and, once again, I had no job. I had good writing credits in New York, but I was filled with disappointment and didn't know what to do next. I started smelling suede on my fingertips. And that's when The Simpsons saved me. I got a job there and started writing episodes about Springfield getting a Monorail and Homer going to College. I was finally putting my Harvard education to good use, writing dialogue for a man who's so stupid that in one episode he forgot to make his own heart beat.
Life was good.
And then, an insane, inexplicable opportunity came my way. A chance to audition for host of the new Late Night Show. I took the opportunity seriously but, at the same time, I had the relaxed confidence of someone who knew he had no real shot. I couldn't fear losing a great job I had never had. And, I think that attitude made the difference. I'll never forget being in the Simpson's recording basement that morning when the phone rang. It was for me. My car was blocking a fire lane. But a week later I got another call: I got the job.
So, this was undeniably the it: the truly life-altering break I had always dreamed of. And, I went to work. I gathered all my funny friends and poured all my years of comedy experience into building that show over the summer, gathering the talent and figuring out the sensibility. We debuted on September 13, 1993 and I was happy with our effort. I felt like I had seized the moment and put my very best foot forward. And this is what the most respected and widely read television critic, Tom Shales, wrote in the Washington Post: "O'Brien is a living collage of annoying nervous habits. He giggles and titters, jiggles about and fiddles with his cuffs. He had dark, beady little eyes like a rabbit. He's one of the whitest white men ever. O'Brien is a switch on the guest who won't leave: he's the host who should never have come. Let the Late show with Conan O'Brien become the late, Late Show and may the host return to Conan O'Blivion whence he came."
There's more but it gets kind of mean.
Needless to say, I took a lot of criticism, some of it deserved, some of it excessive. And it hurt like you wouldn't believe. But I'm telling you all this for a reason. I've had a lot of success and I've had a lot of failure. I've looked good and I've looked bad. I've been praised and I've been criticized. But my mistakes have been necessary. Except for Wilson's House of Suede and Leather. That was just stupid.
I've dwelled on my failures today because, as graduates of Harvard, your biggest liability is your need to succeed. Your need to always find yourself on the sweet side of the bell curve. Because success is a lot like a bright, white tuxedo. You feel terrific when you get it, but then you're desperately afraid of getting it dirty, of spoiling it in any way. I left the cocoon of Harvard, I left the cocoon of Saturday Night Live, I left the cocoon of The Simpsons. And each time it was bruising and tumultuous. And yet, every failure was freeing, and today I'm as nostalgic for the bad as I am for the good. So, that's what I wish for all of you: the bad as well as the good. Fall down, make a mess, break something occasionally. And remember that the story is never over.
If it's all right, I'd like to read a little something from just this year: "Somehow, Conan O'Brien has transformed himself into the brightest star in the Late Night firmament. His comedy is the gold standard and Conan himself is not only the quickest and most inventive wit of his generation, but quite possible the greatest host ever." Ladies and Gentlemen, Class of 2000, I wrote that this morning, as proof that, when all else fails, there's always delusion.
I'll go now, to make bigger mistakes and to embarrass this fine institution even more. But let me leave you with one last thought: If you can laugh at yourself loud and hard every time you fall, people will think you're drunk.
Thank you". | [
16
] |
Sports News, Tweets, Rumors and Articles | It goes without saying that the Titans situation is an example of why the NFL wants coaches/staff to wear masks on the sideline. Because you don't know if someone has already been infected, but test hasn't turned it up yet. Also: wear a mask, people.
Beat Writer / Columnist | [
4
] |
Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Cable News Department) | Bruce Bartlett is not a happy camper. He's also completely right on this:
Poynter Online - Forums: From BRUCE BARTLETT, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis: Once again, I just got off the phone with a booker for one of the cable news channels who wanted me to play the role of the knee-jerk Bush supporter and I had to decline. Although I am a conservative who generally supports Republican policies and generally opposes those that come from Democrats, I am uncomfortable being locked into that position. I also don’t think it makes for very good television.
I understand that news shows want to show both sides -- or perhaps I should say two sides -- to controversial issues, lest they appear biased towards one position. But why must this always take the form of a debate? Why can’t they interview a person with one position separately and then interview someone else with another position in another segment? Wouldn’t this be a better way of achieving balance than by always having a debate?
It’s hard enough to make one’s point in sound-bite form without being distracted by the debating tactics of one’s opponent. And, unfortunately, everyone is now trained to know that when one has the camera and microphone they are pretty much free to say what they like, even if it is totally off topic and even untrue. On one occasion, my opponent called me a liar on air at the end of the segment, so that I could not respond. Afterwards, off camera, he conceded that I was right. But no one watching the exchange ever knew that....
The fact is -- and everyone knows this -- that few issues are black-and-white. There are always nuances that are impossible to discuss in a debate format. But the debate format creates the illusion that there is always a simple answer to every complex problem and encourages average television viewers to assume that those of us in the Washington policymaking community are all idiots totally beholden to our party, without a lick of common sense or integrity... | [
10
] |
UK soldiers 'freed from militia' | Soldiers were forced to flee after their vehicles caught fire
Enlarge Image
Brigadier John Lorimer said it was of "deep concern" the men detained by police ended up held by Shia militia.
Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said the men - possibly working undercover - were arrested for allegedly shooting dead a policeman and wounding another.
The arrests sparked unrest in which Army vehicles were attacked.
In a statement, Brig Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the soldiers should have been handed over to coalition authorities, but this failed to happen despite repeated requests.
"I had good reason to believe that the lives of the soldiers were at risk and troops were sent to the area of Basra near the police station to help ensure their safety by providing a cordon," Brig Lorimer said.
British Army vehicles under attack during bid to recover arrested servicemen
In pictures
"Later in the day, however, I became more concerned about the safety of the two soldiers after we received information that they had been handed over to militia elements."
After troops broke into the police station to confirm the men were not there, they staged a rescue from a house in Basra, said the commanding officer of 12 Mechanised Brigade in Basra.
Brig Lorimer added: "It is of deep concern that British soldiers held by the police should then end up being held by the militia. This is unacceptable."
HAVE YOUR SAY Pulling out at this stage would be irresponsible
Richard, London, UK
Send us your comments
BBC Defence Correspondent Paul Wood said local police revealed the whereabouts of the two men after the station was stormed.
"At the point of a 30mm cannon - no shots were fired - but at the point of this cannon, the Iraqi police gave away the location of where the two British soldiers had been taken," he said.
Vehicles set alight
A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman earlier said a Warrior armoured vehicle had broken down the perimeter wall at the police station.
Mr al-Waili said more than 10 vehicles and helicopters had been used in an operation that was a "barbaric act of aggression".
We remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary
Defence Secretary John Reid
Timeline: UK troops in Iraq How events unfolded
Two British armoured vehicles earlier sent to the police station were set alight in clashes.
TV pictures showed crowds of angry protesters hurling petrol bombs and stones, and soldiers in combat gear clambering from one of the flaming vehicles and making their escape.
Reports said two Iraqi civilians were killed and three soldiers injured in the clashes.
In a statement, Defence Secretary John Reid said the soldiers were being treated for minor injuries.
'Police infiltrated'
The BBC's Paul Wood said none of Basra's 20,000 police officers had helped the UK troops "partly because of reticence by their commanders, partly because, I am afraid, they have been infiltrated by these militants".
He added: "Now we are in the situation where presumably revenge will be sought by relatives of the dead Iraqis - and our allies in the police, I think there has been a complete breakdown of trust and it's going to be very difficult for British troops to call on them."
Mr Reid said: "We remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security."
British officials would not say if the two men were working undercover
"This is bound to be seen as a humiliation by many Iraqis - something the insurgents will use to their advantage."
Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram called on ministers to explain who would decide when to leave Iraq and on what basis.
Colonel Tim Collins, a former commander of British troops in Iraq, said Monday's violence did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra, which was still a safer city than Baghdad.
On Tuesday a suicide car bombing in the northern city of Mosul killed a US diplomatic security guard and three US private contractors, according to American officials.
The US military also announced that four of its soldiers attached to the Marines were killed in two roadside bombings in the western city of Ramadi on Monday. | [
4
] |
Immigration memo intended for Rove arrives on Democrat's fax | Immigration memo intended for Rove arrives on Democrat's fax
Larisa Alexandrovna
An immigration memo intended for embattled White House advisor Karl Rove arrived instead on the fax machine of a Democratic congressman, RAW STORY can reveal.
The congressman who received the fax opted not to comment, and asked that his name not be used.
The focus of Smith's memo, addressed to "Hon. Karl Rove," is on immigration politics.
Advertisement
"Immigration needs to be considered in the context of: (1). Media Bias, (2). Animosity toward the president and (3) the feelings of the Republican base," Smith's memo states.
Smith is a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims as well as the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity. No issues regarding the legislative jurisdiction of these committees are mentioned.
Smith goes on to suggest that "Liberals can easily and accurately be painted as opposing enforcement." His office did not return a call seeking comment.
The document, verified by RAW STORY and traced to Smith's fax machine telephone line, follows.
[email protected]
Originally published on Monday September 19, 2005. | [
9
] |
James Bond writer 'reinvents' spy | Pierce Brosnan has starred in four James Bond films
Paul Haggis, who is working on the script for Casino Royale, said: "It's going to be good.
"We're trying to reinvent Bond. He's 28 - no Q, no gadgets."
Producers have still not decided who will play the spy in Casino Royale, which is due out next year. The most recent star, Pierce Brosnan, is 52.
A wide array of actors, including Daniel Craig, Clive Owen and Dougray Scott, have been mooted as possible contenders.
Paul Haggis wrote Oscar-winning film Million Dollar Baby
The book was also one of the most violent in the series, with the heroic secret agent taking a beating from his rival Le Chiffre, and gadget-master Q was not present.
Casino Royale was turned into a spoof spy movie in 1967, with David Niven in the lead role.
The new film, which will be the 21st in the franchise, will be directed by Martin Campbell, who was in charge of GoldenEye.
Paul Haggis has been receiving critical acclaim for his movie Crash, which is set against the backdrop of Los Angeles and deals with racism.
The Canadian-born film-maker also wrote the screenplay for the Oscar-winning Million Dollar Baby. | [
9
] |
How Hybrid Cars Work | The power split device is the heart of the Toyota Prius. This is a clever gearbox that hooks the gasoline engine, generator and electric motor together. It allows the car to operate like a parallel hybrid -- the electric motor can power the car by itself, the gas engine can power the car by itself or they can power the car together. The power split device also allows the car to operate like a series hybrid -- the gasoline engine can operate independently of the vehicle speed, charging the batteries or providing power to the wheels as needed. It also acts as a continuously variable transmission (CVT), eliminating the need for a manual or automatic transmission. Finally, because the power split device allows the generator to start the engine, the car does not need a starter.
The power split device is a planetary gear set (below). The electric motor is connected to the ring gear of the gear set. It is also directly connected to the differential, which drives the wheels. So, whatever speed the electric motor and ring gear spin at determines the speed of the car.
The Prius planetary gear set
The generator is connected to the sun gear of the gear set, and the engine is connected to the planet carrier. The speed of the ring gear depends on all three components, so they all have to work together at all times to control the output speed.
When you accelerate, initially the electric motor and batteries provide all of the power. The ring gear of the power split device is connected to the electric motor, so it starts to spin with the motor. The planet carrier, which is connected to the engine, is stationary because the engine is not running. Since the ring gear is spinning, the planets have to spin, which causes the sun gear and generator to spin. As the car accelerates, the generator spins at whatever speed it needs to in order for the engine to remain off. You can see all of this below:
Watch the Prius' power split device
as the car accelerates from 0 to 30 mph.
Once you reach about 40 mph (64 kph), the gasoline engine will turn on. The generator suddenly changes speed, causing the planet carrier to turn and start the engine. Once the engine is running, it settles into a constant speed while the generator varies its speed to match the output speed with the electric motor. If you are really accelerating hard, the motor will draw extra power from the batteries. Once you are up to freeway speed, the car will move under a combination of gas and electric power, with all of the electricity coming from the generator.
Like the Insight, the Prius never needs to be recharged; the onboard generator automatically maintains the proper level of charge in the batteries.
Both the Honda and the Toyota have long warranties on their hybrid components. The Insight has an eight-year/80,000-mile warranty on most of the powertrain, including batteries, and the Prius has an eight-year/100,000-mile warranty on the battery and hybrid systems. The motors and batteries in these cars typically don't require any maintenance over the life of the vehicle (however, if you do have to replace the batteries after the warranty expires, it will likely cost you several thousand dollars). The engine doesn't require any more maintenance than the one in any other car, and because both hybrids have regenerative braking, the brake pads may even last a little longer than those in most cars.
Achieving hybrid power is certainly more complex than using straight gasoline power or straight electric power. In the next section, we'll examine why hybrid technology is so desirable, both for consumers and for car makers.
Advertisement | [
10,
1
] |
Shocked metals are stronger : Nature News | Published online 15 September 2005 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news050912-10
News
Computer models show how to give metals more mettle.
A simulation of a shock wave travelling up through nanocrystalline copper, squishing grains together as it goes. © Science
Sudden shocks make you harder. At least, they can do if you're a metal. A team of researchers in the United States and Switzerland hope that this discovery could point the way to ultra-hard metals for engineering in extreme environments, such as nuclear fusion reactors.
The team simulated the atomic-scale structure of a slab of copper, made up of a patchwork of grains about 20 nanometres (millionths of a millimetre) across. Their study showed that the material becomes harder and stronger after a shock wave has passed through. An explosion could produce such a shock, suggest the team, led by Eduardo Bringa at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California.
Ultra-hard metals are needed not just for military armour but for applications such as nuclear fusion. Researchers are looking into initiating fusion reactions using laser blasts, and very strong materials are needed to contain these reactions.
“We can go even further along the hardening path than people thought.” James McNaney
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California
Metals are a patchwork of grains stuck together. These materials bend and deform when misalignments of rows of atoms, called dislocations, slip through a grain. This allows the material to adapt itself to different shapes when under stress, making the metal soft.
Smaller grains make for harder metals, because dislocations tend to get stuck when they reach the edge of a grain. So in grains just a few tens of nanometres across, dislocations can move travel a very small distance, limiting how much the material can change shape.
Slip and slide
But there is a limit to the strengthening effects of shrinking crystalline grains. If stressed far enough, the grains themselves may slip and slide against each other, deforming the material.
Bringa and colleagues sought to stop these slips by investigating what happens when one subjects a metal with nanoscale grains to sharp shocks.
A shock wave creates a very high pressure over a very narrow region as it travels through a material. As the region of stress is on the same size scale as a grain itself, the pressure can't force grains to slide over each other.
Instead, the material can only accommodate the deformation by dislocations appearing within the grains. But this time, that hardens the metal, they report in Science1. The dislocations produce kinks on the grain edges that knit them together, providing extra strength.
"The dislocations hook the grain boundaries a little bit and stop them sliding," says team member James McNaney of the Lawrence Livermore. "That way, we can take nanocrystalline metals even further along the hardening path than people thought we could."
Shocker
The researchers have preliminary evidence that same thing happens in real life, as well as simulations. A piece of nanocrystalline nickel, after being subjected to an explosive shock, becomes peppered with dislocations inside the grains. "Normally you never see that, because the grains slide first," says McNaney.
The team hasn't tested the strength of their shocked nickel, because such measurements are tricky with such tiny amounts of material.
ADVERTISEMENT
Julia Weertman, a specialist in nanocrystalline metals at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, says that the results are interesting and could be useful for fusion research. But for large-scale industrial applications such as aerospace engineering, she says, the question is whether one can make enough of the material to be useful.
"The jury is out on that," McNaney admits, although he says that there are already industrial techniques for shocking large volumes of materials. He thinks that these strengthened metals might make ultra-hard coatings for other materials.
Weertman also cautions that hardness comes at the cost of brittleness. "Dislocations serve a purpose in engineering," she says. "They make things more forgiving. That's why we make aircraft out of [bendy] metal instead of [brittle] ceramics." McNaney agrees: "What you'd like is something that is ductile and strong at the same time."
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California | [
13
] |
U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation | U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and E.U. in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. | [
7
] |
The 10 Secrets of a Master Networker | Keith Ferrazzi enters your life like a circus coming to town -- the two ringing cell phones, the two PalmPilots, the multiple conversations in which he seems to be listening and talking simultaneously. The way he walks and looks, all tanned and fit, with the styled hair and custom suit and black Prada shoes. The deals that are hanging in the air, the favors being extended or secured, the sideshows, the laughter, the juggling. That irresistible balloon of energy.
We've just bolted from the Yale Club and are hustling through midtown Manhattan in a cab, heading for Rockefeller Center and a lunch we're already late for with an important television executive. A Ferrazzi friend. I'm here because Ferrazzi is said to have a gift. In addition to heading up a young Los Angeles company called YaYa that's generating more than its share of buzz, Ferrazzi is a networker, a great networker. Indeed, some of the world's best networkers say that the still-only-36-year-old Ferrazzi may be the best of all. Ferrazzi is something else, too: an archetypal American story, the poor kid -- born to a steelworker and a cleaning lady -- who works his ass off to get into Yale and Harvard B-school; who becomes the youngest elected partner at Deloitte Consulting and then the youngest Fortune 500 chief marketing officer, at Starwood Hotels; who gets tapped by famed financier Michael Milken and others to become CEO of YaYa, a pioneering company in the creation of on-line games as custom-marketing vehicles. In two years Ferrazzi has transformed YaYa from a clever idea into a thriving business. He's got game, as they say. But the exact nature of that game -- the magic of it, everyone claims -- is networking, the acquisition and cultivation of influential connections.
And yet, sitting with Ferrazzi in the cab, I am aware of what many company owners will think of all this. Networking? Give me John Wayne individualism and the aggressive single-mindedness that's required to build something, to lead, and to do it all alone. Schmoozers are brownnosers, sycophants more suited to middle management than to the Wild West of the entrepreneurial world. Would it be a surprise if entrepreneurs recoil at the thought of consciously courting any person who has more power and money than they have?
In the cab I'm thinking I'll press Ferrazzi on that issue, lead him carefully through my list of questions, get to the bottom of networking's unseemliness. But it won't happen that way. Instead, in the course of following Ferrazzi throughout the day, at lunch and during a few hours of phone calls and a discussion that can only be described as a lecture, I will become a pupil. Keith Ferrazzi will teach me how the inner circle operates. He'll teach me how even I can operate. He'll teach me the system.
"Have you ever thought of broadcast journalism?" Ferrazzi is asking me now as we sit in traffic. He asks many such questions, personal and probing, and he does it with such an easy charm and sincerity that I find myself answering them.
"I guess I've considered it," I say.
"Well, this lunch will be great for you," he says. "She's a terrific woman who happens to be very powerful. This is your opportunity to start practicing your networking skills." But halfway through our meal in the Rainbow Room's members-only lunch club, all is not well. I'm polite but passive, asking a few questions but nothing more. Ferrazzi, on the other hand, manages the conversation like a yogi -- all deliberate, delicate movements, his listening as assertive as his banter. And now I'm about to face my first test. Choosing a moment when he and I are briefly alone in the buffet line, Ferrazzi leans in and whispers, "You're a fucking loser if you don't walk out of here with some reason for getting in touch with her again."
Later, when he is painstakingly explaining the practice of his system -- the rules of elite networking -- he'll also explain the critical difference between what he does and what most people do. He'll try to explain the nuances that the Rolodex builders and card passer-outers fail to grasp. But he'll admit that in the beginning it was more straightforward even for him.
EYES ON THE PRIZE: It was his father's pluck that got Keith Ferrazzi out of his working-class suburb.
As a kid he caddied at the local country club for the homeowners and children living in the wealthy town next to his, and it made him think often and hard about those who succeed and those who don't. He came to believe that business, like life, is a game, and that the people who play it best will win. And the rule in the game that trumps all others, Ferrazzi became convinced, is that he who knows the most people, and knows them well, becomes a member of the club, not a caddy. Hence his gradual construction of a plan, a set of existential operating procedures that today has bred a network of oceanic proportions. Whether you want to speak with Michael Milken or Bill Clinton or celebrity doctor Dean Ornish or CEO Barry Diller, Ferrazzi can open the door.
"So how'd I do?" I ask him when we're back at the Yale Club, his base when he's in New York, after our Rainbow Room lunch.
"Awful," he reports. And it's true. The entire experience had the feel of a first date. When I did manage to speak, I actually stuttered. My questions weren't particularly passionate or insightful. And when at the very last moment I went in for the metaphorical kiss, I instead got a chummy punch on the shoulder. Ferrazzi stepped in -- because I'd forgotten my business cards -- to say he'd get us in touch. I now ask him to grade my performance. He gives me a preposterously charitable C-minus. "You can do better," he says. "You just have to work on it."
Rule 1: Don't network just to network.
"Well, what do you want?" Ferrazzi will ask any would-be networker seeking instruction in the art. What do you want?
"If your aspirations lie with the crème de la crème," he says, "that is, if your aspirations are to be one of the top x people in the world in whatever you do, if you're so bold as to want to be president of the United States or a respected CEO in the Fortune 500, I would argue that you won't get there by knowing a lot of middle-level people." You need to know the right people, for the right reason.
As a Yale undergrad, Ferrazzi, who grew up outside Pittsburgh, thought he wanted to become the governor of Pennsylvania. So he became the president of Yale's political union. When he was looking to join a fraternity, he researched which one had the most active politicians as alumni. (Sigma Chi wasn't chartered at Yale, so he founded a chapter.) When he was a sophomore, he ran for New Haven City Council, but lost. From 1991 through 1999 at Deloitte Consulting, his first job after Harvard Business School, he desperately wanted to distinguish himself from the other striving postgrad consultants. Since Michael Hammer of "reengineering" fame was the guru of the moment, Ferrazzi befriended him and helped Deloitte ride Hammer's fame. Ferrazzi became the youngest person ever elected partner at Deloitte Consulting. The more focused Ferrazzi's goal was, the more outrageous his networking fortunes became.
In November 2000 the YaYa board named Ferrazzi CEO and handed him two goals: establish a viable business model, and then either find a major investor or sell the company to a well-heeled strategic acquirer. At the time, YaYa had the tech capability to invent on-line games that corporations could use to attract and educate their customers, but the company had no customers -- or revenue. "I was hired to get a new concept heard for the first time in the marketplace," Ferrazzi says. He mapped out the most important players in the on-line-games industry, from CEOs and journalists to programmers and academics. He knew almost all of them within a year. And in 2002, YaYa recorded $8 million in sales.
Rule 2: Take names.
"I'm constantly ripping out lists in magazines. I was one of Crain's '40 under 40' when I was 30. Interestingly enough, I had been ripping out 40-under-40 lists for years and continue to do so. Those are individuals who somebody has spent enough time to identify as an up-and-comer, a mover, an intellectual, and these are the kinds of people I want to surround myself with. I rip out lists of top CEOs, most admired CEOs, regional lists. A recent book by Richard Saul Wurman lists the 1,000 most creative people in the United States. It's fantastic."
Either Ferrazzi or his assistant enters the gathered names into a database. He has call sheets by region, listing the people he knows and those he'd like to know, and when he's in town, he phones all of them. The numbers are also put into his two PalmPilots, one that has names strictly relating to the particular business he's involved in at the moment (YaYa now) and another that contains his own personal contacts. There are more than 5,000 contacts in all, some of them people Ferrazzi doesn't know yet. Those are what he calls "aspirational contacts."
He pulls out his Palm and shows me the contact information for Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin empire. "I don't know him. But I want to," he says. Then he scrolls down and comes to Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony Corp. of America. "He was on my aspirational list once. I now know Howard," he notes.
Rule 3: Build it before you need it.
Back in 1999, when Ferrazzi arrived at Starwood Hotels from Deloitte, his goal was to become president or even CEO of the multinational hospitality corporation. But by early 2000 things weren't going well. The company, under the mercurial leadership of chairman and CEO Barry Sternlicht, was known for the early defections of its top executives. Ferrazzi's relationship with Sternlicht was "strained," according to one insider, and Ferrazzi realized he had no future at Starwood.
On his last day at the company -- as on most days -- he made more than 40 phone calls, one of which was to Sandy Climan, a well-known Hollywood player who once served as Michael Ovitz's right-hand man at Creative Artists Agency and who now runs an L.A.-based venture-capital firm called Entertainment Media Ventures. What's interesting about the call, and the dozens of others like it that Ferrazzi made that day, was that long before they knew Ferrazzi, many of the people he spoke with had been on one of his lists.
ANCHOR MAN: "What you do," says Ferrazzi, "is find somebody in your peer set who has a friend who is two levels above -- the anchor tenant."
Three months later, Ferrazzi had five job offers. Climan had him meet with people from YaYa, one of the companies in his firm's portfolio. It didn't hurt that one of the other investors with a stake in YaYa, Knowledge Universe, was backed by Michael Milken. Milken had been on a list for years, until Ferrazzi finally connected with him through a nonprofit cause. Ferrazzi has since come to consider Milken a mentor. "You build your network before you need it," says Ferrazzi. "When someone comes to me for advice on how to build a network because they need a job now, I tell them it's useless. People can tell the difference between desperation and an earnest attempt to create a relationship."
Rule 4: Never eat alone.
The dynamics of status in a business network are similar to those in Hollywood: invisibility is a fate worse than failure. Above all, never, ever disappear. "Keep your social and conference and event calendar full," Ferrazzi tells me. "I give myself one night a week for myself, and the rest is an event or dinner."
Is this a life?
Ferrazzi, who has no children but has been in a 10-year relationship with another man, spends almost all his time working. "I wake up around 5 or 6 in the morning, and I go until 1 in the morning," he says. "Every free moment is a chance to E-mail or call someone. But I don't consider that work. That's my true joy. I have balance, but it's my own version. My career and my community-service stuff have always taken a front seat to my personal life. But, in a sense, that is my personal life. There's no distinction for me. Yes, I'd like to go to church more and meditate more. And it's been a while since I've taken a real vacation. But do I feel like I've sacrificed anything? No."
Rule 5: Be interesting.
To show that he was smart yet unconventional, Ferrazzi used to wear a bow tie to conferences. To emphasize his charitable nature, he is always passionately involved in one philanthropic cause or another. He is keenly aware that perception drives reality and that we are all, in some sense, brands. All his choices -- his Prada suits, his conversational style, his hobbies -- help him fashion a distinctive identity that is both interesting and attractive. And the cornerstone that supports the design of a person, he instructs, is content. "Being known is one thing, but being known for content is something else entirely -- and much better," he says. "You have to have something to say to be interesting to people."
"If you're so bold as to want to be president of the United States or a respected CEO in the Fortune 500, I would argue that you won't get there by knowing a lot of middle-level people."
In college, that something was politics. At his first job, at Imperial Chemical Industries, he mastered the ins and outs of total quality management. (He persuaded the industrial giant to craft a new position for him called head of TQM in North America.) Later, when he worked at Deloitte, reengineering was his hook. Today it's on-line games and "how the new medium will impact society and corporations."
What sets Ferrazzi apart from everybody else is the relentlessness he brings to learning and packaging and selling these hooks. YaYa's board knew that that characteristic would prove vital for a company whose market and product were totally untested. The on-line-games industry has always been driven by hits, by competing in a race for the latest, greatest diversion. But Ferrazzi began to trumpet the industry as the next powerful communications medium, an untapped $20-billion marketing vehicle perfect for product placements, branded gaming events, custom games-related training for businesses, and on and on. It wasn't long before he was not only attending games conferences but speaking at them, "which is always preferable," he says.
Once the pitch is perfected, getting attention is never a problem. Journalists are powerful (the right exposure can make a company), needy (they're always looking for a story), and relatively unknown (few have achieved enough celebrity to make them inaccessible). It's a combination that Ferrazzi has learned to exploit. He knows people in top positions at almost every major business magazine in the country. Which is why it's little surprise that in less than a year after Ferrazzi took over YaYa, with barely a shred of revenue to its name, the company -- and, more important, the content -- appeared in places like Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Brand Week, and the New York Times.
Fame sells. An executive at Honda motors spotted the article in Brand Week, and YaYa had its first big account; it would create for Honda a multiplayer on-line racing game to help sell the new Acura.
Rule 6: Manage the gatekeeper. Artfully.
Last summer Ferrazzi met Jane Pemberton, a former Disney executive, while flying first-class, as always. "That's where the decision makers sit," says Ferrazzi. (See "Where to Meet the Power Elite," at right, for Ferrazzi's recommendations regarding the most fertile venues for top-shelf networking.) Pemberton suggested that Ferrazzi might like to get to know Michael Johnson, president of Walt Disney International.
There wasn't anything obvious that Johnson could do for Ferrazzi or YaYa. There rarely is when Ferrazzi reaches out. But it couldn't hurt for Ferrazzi to know him, and who could say whether Disney would someday become a potential suitor? The only problem was getting through Johnson's gatekeepers; that's often the only problem -- but not for Ferrazzi. "When you don't know someone, the first concept is getting past the secretary," he says. "So Johnson's secretary says, 'I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson is traveling, he's traveling all month.' And I say, 'That's OK. Why don't you tell him a friend of Jane Pemberton's called? Tell him to call me back if he has some time.' I didn't push. The first call you don't push, because the admin doesn't know you, and you never want to get the admin pissed off at you; they're the gateway.
"Second call is almost the same thing: 'Hi, this is Keith Ferrazzi. I'm just calling back because I haven't heard from him,' as if the presumption is that I would have. It's totally innocuous, no obligation. On the third call, she's getting a little pissed. 'Listen,' she says with a little strike in her voice, 'Mr. Johnson is very busy. I don't know who you are....' I counter: 'I'm just a personal friend of a friend, I just moved into the city, Jane suggested that I should meet Michael, and I don't even know why, besides Jane being a good friend of Michael's. Maybe it's all wrong, maybe we shouldn't meet. I apologize.' That puts her on the defensive. Now she thinks that she's been a dick to a personal friend of a friend of her boss. She backs off, and I make a proposition: 'Why don't I just send Michael an E-mail? What's his E-mail address?' And at this point she thinks, 'I want to be out of the middle of this thing.' She gives me the E-mail address.
"The E-mail is simple: 'Dear Michael, I'm a friend of Jane's, and she suggested I talk with you. Fifteen minutes and a cup of coffee is fine. Jane thinks we should know each other.' I get a cordial 'Of course we can' response.
"So now I go back to the secretary with the 'Of course we can.' Now it's not if, but when, we'll meet. Now it's 'Michael would like to set up this meeting, just let me know when.' And finally it happens."
Rule 7: Always ask.
This is the story Keith Ferrazzi tells about his father:
Pete Ferrazzi, a steelworker whose world was hard hours and low wages, knew he wanted more for his son. He knew his boy's life would be better if he could find a way out of their working-class Pittsburgh suburb.
"Keep your social calendar full," says Ferrazzi. "I give myself one night a week for myself, and the rest is an event or dinner."
But the elder Ferrazzi didn't know the exits. He'd never been to college. He knew nothing of country clubs or private schools. He could picture only one man who might have the sort of pull that could help: his boss. Actually, the boss of his boss's boss -- Alex McKenna, CEO of Kennametal, in whose factory Pete Ferrazzi worked. The two men had never met. But the elder Ferrazzi had an idea about how the world worked. He'd observed that audacity was often the only thing that separated two equally talented men and their job titles. Pete Ferrazzi asked to speak with McKenna, who, upon hearing the request, was so intrigued that he took the meeting. In it, he agreed to meet Pete's son, Keith, but not to do anything more.
However, it turned out that McKenna liked the precocious adolescent -- especially because of the way young Keith had come to his attention. McKenna was on the board of a local prep school where he sent his own children, by reputation one of the best schools in the country. Strings were indeed pulled, and Keith entered a new world, on scholarship, that set him on an entirely new course, just as his father had hoped. "I got one of the best educations America has to offer," Ferrazzi says today. "Starting with elementary school, prep school, on to Yale and Harvard -- it would never have happened if my father hadn't believed that it never hurts to ask. The worst anyone can say is no. Not many people believe that. Embarrassment and fear are debilitating."
Totally fearless is how Joshua Ramo, an editor at Time Inc., describes Ferrazzi. Ramo remembers a moment at the Davos economic forum, where the two first met, when Ferrazzi walked onto a hotel bus, saw Nike founder Phil Knight, and made a beeline for the seat next to his.
Boldness, and its particular genius, was the father's gift to his son.
Rule 8: Don't keep score.
Successful networking is never about simply getting what you want. It's about getting what you want and making sure that people who are important to you get what they want, too. Often, that means fixing up people with one another. Take, for instance, this unsolicited E-mail message that Ferrazzi sent to two key executives in digital gaming:
Steve and John,
I wanted to introduce the two of you. John, I've bragged about Steve to you already. And Steve, John is the president and COO of EA [Entertainment Arts], the largest games company in the world. John has been an outspoken believer that the future of games will converge with ITV and that EA is the kind of company that will be at the forefront given the leadership of someone like John, the size of EA, and power of their content. I know, Steve, that you get the power of games as the one who allowed G4 to come to life. It would seem that the two of you would benefit from some conversations about your mutual visions. Not to mention that I suspect that you'll really like each other as well.
Best,
Keith Ferrazzi
"It's about a personal connection that makes you feel a sense of reciprocity," Ferrazzi says. "Superficiality is not networking. There are people who have lots of superficial connections, and people call that networking. But that's not successful. You feel dirty when you talk to someone like that. The outcome of good networking is the capacity to have a conversation with anyone you want to have a conversation with and then to leave that conversation with a lasting connection of some sort."
The best sort of networking occurs when Ferrazzi can connect two people who don't know each other. Which drives home a surprising implication: the strength of your network derives as much from the diversity of your relationships as it does from their quality or quantity. Most of us know the people within our own profession and social group, and little more. Ferrazzi makes a point of knowing as many people from as many different worlds as possible. The ability to bridge those worlds is a key attribute in managers who are paid better and promoted faster, according to an influential study conducted by Ron Burt, a professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
The care and feeding of contacts is a relatively new concept for the business networker. In Power! How to Get It, How to Use It, a 1975 self-help screed on the secrets to becoming a corporate chieftain, Michael Korda advised that "masters players ... attempt to channel as much information as they can into their own hands, then withhold it from as many people as possible." That is, 30 years ago old-style connectors attained power through a monopoly of information, whereas today people like Ferrazzi view the system as social arbitrage, a constant and open exchange of favors and intelligence. It's a sort of career karma, too; how much you give to the network determines how much you'll receive.
Rule 9: Ping constantly.
Eighty percent of success, Woody Allen once said, is just showing up. Eighty percent of networking is just staying in touch. Ferrazzi calls it "pinging." It's a quick, casual greeting. He makes hundreds of phone calls a day. Most of them are simply quick hellos that he leaves on friends' voice mail. He sends E-mail constantly. He remembers birthdays and makes a special point of reaching people when they have one. When it comes to relationship maintenance, he is, in the words of more than one friend, "the most relentless, energetic person I know."
Rule 10: Find anchor tenants. Feed them.
By now, an invitation for an evening at Ferrazzi's is a hot ticket. Nearly once a month influence peddlers from different worlds gather to gossip, talk business, and schmooze at his Hollywood Hills home. But in the early days, before his dinner parties had cachet, Ferrazzi had to develop a very deliberate strategy for attracting the right people.
"You, me, every one of us -- we have our peer set, and we can always have dinner parties with our peer set, but if you keep having dinner parties with your peer set, why would somebody two levels above your peer set ever come to your dinner parties?" he asks. "The point is, you don't randomly invite somebody two levels above your peer set to your dinner and expect them to come, because they won't. They want to hang around people of their peer set or higher. This is a crass way of talking about it, but this is the formula."
So Ferrazzi developed his theory of the anchor tenant. "What you do," he says, "is find somebody in your peer set who has a friend who is two levels above -- the big swinging dick of the group, the anchor tenant. You get them to come and, in all invitations subsequent to that, you use the anchor to pull in people who otherwise wouldn't attend."
On a typical evening last summer, all the guests at Ferrazzi's could have been considered anchors. And the function of the festivity remained the same as it had been back when Ferrazzi was trying to land just one big name: mixing different people for good fun, lively conversation, and perhaps a few mutually beneficial encounters to boot. The doing of deals was inevitable. But so was a sing-along around Ferrazzi's baby grand.
The evening started with champagne, followed by cocktails served "early and heavy." On this night, political columnist Arianna Huffington stopped by for drinks but left before dinner. Other notables included Chrysler vice-president Jeff Bell; design impresario and TED conference founder Richard Saul Wurman; Disney president of interactive games Jan Smith; and Paul Bricault, senior vice-president at William Morris Consulting.
Around the long dining-room table Ferrazzi had placed name tags in an effort to orchestrate a symphony of successful interactions. A wealthy CEO might sit next to an official of a nonprofit that's looking to raise money, or a potential YaYa investor who is a rabid Republican might find herself next to a GOP heavy. On this night, Bell, a film buff, was seated next to a well-known movie director. As always, the meal was hearty and down-home to make people feel cozy. After dinner, led by a hired piano player, the guests retired for some singing and port wine. Several days later, Bricault called to thank Ferrazzi. "My wife told me," he swooned in a voice-mail message, "she wants to be Keith Ferrazzi when she grows up."
We're back at the Yale Club, and my tutelage is coming to an end. The afternoon is edging into night, and Ferrazzi is still networking away with the restless energy of an obscure presidential hopeful -- indeed, among those he's dancing with at this particular moment is the obscure presidential hopeful Governor Howard Dean of Vermont. (Ferrazzi is arranging a fund-raiser for the governor in L.A., and, as a small favor, he's asking if Dean might take on a fellow Yalie's wife as an intern.) We're in Ferrazzi's regular suite, and he's standing at the desk, one leg propped up on a chair, two phones buzzing, E-mails pinging, his fingers constantly fidgeting with a PalmPilot. In the course of three hours he's spoken to or left messages for some three dozen people in addition to Dean, including the managing editor of Forbes, the president of Martha Stewart Living, and the chairman of DuPont.
I've followed Ferrazzi for months now, talking or E-mailing at all hours, becoming accustomed to "Ferrazzi Time," a zone of operations in which the switchboards are always open. Deals, companies, jobs: they come and go -- the ringmaster of the Big Top remains. Yet, nearing the end of my time with him, I realize that one of the most basic questions in my notebook remains unanswered.
What about the manipulation, the gamesmanship, the using of people? Doesn't he ever feel uncomfortable, like a phony? Well, no. This is simply who Keith Ferrazzi is. And I can see that he's is a little disappointed in me, a little saddened that maybe I haven't completely understood.
Sitting there with him, I realize that two scenes have stuck with me. One is a memory that Ferrazzi related of getting picked up at his prep school by his mother in a beat-up old Nova while other children were ducking into limos and BMWs. "And I'd be teased about my clothes, the lack of money.... It really set a hard line in my head. It fundamentally made me pissed off at the old-boy network because I wasn't an inheritance kid. It put the biggest fucking chip on my shoulder. And one of these days I will have surpassed all of them in terms of success."
So here he is, more successful than his father ever dreamed, still bearing the weight of that mighty chip.
Then there is the tale he told of his own aspiring group of mentees, young men in their twenties. Inevitably, Ferrazzi says, there comes a time when he can a make a difference in their lives. He can open a door or place a call or set up an internship -- one of those simple acts by which destinies are altered. But too often the offer is refused. "They'll say one of three things. They won't take the favor because they can't pay me back or because they don't want to be obligated to me, or they'll insist right there and then that they do me a favor of some kind in return," he says. To Ferrazzi, nothing is as infuriating as encountering such blindness in people he cares about as to how things work.
What he does, he'll say, has nothing to do with quid pro quo, with a running equation in which you give just so you can get. For Ferrazzi, networking may be the power tool for somehow, someday, dislodging that heavy chip. But it's something much more: a way of engaging with the world. For Ferrazzi, networking is about making a difference, exploring, learning, connecting. For Ferrazzi, it's the conscious construction of his life's path.
As conversations with Ferrazzi and his peers reveal, the network functions precisely because those with money and power know the rules. There's recognition of mutual need. There's certainty that investing time and energy in building personal relationships with the right people will pay dividends. And here is the point: the majority of "one percenters," as Ferrazzi calls the ultrarich and powerful who inhabit the territory he now travels, are one percenters because they understand this dynamic -- because, in fact, they themselves used the network to arrive at their present station. They are forthright in their pursuits, almost unconsciously conspiratorial in their collective and mutual understanding that real networking -- life-permeating networking -- is a requisite part of the game. It's not crass. For those who wield this kind of power, it's mandatory.
Tahl Raz is a reporter at Inc.
Where to Meet the Power Elite
Keith ferrazzi's favorite places to hang with other people on the rise.
Young Presidents' Organization (YPO). The organization is for executive managers under the age of 44 and has regional chapters across the United States.
Political fund-raisers. Although Ferrazzi once ran for office as a Republican, he no longer openly discusses his political affiliation. Why? So he can have access to both parties. He does 3 to 10 fund-raisers at home each year, supporting both regional and national politicians. It's easy pickings at the nexus of money and passion.
Conferences. "Have something unique to say and become a speaker" is Ferrazzi's hard-and-fast rule on attending business conferences. Networking is never easier than when people are coming to you.
Davos World Economic Forum. Held at the end of January or beginning of February each year, Davos is where corporate chieftains and political heavies discuss making the world better while slaloming the Alps. Your best chance of being invited is if you run a multinational or know someone who does. Many of Ferrazzi's most important relationships -- including Nike's Phil Knight -- have come from Davos.
Nonprofit boards. Ferrazzi suggests starting out by finding four or five issues that are important to you and then supporting them locally. Eventually, the goal is to become a board member.
Renaissance Weekend. Bill Clinton's favorite New Year's event (and, not surprisingly, the place that generated quite a few political appointments) is arguably the network of networks. If you're not a celebrity, a politician, or a friend of a friend, tough luck. This party, held in Charleston, S.C., is invitation only.
Any airplane's first-class cabin. First class is where the bigwigs sit when they fly. When Ferrazzi was at Deloitte Consulting, he'd pay for his own upgrades, and he eventually generated enough business to get the company to pay his way. There's a trick, however, to making it work. "You've got one shot at starting a conversation," he says, "and that's when someone is eating. They're bored and more receptive than at any time during the flight."
TED Conferences. This annual gathering in February in Monterey, Calif., brings together the well-connected nerd set under the theme "Technology, Entertainment, and Design." It's not hard to get an invitation, and the players come out for the heavy mingling, deal making, and often-interesting, if esoteric, seminars.
Allen & Co.'s Conference. New York investment banker Herb Allen organized the first event in 1983 to bring media moguls together at a lush ski resort in Sun Valley, Idaho, to do one thing: make deals. Very big deals. | [
19
] |
Hexagon Astrology (Matthew David Savinar) | Editor’s Note: audio/visual versions of this article have been uploaded to YouTube and Libsyn. -Matt
Along with being the most health conscious sign of the zodiac, Virgo also excels at writing, analysis, and forensic research due to its eye for detail, accuracy, and love of footnotes. In medical astrology, Virgo is associated with the intestines which through their power of analysis and discretion decide what stays with the body and what is discarded as waste. Virgo’s penchant for analysis and association with the intestines is also why you’ll find a disproportionate number of muckrakers born under this sign. Journalist Upton Sinclair, whose 1903 book The Jungle exposed the horrors of the early 20th century meatpacking industry, is a representative Virgo Sun. Combine the intellectual leanings of a Virgo Sun with a Leo Moon’s instincts for showmanship and the result is a Sun/Moon that is capable of doing muckraking journalism (Virgo) in a fashion that’s highly theatrical (Leo). To illustrate: using its on-air premier date as its date of birth, the 2003 ESPN television series Playmakers is a Virgo Sun, Leo Moon. (Chart)
Yes, Playmakers was about football but don’t let that dissuade you from giving it serious consideration. The series was absolutely riveting, receiving acclaim from critics (Virgo) and sky high ratings (Leo) from viewers; a well crafted, smartly written (Virgo) piece of theater (Leo) that was to professional football at the turn of 21st century what The Jungle was to the meatpacking industry at the turn of the 20th. The show was designed for male football aficionados yet brought in huge numbers of both women and non-sports fans because it depicted the most human of dramas: depression and drug addiction, unsettling power dynamics and deeply troubling family legacies. The plot lines were thought-provoking (Virgo) yet entertaining (Leo), featuring multi-faceted characters cast into complex ethical dilemmas with no easy solutions. The show’s story arcs were fictional but highly realistic and more than a bit prescient: a star quarterback keeping his painkiller habit from his doctor, a young running back trying to escape a family curse, a respected veteran player covering up un-respectable actions from the past, a team doctor caught in an ethical quandary, a head coach keeping his cancer diagnosis from his family, and a Catholic wide receiver keeping his homosexuality from everybody — all issues that the NFL has done its best to deny or dismiss over the last 15 years. The show was a hit because it depicted the players not as caricatures but as human beings, exactly what Upton Sinclair did with meatpackers in The Jungle a century earlier.
Unfortunately, despite sky high ratings and critical acclaim, the series only lasted for one season as it absolutely enraged the NFL who pressured ESPN to kill it. Amazingly, one team owner said he felt the NFL was as wholesome an institution as Disneyland but that Playmakers had depicted it as being akin to the Medellin drug cartel. That’s a strange analogy to make since the NFL is arguably responsible for more heads being bashed and lives being shortened than Pablo Escobar himself.
The theme for Playmakers includes a line “Still on beat, showin’ love to the streets come on you know me” — which just so happens to describe this pairing’s combination of conscientious mindfulness (Virgo) and full-hearted bravura (Leo Moon). In her book Love Signs, Linda Goodman describes the Virgo/Leo pairing as being exceptionally well suited for taking the beats to the streets and doing so with lots of love:
. . . [this pairing] will waltz down the Yellow Brick Road, grinning at each other and tossing posies, as happy and hopeful as we mortals are capable for being, with Leo strumminig the ukulele and Virgo playing the piccolo, serenely singing their song in tune. If it goes out for a key for a few bars, Virgo will immediately blow the proper note on a pitch pipe, correct the situation, and all will be melodious again . . .” (Source)
Goodman goes on to describe high functioning Virgo/Leo pairing as “miracle set to music”. To illustrate: music journalist and hip-hop legend Fred Brathwaite is a Virgo with his Moon in Leo. (Chart) Braithwaite, best known as “Fab Five Freddy”, started off as rapper and street artist in New York’s early 1980s underground hip hop and punk scenes. In 1988 he came to public attention as the original host of Yo! MTV Raps, the first television show dedicated specifically to rap music. Freddy has likely never played the ukulele or piccolo but as the host of Yo! he did put in a lot of work getting hip hop music onto to the multi-billion dollar Yellow Brick Road of mainstream acceptance:
These days hip hop music is nearly ubiquitous. In fact, it’s such a part of contemporary culture that there are now a not insignificant number of police officers who grew up listening to rapper Ice Cube belt out “F–k Tha’ Police” while KRS One’s hit “Sound of the Police” is now used to sell internet services. At the time Freddy started hosting Yo! things were a good deal different. Back then hip hop was seen by middle America as occupying a space between fadish and irrelevant, dangerous and criminalistic. Freddy’s work as the host of Yo! helped bring it from the fringes of the party to being the party itself. In 1988 there was no Twitter or YouTube or Soundcloud for independent artists to get their work in front of the public. If you were an up-and-coming rapper who aspired to be a real playmaker, your best bet at the time was to score an appearance on Yo! with Fab Five Freddy where you’d get a chance to “stay on beat” while “showin’ love to streets”.
Yo! may not have been a literal “miracle set to music” as per Goodman’s description of the Virgo/Leo pairing but with Freddy at the helm it definitely served as a working class (Virgo) home for entertainment (Moon in Leo) at its finest. Numerous household names in the hip hop game ranging from Fresh Prince (Will Smith) to Queen Latifah to Salt-N-Pepa’ made their television debuts alongside Freddy on Yo!. Once there they were free to serenely sing their songs, blow their notes, and be as melodious as they wanted (or didn’t want) to be.
According to astrologer Stella Hyde, Virgos make for great homeopaths and life coaches while Leo Moons are nourished by highly theatrical jobs such media mogul, circus ringmaster, and WWE wrestler. YouTube health and fitness celebrity Brandon Carter is a Virgo Sun, Leo Moon. (Chart) Carter is, in effect, a life coach (Virgo Sun) with the stage presence of a WWE superstar (Leo Moon), a statistician-homeopath (Virgo) whose the circus ringmaster of a social media empire (Leo Moon), a DIY nutritionist (Virgo) surrounded by an entourage of compatriots (Leo Moon) — some hailing from the halls of high society, some straight from the ‘hood, some sophisticated, some scurrilous. If you haven’t seen his YouTube channel it’s the sort of thing you’d expect to see if Tony Robbins (“Awaken the Power Within”) collaborated with John Shaft (“He’s a Bad Mother . . .”) or Tim Ferris (“Four Hour Body”) co-hosted a seminar with rapper Too Short (“Born to Mack”). It’s one part Dr. Axe, one part LL Cool J:
Carter’s best known for helping to popularize what are known as “street workouts”, an insurgent exercise movement that is one part old school calisthenics, one part freestyle break-dancing. Unlike expensive memberships at corporate owned globo-gyms or the over priced pretentiousness of many yoga studios, street workouts require nothing more than access to an outdoor park and a good attitude. The workouts are a highly efficient (Virgo Sun) form of exercise that rewards stagecraft and creativity (Leo Moon), one whose adherents are to mainstream gym chains what crypto-currency investors are are to the Federal Reserve or what builders of “tiny homes” are to the Toll Brothers corporation. Some samples are viewable at this link:
Don’t be too distracted by the shirtless theatrics, there is more to this pairing then keeping the body fat low (Virgo) and the drama quotient high (Leo Moon). According to astrologer Raven Kaldera, Virgo/Leo is the Sun/Moon of “The Bard” whose job is to speak truth (Virgo) to power (Leo):
The Bard is willing to go forth and speak in a sacred voice, telling even rulers how to rule and putting a check on tyranny. The Bard was deemed too dangerous to less secure Kings, and he was taken out of the equation . . . a deed that became deadly in the end. When the Bard cannot act as a check and balance to the King, the situation is turned over to the Aquarius opposition, who will have the King down as fast as possible. Thus the Bard’s job is crucial to the King, even if the King dislikes it occasionally (or often). (Source)
Kaldera tells us that in addition to speaking truth to power, the Virgo/Leo Bard can often be found speaking, writing, or reading “eloquent and inspirational political writing and thinking deeply about how it moves them.” (Source) Prior to becoming a fitness (Virgo) celebrity (Leo), Carter had gained some traction in the independent music scene. Like the music of any good Bard, his lyrics were aimed at putting a check on the tyrannical rule of various out of control Kings. Consider, for instance, these excerpts from his 2010 single “Blood Money”:
That Holy war ain’t working Mosque and Churches get it straight . . . Because I know for certain the verses don’t advocate . . . You killing another person or hurting them for their faith . . . Al-Qaeda wont see the virgins, Bush wont see no pearly Gates . . . They tryin’ to enslave you, Obama works for Goldman Sachs, how he gonna save you?
Carter’s video for “Blood Money” was released to YouTube where it quickly racked up 200,000 views before YouTube removed it from their site for reasons that are not totally clear.
Carter released “Blood Money” during the heyday of the Occupy Wall Street movement, a brief time during which it seemed the forces of decency might be turning the tables on the forces of tyranny. Unfortunately, that era did not last long. By the fall of 2016 autocracy was on the rise and hate on the offensive. Despite the efforts of Bards throughout the country, Donald Trump ultimately ascended to the office of the Presidency via a campaign of garish misogyny and race based grievances. Furthermore, a number of respected outlets suspect the Trump family is funded by blood money while it’s now become clear they intend to bleed the country dry.
An ad-hoc, Aquarian-era network of groups has since coalesced into “the Resistance”, a series of loosely affiliated tribes who seek to oppose the Trump family and turn back the damage they’re doing to the country and world. The Resistance has scored some definite victories in recent months, mostly by rallying together the targets of Trump’s scapegoating: women, immigrants, members of the LGBTQ community, and others. However, it has also struggled mightily to connect with the disaffected young males that form the backbone of the “alt-right” — the internet era, social media shock-mob that propelled Trump into power.
Purusing his YouTube channel, it appears that Carter has pivoted from his more politically oriented, Occupy Wall Street era musical projects into selling sports supplements and providing life success tips. That sort of pivot is certainly understandable given how difficult it is to monetize one’s creativity in the current media environment. That goes double if you don’t have family money, a fat curriculum vitae, or flush Silicon Valley stock options to fall back on. At the same, it’s really unfortunate. The forces that have mobilized to oppose the alt-right eventually must connect with at least a portion of those disaffected males if they hope to turn back the tides of fascism. Running 76 year old Bernie Sanders or establishment wonder-boy Joe Kennedy out there is only going to get “the Resistance” so far. If they really want to win they’d be wise to consider enlisting the services of some legitimate playmakers who can “stay on beat while showing love to the streets” ala Brandon Carter.
About the Author: Matthew David Savinar is a California licensed attorney (State Bar #228957), voluntarily inactive as of June 2013. He can be reached for questions, comments, or astrological consults via Twitter, his first YouTube channel, his second YouTube channel, SoundCloud, LibSyn or this site’s contact page.
The premier issue of Hexagon, now shipping: | [
10,
0,
0,
1,
2,
1,
7,
5,
0,
8
] |
From Google to Noodles: A Chef Strikes Out on His Own | Even before Mr. Ayers realized that his ambition was to go into business for himself, he said he was always conscious of the relationships he was building with his cafeteria patrons and the suppliers and vendors, which he plans to use as crucial help getting his venture off the ground.
A master chef in Rhode Island told him years ago that networking was the most important thing in the restaurant business, Mr. Ayers recalled. "He said, 'You never know when that milkman is going to own his own dairy and be in the position to give you a price break."'
Mr. Ayers has worked at expensive restaurants and middle-brow chains, cooked privately for families and ran the prepared foods department at a Whole Foods Market. But it is his Google friends -- lawyers, business development professionals, engineers and financial experts -- that he expects to draw on most of all.
Born in Chicago and raised in Brooklyn, N.Y., Mr. Ayers had a varied résumé even before he started cooking for Google. His love of music led to behind-the-scenes cooking jobs at various music festivals, and Google says on its Web site that Mr. Ayers formerly cooked for members of the Grateful Dead. (It was after Jerry Garcia's death, when the band dissolved, Mr. Ayers said.)
Dressed in flip-flops and cargo shorts, Mr. Ayers recently sat in the coffee bar of a Whole Foods Market near his home in Redwood City here, spinning his vision for his new restaurant, called Calafia (based on a Mexican myth from which the state of California draws its name). He said his inspiration came in equal parts from Whole Foods, McDonald's and Starbucks. He is looking for about 8,000 square feet of space in high-priced downtown Palo Alto, where other restaurants include Wolfgang Puck's Spago and the Cheesecake Factory.
Mr. Ayers has invested $100,000 of his own money for start-up costs, and expects to raise $4 million from some former Google employees and private equity investment groups. Another friend, a former doctor, is helping him write the business plan.
"Everything is handshakes at this point," Mr. Ayers said of the possible financial arrangements. "My lawyer is looking at the paperwork and trying to figure out who's going to give me the best deal and allow me to have the most control." None of the would-be financial backers were willing to be identified in print. | [
9
] |
Ex-White House Aide Charged in Corruption Case | WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 - A senior White House budget official who resigned abruptly last week was arrested Monday on charges of lying to investigators and obstructing a federal inquiry involving Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist who has been under scrutiny by the Justice Department for more than a year.
The arrest of the official, David H. Safavian, head of procurement policy at the Office of Management and Budget, was the first to result from the wide-ranging corruption investigation of Mr. Abramoff, once among the most powerful and best-paid lobbyists in Washington and a close friend of Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.
According to court papers, Mr. Safavian, 38, is accused of lying about assistance that he gave Mr. Abramoff in his earlier work at the General Services Administration, where he was chief of staff from 2002 to 2004, and about an expensive golf trip he took with the lobbyist to Scotland in August 2002.
Mr. Abramoff, a former lobbying partner of Mr. Safavian, was indicted last month in Florida on unrelated federal fraud charges. He is not identified by name in the court papers involving Mr. Safavian's arrest. But "Lobbyist A" in an F.B.I. affidavit could only be Mr. Abramoff based on descriptive details in the documents filed in the Federal District Court here. | [
4
] |
Wiesenthal, 'conscience of the Holocaust', dies at 96 | Wiesenthal passed away in his sleep at his home in Vienna, Austria, Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, said.
"I think he'll be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust," Mr Hier said. "When the Holocaust ended in 1945 and the whole world went home to forget, he alone remained behind to remember.
"He did not forget. He became the permanent representative of the victims, determined to bring the perpetrators of history's greatest crime to justice."
Wiesenthal, who was an architect before the second world war, dedicated himself to tracking down Nazi war criminals and being a voice for the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust. He lost 89 relatives in the atrocity.
"The task was overwhelming," Mr Hier added. "The cause had few friends. The Allies were already focused on the cold war, the survivors were rebuilding their shattered lives - and Simon Wiesenthal was all alone, combining the role of both prosecutor and detective at the same time."
Wiesenthal spent more than 50 years hunting Nazi war criminals, speaking out against neo-Nazism and racism and remembering the Jewish experience as a lesson for humanity. Through his work, he said, around 1,100 Nazi war criminals were brought to justice.
"With much energy and astonishing persistence, he refused to let the perpetrators of the single greatest crime of man against man go unjudged, unpunished, forgotten," Britain's chief rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, said.
"In the early years, his was a lonely and much misunderstood mission, yet he continued to insist that what he sought was justice, not vengeance.
"The sheer scale of the task he undertook was immense. His moral clarity and courage were unfailing. All those who fight hate are in his debt."
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said Wiesenthal would "forever be rightly credited" with ensuring justice for some of the worst crimes in history was done.
"He was tireless in his efforts, and he gave the Jewish communities in the UK and around the world a lifetime of service. Future generations will forever be indebted to him," Mr Straw said.
Wiesenthal's quest began after the US liberated the Mauthausen death camp in Austria, where he was a prisoner, in May 1945. It was the fifth among the dozen Nazi camps in which he was imprisoned, and he weighed just 45kgs (99lbs) when he was freed.
"When history looks back, I want people to know the Nazis weren't able to kill millions of people and get away with it," he once said.
He said he quickly realised "there is no freedom without justice", and decided to dedicate "a few years" to seeking justice. "It became decades," he added. | [
3
] |
Can this fruit be saved? | Can this fruit be saved?
The banana as we know it is on a crash course toward extinction. For scientists, the battle to resuscitate the world's favorite fruit has begun--a race against time that just may be too late to win | [
51
] |
Almost Before We Spoke, We Swore | By the same token, he said, nothing is more deadly than a person who is too enraged for expletives -- who cleanly and quietly picks up a gun and starts shooting.
Researchers have also examined how words attain the status of forbidden speech and how the evolution of coarse language affects the smoother sheets of civil discourse stacked above it. They have found that what counts as taboo language in a given culture is often a mirror into that culture's fears and fixations.
"In some cultures, swear words are drawn mainly from sex and bodily functions, whereas in others, they're drawn mainly from the domain of religion," Dr. Deutscher said.
In societies where the purity and honor of women is of paramount importance, he said, "it's not surprising that many swear words are variations on the 'son of a whore' theme or refer graphically to the genitalia of the person's mother or sisters."
The very concept of a swear word or an oath originates from the profound importance that ancient cultures placed on swearing by the name of a god or gods. In ancient Babylon, swearing by the name of a god was meant to give absolute certainty against lying, Dr. Deutscher said, "and people believed that swearing falsely by a god would bring the terrible wrath of that god upon them." A warning against any abuse of the sacred oath is reflected in the biblical commandment that one must not "take the Lord's name in vain," and even today courtroom witnesses swear on the Bible that they are telling the whole truth and nothing but.
Among Christians, the stricture against taking the Lord's name in vain extended to casual allusions to God's son or the son's corporeal sufferings -- no mention of the blood or the wounds or the body, and that goes for clever contractions, too. Nowadays, the phrase, "Oh, golly!" may be considered almost comically wholesome, but it was not always so. "Golly" is a compaction of "God's body" and, thus, was once a profanity.
Yet neither biblical commandment nor the most zealous Victorian censor can elide from the human mind its hand-wringing over the unruly human body, its chronic, embarrassing demands and its sad decay. Discomfort over body functions never sleeps, Dr. Burridge said, and the need for an ever-fresh selection of euphemisms about dirty subjects has long served as an impressive engine of linguistic invention. | [
13
] |
Ancient meteorites tell tales of early solar system | Scientists at London University's Imperial College have gained a new insight into the earliest days of our solar system through a new analysis of some of the oldest, most primitive, metorites found on Earth.
The meteorites, all of which date back to the earliest days of the solar system, and predate our planet by a substantial period, are almost devoid of the so-called volatile elements, such as zinc, sodium, and lead, as is the upper mantle of Earth.
The nebula around the proto-sun would initially have been relatively rich in these elements, which leaves astronomers to puzzle over the question of when and where did these elements go?
The researchers propose that volatile depletion - the process by which these elements were knocked out of the matter that condensed to form the planets - must have been one of the first things to happen when our solar system was forming. Not only that, but they suggest that this process, whatever it was, could well be an inevitable part of planetary formation, and not just a local phenomenon.
Scientists have known for a long time that volatile depletion must have been an early process, but have not been able to say if it ocurredas the planets were forming, or some time later.
"Studying meteorites helps us to understand the initial evolution of the early Solar System, its environment, and what the material between stars is made of," Dr Phil Bland, from Imperial's Department of Earth Science and Engineering, who led the research, explained. "Our results answer one of a huge number of questions we have about the processes that converted a nebula of fine dust and gas into planets."
The researchers based their conclusions on an analysis of around half of the 45 primitive meteorites around the world. The work has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. ® | [
6
] |
Worm spoofs Google on infected PCs | Virus writers have developed a worm that spoofs the behaviour of internet search engine Google, varying the results displayed to suit the requirements of hackers.
P2Load-A modifies the HOSTS file on infected PCs by replacing the original with a file downloaded from a remote website under the control of hackers. When users run a search, the results are normally shown correctly - but sponsored links are different. For some searches, other links appear which have been specified by the creator of this malware, resulting in increased traffic to these websites.
The changes in behaviour happen because users are not getting their results from Google but from a hacker-controlled website based in Germany. P2Load-A also modifies a user's start page. Spanish anti-virus firm Panda reports the page is an almost exact copy of Google, which supports the 17 languages of Google and redirects users even if they make a mistake when entering the address, such as 'wwwgoogle.com'.
"Its [P2Load's] aims are none other than to increase visits to the pages linked by the creator of this malware or earn an income from companies that want to appear in the first few results in computer where the identity of Google has been spoofed," said Luis Corrons, director of PandaLabs. "In both cases, the motivation of the author of this malware is purely financial."
The worm spreads across file trading networks, targeting users of the Shareaza and Imesh P2P programs. P2Load-A copies itself to the shared directory of these programs as an executable file called Knights of the Old Republic 2, a reference to a well-known computer game related to the Star Wars saga. If this file is run, it displays an error message informing the user that a file does not exist and offering to download it. Meanwhile, unknown to its user, their Windows PC will have become infected.
PandaLabs has warned both the ISP hosting the page and Google in order to take measures and neutralise the attack. P2Load-A uses techniques for fooling users into visiting untrusted web sites more commonly seen in pharming attacks against DNS servers. Although it is rare for malware to change the HOSTS file of infected PCs the tactic is not unprecedented and has generated alerts from Australian consumer security firm PC Tools and others since the start of the year. | [
6
] |
London bombers staged 'dummy run' | Detectives reconstructed the bombers' movements after studying thousands of hours of film as part of the probe into the blasts which killed 52 people.
CCTV images show three of the bombers entering Luton station, before travelling to King's Cross station where they are also pictured.
Officers are keen to find out if the men met anyone else on the day.
Intensive probe
The three, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay, were conducting a carefully planned reconnaissance exercise, police said.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Branch, said: "What we want to know is where else they went and did they meet anybody else while they were in London?
The new footage shows the three men travelling to King's Cross from Luton station on 28 June
In pictures
"If any member of the public thinks that they know something about the movement of these men on that day, they should call us on the anti-terrorist hotline."
He added that it was "part of a terrorist's methodology" to check timings, lay-out and security precautions.
Police traced the movements after recovering tickets and receipts from houses connected to the bombers which pointed to their trip.
Mr Clarke said the investigation would carry on for months. More than 3,000 plus witness statements had been gathered and 80,000 CCTV tapes analysed.
Police revealed that two bombs were found in a car left by the attackers at Luton train station on 7 July.
It has also emerged that a landfill site in Skelton Grange, West Yorkshire, is being searched in a bid to uncover more clues.
DUMMY RUN DETAILS Sidique Khan and Tanweer meet Lindsay at Luton station around 0810 BST The trio buy tickets and catch a train to King's Cross The men arrive at King's Cross at 0855 BST and are also seen at Baker Street at midday The bombers leave King's Cross at 1250 BST and arrive back in Luton at 1340 BST
London bomb families' grants double
A dozen officers in fluorescent jackets could be seen on Tuesday afternoon working on the site.
The men, who were wearing overalls under their jackets and white safety hats, appeared to be systematically searching a small area of the rubbish heap helped by two mechanical diggers.
One local resident said: "They've been here for weeks, dozens of them.
"They've been searching the same bit of rubbish every day it seems.
"The diggers skim off a layer at a time and then they move in and search it quite painstakingly."
A landfill site the size of 18 Olympic swimming pools is being searched
Detectives believe the site could be connected to the apparent "bomb factory" at a flat in Alexander Grove in Leeds.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has said for the first time the group carried out the attacks.
In a videotaped message aired on Arab television station al-Jazeera, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri said the group had the "honour" of carrying out the attacks.
The 7 July bomb attacks killed 56 people - including the four bombers - and injured more than 700.
Tube theory
Three bombs were detonated on underground trains just outside Liverpool Street and Edgware Road stations, and on another travelling between King's Cross and Russell Square.
The fourth explosion took place on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, not far from King's Cross.
Evidence of a reconnaissance mission supports the theory that all four had planned to detonate their rucksack bombs on the Underground system.
It is believed that the bus bomber, Hasib Hussain, was prevented from getting onto the Northern Line on the day of the attacks because the service had been disrupted.
The other bombers - Tanweer, Lindsay and Sidique Khan - detonated their devices almost simultaneously.
Anyone with information in connection with the London bombings should ring the anti-terrorist hotline on 0800789321. | [
7
] |
UNIX WEB HOSTING | UNIX web hosting refers to the hosting services and system architectures provided on UNIX platform to open source companies.
Hosting means a service offered by company to allocate some disk space to physically place all website related information on a server to enduringly stay in the internet. UNIX web hosting is an operating system which has the capability of providing a user website with security which cannot be penetrated by any means. UNIX hosting is entirely compatible with the latest craze among all the programming languages, PHP. UNIX hosting provides reliability and has very easy usage, with quicker problem solving capabilities.
UNIX is one of the most famous operating systems next to Windows and Apple’s Macintosh. UNIX web hosting has several advantages in comparison to Windows hosting, but at the same time there are certain downsides to it, as well. UNIX was developed during the 1970s, at AT&T's Bell Laboratories, and has greatly evolved in due course of time.
Free BSD and OpenBSD are the two most popular flavors of UNIX environment. Both these versions are highly stable and secure. OpenBSD boasts of being the most secure open source operating systems throughout the world. Above all, it is free and maintenance cost of the web servers running on UNIX environment is also on the lower side.
UNIX offers support to all the common scripting languages like Shell, C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP and Java. However, these days the latest web servers developed on UNIX environment also offer support to Ruby-on-Rails and all other technological developments.
As far as database support is concerned, the popular UNIX hosting providers usually support MS SQL and MySQL databases. However, the UNIX web hosting service providers may not support all the databases. Therefore, it is important that you enquire about this aspect and pick a web host that support the database you intend to use.
The most important aspects to be kept in mind which selecting UNIX web hosting services and which have enormous impact on by UNIX operating system are:
Performance Price Stability Features
Due to the benefits particularly in these four areas, UNIX web hosting is the mostly opted by many users around the world. However, Windows is trying to bridge the gap between the services provided by both the web hosting service providers.
A good UNIX web hosting provider must ensure that the customers get all the necessary resources and a good control panel to manage their website with great ease. A good UNIX web host will never let you make out that you’re making use of UNIX hosting, while the poor hosts don’t give enough resources, thereby causing discontentment amongst the users.
Ideally a UNIX web hosting plan must include all the features offered by a shared Windows web hosting plan, and there must never be any difference between UNIX website hosting and Windows hosting plan.
One will always get the added advantage in terms of pricing, if you pick UNIX web hosting services, and the reliability and flexibility of the web server hosted on UNIX platform is always higher.
Therefore, if you don’t have any business requirements that can be exclusively accomplished only on UNIX hosting environment, UNIX hosting can be a better bet. Moreover, if you happen to be a developer, UNIX hosting environment will give you the choice of making changes to the codes and also getting complete access to the root level of the web server.
Last but definitely not the least, Windows hosting can’t match the offerings of UNIX hosting environment, while vice-versa doesn’t hold true in majority of the cases. Hence, this gives an unfair advantage to UNIX hosting over Windows hosting environment. | [
13,
17
] |
Professionnel de la photo – Un professionnel pour capturer les meilleurs moments de votre vie | De nos jours, les appareils photo sont tellement accessibles. Cependant, il ne suffit pas d’avoir accès à des outils de qualité pour faire des photos de qualités. C’est en cela, et pour bien d’autres raisons encore, que les photographes professionnels ont toujours leur utilité. Tout d’abord, ils ont une maitrise des différentes fonctionnalités d’un appareil photo, ce qui n’est pas forcément le cas d’un amateur. Ils ont la possibilité d’effectuer des retouches professionnelles pour sublimer les photos. En plus de la technique, les professionnels ont une sensibilité et un regard particuliers. Ils utilisent des supports de qualité pour les photos et permettent à leurs clients de passer d’agréables moments. | [
3
] |
Ex-Iraqi defence minister wanted over $1bn fraud | Iraqi authorities are preparing an arrest warrant for the country's former defence minister in connection with a massive fraud case involving the "disappearance" of more than $1bn from ministry coffers.
Judge Raid al-Radhi, who is head of Iraq's commission on public integrity, said yesterday that he had given Iraq's central criminal court a dossier of evidence against Hazim Shaalan, who was minister of defence under the former government of Ayed Allawi.
"What Shaalan and his ministry were responsible for is possibly the largest robbery in the world. Our estimates begin at $1.3bn [£720m] and go up to $2.3bn," Judge Radhi, who is Iraq's senior anti-corruption official, told Reuters.
The "robbery" is believed to include the signing of multimillion-dollar deals with companies to supply equipment that was sometimes inappropriate for the new army or was years out of date. It is also alleged that the ministry paid huge premiums for some military hardware.
Judge Radhi said he expected the court to issue warrants over the next week to 10 days for Mr Shaalan and for other senior defence ministry officials. The judge said he had passed the file of evidence on the case to Iraqi authorities two months ago.
Mr Shaalan, who is understood to be living in Jordan, has denied complicity in the scandal, saying that his actions as defence minister were ultimately the responsibility of the US authorities in Iraq.
News of the warrant came after the Iraqi finance minister, Ali Allawi, claimed in an interview with the Independent newspaper that $1bn had been stolen from the defence ministry.
Mr Allawi said the rampant corruption and fraud at the defence ministry had left the new Iraqi army with second-rate weapons with which to confront the insurgency. "Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal," Mr Allawi said.
Ayed Allawi's government was in power from the end of June 2004 until late February this year. The new Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has repeatedly complained about the legacy of administrative and financial corruption.
Judge Radhi said there was also evidence against the transport, trade, interior, public works and labour ministries, and that up to 50 officials could be brought to justice.
Allegations of corruption at the defence ministry have been swirling around Baghdad for some time, but the scale of the fraud has shocked many. A defence ministry source, who requested anonymity, told The Guardian yesterday that hundreds of millions of dollars had been wasted on unnecessary and overpriced equipment for Iraq's military.
"There appears to be no oversights and accountability in the procurement," he said. Investigators have been investigating weapons and equipment deals struck by the former procurement officer Ziad Cattan and other officials. The source said the most egregious case involved a $236m contract last December to equip the Iraqi army with helicopters and other material.
"The money was paid upfront to a Polish company before we'd even seen what we were buying. It was very fishy," he said. "The helicopters turned out to be years old and not up to the job we required them to do in Iraq." Another contract for US machine guns, at a cost of $3,500 each, bought Egyptian copies worth $200.
Judge Radhi said the ministry is alleged to have illegally signed contracts with intermediaries, rather than with foreign companies and governments, for the supply of defence equipment.
In other developments yesterday, the central Iraqi criminal court announced it had given a life sentence to a nephew of the former dictator Saddam Hussein, who was found guilty of funding the insurgency and bomb-making. Ayman Sabawi, the son of Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, was arrested by Iraqi forces during a raid in May. His father, Al-Hassan, who served as a presidential adviser before the US-led invasion, was captured there two months earlier.
It was the first court decision against a family member of the former Iraqi ruler. The trial of Saddam is due to start on October 19.
Iraqi authorities had not announced that Sabawi's trial was under way but said he would face a second trial at the beginning of November for other, unspecified crimes to which he allegedly confessed during interrogation.
A government statement said the UN had indicated the Sabawi family stole "millions of dollars from the Iraqi people" under his uncle's rule.
Meanwhile, in the relatively calm southern city of Basra, journalist Fakher Haider was found shot dead yesterday morning after being abducted from his house by four masked men claiming to be intelligence officers. Mr Haider worked in Basra as a stringer for the New York Times and occasionally for The Guardian. He was the second journalist to be killed in Basra in recent months. The US journalist Steven Vincent and his Iraqi translator was kidnapped and shot by an unknown gang in early August. | [
5
] |
Brit's bot chats way to AI medal | Mr Carpenter (r) won the competition with George, part of Jabberwacky
George and its creator Rollo Carpenter competed against three other talkative bot finalists in New York.
Reigning three-time winner, Alice, came fourth in this year's Loebner Prize.
The competition is based on the Turing Test, which suggests computers could be seen as "intelligent" if their chat was indistinguishable from humans.
George managed to convince the judges enough to earn himself the Hugh Loebner's Bronze Medal, and $3,000 (£1,660), which goes to the most convincing entrant.
The gold medal and Grand Prize of $100,000 (£55,400), which goes to the bot that completely fools the judges, has remained unclaimed since the competition's inception in 1990.
British first
Mr Carpenter told the BBC News website that the win was a first for an AI (Artificial Intelligence) that learns from its interactions.
"The time of the learning AI is now here. In a number of fields, technologies that observe and apply patterns in data to real-world situations have already come to the fore," explained Mr Carpenter.
"Though Jabberwacky, and the George character within it, remain distinctly unusual in their behaviour, the fact that they work at all, and that they've improved greatly over the last year, is a testament to the power of context."
In previous years, Mr Carpenter has entered the competition with the program, Jabberwacky. This year, George was the entered as a slightly different variant of that program.
George is a "character" which has learned its conversation skills from the interactions it has had with visitors to the Jabberwacky website, and through chats with Mr Carpenter.
Mr Carpenter thinks that in the not-too-distant future, it may be that programs or robots talk and act in place of humans, mimicking human behaviour.
Along with Jonathan Freeman, he has proposed a type of "Personal Turing Test" which would test a program's ability to convince a judge that it is a person known to them.
LOEBNER PRIZE 2005 RESULTS 1: R Carpenter - "Jabberwacky" 2: V Veselov - "Eugene" 3: S Watkins - "Tony" 4: R Wallace - "Alice"
"Two things have made the difference this year: 2.5 million new entries [chat interactions/data inputs], taking the total to 5.7 million, and new techniques that extract a distinct personality - a character - from a tiny subset of the data - in this case, George," he explained.
"Anyone can create their own bot 'just by talking to it' at the site, preserving their own or an invented persona in silicon."
During the competition, the computer programs had to "chat" anonymously with four judges. The judges also chatted with four humans, each paired with a program. The judges then awarded "humanity" points to each of the pairs.
At one point in George's "conversation" with one of the judges, it accused the judge of not being human and discussed its lack of hobbies.
Alice had won the international competition for the most convincing entry in 2000, 2001 and 2004. Its creator, American Richard Wallace, started work on the software in 1995. | [
8
] |
Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case | When New England inventor Philip French had his epiphany 15 years ago, he didn't dream it would lead to an invention that would be pressed into service in a top-secret government project, or spawn an epic court battle over the limits of executive power. He was just admiring a tennis ball.
The ball's seam, with its two symmetrical halves embracing each other in a graceful curve, intrigued him. "I thought, my god, I bet you can do something with that kind of shape," he recalls. He was right. French and two colleagues went on to design and patent a device now called the Crater Coupler, a simple, foolproof connector for linking one pipe or cable to another without nut threads or bolted flanges.
The device is interesting on its own, but the broader legal legacy of the invention may be more important. In a little-noticed opinion this month, a federal appeals court ruled against the Crater Coupler patent holders and upheld a sweeping interpretation of the controversial "state secrets privilege" – an executive power handed down from the English throne under common law that lets the government effectively kill civil lawsuits deemed a threat to national security, even if the state is not a party to the suit.
The ruling is notable as a rare appellate interpretation of the state secrets privilege as it applies to patent holders. As such, it is a potentially worrying development for inventors – particularly those developing weapons, surveillance and anti-terror technologies for government contractors – who may find infringement claims dismissed without a hearing under the auspices of national security. It also offers a fascinating, if limited, view into the machinery of official secrecy at a time when the privilege is being exercised as never before.
"It's the most powerful privilege the government has," says William Weaver, senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. "It's the nuclear option. It never fails."
French says he and his partners – Charles Monty and Steven Van Keiren – got the first inkling of a national security application for the Crater Coupler a decade ago. While shopping the new design around to "a whole mess of quick-disconnect companies," the trio received an intriguing inquiry from Lucent Technologies, the reincarnation of the legendary Bell Labs research center, and at that time still part of AT&T.
Lucent wanted to evaluate the Crater Coupler for use as a fiber-optic "wetmate" – an airtight connector for two fiber-optic cables designed to operate underwater. It was part of a contract with a U.S. government agency that, the company said, would have to remain unnamed. "It was a secret black job, they couldn't divulge what it was for," says French. "Who it was for, the Navy or the CIA, or who knows, they never said."
A Lucent spokesman confirmed that the company had contact with French in 1995, but wouldn't discuss the details, citing government secrecy concerns.
But according to French, the inventors agreed to help Lucent try to adapt the Crater Coupler to the company's needs, with the expectation that Lucent would license the group's patent if it all worked out. The inventors sent over plans, sketches and a model, and French began consulting and advising a Lucent engineer in monthly phone calls.
After about a year of development and testing, Lucent had good news for the inventors: The device passed all the tests, shaming a competing, clunky design that French says resembled an old thermos. But when the inventors got on the phone with Lucent's lawyers to discuss license terms, the company dropped a bomb. "Almost the first thing they said was, 'Well, we don't have to do anything, because this is under some sort of provision for military secret stuff where we don't have to pay anything,'" says French.
French felt betrayed. "This was after a year of encouragement, with me helping them and them informing us of their progress," says French. "That was one hell of a shock."
Lucent eventually offered the inventors $100,000 for the right to produce 1,000 wetmate couplers. The offer caused a rift between French and his partners: They wanted to make a counteroffer of $500,000, but French – in his 60s and recently retired – wanted to take what was on the table. "I said, well, Lucent doesn't have to do a thing, so why don't we take $100,000 and be happy with that?"
Unable to agree, French's partners bought him out for a flat $30,000. "I used some of the money to have a garage built," French says.
Lucent rejected the remaining inventors' counteroffer, and in 1998 Monty and Van Keiren, now incorporated as Crater Corp., filed a federal lawsuit in eastern Missouri against Lucent alleging patent infringement, trade-secret theft and breach of contract. Crater's attorney, Robert Schultz, says there's a question of basic fairness. "Lucent's made a ton of dough, and my clients are out in the cold," says Schultz.
The patent-infringement portion of the case has since been dismissed, under a federal law that says a company can't be sued for infringement if the development was for the exclusive use of the government.
After a year of pretrial wrangling, the case had progressed to the point that Schultz could start subpoenaing documents to support his claim, when the government intervened to assert the state secrets privilege.
Never passed by Congress, the privilege has its roots in English common law and was cemented into American jurisprudence by a landmark 1953 Supreme Court case titled U.S. v. Reynolds. In Reynolds, the widows of three men who died in a mysterious Air Force crash sued the government, and U.S. officials tried to quash the lawsuit by claiming that they couldn't release any information about the accident without endangering national security. The Supreme Court upheld the claim, establishing a legal precedent that today allows the executive branch to block the release of information in any civil suit – even if the government isn't the one being sued.
According to research by Weaver, an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas, the government invoked the privilege only four more times in the next 23 years. But following the Watergate scandal, the executive branch began applying state secrecy claims more liberally. Between 1977 and 2001, there were at least 51 civil lawsuits in which the government claimed the state secrets privilege – in every case successfully.
"There was more oversight of presidential activity" after Watergate, says Weaver. "In response to that, I think presidents resorted to the state secrets privilege to keep that oversight from cramping their style."
Under Reynolds, the head of a federal agency must personally intervene to invoke the privilege. In Crater v. Lucent, it was Richard J. Danzig, then-secretary of the Navy, who did the honors. In a March 1999 declaration, Danzig claimed that permitting Crater to pursue a legal inquiry into the government's alleged use of their coupler would tip off U.S. adversaries to certain highly classified government operations and "could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to national security."
"Those operations and programs are currently ongoing," Danzig wrote. "It is therefore my opinion that disclosure of information concerning them would permit potential adversaries to adopt specific measures to defeat or otherwise impair the effectiveness of those operations and programs."
Judge E. Richard Webber granted the government's request immediately, and blocked the Crater inventors from obtaining any information from Lucent or the feds about the government's alleged use of the Crater Coupler or any other coupling device. In the legal battle that followed, it emerged that the order covered an astonishing 26,000 documents – some of which were not only unclassified, but had already been entered into the public record. In 2002, Webber examined those documents in chambers, and concluded that not one of them would be available for Crater's use in pressing its case.
Schultz turned to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This month a divided three-judge panel ruled (.pdf) that the lower court had properly applied the state secrets privilege. "I would have thought that courts would be more hesitant to apply it to the patent area, but in this case there was no hesitancy whatsoever," says Weaver.
In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Pauline Newman wrote that the ruling efficiently killed Crater's lawsuit, and argued that a saner solution would have been to proceed with the case behind closed doors – a procedure already used to protect classified information during criminal espionage prosecutions.
"Although there may be areas of such sensitivity that no judicial exposure can be countenanced – such as, perhaps, the formation of the Manhattan Project – there is no suggestion that the sensitive information concerning the Crater Coupler cannot be protected by well-established judicial procedures for preserving the security of sensitive information," Newman wrote.
Schultz argues that the secrecy order shouldn't apply to documents concerning an unclassified presentation that Lucent held in which it allegedly showed off the Crater Coupler. He plans to ask for a rehearing of the appeal but claims to be optimistic that the case can proceed with or without access to the evidence.
If so, it would be a rarity, says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "The privilege has worked very effectively for the government," says Aftergood. "In almost every case where they've invoked it, it leads to the termination of litigation."
Indeed, the list of cases in which the state secrets privilege has been invoked seems a pantheon of injustice. The privilege was upheld in 1982 to prevent former Vietnam War protestors from learning more about an illegal CIA and NSA electronic surveillance effort that targeted them during the 1970s. In 1991, it was used to stop a lawsuit by a banker who'd unwittingly been roped into an illegal CIA money-laundering operation, and who claimed the agency had ruined his career when he tried to get out.
In 1998, workers at the Nevada airbase known colloquially as Area 51 were blocked from learning what chemicals they'd been exposed to during illegal burning of toxic waste by base administrators.
In 2004, the Bush administration resorted to the privilege to silence former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who said she was fired from the bureau after reporting security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program. And in perhaps the most disturbing case, this year the Justice Department asserted the privilege to kill a lawsuit by Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who, in 2002, was picked up by U.S. officials as a suspected terrorist while changing planes at JFK, and promptly shipped off to Syria for a year of imprisonment and torture.
"Here's a guy who was a victim of a crime, that is, kidnapping, who was sent by us to a foreign country to be tortured to get information for us," says Weaver. "That violates all kinds of laws and the Convention Against Torture and who knows what else."
Weaver says the state secrets privilege is a blunt instrument that too often utterly obliterates any further inquiry by the plaintiffs in a civil case. "I'm not saying it's always invoked for evil purposes – it almost certainly is not. But we can't tell when it is, and that's the problem." He faults Jimmy Carter for being the first president to use the privilege with frequency, and George W. Bush for using it systematically. "This presidency is the first one in history to use the secrecy privilege in a programmatic, organized comprehensive policy," Weaver says. "It's the first secrecy presidency."
"It effectively shuts down the judicial process," says Aftergood. "It tells people that they cannot have their day in court because national security will not permit it, and that's a terrible message to send."
Justice Department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson says the department generally doesn't comment on how the state secrets privilege is applied. "The only thing I can say is it's applied if appropriate only," she says.
But if the outcome sometimes seems unjust, it's a necessary trade-off to preserve national security, says Washington attorney Shannen Coffin, a lawyer at Steptoe and Johnson and a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general from 2002 to 2004.
"That is the balance the court has struck in certain circumstances," says Coffin. "A lawsuit that relates to monetary damages isn't nearly as important as protecting the security of the American people."
While at the Justice Department, Coffin was involved in several cases asserting the privilege. "I've been in meetings with cabinet officials that have invoked the privilege, and they don't take it lightly," Coffin says.
If there's been an increase in the exercise of the privilege, "It is simply a recognition that information is a weapon in the modern day and age," says Coffin. "And that is a serious concern for national security."
Coffin says bold action, like withholding 26,000 documents in the Crater case, is sometimes necessary to prevent a U.S. adversary from compiling bits and pieces of seemingly harmless, unclassified information into a state secret. That "mosaic theory" of national security is frequently cited in litigation surrounding the privilege, and Department of Justice attorney Lisa Olson raised the argument in the Crater case last year.
"The more information that is disclosed, the easier it becomes to disclose more, and soon the floodgates are opened and nothing is secret," Olson told Judge Webber.
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment on the Crater case, but outside experts say it's easy enough to guess the nature of the top-secret project the government is protecting. "It's all but self-evident that it has to do with the clandestine monitoring of fiber-optics communications cables on the ocean floor," says Aftergood.
"They've been interested in it since the first fiber-optic cable was ever invented," says James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA. "It's clear that they have a major operation in terms of tapping into sea cables."
Fiber-optic cables were well on their way to supplanting less-secure communications technologies at the time that Lucent approached the Crater inventors, and it's been widely reported that the switch threatened to cut off the electronic spies at the NSA. "There's been this huge shift from using satellite communications, which is very easy to tap into, to using both terrestrial and transoceanic fiber-optic cables, and that's presented a major problem for NSA," says Bamford.
To counter that problem, and keep the electronic intelligence flowing, NSA has reportedly developed sophisticated techniques for wiretapping undersea cables, relying on specially equipped Navy submarines, the most advanced of which is the newly recommissioned USS Jimmy Carter, fresh from a $1 billion upgrade that reportedly includes state-of-the-art technology for tapping into undersea fiber-optic communications.
French, now 74 and living in Maine, is not a party to the case since his partners bought out his interest in the invention. But he still has bad feelings over the affair.
"If it had been war time, World War II, I'd have given it to them. But if they're hiding behind some friggin' law, basically to screw somebody...." says French, trailing off.
Lucent spokesman John Skalko says the court's secrecy order prevents him from addressing the inventors' claims in depth. "We deny any breach of contract or any misappropriation of trade secrets," says Skalko.
"You can't try this case in your publication, it's only to be tried in a court of law," Skalko adds – a prospect that seems increasingly unlikely. | [
5
] |
Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Idiots? | I'll stop calllng this crew "Orwellian" when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual:
FDA Rethinks Women's Chief: Agency Denies Naming Veterinary Official By Marc Kaufman: One week ago, the Office of Women's Health of the Food and Drug Administration sent an e-mail notice to women's groups and others announcing the appointment of Norris Alderson as its new acting director. An FDA veteran trained in animal husbandry who spent much of his career in the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine, Alderson quickly became the subject of active and largely negative comment on the Internet and elsewhere. The Office of Women's Health serves as a liaison with women's health groups and as an advocate on women's issues; critics said that a man with a primarily veterinary background could not properly fill the role.
The last director, Susan Wood, resigned last month to protest the agency's unwillingness to make a decision on whether to make emergency contraception more easily available.
Three days after the Alderson announcement, the FDA main press office sent out a very different announcement. It said that 20-year FDA veteran Theresa A. Toigo would be the new acting director of the women's health office, and that she would be a champion for women's health inside and outside the agency. Alderson -- and the statement announcing his appointment -- was never mentioned. Asked yesterday who exactly was running the office, FDA spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino said that Alderson had never been appointed acting director. She said that Toigo would take over from the departed Wood, and that her office knew nothing about the statement regarding Alderson, who is the agency's associate commissioner for science. "There was no official decision made until we announced Theresa Toigo's appointment on Friday," Trevino said.
The seeming mystery thickened when several women's groups said that not only did they receive e-mails announcing Alderson's appointment, but also that he was also listed on a Health and Human Services directory last week as the acting director of the office.... Alderson was introduced to the staff last week as the new acting director... had some one-on-one discussions with staff members....
Kirsten Moore, director of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project.... "It underscores our concern about the degree of competence at the leadership level, and about political appointees who just don't know much" about the issues before the agency. | [
15
] |
Hurricane Center May Run Out of Names | HURRICANE RITA: The Latest Storm Update
Before the 2005 hurricane season is done, you might read about Hurricane Alpha.
Each year, 21 common names are reserved for Atlantic Basin hurricanes, with the list arranged alphabetically and skipping certain letters. Rita is the 17th named storm in the Atlantic Basin this year. There are only four left.
So what will officials do after tropical storm Wilma develops, assuming it does?
"We go to the Greek alphabet," said Frank Lepore, spokesman for the National Hurricane Center.
This gives the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations agency responsible for choosing hurricane names, 24 more names to work with, from Alpha to Omega, and including such names as Omicron and Upsilon.
Could happen
This season started out as the busiest ever, with 4 named storms by July 5. It never really let up.
"The August update to Atlantic hurricane season outlook called for 18 to 21, so I would hope it doesn't go any higher than that, but it's a possibility," Lepore said.
The naming of Hurricanes has a long and interesting history. For many centuries, hurricanes in the West Indies were named after particular Catholic saint's days on which they occurred. Hurricane "San Felipe" struck Puerto Rico on September 13, 1876. When another hurricane struck Puerto Rico on the same day more than fifty years later, it was christianed "San Felipe the second."
Later, latitude-longitude positions were used, but this method quickly proved cumbersome.
Military weather forecasters began giving women's names to significant storms during WWII, then in 1950 the WMO agreed to an alphabetical naming system, using the military's radio code. The first named Atlantic hurricane was Able in 1950.
Name change
Officials soon realized the naming convention would cause problems in the history books if more than one powerful Hurricane Able made landfall. So, in 1953 the organization adopted a rotating series of women's names, planning to retire names of significant storms.
Feminists urged the WMO to add men's names, which was done in 1979. The boy-girl-boy-girl naming convention evolved to include French and Spanish names in the Atlantic system, reflecting the languages of the nations affected by Carribean hurricanes.
The twenty-one names reserved each year (the letters q, u, x, y and z are not used) are recycled every six years, minus those retired (such as Hugo and Andrew and, you can bet, Katrina). When a name is retired, the WMO chooses a new name to replace it.
The year with the most documented tropical storms was 1933, when there were 21 in the Atlantic Basin, but this was before hurricanes were routinely named. Activity is known to wax and wane in cycles that last decades. But some studies have suggested that global warming may be causing increases in hurricane intensity and frequency. Many scientists are skeptical.
Hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30.
The Names & Numbers
Deadliest, costliest, busiest months, worst states, plus this year's storm names and more.
How & Where Hurricanes Form
The science of monster storms.
Katrina Gallery
Hurricane Gallery
Natural Disasters:
Top 10 U.S. Threats | [
7
] |
Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back | "Just telling them they are wrong is not going to be effective," he said.
Instead, he told the volunteers that when they encounter religious fundamentalists they should emphasize that science museums live by the rules of science. They seek answers in nature to questions about nature, they look for explanations that can be tested by experiment and observation in the material world, and they understand that all scientific knowledge is provisional -- capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered.
"Is it against all religion?" he asked. "No. But it is against some religions."
There is more than one type of creationist, he said: "thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen, even if they go away unconvinced"and "people who for whatever reason are here to bother you, to trap you, to bludgeon you."
Those were the type of people who confronted Dr. Durkee, a former biology professor at Grinnell College in Iowa. The encounter left her discouraged.
"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't listening."
Dr. Allmon says even trained scientists like Dr. Durkee can benefit from explicit advice about dealing with religious challenges to science exhibitions.
"There is an art, a script that is very, very helpful," he said.
A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific method, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like "Is there lots of evidence against evolution?" (The answer begins, simply, "No.")
When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, "don't avoid using the word." Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because "you'll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you're talking about." | [
3
] |
Paul Graham is Wrong (Aaron Swartz's Raw Thought) | Paul Graham is Wrong
I really enjoyed that essay by Paul Graham. Paul Graham is an excellent writer and a very nice fellow. But when he said that thing that made me look bad, I just had to draw the line. For years, I’ve been doing something and telling people I’m doing it and then all of a sudden Paul Graham comes along and tells me it’s a bad idea. I think it’s time to question his assumptions.
In his essay, Graham writes:
Most people in this situation typically do this thing. But what if they did this other thing instead? This idea typically doesn’t occur to them for that reason. But if they did what I suggest, they’d be like a metaphor instead of a simile.
Here’s where Graham really goes off the rails. What if we don’t want to do what he suggests? Graham never considers that possibility. He just assumes that he’s right.
Once, in an interview, Graham was asked what he thought about this subject:
Q: What do you think of people doing that thing? Well, you know, historically people really haven’t done a lot of this thing and going forwards I see a lot more of this thing happening because the things that have stopped people from doing those things no longer exist. This could really change things.
But this is absurd! Just because people can do that thing now doesn’t mean they’re going to.
For too long, Paul Graham has gotten a free ride by saying things that disagree with people’s prejudices in an informative and entertaining manner. That was fine when all we had to do was link to his article and read it. But this time he’s gone too far: he’s said something that might actually make me change how I behave. And that’s unacceptable.
gernika writes:
A satire worthy of Swift :)
Sencer explains:
Paul Graham has always written the way he has written. That (among real reasoning) includes making assertions and peddling his own views as a kind of fact. The same people that are applauding Graham for “brilliant reasoning” when he makes assertions that fit their world-view, criticize him for the absurdity of even making assertions, when they don’t fit their world-view. Not that they shouldn’t, but the inconsistency is just funny in an ironic kind of way. :)
In support:
I’m so glad that someone stood up to him finally. Some of what he says at such as about Amateurs is a bunch of bull crap. […] Paul Graham is not “god” and some of what he says really ought to not be left unchecked and thank you Aaron for having the guts to stand up to him.
In opposition:
err what is the point of this? You establishing a reputation and personality off the back of Paul Graham? Man, you’re pretty shameless and petty. You think you’ve stumbled onto a gold landfill by realizing you don’t agree with Graham? How many millions of people have read a paul graham essay? […] Graham backs up his word with some good thought and informed opinions. YOU??? what do you base it on? the need to get noticed?
You should follow me on twitter here.
September 21, 2005 | [
6
] |
Insurgents 'inside Iraqi police' | Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme, he said he had no idea how far the services had been undermined, with problems "in many parts of Iraq".
It comes after the British Army said it was forced to take action to free two UK soldiers after learning Iraqi police had handed them to a militia group.
UK defence chief John Reid will meet Iraq's prime minister on Wednesday.
Mr Reid and Ibrahim Jaafari are expected to discuss the growing tension in the southern city of Basra between the British Army and local authorities.
The Pentagon warned in July that Iraq's police force was recruiting insurgents.
Journalists killed
The Iraqi interior minister has disputed the UK's account of the circumstances surrounding the release of the two British soldiers in Basra.
Baqir Solagh Jebr told the BBC the men never left police custody. He said the UK forces that freed them had reacted to a "rumour" that they were in militia hands.
Separately, an Iraqi journalist with national newspaper As Safeer has been shot dead in Mosul.
The death of the paper's Mosul bureau chief, Firas Maadidi, comes two days after the killing of his female colleague, reporter Hind Ismaeel.
On Monday, Iraqi journalist Fakher Haidar al-Tamimi was shot dead in the southern city of Basra.
Mr Tamimi worked for several foreign news agencies, including US daily The New York Times.
'Clean up police'
The Iraqi government has launched an inquiry into events surrounding the arrest of the British soldiers on Monday, both thought to be members of the SAS elite special forces.
Iraq's interior ministry ordered the police force in Basra to release the soldiers - but that order was ignored.
[Infiltration] affects the Iraqi police across Iraq as a whole
Col Bill Dunham
Have Your Say: Basra unrest Timeline: UK troops in Iraq
The British Army said the troops had been handed over by police to a Shia militia group.
The men were freed after British troops in armoured vehicles stormed a Basra prison and then a house to which the captives had been taken.
Mr Rubaie told Newsnight: "Our Iraqi security forces in general, and these in particular and in many parts of Iraq, I have to admit that they have been penetrated by some of the insurgents, some of the terrorists as well, so I can't deny this."
He said Iraq now had "a very scrupulous, very meticulous vetting procedure" to "clean our security forces, as well as stop any penetration in future from the insurgents or the terrorists".
He admitted he did not know to what extent the security forces were already infiltrated by insurgents.
However, Mr Rubaie criticised the British military's use of force instead of negotiation in freeing its troops on Monday.
"They could have been freed in a much more peaceful, much more friendly and amicable way than that," he said.
Colonel Bill Dunham, the chief of staff for the multinational force in Basra, told BBC radio the infiltration of insurgents into Iraq's security forces was a problem across Iraq.
A report released by the US defence department in July blamed the problem on poor vetting procedures and recommended that the quality of records at Iraq's interior ministry be checked. | [
3
] |
Apple head attacks record firms | iTunes make more money for music companies than CDs, says Mr Jobs
Mr Jobs vowed to resist such pressure, after revealing that music firms were pushing for higher prices on Apple's iTunes internet music store.
He said companies already made a bigger profit through iTunes than in CD sales.
Apple's co-founder was speaking ahead of the Apple Expo showcase in Paris. Record companies did not comment.
'Good price'
Mr Jobs said that by cutting out manufacturing jobs, selling through iTunes was already proving lucrative for record companies.
"So if they want to raise the prices it just means they're getting a little greedy," he said.
Big music companies are currently trying to alter the terms of their deals with Apple, with many contracts in the US due for renewal.
The iTunes site in the US charges 99 cents (55p) per song, with prices typically higher in Europe and Japan - it is 79p per song in the UK.
If the price goes up a lot, they'll go back to piracy
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs
"Customers think the price is really good where it is," said Mr Jobs.
"We're trying to compete with piracy, we're trying to pull people away from piracy and say 'you can buy these songs legally for a fair price'.
"But if the price goes up a lot, they'll go back to piracy. Then everybody loses."
Apple has sold about 22 million iPod digital music players and more than 500 million songs though its iTunes music store.
It accounts for 82% of all legally downloaded music in the US.
A spokeswoman for record company Warner Music declined to comment. Rival firms Sony BMG, EMI and Universal were all unavailable. | [
10
] |
The old new | By Susannah Cullinane
BBC News
The photo John Ousby posted
The Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes has a few words to say about novelty, fashion and innovation.
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be:
And that which is done is that which shall be done:
And there is no new thing under the sun."
The Regency TR-1 transistor radio, made in 1954, had a decent claim to be a genuine piece of innovation, however. It was, by popular agreement, the world's first commercially sold transistor pocket radio.
Small enough to hold in your hand, and powered by batteries, it came in a variety of delicious colours, including green, pearlescent blue, lavender, white and red.
The device went on sale just in time for hip young gadget freaks to hear Elvis Presley singing That's All Right - recognised by many as the moment at which rock'n'roll was born.
The TR-1 was marketed under the slogan "See it! Hear it! Get it!"
I think Apple are very good at designing and a lot of their products are quite retro. I think it's just a coincidence
John Ousby
AKA Fat Controller
Hi-tech, trendy colours, rock music, punchy slogans... remind anyone of anything? When technology watcher John Ousby, who is head of distribution technology at the BBC, realised the modern day parallels, he knew he had to do something.
"I did a bit of digging around," he says, "and found a good website on vintage electronics. I then matched photos of the transistor with photos of the iPod Mini."
He then posted the above picture on the photo-sharing website Flickr. "Normally my photos there are viewed less than 100 times. But I was away for couple of days and came back to see there had been more than 15,000," he says.
The similarity between the two has "created quite a stir", he says, particularly in the Mac community. He is, however, at pains to point out that he believes the similarity between the 50s radio and the iPod mini is purely coincidental.
Apple declined to comment; some of those stirred by the debate definitely see the parallels.
"I'd say a good engineer learns from a good thing, not to say they copy it," says one member of community discussion site Digg.
The 'anglepoise' iMac
Another adds: "Even Picasso was influenced by artists before him."
Other readers might simply conclude that however new something seems - and even the iPod mini has now been replaced by a newer model - everything has its roots somewhere.
Perhaps a thought for anyone who, flaunting their headphones in public, thinks they are being in any way "now".
Add your comments on this story, using the form below.
It seems that this says more about human aesthetics than copying old designs. We apparently have been liking small and simple for a while.
Joe, Madison, WI USA
All ideas are really 'piggybacked' from other existing ones, inovation occurs when you can add a new spin on an old product and bring it back to popularity. Apple has taken the existing, and lasting, want of portablility, and made it digital. I'm not really suprised this other device existed.
Elliot Erickson, Menomonie, WI USA
Further proof that there is, in reality, no truely original ideas. Everything has been done before, and in most cases the way something new has been done was thought of many years ago before it became possible.
Andrew Beard, Worcs, UK
Seems like colour radio was invented long before colour television.
Andy, Guildford
The Audi TT car design is strongly influenced by their racing products of the 1930's and the Bauhaus school. It will still look good in ten years time because of the simplicity of line. If you look at Hi-Fi design of the 1970's from Japan the idea of putting more buttons and lights on the facia than anyone else sold the product, but as a design it now looks very dated. Who said something about form following function?
JAMES STYLES, Whitstable England
Has there actually been any new inventions in the last 15 years? All "new" inventions are just upgrades of existing pieces of equipment. The mobile phone is an upgrade of your normal landline phone, the laptop computer is a normal computer only much smaller, even the I-Pod is a fancy walkman!! I think the age of invention has passed and there will be nothing "new" invented for a long time yet.
Art Vandelay, Darkest Peru
Innovation is the key to re-invention
Megan Evans, Hitchin
As a product designer myself, I find it quite sad that no-one seems to be curious as to who actually designed the casing of the Regency TR-1 (to be honest no-one seems to ask themselves the names of the people who designed the i-Pod either!). Products don't just "happen" - a designer sits down and creates them - not an engineer as the Digg correspondent wrongly suggested (engineers do all the clever bits inside of course, but not the external casing). Judging by the photo it was a talented designer who worked on the TR-1 and it seems a shame that no-one's interested in who he/she was. It would be regarded as odd to discuss a piece of architectural heritage without bothering to ask who the architect was, so why do us British ignore designers so readily?
Graeme Bell, Bristol
All good design is an evolution of past success. The artists and architects of the enlightenment looked to Ejypt, Greece and Rome for their prototypes to base their work on. Far from this being a negative association i think Apple should be applauded for encouraging such a good design process in their ranks. No one can deny that the execution of these designs are outstanding, with a level of thought in detail and materials that is second to none.
Martin Sorensen, Edinburgh
The last few years has seen a 'retro' styling in many areas of consumer technology. Could the preference for a nostalgic veneer signal a change in attitudes to gizmos and gadgets? We still want the benefits of new developments, but without the techno-anorak stigma.
Paul, Cardiff, Wales
"See it! Hear it! Get it!" reminds me of a certain auction websites "But it. Sell it. Love it."
Amy soyka, Cromer.
The wheel is still circular.
John Bassi | [
3
] |
[ wu :: riddles(intro) ] | 3/9/2003 1:36AMThere has been interest in an online newsletter. Would you like to be an author? Click here if you are interested.
For the latest puzzles, please frequent the forum as a regular member. The cover page will only be updated once in a while. New problems arise in the forums before they make it here. Plus you'll get to meet some very witty people.
INTRODUCTION
WELCOME to [wu:riddles]! This is an archive of problems I've been collecting since the Spring of 2002. They come from many places, including word of mouth, college courses, books, and job interviews for hi-tech positions. Many are even written by members of our own forum community. These carefully chosen puzzles will demand you to think in creative ways you perhaps normally would not. In fact, some will seem outright impossible at first ... but once you crack them, the epiphany can be truly rapturous!
If you are a first-timer, here are some problems I recommend you start out with:
The riddles are organized by difficulty as judged by myself: easy, medium, and hard. Then there is the microsoft section, consisting of weird, open-ended consulting-style questions. The cs and putnam sections contain problems which may require a particularly specialized background in computer science and mathematics, respectively. Later, I will add sections for "What Am I" and "What Happened" riddles.
Hints are available for some riddles. To see a hint, highlight the area near the word "Hint:" with your mouse. This mouse-highlighting convention is used in both the forums and this cover site.
If you need solutions or more hints, please post to the FORUM! Almost all puzzles are solved in great detail there. Also, if you want to contribute a new puzzle, please post to the FORUM as well. We have a daily healthy discussion of new problems, and every once in a while I will export some of those problems to the cover site. The forum is a little slow, and I apologize for this, but please be patient. Alternatively, you can send me an e-mail directly. (Remove the "NO_SPAM_" prefix.) However, my response time may be very slow, as I'm often busy these days; the forum is definitely preferred.
My favorite kind of puzzle satisfies the following criteria: 1) It seems impossible, 2) Most people can understand it, and 3) It does not require specialized knowledge to solve. When I started collecting, I tried hard to find problems that satisfied these things. However, as the site has grown over the years, it has become apparent that for many of the harder problems, you won't have a chance without knowing some post-high-school mathematics. Basic probability and combinatorics are particularly common. If you lack this background, please do not be discouraged. Our friendly and active forum community can help you get up to speed. My sincere hope is that you will leave with a greater appreciation of the power of math.
Many thanks to all the cool people who have sent me new material. Also, I express much gratitude to towr and Icarus for their extensive work in generously maintaining the forums. I also thank David Lau, Eric Yeh, and James Fingas for contributing an exceptional number of problems when the site was getting started. Let's make this the definitive riddle archive.
Finally, I would like to again plug the forum, which i invite you to browse and perhaps even join. You will be very hard-pressed to find another problem-solving community of comparable quality. It is the neatest thing on this site, a giant board of discussions for thousands of puzzles. A LaTeXish syntax is also provided to support writing of mathematical notation. New problems arise almost every hour, and we have members all over the globe, at all ages, from professions ranging from graphic designers to engineering professors. Having the privilege of building such a community is one of the nicest things I've ever taken part of.
Whatever your reasons for being here -- whether you are a life-long mathemagician, or a desperate kid googling for tricky homework solutions -- I hope you will stick with this site regularly, and come to appreciate the joys of problem solving.
- William Wu, 4/2/2002 11:51PM; Revisions: 9/29/2002 7:24PM; 11:40 PM 8/19/2004, 12:55 PM 2/5/2005 | [
9,
6,
68,
28
] |
Tallahassee | Trump and Biden brace for 'barroom brawl' in first debate | [
15
] |
Meeting Malaysia's notorious triads | Ah Hing says he makes deals with politicians and policemen
In my attempt to find out more the triads, I made the ground rules clear from the start.
I didn't want specifics, I didn't want details and I certainly didn't want names. I just wanted to know how the gangs worked.
I have no idea what Ah Hing's real name is, but I do know that he is being groomed to take over as tai ko - big brother (a term triad members use for their bosses) - in a gang that operates in a small town in northern Malaysia.
We had chosen a room in an old shop house in which to meet. Ah Hing looked like many working class Malaysian Chinese, with heavy jewellery, cheap shoes and spiky hair. His minder collected tattoos.
"We do sell some ecstasy pills and that is how we make a living, me and my friends," he said.
"We do take girls for prostitution, and this is much easier to do than ecstasy because usually the government will not bother us when we do this."
I admit that I am a bad guy, and that I'm a gangster
Ah Hing
Dealing drugs in Malaysia carries the death penalty. Hangmen got a pay rise earlier this year - it is an issue the government takes seriously.
Prostitution is easier to get away with, and so is loan sharking or making and peddling fake goods. Malaysia is thought to be the world's largest producer of pirated optical discs.
But Ah Hing runs girls and sells pills. The women cost the gangs between $750 and $2000 each. They are bought and sold like cattle, and the pimps want a return.
"The girls know they have to work to pay back the money we paid to buy them," Ah Hing said.
"We do find girls who refuse to work, and we will keep them in solitary confinement and give them a bad time until they tell me they want to work," he said.
Ancient rituals
The triads have their roots in a 17th Century movement dedicated to restoring China's Ming dynasty to the throne, but over time they degenerated into criminal gangs.
We have some cases where [those owing debts] have been assaulted
Michael Chong, Malaysian Chinese Association
When Ms Lau lived in New Zealand, her neighbour was a Hong Kong triad boss who decided to retire.
"During his very last days as the leader of the triad society, he gathered everybody from his society and in front of leaders from other societies he washed his hands in a gold basin which symbolised that from today onwards he is not going to be involved in the triad society any more, and now he is old and respectable and a free man," she said.
But Malaysia's triads are rather more prosaic than those in Hong Kong. The element of ceremony has gone, and these groups are run as businesses.
Ah Hing referred to his as "our company". It's a pragmatic affair, where deals are reached with the authorities - who set boundaries for crimes they know can never be eliminated.
"If I want to operate on a particular street and ask a politician to ask the authorities not to disturb me, the politician might say: 'It's impossible to have zero arrests, so you can operate on certain hours and we will patrol after those hours' - so it's a win-win situation," Ah Hing said.
If someone crosses him, however, it's most certainly not win-win.
"If someone betrays me personally... I will get a few gang members together and beat him up until he's paralysed or he's a vegetable, but if the matter is really big then they'll be brought before my tai ko for a trial," he said.
"If my tai ko asks us to deal with someone, even if we kill that person, we won't be worried, because if the police arrest us, my tai ko will get me out," he added.
"Last time I was taken in the front door of the [police] lock-up, and right away I walk out of the back door."
Part of society
Most Malaysians have little or nothing to do with the triads. But many poorer people have nowhere else to turn when they need to borrow money.
All too often, Michael Chong, head of public services for the political party the Malaysian Chinese Association, sees what happens when borrowers default on their payments.
"We do have cases where they run away, you know, with the family... and of course we have some cases where they have been assaulted - assaulted in the sense they have to be hospitalised," Mr Chong said.
Ah Hing makes no bones about his world and his life. "I admit that I am a bad guy, and that I'm a gangster," he said.
"So who runs your world?" I asked - to which he gave a simple reply : "The government".
"If the government doesn't want to be a bit lenient with us and if they are strict about everything, then there's no way that I can make a living. There's no work," Ah Hing said.
When the economic downturn of 1998 hit Asia, many Malaysians turned to the triads for work.
It allowed thousand to fill their rice bowls.
That in itself is reason enough for some in power to turn a blind eye to what these gangs do - that and the knowledge that the triads are there to make a living, not to cause trouble.
They may be bad men, but they're also businessmen. | [
10
] |
Virtual plague spreading like wildfire in World of Warcraft | Players of Blizzard's incredibly popular World of Warcraft are reporting the outbreak of a virtual plague that is spreading across major cities in the virtual land of Azeroth, infecting player characters at an alarming rate.
The trouble started when Blizzard programmers added a new instance, which is a separate area connected to the outside world that players can enter and attempt unique quests. One of these instances, Zul'Grub, contained the god of blood, Hakkar. Hakkar was a powerful foe that could cast spells of his own, including a spell called Corrupted Blood. This spell did a large amount of damage to any player within the vicinity of the casting, and the effects lingered on after the spell was over.
What happened next was something Blizzard did not expect. Some of the players who had gone into the instance emerged back into the main world of Azeroth, and started spreading the Corrupted Blood disease to others who they came into close contact with. The infection soon spread into many of the cities and towns in the virtual world. Since the disease was intended to be a danger to powerful players, it tended to kill those less than level 50 almost instantly.
Game masters (GMs) tried to quarantine certain players from moving into new areas, but they kept escaping the quarantine and moving on to infect other people. A patch was issued to try and mitigate the damage, but it did not have the desired effect. According to a Blizzard poster on the WoW forums:
It appears that the hotfix remedy concocted to combat the recent Azerothian outbreak has not yielded desired results. At this time, our medical staff is continuing to develop an effective cure. We look forward to ensuring the health and vitality of the citizens of Azeroth in the near future.
The most interesting thing about this "outbreak" is perhaps the reaction it has provoked among WoW players. Instead of being angry about the deleterious effects of a bug, many are treating this as an exciting and unprecedented event in the WoW universe. It would be even more interesting if epidemiologists in the real world found that this event was worthy of studying as a kind of controlled experiment in disease propagation. | [
27
] |
Doing the Martin Shuffle (with your iPod) | Doing the Martin Shuffle (with your iPod) I've got an iPod shuffle. A lot of people do. So you probably know they're great, but they don't have a display. If a song is playing and you want to know what it is, you're out of luck. I can think of two ways that could be fixed: A button sequence could mark the current song; when you later connect your iPod to a computer, iTunes could display the marked songs. You don't get immediate gratification, but you do eventually find out the name of the song. iTunes could be modified to use the Apple text-to-speech module to speak the song's metadata (e.g. title and artist) and store it as an MP3 or AAC on the iPod. You press some other button sequence to hear the metadata. If you want, you can set an option in iTunes to speak the metadata before every song. Of course you can choose the voice you want to use, etc. I believe that both could be implemented with just a software update, without altering the iPod hardware. You don't need a new button, you can use a sequence of existing ones, such as double-click on the 'play' button. Or the rarely-used battery check button. Note if you use these button sequences on an iPod that hasn't been updated, there are no ill effects. So go ahead, Steve; I grant you rights to these ideas, free of charge.
Ipod Shuffle
The Martin Shuffle The two ideas above are good if you want to identify a song, but not if you want to find a song. But for that my friend Charles Martin came up with an idea that works with no hardware or software changes needed. I call it the Martin Shuffle, and it works like this: In iTunes, sort your playlist by song title or artist, whichever you think you will want to search for.
Now on your iPod, suppose you want to find something. To make it concrete, suppose you want to find Something. First you listen to the current song long enough to identify it. If it is alphabeticly close (say, Someone to Watch Over Me or Summertime) you press the 'next' or 'previous' song button in sequential (non-shuffle) mode until you arrive at your target. If the current song is far away (say, Funkytown) you go into shuffle mode and hit the 'next' button (thereby randomly jumping to another song) until you do get close; then switch to non-shuffle mode. Note this is a randomized algorithm; you use randomness to solve a deterministic problem faster than you could without randomness. So now there are two questions: how close do you have to get before you switch to non-shuffle mode, and how long will it take, on average, to find a song with this approach?
Charles Martin
Randomized Algorithms
Markov Decision Processes to the Rescue What we need is a policy for when to hit the shuffle button and when to switch to the sequential button. The tricky part is that shuffling is random -- can we determine the optimal policy when we don't know where we'll end up? It turns out that we can if we treat this as a Markov Decision Process, or MDP. In an MDP you need to define the following: States . For the iPod, the state is just the current song, so if there are N songs, there are N states. For a 1GB iPod Shuffle, assume N = 250.
. For the iPod, the state is just the current song, so if there are songs, there are states. For a 1GB iPod Shuffle, assume = 250. Actions . We define two actions: Shuffle and Sequential . We define the sequential action as moving all the way to the target (rather than moving just one position towards the target); it is a single action consisting of multiple button presses.
. We define two actions: and . We define the sequential action as moving all the way to the target (rather than moving just one position towards the target); it is a single action consisting of multiple button presses. Transitions . For each (action, state) pair, we enumerate the possible states that the model might transition to, each with a probability. For Sequential we always transition to the target. For Shuffle we transition to each of the other states with equal probability.
. For each (action, state) pair, we enumerate the possible states that the model might transition to, each with a probability. For we always transition to the target. For we transition to each of the other states with equal probability. Costs . For each transition there is an assoicated cost. We'll measure the cost in seconds, and assume that Sequential costs 1 second per button press. Shuffle takes somewhat longer, because you have to stop to identify the song and remember where it is in alphabetical order. Let's call it T seconds, and consider values of T from 1 to 10. Now the basic idea for finding the optimal policy in an MDP is simple: For each state of the problem, choose the action that minimizes the sum of the cost of the action and the expected cost of getting from the resulting state to the target. We will follow tradition and use the notation V[s], where V stands for value, to denote the cost of a state, but these really are costs: low numbers are better. Once we solve an equation for V[s] we can easily determine the optimal policy. First assume that the target song is number N/2. (We can do this without loss of generality because the songs are actually arranged in a circle, not a line segment: from the last song you can go forward to the first. So the numbering is arbitrary because every point on a circle is isomorphic.) Then the cost of a state is the minimum of the cost of sequentially moving to the target (which is the absolute value of the distance to the target, |s-t|) and the cost of shuffling and then finding the way to the target (which is T plus the average cost of wherever we end up by shuffling): V[s] = min(|s-t|, T + (1/N) Σ r V[r] The Value Iteration Algorithm We can't directly solve this equation because V appears on both left and right hand sides: the value of a state is defined in terms of the values of other states. So how do we break the loop? It turns out the equation can be solved by an algorithm called value iteration that starts with an initial guess for all V[s] and then updates the guesses repeatedly, until there are no more changes (or until all changes are smaller than epsilon). This iterative algorithm is guaranteed to converge. To initialize the estimates of V for each state let's just assume you always use the Sequential strategy and thus each V[s] is the absolute value of s - t. To update the value for a state, we check to see if we could do better by switching to the Shuffle strategy. The expected value of Shuffle is the cost T of shuffling and identifying the resulting song, plus the average value of the V[r] for each possible resulting state r (which I originally thought was every state except the current state, but an interesting article by Brian E. Hansen convinced me that it is possible to randomly skip from a song to the same song).
A.A. Markov
Coding a Solution We can now show some code for valueiteration on the iPod problem. (You can also see code for a general MDP solver.) def valueiteration(N, T, epsilon=0.001): t = N/2 states = range(N) V1 = [abs(s-t) for s in states] V2 = [0.0 for s in states] while max([abs(V2[s]-V1[s]) for s in states]) > epsilon: shufflecost = T + avg([V1[r] for r in states]) for s in states: V2[s] = min(abs(s-t), shufflecost) V1, V2 = V2, V1 return V2 This is Python code; if you're not familiar with Python you should know that [abs(s-t) for s in states] iterates s over each element of states and collects the values of abs(s-t) into a list. Also, range(N) returns a list of the numbers from 0 to N -1, inclusive, and V1, V2 = V2, V1 swaps V2 and V1 . All assignment in Python is done by moving pointers, not by creating copies of objects. The rest you should be able to figure out. Besides valueiteration , all we need is a trivial function to compute the average (mean) of a sequence of numbers, and a main function that calls valueiteration and prints out some statistics on the results: def avg(nums): return float(sum(nums)) / len(nums) def main(N=250, Ts=[1,5,10]): global V t = N/2 for T in Ts: V = valueiteration(N, T) print 'T=%d (N=%d) ==> shuffle when %d or more away' % ( T, N, (t - min([s for s in range(N) if V[s] == t-s]))) print 'Mean: %.1f, Median: %.1f; Max: %.1f' % ( avg(V), sorted(V)[N/2], max(V)) print
Python | [
15,
0,
6
] |
A few cigarettes a day 'deadly' | Doctors warn that any amount of smoking is dangerous
Their work suggests the health impact is stronger for women and that even "light" smokers face similar diseases to heavier smokers, including cancer.
The team tracked the health and death rates of almost 43,000 men and women from the mid 1970s up to 2002.
Their findings appear in the journal Tobacco Control.
Lung cancer
Compared with those who had never smoked, the men and women who smoked between one and four cigarettes a day were almost three times as likely to die of coronary artery disease.
Among women, smoking one to four cigarettes daily increased the chance of dying from lung cancer almost five times.
Men who smoked this amount were almost three times as likely to be killed by lung cancer.
However, due to the relatively small number of men that this applied to in the study sample, this finding could have been due to chance.
There is no safe level of smoking
Amanda Sandford from ASH
So-called "light" smokers were also found to have a significantly higher risk of dying from any cause - 1.5 times higher generally - than those who had never smoked, when researchers looked at deaths among those studied over the duration of the research.
Death rates from all causes rose as the number of cigarettes smoked every day increased.
Sporadic smoking
The researchers believe their conclusions are accurate, even though they had to estimate the projected impact of smoking one to four cigarettes for five years in those light smokers who had smoked for less time.
This indicated that the risk of death from coronary artery disease for both sexes would have been 7% higher, and the risk of lung cancer would have been 47% higher in women.
A significant proportion of the light smokers had also increased their daily consumption over the period of the study. However, this had not exceeded nine cigarettes a day.
The only way to protect smokers from heart disease, cancer and other killer diseases is to quit completely
A spokesman from the British Medical Association
Author Dr Kjell Bjartveit also pointed out that it was not possible to tell from the findings what impact sporadic smoking - such as a few cigarettes on a Saturday night out - might have on health.
Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation questioned the validity of the figures.
He said other large studies had not found that smoking fewer than 10 cigarettes daily increased the risk of heart disease.
'No safe level'
Amanda Sandford from Action on Smoking and Health said the conclusions were clear.
"This study should dispel the myth once and for all that smoking just a few cigarettes a day won't do you any harm.
"Quite simply, there is no safe level of smoking."
A spokesman from the British Medical Association said: "All smokers are putting their health on the line when they smoke - even if they only define themselves as social smokers.
"The only way to protect smokers from heart disease, cancer and other killer diseases is to quit completely."
The Department of Health estimates 106,000 people die every year in the UK as a direct result of smoking. It said quitting was the only way to avoid the serious health risks.
Jean King of Cancer Research UK said: "Although more research is needed, this study suggests that the health implications for 'light smokers' are much more serious than previously thought.
"This is particularly worrying as a third of smokers in the UK - an estimated 3.7 million people - smoke less than 10 cigarettes a day." | [
7
] |
US net entrepreneur sticks ads on bums | A US net entrepreneur has solved his lack of advertising budget problem by paying beggars to stand motionless beside Seattle Highway exit ramps with ads proclaiming his wares, the Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.
Ben Rogovy, 22, wanted to promote his website for poker fans, but was a bit short in the wonga department. Inspiration struck, however, when he was looking at a cardboard sign commonly held by bums hoping for a hand-out beside the city's freeway exits.
Rogovy explained: "So much traffic goes by these sign holders, I thought, 'Wouldn't it be cool if they could advertise themselves and me at the same time?' "
He then hit the streets in search of bums willing to add his poster to their own advertising material. He recalled: "I was a little nervous when I walked up to the first guy. I was expecting all kinds of questions, but the first thing he asked was, 'Do you have any tape?' He understood exactly what I wanted to do."
Rogovy now has around 12 vagrants "Bumvertising" his site. He pays them "a bit of food and water, plus $1 to $5, according to each beggar's relative value, based largely on traffic patterns".
Rogovy admitted: "I am fascinated by these people, out there from dawn to dusk. Some of them were working longer days than I was."
Naturally, homeless rights campaigners are up in arms about the whole thing, dubbing Merc-driving Rogovy a "poverty pimp" and calling Bumvertising "craven exploitation". He is unconcerned, and concluded: "Possibly insensitive. Definitely accurate." ® | [
3
] |
Viewpoint: Katrina's invisible victims | By Marissa Kantor
Writer for US publication The Revealer
The post-Katrina debate taking place everywhere from Congress to the family dinner table - about what went wrong and who is to blame, has included again and again one word: racism.
The definition, though, has been very race-specific: black versus white. It's a valid debate. Unless, of course, your skin is brown.
That blacks were "looting" while whites were "finding" has been well circulated on the Internet in a fierce cyber image-war.
What the mainstream media has neglected to mention - at least in its initial discussions of the role that race played in preparation for, and clean-up after Katrina - is that the Latinos are "hiding," many in churches where they feel protected, or in Mexican and Honduran restaurants.
Many Latinos will keep a low profile during the clean-up
Over 100 Latin American immigrants now call La Iglesia Lugar de Sanidad (Healing Place Church) in Gonzales, Louisiana home. They use their reverence to ask God for help since they are unsure who to trust outside the church walls.
Latinos - especially Hondurans - are no strangers to natural disaster.
After fleeing Honduras in the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 - which killed thousands, left thousands missing, and affected millions from Guatemala to Costa Rica - many Hondurans ended up in the port city of New Orleans in search of that "better life" that El Norte seemed to offer.
Invisible citizens
Approximately 150,000 Hondurans live in Louisiana, most in New Orleans. Estimates of Mexicans living in or around New Orleans range from 40,000 to 100,000. And other groups, including Salvadorans and Brazilians, also number in the tens of thousands.
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates (conservatively) that 20,000 to 35,000 of these Latinos are illegal immigrants or undocumented workers.
Even the governments of Mexico and Honduras are stumped as to where their citizens are hiding.
In the face of our worst natural and national disaster ever, we find ourselves face-to-face with a basic discussion in American society: Just what is an American?
Fearing deportation, Latinos - many of whom are illegal immigrants - prefer instead to seek shelter and support in Latino-owned businesses that they learn about through word of mouth.
They sneak out at night to look for food and water since many cannot understand the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (Fema's) English-language public service announcements about where to go for services.
Increasing tensions
The American discussion of who is worthy of "saving" in the face of disaster - one that we thought we had at least tabled after 11 September, is back in full force.
Fema spokeswoman Joanna Gonzalez, answering pleas from Presidents Fox of Mexico and Maduro of Honduras not to prosecute illegal immigrants, offered one answer: "We want to provide food, water, shelter and medical supplies to everyone. No one should be afraid to accept our offers to provide safety."
Ms Gonzalez originally ignored follow-up enquiries as to whether or not this meant that illegal immigrants would not be reported or prosecuted, simply repeating her form-letter statement.
Is Fema's message reaching everyone?
They cite the fact that many legal residents may have lost their papers in the hurricane, and should not be penalised for it.
At the same time, DHS amended their original statement - while they would save a drowning illegal immigrant, they would not "turn a blind eye to the law" if they later found out his immigration status.
These policies have created tension in the Gulf Coast and throughout the nation.
Some Latino civil rights workers argue that this is a clear indication that the US Government is creating policy aimed to serve a select group and to ignore or prosecute others.
Dispensable labour
While the "deserving poor" in shelters are eligible to approach Fema, social security and Red Cross representatives to receive food, water, debit cards and food stamps, Latinos stand behind and watch.
They are trained to avoid authority at all costs. Even in the face of a disaster like Katrina.
Opponents of illegal immigration view the policies as a direct affront to the thousands of displaced American citizens and legal residents who are searching for a job, any job.
If the law lets an employer hire an illegal Latino, then one less job is available for a true American, they argue.
In the United States, in the face of our worst natural and national disaster ever, we find ourselves face-to-face with a basic discussion in American society: Just what is an American?
Defining the protection-worthy and the dispensable has become another job in the relief efforts.
Blacks are complaining that they are seen as inferior to whites; Latinos are too scared to complain at all, or don't speak the right language to do so.
Meanwhile, we are sending them back in to clean up our cities, clad in dust masks and rags and with the promise of a 15-dollar-an-hour job, until we decide to report them and send them back to their own countries.
God bless America, indeed. Que Dios nos bendiga.
The Revealer is a publication of the New York University Department of Journalism and New York University's Center for Religion and Media.
This article is one of a series by prominent figures giving their views on the political and social impact of Hurricane Katrina. We are also inviting readers in the US to write 400 words setting out what they feel the disaster, and the response to it, have revealed about American society. We will publish a small selection of the best. If you would like to contribute please use the form below.
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Comments
| [
3
] |
France plans to pay cash for more babies | · Mothers may get €1,000 a month to have third child · High birthrate fails to stop population shrinking
Middle-class mothers in France could be paid up to €1,000 (£675) a month - almost the minimum wage - to stop work for a year and have a third child under a government scheme to boost the birthrate, already among the highest in Europe.
Despite female employment statistics that are the envy of the continent, the government remains worried about the reluctance of better-educated women to have babies. A plan to be unveiled by the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, today is expected to double an existing cash incentive for big families.
In a Europe facing serious demographic decline, France's buoyant birthrate of 1.9 children a woman is well above the average of 1.4 and surpassed only by Ireland. France can also boast one of the EU's highest rates of female employment: 81% of women between 25 and 49 are in work, including 75% of those with two children (and 51% of those with more than two).
But a recent report by Hubert Brin, the head of the National Union of Family Associations, warned that even France's high birthrate would not prevent the population shrinking. One of the problems is that middle-class and professional women are postponing the age at which they start a family (the 2004 average was 29.6), and spacing out their pregnancies (now nearly four years between the first and second child). As a result, fewer women will have more than two children.
The government hopes to reverse the downtrend by raising an existing €512 monthly grant, the allowance paid to mothers (or, in theory but rarely in practice, fathers) who put their jobs on hold to raise a second or third child.
The grant will be available only for a third baby, and limited to one year. But it will be tied to the parent's salary, with an expected ceiling of €1,000. The French minimum wage is €1,200 a month.
"The old deal only really attracted women in poorly paid work, not those with qualifications and competitive career jobs," said Dominique Meda, a leading social policy specialist. "This one could be that extra encouragement they need to take the plunge. It may even encourage some fathers to take a year off."
France's family policy, launched in the 1970s, aims to improve the country's birthrate and keep as many women in work as possible. "The main point is that women here no longer stop working when they have children: the majority work, even those with three kids," said Ms Meda.
The French state aims to make it easy for working women to have children - either by allowing them to take time off from their jobs without too much of a financial loss, or by providing cheap, high-quality childcare.
Maternity leave, on near full pay, ranges from 20 weeks for the first child to 40 or more for a third. A whole gamut of grants, allowances and tax breaks is available, increasing substantially once a family has three children: all French "familles nombreuses" get some €300 in monthly allowances and travel as good as free on public transport.
At the same time, the network of state-run or state-approved creches - for children from two months old - has been expanded over the past decade or so, as has the number of state-registered childminders. Depending on the family's income, childcare costs from virtually nothing to around €500 a month for the most well-off. Nursery school from 8.30am to 4.30pm is free for every child from the age of three. "We plainly have a very good system compared with many countries," said Sylvie Clarke, 37, a mother of three from Lille. "It's true that, in France, you can have babies without it being a major financial blow, and without worrying whether you'll be able to go back to work afterwards."
Ms Clarke, a bank executive, said she had been able to take up to a year off work for each of her three children because of the generous maternity leave offered by her employer, and so had never considered taking extended parental leave.
"It didn't appeal to people earning much more than the minimum wage," she said. "So it's plain that by raising the ceiling they'll interest a whole new group. But I'm not sure that women in really highly competitive jobs, where presence is everything, will be tempted. And at the end of the day, it's not more money - or rather less of a financial penalty - that makes you want a third child. It's the idea of having a third child."
Around Europe
Sweden
Family benefits: Each parent entitled to 18 months leave; monthly child benefit for three children is €335.74 (£226)
Employment rate of women: aged 25-54
No children 81.9%; one child 80.6%; two children 81.8%
Birthrate: 1.6 children a woman
Ireland
Family benefits: 26 weeks maternity leave plus 14 weeks parental leave; monthly child benefit for three children is €280.6 (£189)
Employment rate of women: aged 25-54
No children 65.8%; one child 51.%; two children 40.8%
Birthrate: 1.98
France
Family benefits:16 weeks maternity leave plus total of 36 months parental leave; monthly child benefit for three children is €390 (£263)
Employment rate of women: aged 25-54
No children 73.5%; one child 74.1%; two children 58.8%
Birthrate: 1.9
UK
Family benefits:26 weeks maternity leave plus 26 weeks parental leave; monthly child benefit for three children is £170.64 (€252)
Employment rate of women: aged 25-54
No children 79.9%; one child 72.9% two children 62.3%
Birthrate: 1.6
Germany
Family benefits:14 weeks maternity leave plus parental leave up to 36 months; monthly child benefit for three children is €430.50 (£290)
Employment rate of women: aged 25-54
No children 77.3%; one child 70.4%; two children 56.3%
Birthrate: 1.5
Portugal
Family benefits: six month maternity leave; monthly child benefit is dependent on earnings
Employment rate of women aged 25-54
No children 72.6%; one child 78.5%; two children 70.3%
Fertility rate: 1.5
· Source OECD | [
7
] |
Opinion | The Normality of Gay Marriages | There's nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state's highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.
The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year's vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.
As a Republican leader explained in justifying his vote switch: "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before." A Democrat attributed his change of heart to the beneficial effects he saw "when I looked in the eyes of the children living with these couples." Gay marriage, it turned out, is good for family values.
Some legislators who strongly oppose gay marriages also switched their votes this year for tactical reasons. They realized that the original measure was headed for defeat, and they had never really liked the part that created civil unions anyway. They are now pinning their hopes on an even harsher proposal, endorsed by Gov. Mitt Romney, that would ban gay marriages without allowing civil unions. | [
5
] |
'Suspicious behaviour on the tube' | Innocent in London – ‘Suspicious behaviour on the tube’
The Police decided that wearing a rain jacket, carrying a rucksack with a laptop inside, looking down at the steps while going in a tube station and checking your phone for messages just tick too many boxes on their checklist and make you a terrorist suspect. How many other people are not only wrongly detained but wrongly arrested every week in similar circumstances as myself? And how many of them are also computer and telecoms enthusiasts that fit the Police's terrorist behavioural profile so well? I accept and understand spot checks can be useful, but profiling... this would be a joke if it didn't affect many ‘innocent bystanders’.
Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair asserted ‘We are not in the business of stopping and searching people who fit a particular profile.’ What then was the premise for even stopping me?
While a police officer did state that my rain jacket was ‘too warm for the season’, could it have been instead that the weather was too cold for the season? This is what the other Met, the Met Office had to say about the weather the day before: ‘London recorded its coldest July day for 25 years on the 27th when temperatures only reached 15.6 °C.’ At least I'm still alive and, over a month later, no longer under arrest.
The Police eventually decided to take No Further Action (NFA): ‘a decision not to proceed with a prosecution’. In a democratic country such as the UK, one would be forgiven for naively thinking that this is the end of the matter. Under the current laws the Police are not only entitled to keep my fingerprints, palm prints (IDENT1) and DNA samples (NDNAD), but apparently they are also entitled to hold on to what they gathered during their investigation: notepads of the arresting officers, photographs, interviewing tapes and any other documents they collected and entered in the Police National Computer (PNC). Hielke Hijmans from the Office of the European Data Protection Supervisor puts it succinctly: ‘terrorism is not out of this world when you retain data’
Aren't the Police supposed to keep tabs only on convicted criminals and individuals under investigation? So even though the Police concluded I was arrested without a cause, otherwise they would have had a duty to prosecute me, personal information remains in the Police national computer; which can be shared with Europol and Interpol, in other Police databases around the world. Isn't a state that keeps files on innocent persons a police state?
This gradual erosion of our fundamental liberties should be of concern to us all.
‘LONDON (Reuters): – A London underground train station was evacuated and part of a main east-west line closed in a security alert on Thursday, three weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 people on the transport network, police said. A Transport Police spokeswoman said Southwark station was closed and Jubilee Line services suspended between Waterloo and Canary Wharf in the east London business district.’ [published on 2005-07-28 at 21:03]
This Reuters story was written while the police were detaining me in Southwark tube station and the bomb squad was checking my rucksack. When they were through, the two explosive specialists walked out of the tube station smiling and commenting ‘nice laptop’. The officers offered apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. Then they arrested me.
Key events timeline
19:10 From my workplace in Southwark, South London, I arrange by text message (SMS) to meet my girlfriend at Hanover Square. To save time – as I suppose – I decide to the take the tube to Bond Street instead of my usual bus. I am wearing greenish Merrell shoes, black trousers, t-shirt, black lightweight Gap jumper, dark grey/black light rainproof Schott jacket and grey Top Shop cap.
I am carrying a black Tom Bihn rucksack I use as a workbag.
19:21 I enter Southwark tube station, passing uniformed police officers by the entrance, and more police beyond the gate. I walk down to the platform, peering down to see the steps as, thanks to a small eye infection, I'm wearing specs instead of my usual contact lenses. (The picture was taken on 2006-01-18 during a part reenactment for BBC One. Credit: Mark Shackman.)
The platform is mostly empty. The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift onto the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back.
I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside jacket pocket and begin to read.
The train enters the station.
Police officers, all uniformed men, appear on the platform and surround me. They ask me to take off my rucksack. They must immediately notice my French accent, still strong after living more than 12 years in London. They handcuff me – hands behind my back (the handcuffs have a rigid bar between the two cuffs – i.e. not like the ones often shown on TV). They take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act.
I am told that I am being stopped and searched because they found my behaviour suspicious (from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system):
I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates, i.e. I was ‘avoiding them’
two other men entered the station at about the same time as me
I am wearing a jacket ‘too warm for the season’
I am carrying a bulky rucksack
I kept my rucksack with me at all times (I had it on my back)
I looked at people coming on the platform
I played with my mobile phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
They empty the content of all my pockets into two of their helmets and search me. They loosen my belt.
One or two trains arrive and depart normally, with people getting on and off. Then a train arrives, and moves slowly right through the station. The driver is told not to stop. After that, no more trains pass through the station.
We move away from the edge of the platform into the emergency staircase. We’re shown the way by two London Underground staffs that then disappear. I sit down on the (dirty) steps.
Some police officers go up and later come back. Their radio system does not work deep down in the station. The police say they can't validate my address. I suggest they ask the security guard where I work, two streets away. They use walkie-talkies to pass the phone number I give them to colleagues.
They swap the handcuffs from behind my back to in front of my body, and we move up the escalators to the ticket office floor of the station. I sit in the booth by the ticket gates for about one minute before a police officer decides we should go outside. We go up to the station doors, and I realise that the station is cordoned off. (The two photographs below are courtesy of London SE1.)
Two bomb squad officers pass by getting out of the station. One turns to me and says in a joking tone: ‘Nice laptop!’ A police officer expresses apologies on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, and explains that we are waiting for a more senior officer to express further apologies. They take off the handcuffs and start giving me back my possessions: my purse, keys, some papers.
Another police officer interferes, saying that this is not proper. I am handcuffed again.
A police van arrives and I am told that I will wait in the back. After about five minutes, a police officer formally arrests me (until that point I was apparently only detained).
20:43 Arrested for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance, I am driven off to Walworth police station.
20:50 Forms are filled in (Code: MS - Custody No: 0504437), and my handcuffs (double locked) taken off so I can write my address. I am given a form 3053 about my rights.
I make one correction to the police statement describing my detention: no train passed before I was stopped. I empty my pockets of the few things they had given me back at the tube station, and am searched again. My possessions are put in evidence bags.
They take two Polaroid photographs (I stand my back to the wall). A few minutes later, they take another set of two.
After washing my hand, a female police officer fingerprints me (all the fingers and palms) by putting some grease on my hands and holding them on a glass surface of some piece of equipment. She then takes DNA swabs from each side of my mouth.
22:06 I am allowed a phone call to my girlfriend: a female police officer dials the number, asks for my girlfriend and tell her that she will transfer me over. My girlfriend is crying and keeps repeating: ‘What happened, I thought you were injured or had an accident, where were you, why didn't you call me back’. I explain that I'm fine and in a police station, my phone was taken and the police officers wouldn't allow me to call. She wants to come to the station. I try to reassure her and ask her to stay at home as I don't know how long it'll take and she caught a cold while waiting and looking for me outside.
22:14 I am put into an individual police cell. I ask for a glass of water. The officer says ‘yes’ but doesn't bring it. About 40 minutes later a female officer asks if I am ok. I again request a glass of water, and it is brought to me.
23:15 A plainclothes officer tells me that my flat will be searched under the Terrorism Act. I request that my girlfriend be called beforehand, so that she won't be too scared. This request is accepted, and I am asked for her phone number. I don't know it – it is stored in my phone – so I explain it is with the officer at the desk. I later find out that they don't call her.
Apart from the two visits to the cell (the one check and the info about the search), every now and then I notice an eye behind the eyehole but I'm not told anything. There's a camera as well. Apparently I was on ‘half hourly checks’.
2005-07-29 00:25-01:26 at my flat. Three uniformed police officers search my flat and interview my girlfriend. One of them asks her to show him some files on her laptop; he's particularly interested in all ‘documents’. They take away from the flat an old IBM laptop, a BeBox tower computer (an obsolete kind of PC from the mid 1990s), a frequency counter (picked it up at a radio amateur junk fair because it looked interesting), a radio scanner (receives short wave radio stations), a blue RS232C breakout box (a tool I used to use when reviewing modems for computer magazines), some aerials and an earpiece. They apparently do not take but have a good look at several mobile phones, a handheld GPS receiver (positioning device with maps, very useful when walking), a Black Hat computer security conference leaflet, envelopes with addresses, maps of Prague and London Heathrow, some business cards, some photographs I took – in particular techie ones such as the ones of the ACM97 conference – for the 50 years of the Association of Computing Machinery, and some cables.
This original list is from my girlfriend's memory, or what we have noticed is missing since (I have updated the list based on what I eventually got back from the Police). The police officers left a notice of the powers to search premises, but this doesn't include an inventory.
03:06 I am retrieved from my cell and formally interviewed by a plainclothes CID officer. I see my rucksack for the first time since I took it off at the tube station. I also notice some of my possessions from home, all bagged up in evidence bags except the tower computer.
This interview is recorded on two tapes. The police again read out their version of events. I make two corrections: again pointing out that no train passed between my arrival on the platform and when I was detained, and that I didn't take any wire out of my pocket – I didn't have any wire. The officer suggests the computer cables I had in my rucksack could have been confused for wires. I tell him I didn't take my rucksack off until asked by the police so this is impossible.
Three items I was carrying seem to be of particular interest to the officer:
a small promotional booklet I got at the cinema screening of the film The Assassination of Richard Nixon ,
, a folded A4 page where I did some doodles in red ink. The police suspect it could be a map: ‘It could be doodles but is it a plan of the station or anything like that?’ (it really could be anything one would like to see in the doodles; I have no recollection when or why I did them), and
the active part of an old work pass where one can see the induction loop and one integrated circuit.
Items from the flat the police officer asks about: the RS232C breakout box, the radio scanner and the frequency counter.
The officer explains what made them change their mind and arrest me instead of releasing me. It was because of my connection with my employer. Apparently, on August 4th, 2004 there was a firearms incident at the company where I work. (The next day I find out that there had indeed been a hoax call the previous year, apparently from a temp worker claiming there was an armed intruder in one of the buildings.) Also that some staff had been seen taking photographs of trains at the tube station with a camera phone. (Most of my colleagues do have camera phones – also on 2nd June, as part of a team building exercise, new graduates were supposed to photograph landmarks and try to get a picture of themselves with a policeman.)
04:27 The interviewing officer releases me on bail, without requiring security. On my 60B bail form it says ‘I have been granted bail in accordance with the Bail Act, 1976, under the provisions of Section 34(5)/(7) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that I must surrender to custody at Walworth Police Station on Wednesday 31 August, 2005 at 09:00.’
He gives me back most of the contents of my pockets, including my Oyster card, USB key and iPod) and a few things from my rucksack (umbrella and eye drop bottles). Initially he says he will keep my mobile phone. I ask if I can at least have the SIM card? He says no, that's what they need; but he eventually changes his mind and lets me keep the whole phone.
I leave the police station and take a night bus home.
The next day. I get a solicitor and arrange to meet him on the Monday.
The solicitor advises waiting until 31st August.
09:00 I arrive at police station to surrender to custody as required by bail, and am joined by my solicitor five minutes later. We are invited into a small room by a plainclothes police officer a further few minutes later. The officer tells us that it's ‘NFA’ (no further action), explains that this means that they are dropping the charges, and briefly apologises. The officer (DS) in charge of the case is away from the station so the process of clearing up my case is suspended until he signs the papers cancelling the bail and authorising the release of my possessions. The meeting lasts about five minutes.
I send Subject Access request letters to the Data Protection Registrars of
London Underground (the DPR entry for the London Underground doesn't exist anymore; I've since realised that Transport for London took control of the Tube in 2003),
Transport for London, registration number: Z5623601 (on 2005-09-05, they replied that the ‘retention period for recording of stations is fourteen days’),
the British Transport Police, registration number: Z4882139 (on 2005-09-14, they sent a reply which is just explaining some aspects of the Data Protection Act – no data included and no information as to when they might send the data requested) and
the Metropolitan Police (on 2005-09-20, they replied with a form asking for more details; on 2005-09-27, I sent back form 3019B with a certified copy of my passport and a £10 cheque; on 2005-10-04, they sent a letter confirming my ‘application has been passed to the National Identification Service who are responsible for conducting searches on the PNC’; I eventually got the Subject Access, see below for more info).
The first three letters ask for any data, including CCTV footage, related to the incident on July 28, while the final one is much more generic asking for any data they have on me. They all have forty days to respond.
I talk to my solicitor about ensuring the Police return all my possessions, give us all the investigation documents (which they may or may not do) and expunge police records (apparently unlikely to happen).
The solicitor sends a letter to the officer in charge of my case asking him to authorise the release of my possessions and forward us a copy of the custody record, and conveying to him how upset I am.
I write to my Member of Parliament about my concerns on what is happening to our civil liberties.
The Guardian publishes a slightly edited version of this page titled ‘Suspicious behaviour on the tube’ on the front page of the 2005-09-22 edition. A great many thanks to those (Andy & Will) who convinced me I should publish this story (against the advice of my solicitor who explained there's often lots of stigma associated with having been arrested even when innocent), to those (Will & Andrew) who helped me edit it and to everyone at the Guardian (especially Jack, Ian, Alan, Paul and Sarah). The Guardian's front page is shown on Newsnight!
The feedback I receive is very supportive. In some email messages, the senders mentioned reading the article prompted them to contact their Member of Parliament. Discussions and comments are happening on many websites. It clearly justifies, a posteriori, this publication. My gratitude to everyone who offered sympathy and to those doing something to ensure civil liberties are respected in the UK (and everywhere else).
I participate in a one hour and half live interview (MP3 - 20.3 MB) on RampART radio (Indymedia).
I talk to my solicitor. He hasn't received any response from the Police to his letter dated 2005-09-08 (neither have I). He will send another letter higher up the hierarchy.
I realise that it will now be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to travel to the USA (and this may limit my career options): ‘Under United States visa law people who have been arrested are required to declare the arrest when applying for a visa.’ The visa application process takes ‘a minimum of 14 to 16 weeks’ and before that ‘Applicants applying for a visa at the Embassy in London are required to furnish a Subject Access statement from the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard’. There's no guarantee that a visa will be issued.
The Dallas Morning News publishes ‘Brits wonder if terror bill goes too far’ by Tod Robberson, European Bureau Chief, on the front page of the 2005-10-01 edition. The article is partly based on an interview I did with Tod Robberson. (This article has since been syndicated with the headline: ‘Britons wonder if anti-terrorism efforts go too far’; it has been published in at least fifteen other US newspapers.)
He asked the Police why they arrested me: ‘Ms. Goodall [a police spokeswoman] declined to say why Mr. Mery's behavior was regarded as suspicious.’
He also quotes me: ‘“The whole thing about the jacket worried me. That was the excuse they used to kill Jean de Menezes. If you think about all of the risks of being attacked by terrorists, and then you think of 3,000 police carrying guns with shoot-to-kill orders, it's kind of worrying. Terrorism is a great danger, but I think the danger from the police is equal as well.”’
The police asked my solicitor that I contact them (this is following the letter my solicitor sent exactly a month ago). I talk to them briefly. They should call me back on Monday to arrange a meeting later in the week. At this meeting I'm looking to get my possessions back, all the documents related to the investigation and a formal apology. I also want to discuss the possibility of the record of my arrest being expunged. Monetary compensation would be welcome as well (I had to buy another laptop).
I'm invited to participate on BBC Radio Five Live in a special The Way Forward news programme debating issues three months since the London bombings. Matthew Bannister interviews me (6.6 MB) at around twenty past midnight. (In the full programme my bit is from 2h22'02" to 2h32'25".)
15:00 I visit the police station with my solicitor. The police officer gives me a partial copy of the Custody Record (Form 57). It does not contain the inventories of the content of my rucksack or what they took from the flat. The detail pages are not numbered and do not include the ‘facts of arrest’. The Reasons for arrest is listed as: ‘Other offence causing a public nuisance. DP [detained prisoner] caused a major evacuation of three main line rail stations after his deliberate actions caused police to believe he had explosives’. To the best of my knowledge this is factually incorrect, only Southwark tube station was closed. I couldn't find any mention of even one main line rail station being closed (if you're aware of any please email me). On the form they note: ‘DP is calm on arrival [at the station], almost too calm’ and as a consequence I was ‘placed in a video cell on half hourly checks’. Interesting to realise that being calm is something that disturbs the police!
The officer brings in the items they took when they searched my flat, and the three items I had on me (promotional booklet, the page with doodles and the pass) for which they had a special interest. I point out that the rucksack and its content are not there. He goes away to find these other items and brings them back. I notice that some items I thought they had taken from the flat are not there. Apparently my original list was erroneous – it included items they had a good look at but didn't take. When the rucksack is taken out of the evidence bag, I notice that it has been cut open. (Many thanks to Darcy at Tom Bihn who offered me a replacement bag.) The officer suggest I send him a complaint letter.
The officer believed a Bail Cancellation Notice (Form 60C) had been given to me when they told me they didn't press charge. After having to insist that this wasn't the case, I get the form, dated only 2005-10-05 and stating that the need for me to ‘return to Walworth Police Station has been cancelled [as] no further action is being taken (reason): insufficient evidence’.
After being reminded, the officer goes to make a copy of one (of the two) interviewing tapes and give it to me. The recording quality is poor. The tape is copyrighted by the Metropolitan Police.
16:10 I leave the station with two very heavy big transparent plastic evidence bags full with the possessions I got back (two months and two weeks after the police took them).
They will keep on file my fingerprints, palm prints, DNA samples and photographs, the arresting officers' notebooks, the interviewing tapes and any other documents they collected or created during their investigation (CCTV tapes, details of all the officers involved, etc.) I also have not received any formal apology or any compensation. And of course no assurance that other innocents won't be arrested in similar circumstances.
It's also just a month since I wrote to my Member of Parliament. I haven't received a reply (yet). Ironically she is a human rights lawyer.
I decided to check on the Royal Mail website when the four subject access requests I sent on 2005-08-31 to various Data Protection Registrars (DPRs) were received. The ones to Transport for London and British Transport Police were received on 2005-09-02. The Royal Mail site has no track record of delivery of the letters to the London Underground or the Metropolitan Police DPRs. As I received a reply from the Met, I know that this letter has been delivered! So that leaves the one to London Underground. Either the London Underground DPR did get the letter at the same time as the other DPRs and is now in breach of the Data Protection Act or the Royal Mail has managed to lose one recorded delivery letter. It's not yet forty days since I last got correspondence from the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police (and the Transport for London DPR wrote back explaining that its data retention period is only 14 days).
On 2005-09-21, it was widely reported that Scotland Yard had scrutinised footage from 80,000 CCTV tapes going back to at least June 28. That's a retention period for CCTV footage of at least twelve weeks. None of the press reports have stated whether this is normal Police procedure (data retention) or whether this was an exceptional measure for the investigation in progress (data preservation).
I am interviewed on 2005-10-21 by John Sudworth for the BBC Radio Four programme Broadcasting House presented by Fi Glover. My interview (1.5 MB) is used as part of an extensive segment (from 17'52" to 31'15" in the full programme – not online anymore) on the misuse of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act (Stop and Search), broadcast on Sunday 2005-10-23 at 9am.
I just came back from two weeks holidays in Asia. Going through passport control went fine except for immigration officers checking my passport in minute details. Coming back to the UK, at Heathrow, the officer even took a magnifier from his pocket to check the page with the picture. I presume this is more to do with the fact that I still have an old style non machine readable passport, than anything on file. No question asked.
I received the Subject Access from the Met. It is dated 2005-10-23. It contains ‘information that may be held about [me] by the Metropolitan Police on computers in the following categories:- Person Record: Prosecution/Conviction’. There's no category section in the Met DPR entry, but I presume it corresponds to ‘Purpose 2’ [update: the link to the entry – www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/DoSearch.asp?reg=2789622 – is now dead and I cannot find the new DPR entry for the Met. the registration number is Z4888193]. Are there any other interesting categories one should explicitly ask for? The cover letter does mention: ‘If you requested any categories not shown above the Metropolitan Police will send you a separate reply.’ When I was interviewed, the officer had an exact list of all the addresses I lived at in the UK. Surely this must be on the PNC – in another category? Ditto the fact that I did have a press card registered with Scotland Yards many years ago?
Information listed includes (terms used in the document):
PNC Response Recorded: 23/10/05
Nominal details: surname, forename, birth date, sex, colour, ethnic appearance and height
Intelligence information: photo locations
DNA report summary
Impending prosecutions full details: fingerprints status, officer in case (deleted as it ‘identifies another person’), name and date of birth given and details of arrest:
Arrested at 20:43 hrs on 28/07/05 Public nuisance Common Law Offence originator: 01MD Offence date(s) / Time(s): 28/07/05 20:30 Offence address: Southwark L.T Tube Station., Southwark, London, Post code: SE1 Committed on bail: No Court ref: Not yet fixed Prosecuting agent: Police Court: Not yet fixed Date: Not yet scheduled
Date of creation: 29/07/05
This confirms that the Police keep PNC records of innocents that have been wrongly arrested. The detail is is also cause of some concern and further questions:
It mentions that I was arrested for Public Nuisance under Common Law. Does ‘Common Law’ includes the Terrorism Act? If not, the Police didn't record on paper what happened. Of course it may influence their overall statistics.
The officers stated they found my behaviour suspicious (the offence) when I was entering the tube station – at 19:21. The recorded time of the offence is more than an hour later – 20:30.
Again there's only mention of the Southwark Tube Station. This cast further doubt on the ‘major evacuation of three main line rail stations’ appearing in the custody record (only mention of this rather serious statement which appears to have no basement in reality).
There's no mention of the tube station CCTV footage. Do they have it? Should it be recorded on the PNC?
This PNC entry has not been updated since it was created on 2005-07-29. In particular it has not been updated with the fact that the Police dropped all charges. Not when I was informed about it on 2005-08-31. Not on 2005-10-05 – the date printed on the Bail Cancellation Notice I eventually managed to get on 2005-10-13. Not on 2005-10-23 when the ‘PNC Response Recorded’ was created.
The cover letter includes the helpful suggestion: ‘If you think that the information is incorrect please write to the above address quoting the reference number.’ As these records cannot be expunged, I'm keen to at least have the fact the Police dropped the charges added.
I am interviewed live on the Sky News Today television programme at 14:30. This is part of the coverage of Tony Blair pushing his plans to let the Police detain terror suspect without charge for up to 90 days. That the Police ask for more power is expected, but that the Government goes along in asking for laws that wouldn't be out of place in dictatorships or apartheid-type regime should be of great concern to all.
As I get out of the Sky News studio, Five News is interested to record an interview and we film it in the park outside the studio. This was planned to be used on the day at 17:30, but it doesn't appear to have been shown during that slot.
With Australia planning new anti-terrorism laws based on the British ones, there's a sudden strong interest in the failings of the current British laws. The Australian Financial Review publishes an article on counter-terrorism mentioning what happened to me.
An interview (13.2 MB) with Phillip Adams, I recorded on Monday, is broadcast on ABC Radio National. This is part of Late Night Live (from 12'39" to 24'10" of the full programme).
I am also interviewed (8.5 MB) live as part of Breakfast with Peter Godfrey on Radio Adelaide.
I send an email to my Member of Parliament exactly two months after having written to her at the House of Commons and not having received any reply or acknowledgement.
I meet with Dan Kieran who interviews me for a book he is writing, ‘a funny journey through some of our oddest laws, pointing out that some modern legislation is just as odd as the old ones but in your case and many others I've tracked down, far more frightening.’ In his introduction email, Dan mentioned:
It really would be fantastic to interview you because the best way to make people realise that their personal freedom is being eroded away is to tell your story because what happened to you really could happen to anyone. I think, for that reason, it will have a resonance that some of the other stories will not.
Last week I sent another email to my Member of Parliament suggesting I drop in at her open surgery. Later in the week I got a call from someone working for her who instead arranged a private meeting for today at Portcullis House.
It was a friendly meeting. She offered support if I don't get satisfaction from the Police via legal routes but it was otherwise a rather frustrating conversation. For instance, we discussed the compromises she finds necessary as part of the political system – one such example was her support of the compromise to extend detention of suspects from 14 up to 28 days without charging them (successfully defeating the 90 days amendment). This even though she practised as criminal barrister. See Gareth Peirce and Louise Christian's tales on how even 14 days or less in Paddington Green affect the mental health of detainees. These are not abstract compromises, the lives of individuals who have not been charged, and hence by definition are innocent, will be deeply affected.
One comment made in passing about this debate, I now find rather shocking: apparently during the Terror Bill debate and vote on the 90 days resolution, there was strong presence of armed police officers around the Parliament that this MP felt was to pressurise the Parliament. In a democracy, MPs should not feel intimidated by the Police.
A suggestion my MP made was that I talk about my experience to police officers during their training. I'd be happy to do so, but I believe the main issues are with the legislation and the public accountability of the Police (even Sir Ian Blair recognised this in his Dimbleby lecture: ‘policing is too important to leave to police chiefs – or to party politics alone.’) It would be interesting to know if the decision to arrest me was taken by vindictive officers on the scene or by someone higher up the hierarchy possibly not even present at the tube station. I believe the latter is more likely.
Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is reported by Bloomberg to have said at the MPA ‘Together Against Terror?’ conference today: ‘London police have arrested 130 suspects since suicide bomb attacks in July, yet the threat of terrorism continues to increase’. (To contrast, that's more that all the resultant arrests, whether in connection with terrorism or not, resulting from stop and searches conducted under Section 44(2) during the combined financial years 2003/4 and 2004/5: the Met arrested 125 persons during this period – apparently.)
That's 130 arrests just in London from July 7 to December 12, and I was arrested on July 28, so the number by then must have been even smaller. Out of all the people in London they singled out 130 persons and I was one of them. One would be led to believe that the Met had serious intelligence on these 130 persons, but if the cases of the other 129 are similar to mine then it shows that the Met must work more effectively, not ask for more powers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers just published an Interim practice advice on stop and search in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000. On searches authorised under Section 44, the powers used to stop and search me, the policy note states:
‘The power is only to stop and search. This means that there is no power to detain for the purpose of questioning or to ask questions to allay the need for search. A record of the stop should be given as required by PACE Code A.’
This explains why I was told I was arrested for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance but only the latter appears on the extract of the custody record I obtained. If I understand this correctly, I was stopped under one piece of legislation: Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000; arrested under another: the Terrorism Act was mentioned, but the Police National Computer record states public nuisance offence, Common Law (which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or a fine or both); and my flat searched under yet another: Section 18(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984.
I never got a record of the stop, but then it says one ‘should be given’, not one must be given.
Best wishes for the festive season to all who volunteered support, to all this website's readers – occasional ones, regular ones, and really dedicated ones (whoever you are on the Government Secure Intranet!) – and to everyone contributing to safeguard our civil liberties.
I am interviewed for the Politics Show television programme. The reporter is interested in how the Stop and search policy works in London. The filming is done on location where I was arrested last July: Southwark tube station. (I have since discovered that filming and taking photographs of London tube stations without obtaining a permit in advance is now illegal – the London Underground staff did threaten to call the Police but we moved away to avoid confrontation without realising that we could have been arrested.)
The programme is broadcast on BBC One on Sunday 2006-01-22 at 12 noon. The segment of the programme on Stop and search starts with a reenactment of me entering the tube station; dressed as I was on 2005-07-28 – and a bit cold. After some pre-recorded interviews, including mine, there's a live debate with former Home Office criminologist Professor Marian Fitzgerald visiting professor at Kent University and Bob Neill, Conservative, London Assembly Member and member of Metropolitan Police Association (I have received two independent confirmations that the MPA requested and obtained – in confidence – a report about my arrest from the Metropolitan Police Service). Professor Fitzgerald mentions that ‘under the Terrorism Stop and search [legislation], the arrest rate there is only 1% and very few of these arrests are anything to do with terrorism.’
In both the Sky News Today and the Politics Show interviews, the caption introduced me as 'Former Suspect'. Is that more appropriate than say ‘London resident’ or ‘Tried to take the tube’? Such captions have to be short, but this shortening of what is really ‘Formerly considered by the Police to present a suspicious behaviour’ can give the impression of a universality. This would erroneous. Let me know how you react to this label.
I have so far accepted all the invitations from reporters who contacted me (as the only one of the 130 ‘suspect’ arrested in the five months following July 7 to have apparently gone public). I feel it is important as many people as possible are aware of what can and may happen to them – so they can actively ask for and participate in a debate about the society we all live in.
I send two further Subject Access requests to the Met. This time, I fill in the two forms A & B and send them with a certified copy of my passport, some utility bills and a cheque of twenty pounds. I specifically ask for information held about me in the PNC – updated to show that I'm not under arrest any more, a copy of the report about my arrest the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) sent to the independent Metropolitan Police Association (MPA) and any other information held about me under any other category (for instance, I know from the interview that they have a list of all the addresses I lived at in the UK). I take this opportunity to request the list of categories as well.
Someone from the Met calls to enquire about my Subject Access requests. He wants to know where I had been arrested and to which Police station I had been taken to. This, even though I had included the PNC Id in my request (the PNC information includes details of the ‘offence address’).
I receive the Subject Access for the following category: ‘Person Record: Prosecution/Conviction’. The letter and the ‘PNC Response Recorded’ are both dated 2006-02-28. The PNC has been updated and now shows the summary of my ‘non conviction’ with the ‘date first non convict’ and ‘date last non convict’ both 2005-08-31:
Non convictions summary Non convictions :1 Offences :1 Date first non convict :31/08/05 Date last non convict :31/08/05 Offence summary 1 public disorder offences (2005) Prosecution agent: Police 1 Court :NFA (No Further Action) No court appearance Date :31/08/05 Plea :Not known Adjudication:No adjudication Disposal :NFA No court appearance
I would have preferred mentions of the arrest to have been deleted, but as this is apparently not possible, at least the PNC now states explicitly that I'm no more under arrest.
At last I feel I can now stop carrying the Bail Cancellation Notice on me. Not knowing when the PNC would eventually be updated, I felt safer carrying a proof that the Police had decided to take ‘no further action’.
The cover letter includes the usual: ‘If you requested any categories not shown above the Metropolitan Police will send you a separate reply.’ So I'm expecting to receive further post concerning my other requests. There are still two more weeks for the regulatory 40 days in which the Met Data Protection Registrar has to answer.
At the end of last year the Metropolitan Police suggested a meeting with a senior officer involved with, possibly even in charge of, the operation that led to my arrest. I instructed my solicitor that I was keen for this meeting to happen. I did have one request: that I could record the meeting, and that if the officer refused I still wanted the meeting to happen but was keen for the officer to then provide written reasons why they didn't want me to record anything. People were busy, then there was the New Year holidays. Last month, another letter was sent by my solicitor and another 14 days lapsed without a reply from the Police. This is obviously not happening. Got the news in the post this morning. This also means it is the end of the criminal law aspect of my case and my solicitor (paid by Legal Aid) is handling me over to a colleague of his dealing with civil law matters such as actions against the police.
The same person from the Met calls again, this time to get the crime reference number (CRO). I had included this information on the form (my handwriting may not have been legible) and it is on the PNC extract I received a week ago.
I receive the remaining Subject Access documents for the requests I made two months earlier on 2006-02-07 (I did get an apology letter on 2006-03-28 for the delay from the Met's Data Protection Officer). The envelope contains a cover letter dated 2006-04-04 (explaining that ‘that under the Act, the data supplied is held by the MPS under the “Standard Police Notification” for the Purpose of Policing’ ), the relevant Notification (still no list of categories) and a ‘Briefing Note – Arrest of Mr David MERY’ issued by the Metropolitan Police Service – Southwark.
The briefing note is not dated but it starts with a mention of ‘Mr Mery has written an article for the Guardian on 22/09/2005 covering the circumstances of his arrest at Southwark Underground Station’ and finishes with a mention of ‘the return of the property seized by police’ so it appears to have been written at the end of October last year (the MPA had a copy by the beginning of November). It is two and half page long. Twenty one numbered sections – ‘information held that can identify a third party, or that you are otherwise not entitled to’ - have been edited out (about a quarter of the document). Surprisingly, the name of the Supt that ‘attended and took command [...and...] formed the view that there were reasonable grounds to suspect an intended [sic] by Mr Mery to cause apprehension and fear among the public and officers that he had explosives’ has not been edited out.
The background section of the report states: ‘He provides a detailed account of the incident in the Guardian article. The general chronology of the incident appears correct. He describes his behaviour, which apparently aroused the officers' suspicion. This is generally in line with what was observed by the officers.’
Even though the MPS agrees at a high-level with my version, there are some disagreements:
‘It was a bright sunny day with warm temperatures.’ – The Met Office disagrees, finding the weather very unsettled for the end of the month and that ‘London recorded its coldest July day for 25 years on the 27th’ (the previous day).
– The Met Office disagrees, finding the weather very unsettled for the end of the month and that (the previous day). There's no mention that my rucksack was inspected and cleared of containing any explosives. The only related mention is: ‘There was some damage to the bag resulting from its examination by the EXPO officers.’
‘When he was booked in he made a comment that "no train passed while I was waiting. I was stopped when the train stopped at the station." [...] From the account of officers at the scene it appears that he in fact let a number of trains go through.’ I still disagree with the Police on this. The facts can't be checked independently as the cover letter mentions that ‘the CCTV footage you refer to, is the property of Transport for London’ and TfL replied to my earlier data subject access that its data retention is fourteen days.
I still disagree with the Police on this. The facts can't be checked independently as the cover letter mentions that and TfL replied to my earlier data subject access that its data retention is fourteen days. ‘In interview he indicated that the first trains were not going to the destination he intended to go to. In his article in the Guardian Mr Mery however stated that he was rushing to meet his girlfriend at Bond Street station. All trains from Southwark go to Bond Street.’ This is the first time I see this claim from the Police, I have never said such things and the interview tape can demonstrate it.
Later today, I spot the document Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer, incorporating the Step Down Model issued by the ACPO. According to section 2.5 of this document, I am ‘referred to as a “CJ Arrestee”’ and according to section 3.1 ‘[my] record will be retained on the PNC until that person is deemed to have attained the age of 100 years of age’ . (If I live that long, I'll have to remember to issue another data subject access on my 100th birthday to check if it is then effectively deleted.)
I pop in the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and give a filled in complaint form (dated 2006-04-17) to the reception. The form asks the ‘ where? ’, ‘ when? ’, ‘ what? ’ and ‘ who? ’ of the incident that led to the complaint. It does not ask about the specific police misconduct one is complaining about or what outcome the complainant is wishing for. I presume this is discussed further with the IPCC when the incident is considered serious enough for a complaint to proceed. I also decide not to proceed any further, at this time, with a civil law solicitor.
A more positive entry on this now long tale on how several helpful individuals have been of great assistance.
Last November, AlistairT, a reader of this page contacted me to let me know he had written to his London Assembly member to ‘ask what they thought the police were doing and what they were doing to make sure this kind of outrage didn't happen more often.’ His London Assembly Member Jennette Arnold, also a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), replied that the MPA had requested and obtained a full explanation from the police and would continue to monitor the actions of the police as they relate to the Terrorism Act. With the assistance of Jennette's team and with another data subject access I managed to get a redacted copy of the briefing note last month.
I eventually met Jennette at her office last Wednesday. We had a fruitful discussion and she suggested I use my right as a member of the public to put a written question to the MPA. This had to be done by the next day to be in time for the May 25 full Authority meeting. I couldn't find any guidelines on how such question should be formulated so my first attempt, written Wednesday night, was two-page long and included a mix of personal and more general context. The MPA helpfully explained that such questions should not be on personal issues and that usually they are no more than a paragraph. My second attempt is focusing on policing in London and is much shorter (see next entry)
Beginning of April, KenT, another reader of this page emailed me to suggest I write to Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the Independent Reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000, as he was quoted by BBC News as saying: ‘People should not be arrested under the Terrorism Act unless there is a real terrorism issue [...] The most important thing is if there has been an error, then there should be fence-mending at once and it may have to start with an apology’ .
To my surprise, Lord Carlile replied, on a Sunday, less than an hour after I had emailed him! He explained that even though individual cases are generally outside his terms of reference, he would attempt to obtain a response from the Home Office to the questions I raised. Unfortunately the Home Office proved less helpful. As there are factual issues in dispute between myself and the police, as explained in details in previous entries, Lord Carlile suggested I pursue a complaint via the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I initiated such a complaint last month.
It does make a positive difference to receive so much support from readers and occasionally from people with some authority.
The agenda for the May 25 MPA full Authority meeting has been published. It includes the text of my question followed by a proposed response from the Chief Executive and Clerk. See below for a copy of my question.
The proposed response mentions that the ‘MPA does not consider the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to have overreacted to the horrific terrorist attacks [...]’ This is obviously an essential disagreement. On the consultative activities of the MPA, the response starts by mentioning the ‘Together Against Terror?’ conference of last December. Unfortunately attendance was by invite and the process by which the list was created lacking in transparency. Before going into generalities, the response mentions that ‘as a result of public feedback, the MPA has secured the agreement of the MPS to publish its statistics on Section 44 (Terrorism Act 2000) stops and searches’ . This is most welcome. Getting these statistics will help getting a better understanding of the wider picture and of the propaganda. It is unfortunate that the MPS is several months behind in publishing such statistics.
The MPA Standing Orders section 2.7.4 explain that ‘following the Clerk’s response, the person asking the question may speak further for no more than three minutes ’ . I intend to attend. If you're interested in the May 25 agenda, the full Authority meetings are open to the public, however this is only to view proceedings and not take part in any of the debate. Seats are limited so you should arrive before 10.00 am. You are apparently free to leave the meeting at any stage and do not have to wait until the meeting is finished.
The full Authority meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is an impressive affair with about thirty persons seated at tables arranged as a large rectangle. Everyone has a name plate and a microphone. I am in the 'speaker' chair. It seems the public consists mostly of assistants to the MPA members and of journalists. My question is early in the agenda, first item after approving the minutes of the previous meeting.
I briefly introduce myself and refer the audience to my question as printed in the agenda:
‘To be a Londoner these days is to feel one is considered guilty until proven innocent. The overreaction of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to the horrific terrorist attacks of last July has resulted in many innocent Londoners suffering from the long-term effects of having been arbitrarily detained and/or arrested. Another consequence of this worsening policing of London is intimidation, increased mistrust and even fear of the MPS. This has not enhanced our security, to the contrary. What is the MPA doing to ensure that police powers are more balanced and checked so they are not further abused against innocents Londoners? Is the MPA actively consulting with the innocent Londoners that have been arrested and released without further action? What actions are taken by the MPA so that Londoners can stop being paranoid about which aspect of our behaviour or clothing, or which picture we take will be used as an excuse for detainment, arrest or shooting by the MPS? How does the MPA plan to restore trust in the police?’
The response from the Chief Executive and Clerk is read. The final response is the same as the proposed one that was published in the agenda:
‘The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is fully committed to the principle of innocence until proven guilty. The MPA is also acutely aware of the need to strike a balance between robust counter-terrorist policing, the protection of fundamental civil liberties, and the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the police. The MPA does not consider the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to have overreacted to the horrific terrorist attacks which killed 52 innocent people in London on 7 July 2005 and the attempted bombings a fortnight later. The MPS responded with the seriousness that these acts of indiscriminate murder demanded. Notwithstanding the tragic death of Jean-Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005, the MPS response in terms of both disaster-management and investigation has drawn respect and recognition from around the world. A MORI survey in September 2005 suggested that 86% of Londoners believe that the MPS responded well to the attacks. Recognising the potential which Londoners themselves have to contribute to the safety and security of the capital, the MPA has undertaken to deliver a series of consultative activities in the field of counter-terrorism. The first of these activities was the MPA's ’Together Against Terror?’ conference in December 2005, attended by over 150 community members. Planned activities in 2006 include a series of public hearings, focus groups in universities and colleges, and local consultation in all 32 London Boroughs. The MPA consults Londoners in order to understand what the public expect from the police. It does then respond to their views. For example, as a result of public feedback, the MPA has secured the agreement of the MPS to publish its statistics on Section 44 (Terrorism Act 2000) stops and searches. Separate arrangements, defined by statute, are in place for dealing with public complaints and specific allegations of police misconduct. The MPA works closely with the MPS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to ensure that complaints against the police are handled properly. In counter-terrorism, as in all other fields of policing, the MPA remains committed to securing an effective, efficient and fair police service for all of London's communities.’
As the MPA's response is the one that was published, the response to the response I had prepared is fully valid and I read through my notes, hopefully in the allotted three minutes:
As ‘ The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) does not consider the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to have overreacted to the horrific terrorist attacks ’ of last July 2005, and that ‘ the MPS response in terms of both disaster-management and investigation has drawn respect and recognition from around the world ’ we have an essential disagreement. If the MPA finds the MPS is doing a perfect job in respect to its anti-terrorism response then a discussion on how it can be improved is not possible. This satisfaction can not be shared by all Londoners when there are so many stop and searches under Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, and subsequent arrests of innocent Londoners. This does not make us any more secure but does impact the lives of Londoners. Even Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, appears to disagree with MPA's assessment. He is reported by Bloomberg to have said at the MPA's own 'Together Against Terror?' conference last December: ‘ London police have arrested 130 suspects since suicide bomb attacks in July, yet the threat of terrorism continues to increase ’. That's more than all the arrests, whether in connection with terrorism or not, resulting from stop and searches conducted under Section 44(2) during the combined financial years 2003/4 and 2004/5 (the Met arrested 125 persons during this period according to the Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System). And that's only for five months. Former Home Office criminologist and visiting professor at Kent University, Professor Marian Fitzgerald mentioned on BBC One, on 22 January 2006, that ‘ under the Terrorism Stop and search [legislation], the arrest rate there is only 1% and very few of these arrests are anything to do with terrorism. ’ This shows that that the MPS must work more effectively with more intelligence instead of stopping, searching and arresting Londoners, without reasonable cause, on the basis of a stereotypical profiling. How can the MPA be satisfied that the MPS keeping DNA samples, fingerprints and palm prints of innocents forever, and PNC records, including mentions of non-conviction, until the Londoner reaches 100 years old increases our security. The MPA is to be commended on getting the MPS to publish statistics such as the Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System. May I suggest the MPA puts further pressure on the MPS for the statistics to be published earlier and to include the number of arrestees being tried and how many are convicted. The MPA's 'Together Against Terror?' conference was I'm sure a very interesting. It is unfortunate that its existence was announced by a press release only three days earlier and that the selection of the over 150 (100 in the press release) community members has not been open and transparent. I couldn't find transcripts or videos of the event, either. Hopefully lessons have been learned from organising this event and the forthcoming events will be more open to Londoners. I am disappointed that your response has not convinced me that ‘ in counter-terrorism, as in all other fields of policing, the MPA remains committed to securing an effective, efficient and fair police service for all of London's communities. ’
According to MPA's standing orders, members may also comment on or discuss the issues raised by the question and answer. In addition to the Chair, three members take this opportunity and are on the whole more favourable with the issues I raised than the rather generic answer from the Chair:
The Chair corrects the fact that some transcripts from MPA's 'Together Against Terror?' conference are available here and here, and otherwise reiterates that stop and search is just one of tactics at the disposal of the police and that 'we can't rule out any tactic'. The Chair also refutes my argument that stop and searches happen on the basis of a stereotypical profiling, arguing that there's no profiling: all races are likely to be stopped and searched (but possibly one faith). Independent member John Roberts, Chair of the Stop & Search Scrutiny Board, offers to meet up at a later date. London Assembly member Jenny Jones is grateful that my question was asked and comments further that it is a balancing act between civil liberties and security. London Assembly member Jennette Arnold, who suggested I send a question to the MPA in the first place, reminds everyone that my question only scratches the surface about the experience innocent Londoners face when being caught up in such circumstances. The Chair concludes this agenda item pointing out that he wouldn't want anyone to think the MPA is a soft touch when some people lose their life.
I leave the 'speaker' chair and move to one a the few remaining free chairs reserved for the public.
My notes are far from extensive and are here just to give a flavour of the discussion. The minutes published by the MPA have even less details. Be sure to check these out as they'll most probably have more details on the comments to my questions and other interesting information (such that it took 78 officers – more than has been reported so far by the press – six hours at a cost of £7,500 [apparently Sir Ian Blair misled the MPA and the cost is in fact £27,754] to seize Brian Haw's placards; and also an interesting discussion on the increased number of young Londoners carrying knives and the rise of knife crimes.)
Last week I received a letter from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) acknowledging receipt of my complaint form. The casework manager looking after my case has ‘referred the matter to the Professional Standards Department of the Metropolitan police for consideration’ and the police should be contacting me in about a month.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) casework manager looking after my complaint form calls to inform me that it was considered my complaint is serious enough to warrant the IPCC to supervise the investigation by the Internal Investigations Commands (IIC), Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) of the Metropolitan police.
Today, the Report on the operation in 2005 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. is published by the Home Office. One of the point made by this report with which I am in full agreement:
‘Terrorism related powers should be used for terrorism related purposes; otherwise their credibility is severely damaged. [...] In a diverse community the erroneous use of powers against people who are not terrorists is bound to damage community relations.’
Lord Carlile includes a list of 86 ‘persons and organisations seen and/or involved in consultations and activities and correspondence’ and is welcoming further relevant information:
‘However, there is a steady increase in the number of informal contacts and suggestions I receive from members of the public. They are sometimes of real value, and I welcome them all. I do not offer any kind of appeal procedure for individual cases. However, I do read some documents referring to individual cases, and I do ask questions about them and can offer advice and comments. I am particularly anxious to obtain the assistance of more members of the public who have had some contact with the TA2000, whether as observers, witnesses, persons made subject to powers given under the Act or as terrorist suspects. It is not always as easy as one would wish to make contact with those who have had these real-life experiences. Anyone wishing to provide me with information is very welcome to do so by writing to me at the House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW or sending me information via the Internet on [email protected].’
I meet John Roberts, Chair of the Stop & Search Scrutiny Board at the Metropolitan Police Association (MPA). This was agreed when I asked my question to the MPA. I learn that this board has recognised some issues with Stop & Search and has addressed them primarily through Police training (some officers had their initial training long before Stop & Search came into existence) and public education (close to 60,000 thousands leaflets have been distributed). The former initiative is aimed at improving the standard of Stop & Searches while the latter aims to inform the public of its rights. I suggest complementing this, within the small budget available, with online participation in political blogs and online communities frequented by young Londoners (if you are under 26 years old , you are more likely to be stopped and searched). One concern I have is that this board's remit is Stop & Search under PACE, hence Stop & Search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is not its focus. This explains why not much effort has been spent finding ways to reduce or even eliminate the long term negative impacts of Stop & Search especially when it leads to an arrest as in my case. Another aspect I believe could still be improved is getting more feedback on Londoner's experience with this tactic as there are apparently very few complaints being made (and John Roberts has explored the possibility of proactively seeking feedback; this is made difficult by the fact that many name and addresses given are apparently invalid). I should receive more documentation on some of the results of this board.
Later in the day I get a call from the Investigating Officer, a Detective Inspector, tasked with my complaint against the Police. He explains that I have four options: a/ complaint logged on file (and not pursued), b/ complaint made (and explanation of the police action obtained), c/ full investigation and d/ local resolution. We agree that the first two options are inappropriate. For the latter two options, the procedure will start with the Investigating Officer taking a statement from me. From the discussion, my understanding of the last option is that the statement is brought to the police officers involved, for them to respond to the allegations. A record of this is made to their file, and the result is communicated back to me. At this stage, I am unclear as to which option is most appropriate. After reading more information, such as Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, an Independent Police Complaint Commission (IPCC) leaflet on what to expect when a complaint is dealt with by Local Resolution and part of another one for the Police, I am getting even more confused as these documents don't seem to fully match my recollection of the earlier phone conversation. The Investigating Officer should call me early next week. By then I need to make a decision as to which option is most appropriate and start working on my statement. I will be seeking guidance from the IPCC.
At a very broad level, actions I'd like taken are: getting a formal and public apology; obtain the rank, and name if possible, of the officer that decided to arrest me, getting a complete list of all the data and records the Police has on me; get a copy of all that I can have a copy of; have all that can be deleted and expunged, destroyed; get explanations of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the little information I got from the police... My motivation is part obtaining reparation and part helping ensure no-one else has to go through the same ordeal, again.
The Investigating Officer mentioned that to get a list all the Police has on me (and I know they have information not listed in the data subject access I obtained) I would need to separately issue a request under the Freedom of Information Act. He also offered to ‘apologise now on behalf of the Police if I feel I was mistreated’. It was a nice gesture, but I am after an apology for the actions of the Police (the unnecessary and possibly unlawful stop and search, arrest, search of my flat, seizure of property, etc.) not for how I feel.
I receive a letter from the Detective Sergeant (DS) that has been appointed to deal with my complaint (on behalf of the Detective Inspector that initially contacted me). The letter confirms that my ‘complaint has been formally recorded’ (on 2006-06-28) and also expresses that they're keen to ‘progress this enquiry in an expeditious manner’. This seems to be very much the case as I got a call on Tuesday and another one this morning to check on my progress.
Following last week's explanations by the Detective Inspector (DI), I got in touch with the IPCC. Unfortunately, the caseworker explained that the IPCC cannot offer guidance on how to proceed in a complaint procedure and suggested I seek legal assistance. Last Sunday I emailed a solicitor firm known for its strong experience with actions against the Police. I got called back on Wednesday by a solicitor who suggested that with all the documentation I had accumulated on this site I could prepare a statement on my own without the need to pay for a solicitor's time. She volunteered very clear explanations on what I need to do. Another really nice and helpful person!
I have decided that a full investigation (option c) is the most appropriate option for my complaint and have started work on a draft statement.
I agree to meet next Wednesday the Detective Constable (DC) taking over from the DS while he's on holidays. As the Internal Investigations Commands (IIC), Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) of the Metropolitan Police is in Norbury we decide we'll meet up at Southwark Police station instead.
My understanding is that the sole objective of this meeting is to go through my statement. The DC will then start the full investigation and keep both the IPCC and myself informed of the progress of the investigation.
Today marks the first anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks on the tube and bus system in London. Our thoughts go out to the victims of the atrocity, their families and friends.
Demand a public inquiry into the July 7th 2005 London bombings. If you haven't done so yet, sign the petition. See below for some other suggestions on what you can do.
I arrive at Southwark Police station just before 1pm. The Detective Constable (DC) who arranged the meeting lets me in the restricted zone of the station. We join the Detective Inspector (DI) in charge, who has also made the trip from Norbury, and leads the way to a small room. Both are in plain clothes. I sit across a table from them, take out my statement and exhibits. They had apparently had a look at the draft I published earlier on this website. The DC has in front of him a several centimetres-thick file, presumably related to my case.
The DI asks me if I keep publishing what's happening on my website. He then requests that I do not mention names of Police officers and that I do not write about the investigation while it is ongoing as it may be detrimental to its progress. I agree to his requests.
The DI suggests again that I may want to opt for a local resolution instead of a full investigation. I remain firm as I believe only a full investigation will have a chance to explain all the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of my case, identify any and all illegal actions of the Police and ensure it is visible enough so that other innocent Londoners may be spared similar treatment in similar circumstances. The DI and DC go through the process and provide me with many explanations: e.g., each identified officer will be sent a written notice; they can provide a written reply; if more information is needed they may be interviewed or a statement may be taken under caution. The DI tries to lower my expectations; for example, if their investigation finds my version of events incorrect I would have little chance of obtaining an apology. He also queries whether I really want all the bullet points I included in my statement to be investigated. I keep my statement as is but explain that I'd expect them to be proportionate in their investigation and spend more time on the more damning issues. I still have a right to appeal if I do not find the investigation report acceptable.
Guidance for such investigations suggest they are completed in 120 days starting from the date the complaint is received. I didn't write down the start date mentioned in the discussion, but my complaint was received by the IPCC on 2006-05-31 and by the MPS on 2006-06-28. So it is likely that the investigation will be over by October. I will be kept informed of progress on a monthly basis and the final report will be sent to the IPCC and myself. As mentioned I will not report further on the investigation until after its conclusion.
Eventually I sign all the pages of my statement, give it to the DC who signs it as a witness and the meeting ends. The DC had warned me the meeting could last up to four hours. As I came with a prepared statement, I'm out of the station by 1.40pm!
Apparently LGC, a private company used by the Police to analyse DNA samples, has been building its own mini version of the national DNA database. My DNA sample and or record may be held by this company and used without my consent. My first reaction was to search the public register of data controllers for entries for LGC to find under which purpose they are keeping DNA records and the details of their data controller so that I could send yet another data subject access. I found five entries for LGC and there's also an entry for The Government Chemist, its old name. However, none of these entries have a purpose that covers this DNA database. I emailed the Information Commissioner to query whether LGC is in breach of the Data Protection Act and what should be my next move.
In my statement to the Police I wrote that one of my desired outcome is: ‘ 7. All that the Police have on me that can be deleted and expunged, destroyed (in particular the DNA samples and the PNC record). ’ Last week, the Detective Inspector reminded me that the Police delete DNA records only in exceptional cases and I shouldn't anticipate the exceptional to happen. This is detailed in Appendix 2 of the ACPO's Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer, which makes it clear that ‘ exceptional cases will by definition be rare ’. This week's revelations about what's happening to DNA records captured for the Police shed new light on this part of my statement.
The Detective Sergeant (DS) conducting the investigation into my complaint agrees with the IPCC the terms of references for his investigation. As detailed in a letter, these are a subset of the issues raised in my statement:
‘Following a meeting with the IPCC yesterday, I am now in a position to update you with regards to the 'terms of reference' for the investigation into your complaint. [...] we are unable to deal with every point raised in your statement and that in order to ensure that any inquiry is proportionate and timely we will concentrate our efforts on the main areas of concern. With a view to this, please see the 'terms of reference' below: - Terms of reference
To investigate the allegations made by Mr Mery with a view to proving or disproving the following: - That his stop, search and subsequent detention were an abuse of authority. That he was not issued with a copy of the search record. That the s.18 PACE search on his home address was an abuse of authority. That statements made by the interviewing officer were incorrect and not supported by the facts. That this investigation was not conducted in a professional manner. Specifically that his property was retained for an extended period, for no good reason, he was not served with a bail cancellation notice until some time after the decision had been made to take no further action and that the Police National Computer was not updated in a timely manner.’
Over the last couple of weeks I exchanged a few emails with casework and advice officers at the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). They explain that ‘ from the information available it appears that the LGC provides forensic services to the Police including DNA analysis. As such it is likely that they would constitute a data processor under the Data Protection Act 1998 i.e. they only process personal data under instructions from a data controller which in this case will be the Police Force who has requested them to analyse a DNA sample. As the LGC appears to be a data processor the responsibility for complying with the Data Protection Act 1998 would remain with the Police Force who took a DNA sample from you and it would be the Police Force's register entry that would need to show they process DNA samples. ’
This means that if I have concerns about the retention of my DNA sample, which I obviously do, then I should raise it with the Police Force who took the sample. As I explained to the ICO officer the difficulties I had and have to obtain information on what data the Police have on me, they recommend I follow the ICO complaint procedure. I just sent a filled in form. Documentation on when and how to complain as well as the needed forms are available on the ICO website.
An Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) compliance officer sends a very detailed response to my data protection complaint:
‘[...] I should first explain that almost all of the information processed by the police about members of the public is processed by them for the purposes of 'Policing'. This term covers essentially all the things they are empowered and instructed to do by law as a police force. This includes conducting investigations, recording suspects' details and maintaining criminal records on persons convicted. DNA evidence obtained by the MPS from an individual will normally be processed by the force in accordance with the policing purpose. The force is entitled to decide upon the 'weeding policy' by which they choose to retain information. The DNA information they keep cannot be reused for other incompatible purposes irrespective of whom they have decided to employ to look after it for them. I would not consider there to be any more detailed information about your DNA sample likely to be retained by the force that they would be able to provide to you in any intelligible form. Information gathered by the MPS for 'policing' is - under the second Data Protection Principle - required to only be used for policing compatible purposes. The Information Commissioner is aware of no evidence indicating that the MPS are inappropriately giving away DNA information to third parties or are allowing such information to be used for purposes incompatible with the police forces statutory functions. [my emphasis] The handling of the information processed in the name of the MPS does not have to be done solely by MPS staff. The organisation may choose to employ outside IT contractors, private sector secure information disposal companies, private sector forensic laboratories, or even agency administrative staff. The MPS do not have to obtain people's information to employ such 'third parties' to process personal data. Such contractors fall within the legal definitions of data processors: data processors are in effect an employee of the data controller (MPS). The data controller is required to ensure its data processors process their information suitably securely and do not abuse the information. The data controller does not however have to advise members of the public of their use of data processors nor seek permission for such use. The MPS may employ data processors to work on their information on their behalf and in accordance with the purposes the MPS process the information themselves for, e.g. 'policing'. Organisations are not obliged to list their 'data processors' on their Data Protection Register entry. From the arrest information you have provided a copy it appears that the force keep DNA information in relation to you. The information includes a DNA sample reference number. The information can continue to be kept as long as it is in accordance with the MPS's 'policing' function and other law. Irrespective of whom the MPS have employed to look after the information for them the information will still be the responsibility of the MPS to ensure its continued security. [...]’
That clarifies the role of LGC and why I couldn't find a relevant purpose in their public register of data controllers entries. I am surprised by the statement I emphasised. As it can be interpreted in several different ways I ask for clarifications:
[...] You mention: "The Information Commissioner is aware of no evidence indicating that the MPS are inappropriately giving away DNA information to third parties or are allowing such information to be used for purposes incompatible with the police forces statutory functions." Does that mean that Information Commissioner considers the statements published [by] The Observer and GeneWatch to be inaccurate, that none of these have been raised with him, or that it is an appropriate use (which the rest of your reply clearly agrees that it is not)? [...]
Even though the compliance officer mentioned in his previous reply that the ICO is unable to assist me further at this time, he does send another detailed reply addressing to some extent my further requests:
‘Within the information you have provided there was insufficient evidence for this office to take investigatory or enforcement action on the basis of your specific submission and regarding your personal information. This is not to say however that the Information Commissioner is unaware of media reports or does not respond to them when he becomes aware of things. It would be the responsibility of the Chief Officers of Police and the Home Office to ensure that the content of the Police National Computer, including DNA information, are not being reused for unauthorised purposes. It would be the legal obligation of the Chief Police Officers to ensure they have an adequate contract in place with their contractors to prohibit abuse of the information.’
I still don't know if LGC has my DNA record and if it has what it is using it for. Apparently the Information Commissioner cannot state clearly what he's aware of and what is his response when it concern the potential misuse of my DNA – the most personal data of all – and that of many others.
I receive a letter from the Detective Sergeant (DS) conducting the investigation to inform me that it is close to conclusion (I hadn't had any news of the progress of the investigation into my IPCC-supervised complaint for close to three months.) ‘The IPCC [...] will need to satisfy themselves that the terms of reference have been met before [I can] receive a copy of the final report.’
The letter contains a few other details on the investigation but I promised not to write about the investigation while it is ongoing.
P.S. To my readers from the Internal Investigations Command, you may want to bookmark this page or remember that no page on this site ends in .htm.
P.P.S. Here's a list of governmental, intelligence service and military organisations that have visited this site.
I receive a further letter from the Detective Sergeant (DS) conducting the investigation to let me know that:
‘[...] the investigation into your complaint is now complete. Because the matter is supervised by the IPCC, I have forwarded a copy of the final report and supporting documents to them. Once the findings have been confirmed you will be provided with a copy of the report.’
The operational details from last month's letter I didn't write about as the investigation was still ongoing, was that the DS had by then ‘interviewed all 5 of the officers concerned and [was] waiting receipt of two further statements’ .
Via GeneWatch, I discover Parliamentary answers that make it clear that if my circumstances are not considered exceptional enough, my DNA will be retained until my death: ‘A DNA sample is normally destroyed and the DNA profile derived from it is normally deleted from the national DNA database upon notification of the death of the individual concerned.’ (My PNC record should be deleted when I become 100 years old.)
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics just started a consultation on the ethical issues in the forensic use of bioinformation, such as DNA sampling by the Police. This is a way you can express your concerns. I plan to do so.
According to figures received by Olly Kendall following a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request, it looks like my arrest was one of ‘11 arrests [in 2005] under legislation other than the Terrorism Act, where the investigation was conducted as a Terrorist Investigation’ . ‘266 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006’ during the same period. ‘187 [other CJ arrestees were also] released without charge’ ; there's no mention of how long they were detained or on bail. There have been ‘8 Terrorism Act convictions to date’ . (It is unclear whether this data is for the calendar or the financial year 2005.)
As mentioned in the entry two weeks ago, Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office) stated in a written answer dated 18th April 2006: ‘A DNA sample is normally destroyed and the DNA profile derived from it is normally deleted from the national DNA database upon notification of the death of the individual concerned.’ The Association of Chief of Police Officers (ACPO) says otherwise in the DNA Good Practice Manual, Second Edition 2005 it published today:
‘An Arrestee sample should be taken, using a PACE DNA sampling kit, from anyone who is detained at a police station and has been arrested for a recordable offence [...] The profile will not be removed from the NDNAD after the death of the individual.’
Either the retention period has been extended since last April – to eternity – or Andy Burnham or the ACPO is mistaken? So unless the Police exceptionally remove my DNA profile, it will survive me forever. This arrest has a lasting effect.
The DNA Good Practice Manual also includes the following recommendation:
‘The DNA page may show one of the following markers. These indicate the status of any previous samples taken from the individual. DC DNA confirmed - on the database and a conviction has been achieved DP DNA profiled - on the database DR DNA required - sample to be taken if the individual is in custody DT DNA taken - but not yet profiled DF DNA held in force - not submitted to a laboratory for analysis DS DNA rejected - DM DNA missing - sample not received DD DNA destroyed - [...] It is essential to update the PNC as to the status of each DNA sample. Some of the markers will be entered or changed by the force and others by the NDNAD.’
The information in my PNC record lists in the ‘DNA REPORT SUMMARY’ section: ‘DNA STATUS :CONFIRMED’ which according to the ACPO table above would indicate that ‘a conviction has been achieved’ contradicting reality and the listed details of the non conviction. I'll wait for the report from the enquiry into my complaint to see if the Police offer to delete this information before looking into getting it corrected.
The IPCC has confirmed the findings of the Police investigation and I should now expect to receive a copy of the report from the Police:
‘As you are aware the IPCC has been supervising the investigation of your complaint of 17 April 2006 concerning the conduct of officers from the Metropolitan Police. I am writing to confirm that the investigation has been completed. The Commission has confirmed that the terms of reference for the investigation have been satisfied and as such the Commission's supervisory responsibility is now at an end. It is the responsibility of the police to inform you of the findings and outcome of the investigation. You may be aware that you have the right to appeal to the IPCC on certain specified grounds if you are not satisfied with the investigation. Those grounds are: You have not been provided with adequate information about the findings of the investigation or the actions the police propose to take (or not to take).
You have reasons to disagree with the findings of the investigation.
You have reasons to disagree with the action the police propose to take as a result of the investigation. If you decide to take up this right, the appeal will be dealt with by a different Commissioner in another part of the country.’
There's one more step, I wasn't aware of. The Detective Sergeant (DS) conducting the investigation writes:
‘You will now be aware that the IPCC have looked at my final report and are satisfied that the terms of reference have been met. The report and supporting documents have now been passed to our misconduct office. They are responsible for deciding how the matter should be resolved and what action, if any, should be taken against the officers who are subject to this investigation.’
I call the Detective Sergeant (DS) conducting the investigation, the Detective Inspector (DI) answers. He explains, they can't send me a copy of the report until the misconduct office finishes its work, but that they will send me the report at that point. The misconduct office's work apparently takes a few weeks, so I should expect to hear further from the Police at the end of January.
After many edits, I eventually submit my response to the consultation, conducted by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, on the ethical issues in the forensic use of bioinformation.
I receive a copy of the Investigation Officer's Report, dated 2006-11-02, for the investigation following my complaint to the IPCC. It is 18-page long, protectively marked ‘Restricted’ and composed of an introduction , a summary of investigation , and conclusions and recommendations . (So far I haven't been able to find out how the protective mark ‘Restricted’ limits what I can publish of the report.)
The report is accompanied by a cover letter dated 2007-01-17 written by the Inspector managing this case at the Misconduct Office (I have anonymised all the names of the officers involved):
I refer to your complaint concerning Supt E, PC's R, T, DS Y and DS D and Inspector S, made to Southwark Police Station. The investigation is now complete and I enclose for your information a copy of the Investigating officer's report. You will see that some parts of the report have been redacted, this is because the information is from police databases and is restricted. I wish to draw to your attention to paragraphs 108-119 of that report that concludes that there is no case to answer in relation to the stop and search and subsequent detention. I disagree with that conclusion in respect of the arrest. I agree that the stop and search were lawful under that Act but I believe the arrest was unlawful. I agree with all the other conclusions in this report. In relation to Superintendent E, he has retired from the Metropolitan police Service and no action can be taken against him under the Misconduct Regulations. PC R appeared to follow instructions from Superintendent E concerning your arrest and it has been decided that he should receive words of advice. code 5 performance of Duties. PC T failed to issue you personally with a copy of the stop and form [sic]; He is to receive words of advice. Code 5 Performance of duties. Inspector S authorised a search of your premises under S18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I agree that this search was unlawful. He is to receive words of advice. Code 4 Abuse of Authority. DS Y carried out a search of your premises upon instructions from DS D. It is agreed that nor [sic] further action will be taken in relation to him. DS D failed to conduct this investigation in a professional manner and failed to obey orders from a senior officer. He is to receive a written warning. Code 5 Performance of Duties and Code 6 Lawful Orders. A written warning will be placed on DS D's personal record for 12 months from the date that it is administered. You have a right of appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) under the Police Reform Act 2002. The appeal process and how an appeal should be made are fully explained in the enclosed IPCC leaflet. The appeal must be made in writing and will need to be made within 28 days of the date of this letter and sent to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6BH. Please be assured that the Metropolitan Police Service is committed to successfully resolving your complaint to your satisfaction. If I can be of further assistance please contact me on the above telephone number.
I have until 2007-02-14, to decide whether to accept the outcome or to make a written appeal to the IPCC.
I am interviewed for The Files, a Greek television news programme. The filming is done in front of Southwark tube station. Sophia Papaioannou, the reporter asks me to describe the arrest, its long lasting effects and then whether I consider CCTV useful (the use of surveillance camera footage by the Greek Police is currently a controversial topic).
The show is aired on Tuesday 2007-02-06 on Mega TV.
The Section 44 Terrorism Act Standard Operating Procedures state that ‘ The National Joint Unit (NJU) must be informed of: [...] any person(s) arrested under different legislation following a stop under the Terrorism Act 2000 ’, which means there must be some information about me in the database the NJU is using, as well. And this data may not be accurate or up-to-date. The NJU was part of SO12 (Anti-Terrorist Branch), which has been merged into the Counter Terrorism Command so this database must be maintained by the Metropolitan Police Service.
I email the Public Access Office of the MPS to ask for:
details of the data controller for the National Joint Unit database so that I can exercise my data subject access right (or whether this database is exempt from the Data Protection Act)
the registration number(s) or name(s) under which the MPS data controller(s) is registered under the Data Protection Act as I can't find any entry for it any more in the ICO's register of data controllers. [Follow up on this second question in the blog.]
I eventually reach the conclusion that I have no option but to appeal. Instead of writing the appeal in the provided form (you don't have to), I attach a letter. This is the letter I brought to the IPCC on my way to work this morning (I have anonymised the Inspector's name, removed the references to the report and the cover letter, and added some hyperlinks):
I am writing to you to appeal the outcome of the IPCC-supervised enquiry into my complaint. Inspector TT, Case Manager (MPS DPS) writes in her cover letter “I agree that the stop and search were lawful under that Act but I believe the arrest was unlawful” and “I agree that this search was unlawful”. The arrest being unlawful, the subsequent taking of my fingerprints, palm prints and DNA samples were an assault on my person, the overnight detention was false imprisonment and the search of my flat was illegal. Considering the seriousness of the Police actions and their long lasting effects, I have no option but to appeal for the outcome to include further actions: Firstly, consistently with the desired outcome I included in my witness statement, I request the IPCC to demand from the Police: They issue a formal and public apology for their actions.
For my fingerprint and palm print records, my DNA samples and my DNA profile in the NDNAD to all be physically destroyed or electronically deleted.
For the DNA and fingerprint summary information in the PNC to be deleted (in the PNC extract dated 2006-02-28 I obtained under a data subject access, the DNA status is marked as “confirmed” which, according to the ACPO's DNA Good Practice Manual, wrongfully implies “conviction has been achieved”).
For a copy of the stop and search form 5090 to be provided. Secondly, I am concerned by paragraph 172 of the Investigating Officer's Report dated 2006-11-02, which states that there are no learning points for the Force. Paragraph 116 includes “he did not want this incident to escalate in the way that the incident at Stockwell tube station has”. If the Police sees only two options: arrest or the possibility that of a fatal shooting may occur, some lessons must be learnt to ensure that other options, such as release after the stop and search or after the search of premises or after interview, are given full consideration. The report shows that at best there has been a great deal of confusion with misinformation and flawed intelligence exchanged between officers to the point where some officers believed my arrest was on suspicion of terrorism while others believed it was for causing public nuisance (hoax), unclear responsibility for urgent processes such as getting CCTV tapes, and a lack of urgency and consideration in dealing with a cleared suspect (even after the apparent sudden urgency caused by the publicity of the Guardian article). Surely the Police can learn lessons to improve some of its policies and processes to hopefully ensure that similar cases are better handled in the future. I understand that your office is extremely busy, so I have limited my appeal to what I consider are essential outcomes that have so far not been addressed.
An IPCC casework administrator sends a letter the same day:
Thank you for your appeal application of 09 February 2007 asking us to review the decision Metropolitan Police made regarding your complaint against them. Should you have any further information or documentation in support of your appeal, please send it into me as soon as soon as possible so that it can be taken into consideration when reviewing your appeal. Please note that the decision made by the IPCC about your appeal is final. We will be writing to you about your application shortly.
I recently asked the Public Access Office about obtaining a copy of the information that should have been passed to the National Joint Unit (NJU), when I was arrested, to check its accuracy. Eventually, the Public Access Office passed on this request to SO15 (Counter Terrorism Command) where a Detective Inspector provided me with a helpful reply:
What you seem to be asking is this. Did Southwark Police notify the NJU of my arrest on the 28th July 2005 as the published police guidance suggests they should? And if so, can I have a copy of the report so that I check check its accuracy. It is police guidance that says that the NJU should be informed, that isn't the law but simply internal Metropolitan Police policy which ought to be followed. As will be obvious, our answer has to be that the material you request is exempted under the Act therefore it cannot be supplied whether it exists or not. That said, in the context of your case if it helps to bring this e-mail exchange to an end, I can find no record to confirm that Southwark Police did submit a report to the NJU about your arrest.
As positive a news about what may have ended in their files I'll ever be able to get. This was preceded by a clear explanation of why exempting this specific kind of data from release is beneficial to our security:
Let me try to explain, if someone was to ask 'What information does the Counter Terrorism Command hold about me?' regardless of what that information was, it would almost always be exempt from release or confirmation under the DPA [Data Protection Act] or any other access route (e.g. FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]). You must realise that if information is gathered by the police it is 'for the purpose of the prevention and detection of crime, or in the case of this part of the police often relating to National Security'. The inevitable answer for this department is therefore to neither Confirm nor Deny whether we hold information. Let me explain why - If a group of men were planning a terrorist attack and they needed to know whether the police were looking at them, following your rationale, they could submit DPA requests and find out what the police held so that they can check that it is held in accordance with Data Protection principles. If the police were to tell the applicant that they didn't hold anything, then the person would know they weren't being looked at. If the police said we do hold something (or provided something) they would know that they were being looked at. As you must realise we can't confirm this one way or the other. That is why the exemptions are entered into the relevant Acts.
On 2005-11-28, I met with Dan Kieran who interviewed me for his book I fought the law. It is published today. The chapter called Britain's Ten Worst Laws, written in conjunction with civil rights campaign group Liberty, opens with this interview.
In other news, last time I called the IPCC, the caseworker said that my appeal would now be decided in weeks.
I receive a letter dated 2007-05-03 from the IPCC with its decision about my appeal:
This letter is about your appeal against the outcome of a police complaints investigation, which we received on 9 February 2007. After considering all the information available, I have now made a decision about the appeal. I have not upheld your appeal. The reasons for this decision are set out in the attached report. This report sets out our decision against three different issues that, by law, we must consider when deciding on an appeal against a police investigation. Despite the decision made, we have however requested that the Metropolitan Police Service reconsider your request for your records and samples to be physically destroyed and electronically deleted, and for the summary information in the Police National Computer to be expunged. We have also informed the service that a copy of the Stop and Search form 5090 should be provided to you. You should now expect the Metropolitan Police Service to contact you regarding the actions that I have asked them to take. If you have any questions or need more information about this please contact me. However, this decision is final.
This letter is accompanied by an 8-page ' Appeal against investigation: Statement of findings ' report.
The next ste | [
19
] |
Your DNA as artwork on canvas | Easy. Painless. Simple.
DNA Portraits are the world’s most unique and personalized form of art. We'll send you a collection kit with everything you need to capture a sample of your DNA. (Trust us, it's painless and effortless: nothing more than swabbing the inside of your cheek.) The tough part is choosing the style, color, size and frame from an almost limitless range of possibilities. Take all the time you need. Your personal DNA picture print will be as unique as you are. No two prints will ever be alike. | [
0,
1,
6,
17,
1
] |
Freakonomics Or You Have to Find the Facts Before You Can Face Them | WorldWatch
First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
By Orson Scott Card September 11, 2005
Freakonomics
Or
You Have to Find the Facts Before You Can Face Them
When the crime rate started dropping in the 1990s, it took everyone by surprise. All the experts had predicted that crime would continue to rise in the radical way it had during the 1970s and 1980s.
Experts were talking about how we'd have to adapt to a society dominated by fear, living in gated communities, paying for far more prisons and police forces.
And then ...
It didn't happen. Instead, crime rates started to fall. All kinds of crime, across the board. And not just in one place, in many places.
Why Did Crime Rates Fall?
The innovative policework in New York City was given much of the credit, but the same thing was happening in cities with no new theories or practices.
All kinds of theories were advanced, but they all fell apart against statistical realities -- none of them explained why crime rates fell at exactly the time they began to fall.
Except for one explanation. Abortion.
Try to set aside your personal opinions about abortion and let's look at history.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade made abortion permissible throughout the United States. The floodgates opened, and vast numbers of abortions were performed. As a result, vast numbers of children were not born.
Ah, but which children? The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father; substantial numbers of these women were addicts. And even the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control.
In other words, the fetuses that were aborted, had they been born, would have become children who were statistically the most likely group to become criminals. Raised by single mothers, in poverty, with genes that might not provide them with much ability to foresee the longterm consequences of impulsive actions.
The crime rates began falling exactly when that generation of children would have reached adolescence and those with such tendencies would have begun their criminal careers.
It certainly looked as if we killed off much of our criminal class in the womb.
Proving Cause and Effect
Of course, a causal assertion like that is hard to prove -- though people make even more sweeping assertions on less evidence all the time. But we're far more likely to accept, without evidence, the causal assertions that fit our beliefs. Those that don't fit, we try hard to ignore.
This one doesn't fit anybody's beliefs. The pro-abortion group is generally on the Left, and if you had tried, in 1973, to introduce abortion as a means of killing off the criminal class of the 1990s and 2000s, they would have opposed it.
Likewise, anti-abortionists tend to be among those who are concerned about law-and-order issues. But if, in 1973, you had proposed that the most effective longterm crime-control measure would be to allow abortion, I doubt that many anti-abortionists would have been persuaded that this was a good idea.
Why? Because it's eugenics, plain and simple. Hitlerian logic. Purifying the race by preventing the birth of the class of people who are most likely to degrade the quality of life for the rest of us.
So few would have dared even suggest such a thing in 1973; but a group of judges decided to perform this eugenics experiment on the American people, and now we're seeing the results.
Or are we? Nobody wants to believe it. There's no way to prove that the unborn babies we killed would have grown up to be bad people, or that crime rates have anything to do with abortion. I know my first reaction to this idea was repugnance and rejection.
Except ... 1973 wasn't the beginning of legal abortions in the United States. There were states that legalized abortion several years earlier.
And guess what? In those states, the crime rate began to fall exactly that number of years earlier. The fall in crime rates marches in lockstep with legalized abortion fifteen to twenty years before.
Maybe the growing awareness of this fact is part of the reason why even though most Americans find abortion itself to be a morally appalling act and wish it were rare instead of common, we are also reluctant to give up the relative peace and safety that killing all those babies has brought to us.
That's another causal assertion, and one far less likely to be true. Abortion as class warfare is not something that any political group I know of is likely to openly approve of. So we have to ignore or deny the evidence.
Well, there's a book -- and a mini-movement -- that is trying to cut through all the fog and insist that we face facts in all sorts of areas of American life. It's called "Freakonomics," and it gets its name from the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt (economist) and Stephen J. Dubner (science writer).
This book should be required reading before anybody is allowed to vote.
Not really. I think democracy absolutely depends on the continuing right of the ignorant and misinformed to make all the core decisions in our society, and I would never place a mandatory restriction like that on people's right to vote.
But I do believe such ignorance should be voluntary. And as long as we can't get the facts on issues like this, how can we possibly become anything but ignorant and misinformed on almost everything?
Trusting Experts
To ferret out accurate information on all the important subjects is beyond the power of any individual, however. So the way democracy works is, the ignorant have to rely on the advice of trusted sources who have found accurate information on particular topics.
Trust is the basis of human life in large societies -- those of us who aren't police and firemen trust them to learn their work, just as the police and firemen trust the grocers and schoolteachers, and the grocers and schoolteachers trust the doctors and plumbers and electricians, who trust the accountants and garbagemen and bus drivers and car manufacturers and garage mechanics.
We trust each other to do our jobs right. To obey traffic signals. To pay with genuine bills and coins. To give correct directions when asked. To keep our hands off stuff that doesn't belong to us, even when nobody's watching.
We trust certain people to tell us true information. Doctors will tell us the truth about our bodies. Accountants will tell us the truth about what we owe the government in taxes.
Then there are the public informers, who give us information, not about ourselves in particular, but about the world at large. Newscasters. Reporters. Historians. Science reporters. We expect them to provide us with as much accurate information as is available.
And we expect them to tell us, when they don't have information, that they don't know.
Why They Get It Wrong
The trouble is that too many of these reporters either deliberately lie -- they have an agenda (either the promotion of their own career or the advancement of a cause) -- or they are too lazy to question the lies and mistakes that others tell them.
The result is that we live in an age where on key political issues, ignorance is largely supplanted by misinformation.
That was fine in an age where people were generally suspicious of the rumors they heard. You were always ready to change your mind when better information came along.
But most of the disinformation and misinformation we get these days is couched in the language of science or scholarship. Because of the way it's presented to us, we think we know.
That's why we're suckered in by completely made-up "facts" like the claim that SuperBowl Sunday has more incidences of domestic violence than any other day of the year.
That never made sense. Yet it was presented to us as a statistic, and we assumed that it was based on something. We assumed that the reporters would have checked.
But they didn't. They quoted somebody, and they were too lazy (or too happy with the implications of the idea) to bother checking with people who would actually have the facts -- 911 responders and hospital emergency rooms.
If they had checked, they would have found out that it was absolutely false. A lie. A slander against men who watch the SuperBowl.
Why We Need Freakonomists
Often, though, the falsehoods we hear are not so easily checked. You have to know something about the mathematics of statistical analysis or the way studies are conducted in order to have a hope of evaluating the truth.
And sometime you actually have to have some facts -- you know, the kind you get by going out and working hard and asking stuff and observing.
That's where Freakonomics comes in.
Economist Steven D. Levitt found himself with all the skills and tools of his trade, and wandering attention. Instead of focusing on purely financial matters, he started applying all that statistical and scientific rigor he had been trained in to topics often considered outside the purview of the dismal science.
He -- and other nontraditional economists -- have started looking at the real world. They question some of the things we've been told and have believed for years, and discover that a lot of it is bunk. Guesswork, error, spin, or lies.
Catching Cheaters
In the effort to improve education rather than throwing more and more money at a system that gets worse and worse, the Congress and the President passed the "No Child Left Behind" legislation that mandated testing. But they didn't invent the idea -- state and local governments had been experimenting with standardized tests for years.
The trouble is, with budgets, salaries, and jobs becoming dependent on test results, the incentive for cheating on these tests has vastly increased.
And since in many places the tests are administered by the very teachers who will be rewarded or punished based on the test results, the opportunity to cheat is there as well.
How, though, do you catch them? Call an economist.
Freakonomics recounts in detail exactly how cheating teachers were caught by a close analysis of statistical anomalies. For instance, students who showed a dramatic improvement in their test scores one year, but the next year, with a different teacher, reverted to their previous patterns.
The trouble is, who actually wants to catch the cheaters? If cheating makes the test results look better, then the whole educational bureaucracy benefits, not just the individual teacher. The school board and administration can point to these "improvements" as marks of progress.
The only reason these cheaters were caught was because they had the bad luck to work in a district headed by a superintendent who cared more about the children's education than about good public relations.
Economy of Drug Dealing
Another Freakonomic study dealt with the economy of crack dealing. It's complicated enough that I won't try to detail it here. Suffice it to say that when someone actually got close to the crack gangs and studied the way they function, they resemble nothing so much as ... McDonald's.
The top gang leaders franchise crack dealing to certain gangs with certain territories. The "owner" of the local franchise rakes off huge profits -- which are shared with the top leaders, who become phenomenally rich.
But within the franchise, the actual drug sellers are rather badly paid. They stay with it either because they have no better alternative, or they hope to rise to a higher position.
They always have this possibility, of course, because the attrition rate in this violent business is high. But violent or not, it's still a business, and it keeps running because, in economic terms, it works -- or works well enough to satisfy those who carry it out.
Read It and Think
My goal is not to provide you with a synopsis of the book's results, because that would be pointless.
You need to read it yourself. Fortunately, this will be painless, because the book is wonderfully entertaining. You'll find yourself reading the good bits out loud to whomever you can get to listen. And believe me, I haven't even mentioned some of the best stuff.
In the process of reading it, you'll also be given a short but effective course in analyzing causal assertions -- or, in other words, you'll be trained to hear statistical assertions skeptically, because you'll have a clearer idea of how they can be massaged and manipulated and misunderstood.
You'll also be given a wake-up call about how many of the statistics on which we base public opinion and policy are simply made up.
You know, lies.
Like the claim that schools are unfair to girls (the so-called "Ophelia Complex") when in fact the opposite is dramatically true -- schools are actually hostile to boys. There is no evidence that the person who claimed to have proved the Ophelia Complex ever had any facts at all. But the claim spread through our society and shaped our perception of school, without any scientific basis whatsoever and in the face of substantial contrary evidence.
Why? Because so many people wanted it to be true. It would confirm their picture of the world.
Truth Doesn't Change Because We Want It To
Know the truth, and the truth will make you free, someone once said, and I believe it. In ignorance, we can't change the world -- or our lives -- for the better. And we can waste a lot of time trying to change things we can't change at all.
Truth, when we are fortunate enough to find it, is like bad-tasting medicine. It rarely comes as a pleasant surprise, because if it surprises us, it means we've been denying it for some time and have a lot of beliefs based on falsehood. It's hard to give up those beliefs.
Let's go back to that huge social experiment called "abortion" and its unintended effect on crime. Now that we know this information, we can decide far more intelligently what to do about abortion -- or, for that matter, about crime.
But let's remember that knowing a true thing about abortion does not mean that we know all the truth that should guide our decision. For instance, why was crime rising so fast prior to the time when the effects of Roe v. Wade kicked in?
One might guess that it was the Baby Boom -- lots of new teenagers, lots of new crime. But the facts say otherwise. The Baby Boomers were teenagers much earlier than the huge crime jump in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.
The Other Experiment
No, the huge crime increases might well have been the result of an earlier experiment -- the "New Morality" and the Pill.
Before the New Morality of the late 1960s, our society had actually done a very good job of suppressing unwanted pregnancies without abortion -- and without the Pill. We hear it like a mantra today: "You can't stop teenagers from having sex." But we did.
Birthrates among unmarried women were very, very low back in the 1950s. And most such children were given up for adoption, because the social penalties for unwed motherhood were so harsh.
So were the social penalties for promiscuity. They were unfairly borne by women, of course, but even among man, there were many who regarded extramarital sex as always being wrong, and censured those who broke that rule.
Teenagers were also chaperoned and didn't start dating until they were much older than today. By the time they were free to date without supervision, far more of them had matured to the point where they could much better control their sexual impulses. In other words, we as a society helped parents protect their children from their own desires until they were old enough to be likelier to control them.
So the primary mechanisms that prevented promiscuity were social controls, internalized belief in moral stories, and fear of the consequences of pregnancy.
When the New Morality came along, most people did not embrace it. Even though films and novels tried to spread the new belief and normalize promiscuity and premarital sex -- and today have made many people believe it is completely normal -- slightly more than half our society still believes these things to be wrong. (And not without evidence.)
So which half embraced the New Morality? Could it have been the people with poor impulse control? The people most likely to be irresponsible parents? Unfaithful spouses? The people most likely to get divorced -- or never marry at all -- and thus leave children to be raised by single mothers?
The statistics suggest that the answer is yes. And their children -- post-New Morality but pre-Roe v. Wade -- were precisely the generation that was causing the crime boom.
It's a story. It might be true. And it ought to be considered.
We had two systems for controlling the birth rate of children most likely to become criminals.
The one we're using now consists of letting their parents kill them after conception.
The other involved using social pressure, stories, and incentives to keep them from letting the children be conceived in the first place.
What was the great evil of the old system? People's sexual drives were "repressed." This was the great crime of the fifties -- people were so "repressed."
But no one has yet demonstrated a single ill effect from "repression." For the simple reason that the other names for "repression" are words like "conscience" and "responsibility" and "impulse control." The virtues we link with adulthood.
We expected people to control themselves, and we kept them from having the freedom to act on their impulses until they had learned how to control them.
Compare this with the method we use today: Letting mothers have someone kill their babies for them. What we used to do with words and customs, now we do in blood. With eugenics.
And the third alternative? Sexual freedom without responsibility -- and the resulting children grew up to be disproportionately criminal, making the whole society less viable for everyone.
I pick A. I think B and C are both vile. That's my opinion. But at least I took the available information into account when I reached it. Mark my words, many people are going to be outraged at my opinion -- I can see them warming up their blogging fingers already -- but instead of arguing from facts, they will try to make the facts go away.
Nobody has to believe me. Find experts that you trust -- but do make sure they're worthy of that trust before you trust them. Do try to avoid the ones who just make stuff up, or who quote the liars without checking.
Copyright © 2005 by Orson Scott Card.
| [
14
] |
Can Bloggers Strike It Rich? | When it comes to the profit potential of blogs, Nick Denton, founder of Gawker Media, calls himself a skeptic.
It's a surprisingly pessimistic perspective coming from the Brit who has launched a network of 13 theme blogs – including Fleshbot (porn), Gawker and Defamer (gossip), Gizmodo (gadgets) and Wonkette (politics). His most popular properties (Defamer, Gizmodo and Gawker) report between 4 million and 6 million visits per month and millions more pageviews, he and his top talent have been featured in articles in the ink-and-pulp press (Wired, The New York Times Magazine) and Denton rarely misses an opportunity to trumpet ads on his sites for blue-chip companies like Absolut, Audi, Sony, Nike, Viacom, Disney and Condé Nast.
Media Hack
So you can forgive his competitors for not buying into his deflationary spin: As David Hauslaib, founder of Jossip and the newly launched Queerty, put it: "Nick infamously downplays the profit potential of blogging the same way Tom Cruise's sister-slash-publicist Lee Ann DeVette pretends his relationship with Katie Holmes is authentic. Even people outside the industry know it's a sham."
Hauslaib credits part of Denton's success to his ability to keep mainstream publishers away from his medium, guaranteeing he'll be the biggest player when media buyers come knocking. But Hauslaib believes there are plenty of seats left in the arena. There could an additional handful of gossip sites to compete with Gawker (and Jossip, for that matter), and ad dollars would continue to flow in.
"I'd love to see another half-dozen professional gay blogs surface that, in theory, would compete with Queerty," Hauslaib said, "but more importantly, they'd be validating the space and attracting even more ad dollars for everyone."
This is a theory that Jason Calacanis – the founder of Weblogs, who Denton refers to as his "endlessly entertaining rival" – subscribes to. Calacanis is perhaps the blogosphere's biggest booster. I half expect him to claim that blogs will one day provide the cure for world hunger, cancer and bad hair. But he deserves credit for spotting a business opportunity at a time when many people viewed blogs as a digital wasteland (complete with typos, bad grammar and lowercase letters running amok).
Calacanis employs 120 bloggers and publishes 90 blogs – including Engadget (which covers consumer electronics) and Blog Maverick, typed by billionaire entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban – with his writers making anywhere from $200 to $3,000 a month. (One presumes Cuban doesn't do it for the money.) On average, Weblog salaries are about a quarter to half what a mid-level editorial job would pay, without the daily office commute.
"Not to mention (bloggers) get to write about the topic they are most passionate about," said Calacanis, who claims to be on track to collect more than $1 million in Google AdSense payments over the next year. "So, for our folks, it is like they are making money off their hobby. Think a scuba diver or video-game player making $500 to $1,500 a month writing about scuba diving or video games."
What do you have to do to earn $500? Publish 125 entries a month, monitor comments, respond to readers and delete offensive comments – all for about $4 a post. At least, according to a contract leaked to the internet last month.
Naturally, Denton, for one, isn't impressed with Calacanis' wage scale ("We pay rather more than that") or his business model ("It's easy to launch hundreds of websites, but much harder to establish brands, online as much as off").
Whether you are Calacanis, Denton or Hauslaib, to create a profitable blog requires much more than a keyboard, an internet connection and too much caffeine. You need a talented writer entertaining enough to hold an audience, a consistent publishing schedule, content worth linking to by other bloggers and worthy of press coverage, marketing savvy to sell advertising or enlist third-party networks and, as a culmination of all of this, plenty of traffic.
Says Hauslaib: "If a blog debuted with virtually zero startup costs, then it takes little to earn a profit. One ad will do it. But at the bare minimum, a lone blogger will likely need to attract high four- to five-figure daily visitor figures to even attempt a blog-based livable wage."
Which led me to ask Nick Denton how much he earns from his blogs.
"We've never gotten into the numbers," he said. "We're a private company, and we prefer the focus to be on the stories (rather) than on the business model."
Well, how much does he pay his bloggers? The amount floating around the internet is $2,500 a month per blogger plus traffic bonuses, courtesy of a talk Lockhart Steele, Gawker Media managing editor, gave at New York University last spring.
Denton claims that was supposed to be off the record, "which is why we haven't done any more events at NYU since. But whatever." Patrick Phillips, the adjunct instructor who organized the event, supplied me with two e-mails he had sent Gawker that stipulated the talk would be tape-recorded and used as a basis for an interview to be posted on his website, I Want Media.
"The most common number quoted has indeed been $2,500 per month," Denton continues, adding that it's wrong because some writers produce more than others and get paid accordingly – "but it's not embarrassingly wrong."
I run some numbers by him that I picked up about his pay structure.
I say the two bloggers at Gawker earn about $5,000 a month.
Defamer: Between $7,000 and $10,000 a month.
Gizmodo: $7,000 to $8,000.
And Fleshbot: $7,000 to $8,000 a month.
"Your numbers for the individual writers are particularly wild guesses," Denton replied. "And they are embarrassingly wrong. If you're making them up – nice try! If not, you've been misled. Badly."
Or there's a third possibility. Perhaps I've just experienced the Denton deflationary spin machine.
- - -
Adam L. Penenberg is an assistant professor at New York University and assistant director of the business and economic reporting program in the school's department of journalism. | [
6
] |
3 Reasons to Invest in Technology to Improve Your Business’ Efficiency | Today’s business landscape is extremely competitive – not only has the internet allowed almost anyone with access the ability to source information on almost every topic, but the barriers to entry of doing business globally have been all but brought down. We are seeing businesses from the UK to Central Africa offering products and services online to countries in the Americas and Asia without ever having to set foot there.
Modern businesses understand how essential technology is in this current landscape, and are usually the quickest to take up new technology, putting them at an advantage compared to businesses with slower uptake. They understand how continuous investment in improving their technology can lead to improved efficiency, and ultimately increased profits. Below we take a look at three ways that investing in technology can help improve a business’ efficiency.
1) Faster and more accurate in almost every aspect, especially compared to humans
Can you imagine the state of the world if e-commerce was only supplemented by cheques? The demise of the paper cheque is thanks to banks and businesses investing in technology to provide online payments that take seconds rather than days or weeks.
By automating processes that were once carried out by humans, we see much faster transactions with almost minimal errors. For example, where one once had to go through a time-consuming process of organising meetings, booking rooms and greeting clients; this can now all be done via a mobile app linked to Pronestor booking systems in only a matter of minutes.
2) Increased productivity
Following on from the last reason, by decreasing the time spent on any process, the productivity will increase. Employees will be able to get on with more pressing work, rather than wait for simple tasks and processes to be completed.
Increasing productivity directly correlates to an improvement in an organisation’s efficiency, because whether it be a human or a machine, being able to maximise the use of your capacity allows for this. Technology can also help increase productivity by improving organisation. For example, the proliferation of cloud storage users has helped businesses focus on their core competencies, and leave the IT solutions to the professionals. For a business to be able to focus on their expertise rather than on tasks that they don’t specialise in, means that they can be more productive with their time.
3) Better communication
Rapid globalisation means that we are interacting with others far and wide now on a daily basis. E-commerce companies that once sold only locally are fulfilling orders from the other side of the world thanks to the internet, improved logistics, and such. Communication has also improved thanks to this and we are seeing businesses with multiple offices worldwide having seamless video conferences thanks to new, efficient technology.
Data and information can be shared just as quickly between a UK and Australian office as it could be between colleagues metres apart! Businesses now benefit as they can react quicker to changes and there is not always a need to physically travel to get your point across. | [
12
] |
The 25 most difficult questions | The 25 most difficult questions you'll be asked on a job interview Being prepared is half the battle. If you are one of those executive types unhappy at your present post and embarking on a New Year's resolution to find a new one, here's a helping hand. The job interview is considered to be the most critical aspect of every expedition that brings you face-to- face with the future boss. One must prepare for it with the same tenacity and quickness as one does for a fencing tournament or a chess match. This article has been excerpted from "PARTING COMPANY: How to Survive the Loss of a Job and Find Another Successfully" by William J. Morin and James C. Cabrera. Copyright by Drake Beam Morin, inc. Publised by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Morin is chairman and Cabrera is president of New York-based Drake Beam Morin, nation's major outplacement firm, which has opened offices in Philadelphia. 1. Tell me about yourself. Since this is often the opening question in an interview, be extracareful that you don't run off at the mouth. Keep your answer to a minute or two at most. Cover four topics: early years, education, work history, and recent career experience. Emphasize this last subject. Remember that this is likely to be a warm-up question. Don't waste your best points on it. 2. What do you know about our organization? You should be able to discuss products or services, revenues, reputation, image, goals, problems, management style, people, history and philosophy. But don't act as if you know everything about the place. Let your answer show that you have taken the time to do some research, but don't overwhelm the interviewer, and make it clear that you wish to learn more. You might start your answer in this manner: "In my job search, I've investigated a number of companies. Yours is one of the few that interests me, for these reasons..." Give your answer a positive tone. Don't say, "Well, everyone tells me that you're in all sorts of trouble, and that's why I'm here", even if that is why you're there. 3. Why do you want to work for us? The deadliest answer you can give is "Because I like people." What else would you like-animals? Here, and throughout the interview, a good answer comes from having done your homework so that you can speak in terms of the company's needs. You might say that your research has shown that the company is doing things you would like to be involved with, and that it's doing them in ways that greatly interest you. For example, if the organization is known for strong management, your answer should mention that fact and show that you would like to be a part of that team. If the company places a great deal of emphasis on research and development, emphasize the fact that you want to create new things and that you know this is a place in which such activity is encouraged. If the organization stresses financial controls, your answer should mention a reverence for numbers. If you feel that you have to concoct an answer to this question - if, for example, the company stresses research, and you feel that you should mention it even though it really doesn't interest you- then you probably should not be taking that interview, because you probably shouldn't be considering a job with that organization. Your homework should include learning enough about the company to avoid approaching places where you wouldn't be able -or wouldn't want- to function. Since most of us are poor liars, it's difficult to con anyone in an interview. But even if you should succeed at it, your prize is a job you don't really want. 4. What can you do for us that someone else can't? Here you have every right, and perhaps an obligation, to toot your own horn and be a bit egotistical. Talk about your record of getting things done, and mention specifics from your resume or list of career accomplishments. Say that your skills and interests, combined with this history of getting results, make you valuable. Mention your ability to set priorities, identify problems, and use your experience and energy to solve them. 5. What do you find most attractive about this position? What seems least attractive about it? List three or four attractive factors of the job, and mention a single, minor, unattractive item. 6. Why should we hire you? Create your answer by thinking in terms of your ability, your experience, and your energy. (See question 4.) 7. What do you look for in a job? Keep your answer oriented to opportunities at this organization. Talk about your desire to perform and be recognized for your contributions. Make your answer oriented toward opportunity rather than personal security. 8. Please give me your defintion of [the position for which you are being interviewed]. Keep your answer brief and taskoriented. Think in in terms of responsibilities and accountability. Make sure that you really do understand what the position involves before you attempt an answer. If you are not certain. ask the interviewer; he or she may answer the question for you. 9. How long would it take you to make a meaningful contribution to our firm? Be realistic. Say that, while you would expect to meet pressing demands and pull your own weight from the first day, it might take six months to a year before you could expect to know the organization and its needs well enough to make a major contribution. 10. How long would you stay with us? Say that you are interested in a career with the organization, but admit that you would have to continue to feel challenged to remain with any organization. Think in terms of, "As long as we both feel achievement-oriented." 11. Your resume suggests that you may be over-qualified or too experienced for this position. What's Your opinion? Emphasize your interest in establishing a long-term association with the organization, and say that you assume that if you perform well in his job, new opportunities will open up for you. Mention that a strong company needs a strong staff. Observe that experienced executives are always at a premium. Suggest that since you are so wellqualified, the employer will get a fast return on his investment. Say that a growing, energetic company can never have too much talent. 12. What is your management style? You should know enough about the company's style to know that your management style will complement it. Possible styles include: task oriented (I'll enjoy problem-solving identifying what's wrong, choosing a solution and implementing it"), results-oriented ("Every management decision I make is determined by how it will affect the bottom line"), or even paternalistic ("I'm committed to taking care of my subordinates and pointing them in the right direction"). A participative style is currently quite popular: an open-door method of managing in which you get things done by motivating people and delegating responsibility. As you consider this question, think about whether your style will let you work hatppily and effectively within the organization. 13. Are you a good manager? Can you give me some examples? Do you feel that you have top managerial potential? Keep your answer achievementand ask-oriented. Rely on examples from your career to buttress your argument. Stress your experience and your energy. 14. What do you look for when You hire people? Think in terms of skills. initiative, and the adaptability to be able to work comfortably and effectively with others. Mention that you like to hire people who appear capable of moving up in the organization. 15. Have you ever had to fire people? What were the reasons, and how did you handle the situation? Admit that the situation was not easy, but say that it worked out well, both for the company and, you think, for the individual. Show that, like anyone else, you don't enjoy unpleasant tasks but that you can resolve them efficiently and -in the case of firing someone- humanely. 16. What do you think is the most difficult thing about being a manager or executive? Mention planning, execution, and cost-control. The most difficult task is to motivate and manage employess to get something planned and completed on time and within the budget. 17. What important trends do you see in our industry? Be prepared with two or three trends that illustrate how well you understand your industry. You might consider technological challenges or opportunities, economic conditions, or even regulatory demands as you collect your thoughts about the direction in which your business is heading. 18. Why are you leaving (did you leave) your present (last) job? Be brief, to the point, and as honest as you can without hurting yourself. Refer back to the planning phase of your job search. where you considered this topic as you set your reference statements. If you were laid off in an across-the-board cutback, say so; otherwise, indicate that the move was your decision, the result of your action. Do not mention personality conflicts. The interviewer may spend some time probing you on this issue, particularly if it is clear that you were terminated. The "We agreed to disagree" approach may be useful. Remember hat your references are likely to be checked, so don't concoct a story for an interview. 19. How do you feel about leaving all your benefits to find a new job? Mention that you are concerned, naturally, but not panicked. You are willing to accept some risk to find the right job for yourself. Don't suggest that security might interest you more than getting the job done successfully. 20. In your current (last) position, what features do (did) you like the most? The least? Be careful and be positive. Describe more features that you liked than disliked. Don't cite personality problems. If you make your last job sound terrible, an interviewer may wonder why you remained there until now. 21. What do you think of your boss? Be as positive as you can. A potential boss is likely to wonder if you might talk about him in similar terms at some point in the future. 22. Why aren't you earning more at your age? Say that this is one reason that you are conducting this job search. Don't be defensive. 23. What do you feel this position should pay? Salary is a delicate topic. We suggest that you defer tying yourself to a precise figure for as long as you can do so politely. You might say, "I understand that the range for this job is between $______ and $______. That seems appropriate for the job as I understand it." You might answer the question with a question: "Perhaps you can help me on this one. Can you tell me if there is a range for similar jobs in the organization?" If you are asked the question during an initial screening interview, you might say that you feel you need to know more about the position's responsibilities before you could give a meaningful answer to that question. Here, too, either by asking the interviewer or search executive (if one is involved), or in research done as part of your homework, you can try to find out whether there is a salary grade attached to the job. If there is, and if you can live with it, say that the range seems right to you. If the interviewer continues to probe, you might say, "You know that I'm making $______ now. Like everyone else, I'd like to improve on that figure, but my major interest is with the job itself." Remember that the act of taking a new job does not, in and of itself, make you worth more money. If a search firm is involved, your contact there may be able to help with the salary question. He or she may even be able to run interference for you. If, for instance, he tells you what the position pays, and you tell him that you are earning that amount now and would Like to do a bit better, he might go back to the employer and propose that you be offered an additional 10%. If no price range is attached to the job, and the interviewer continues to press the subject, then you will have to restpond with a number. You cannot leave the impression that it does not really matter, that you'll accept whatever is offered. If you've been making $80,000 a year, you can't say that a $35,000 figure would be fine without sounding as if you've given up on yourself. (If you are making a radical career change, however, this kind of disparity may be more reasonable and understandable.) Don't sell yourself short, but continue to stress the fact that the job itself is the most important thing in your mind. The interviewer may be trying to determine just how much you want the job. Don't leave the impression that money is the only thing that is important to you. Link questions of salary to the work itself. But whenever possible, say as little as you can about salary until you reach the "final" stage of the interview process. At that point, you know that the company is genuinely interested in you and that it is likely to be flexible in salary negotiations. 24. What are your long-range goals? Refer back to the planning phase of your job search. Don't answer, "I want the job you've advertised." Relate your goals to the company you are interviewing: 'in a firm like yours, I would like to..." 25. How successful do you you've been so far? Say that, all-in-all, you're happy with the way your career has progressed so far. Given the normal ups and downs of life, you feel that you've done quite well and have no complaints. Present a positive and confident picture of yourself, but don't overstate your case. An answer like, "Everything's wonderful! I can't think of a time when things were going better! I'm overjoyed!" is likely to make an interviewer wonder whether you're trying to fool him . . . or yourself. The most convincing confidence is usually quiet confidence. | [
23
] |
Americans' Dirty Secret Revealed | Photo taken by Emily Roesly. The morguefile contains photographs freely contributed by many artists to be used in creative projects by visitors to the site.
American adults are liars, at least when it comes to washing their hands.
In a recent telephone survey, 91 percent of the subjects claimed they always washed their hands after using public restrooms. But, when researchers observed people leaving public restrooms, only 83 percent actually did so.
Only 75 percent of men washed their hands compared to 90 percent of women, the observations revealed.
The telephone survey also turned up several other results – some surprising, some not. While 83 percent said they washed their hands after using a home bathroom, 73 percent washed their hands after changing a diaper.
In contrast, low percentages of people wash their hands after petting a cat or dog (43 percent), after handling money (21 percent), after sneezing or coughing (32 percent).
"Only 24 percent of men and 39 percent of women say they always wash their hands after coughing or sneezing," said Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA). "We have to do a better job here in stopping the spread of the germs that make us sick."
These results were released by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) and the SDA to highlight National Clean Hands Week, which runs from Sept. 18 through the 24.
"Although many Americans are beginning to recognize the importance of washing their hands, we still need to reach many others," said Judy Daly, Secretary of the ASM. "Our message is clear: one of the most effective tools in preventing the spread of infection is literally at our fingertips."
Bacteria and viruses for the common cold and influenza spread much more often through hand contact than by airborne transmission through coughing or sneezing. Fifteen seconds of scrubbing with soap and water or a good rubbing with a hand sanitizer greatly reduce the amount of infective crud on your hands.
The study, done in four American cities, was carried out in August by Harris Interactive. The results were announced today.
Observers were stationed at Turner Field in Atlanta, the Museum of Science and Industry and the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, Grand Central Station and Penn Station in New York, and the Ferry Terminal Farmers Market in San Francisco. They observed 3,206 men and 3,310 women. Here's some of what they saw:
Sports fans at Turner Field, particularly the guys, had the worst hand hygiene habits –only 74 percent of all patrons washed their hands (84 percent of the women and 63 percent of the men).
Results from the New York train stations provided the biggest gender split – 92 percent of the women washed their hands compared to only 64 percent of the men.
San Francisco turned out to be the most hygiene-conscious city in the study – 88 percent of the market goers washed their hands after using the facilities.
You might be wondering how the observations were handled. The observers were instructed to spend time combing their hair or putting on makeup and to rotate bathrooms every hour or so, and were only allowed to wash their hands 10 percent of the time. | [
5
] |
Cox & Forkum: Tal Afar | Tal Afar
From the Department of Defense: Commander Describes Routing Foreign Fighters From Tal Afar.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16, 2005 -- The commander of coalition troops in Iraq today described "an extremely successful tactical operation" in which U.S. and Iraqi troops all but cleared Tal Afar, Iraq, of foreign fighters. Tal Afar is one of two major transit zones for foreign fighters coming into Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said from Baghdad today. The other route is through the Euphrates River Valley, farther south. U.S. troops from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and Iraqi forces from the 3rd Iraqi Army Division have been working for two months to plan and prepare for an operation to "restore Iraqi control to Tal Afar," Casey said. Since Sept. 10, this combined force has been engaged in an operation to clear a roughly 600-by-800-meter section in the center of Tal Afar that foreign fighters had set up as a sanctuary. The combined force killed about 150 insurgents and captured roughly 350 more. Casey said officials estimate this accounted for about 75 percent to 80 percent of the foreign fighters and other insurgents they believed were in the city. "It looked like a pretty tough fight," he said. Strong support from the Iraqi government made the soldiers' mission significantly easier, Casey said. In the days leading up to the military assault, Iraqi government representatives spent time in Tal Afar and brokered an agreement with local leaders from all local ethnic groups: Shiia, Sunni and Turkoman. "The other piece of this that sometimes gets lost is the Iraqi government was very much involved in setting the conditions for success," he said. Casey explained that local sheiks signed statements saying basically: "We've had enough. We ask for the military to come in and clean the terrorists and foreign fighters out of Tal Afar." This led to support for the mission from the city's civilian population. "That had a huge impact on what we had to deal with with respect to the population of that city," Casey said. About 20,000 civilians left Tal Afar before the fighting began. The Iraqi and coalition force was prepared with humanitarian assistance, but many of those who fled went to stay with friends or relatives elsewhere, Casey said. The Iraqi government also provided $50 million to compensate civilians whose property was damaged and to fund rebuilding damaged areas. The mission was intended to allow Iraqi civilians to participate in the upcoming constitutional referendum Oct. 15.
Military photos from the operations in Tal Afar here, here, here, here, and here.
From Strategy Page: Why It's Getting Harder to be a Bad Guy.
The U.S./Iraqi offensive in Tal Afar has been more effective than anticipated, and terrorists are abandoning the area. It is unclear as to whether the dispersal of terrorist forces, who seem mostly to be local Sunni Arab tribal fighters and al Qaeda "Foreigners", is a planned response in the event of defeat or a spontaneous development. Whichever the case, the insurgents have abandoned large stocks of arms as well as some important infrastructure, including bomb factories and underground installations. The damage to al Qaeda was serious enough to elicit a public announcement from the terrorist organization, where it announced a new wave of suicide bombings, as revenge for the success of the Tal Afar, and related, operations. Apparently it was a case of "use it or lose it," with al Qaeda fearing that the continuing operations along the Syrian border and in western Iraq, would lead to more bomb workshops, and completed car bombs, being captured.
UPDATE I -- Sept. 21: In today's Wall Street Journal, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani addresses the foreign fighter issue among others: We Need American Troops.
American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, during my visit to Washington, Mr. Bush reaffirmed the United States' complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq. ... Above all, American forces provide Iraq with a much-needed deterrence capability. In the past, Iraq sought an illusory security through the follies of aggression, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Today, our external security comes from our alliance with the United States. Our neighbors can thereby be assured that we will settle all of our differences with them peacefully. Sadly, some of our neighbors have chosen not to understand this. They seem either unwilling or unable to shut off the pipeline of terrorists crossing into Iraq. And in addition to what is at least passive support for the terrorists, some of them are providing financial and material support to them, too. They must desist from this behavior now. While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.
Despite the fact that Bush has, unfortunately, often defined the Iraq war in altruistic terms, it should not be Iraq's need that fundamentally determines whether or not our troops are there. After all, many countries "need" our troops for various reasons, but that doesn't mean we should send them. Our troops should be used only to protect America's national security interests, and the only basic reason for staying in Iraq should be to fight America's enemies, in this case, Islamic and Baathist terrorists and their state sponsors, two of which border Iraq. It remains to be seen how we will deal with Iran and Syria. But considering that both countries are fighting a proxy war with the U.S. in Iraq, I don't see how settling "our differences with them peacefully," as Talabani assures them, can even be an option. Whether Iraq itself becomes a "sustainable democracy" or a theocracy is another problem altogether.
UPDATE II -- Sept. 23: Bill Roggio has an excellent overview of recent Iraq operations in a Flash presentation (via Dr. Sanity).
Posted by Forkum at September 20, 2005 05:08 PM
| [
3
] |
Slashdot HTML 4.01 and CSS | After 8 years of my nasty, crufty, hodge podged together HTML, last night we finally switched over to clean HTML 4.01 with a full complement of CSS. While there are a handful of bugs and some lesser used functionality isn't quite done yet, the transition has gone very smoothly. You can use our sourceforge project page to submit bugs and we'd really appreciate the feedback. Thanks to Tim Vroom for putting the HTML in place, Wes Moran for writing the HTML in the first place, and Pudge for writing the code to convert 900k users, 60k stories, and 13 million comments to comply. And for the brave, download the stylesheet and start experimenting with new themes and designs for Slashdot: some sort of official contest to re-design Slashdot is coming soon, so you can get a head start now. | [
3
] |
Subsets and Splits