If you're like most people, the news of the Heartbleed bug and how broadly its security flaw spread is worrisome enough. But the list of sites where you absolutely have to change your passwords looks daunting for anyone.
You probably have to change passwords on your email, your Facebook, and maybe even your online dating profile, not to mention potentially countless online shopping sites (depending upon the depth and breadth of your need to shop until you drop).
If you're like a lot of people, you probably think that you can come up with one indecipherable password, maybe one that isn't even a word, and then reuse it because no one will ever guess. But the Heartbleed bug, like the hacks of Kickstarter and some Yahoo emails earlier this year, should have you questioning that assumption.
In these attacks, hackers don't have to guess one password, or even try out a few easy ones (like the word "password," which you should always avoid), to get into one account. Instead, they go after a site's database of all users' logins and passwords and, no matter how strong you think yours is, they've got it.
It could be bad enough when you lose one password on one site or for one account - but, for instance, in the Kickstarter case, they reset all users' passwords right away and only two accounts were accessed. However, if you, full of hubris about your ingenious, unguessable password, used it on another site with another login name, then the people who snagged it the first time can get into your other accounts without even having to "guess" your unguessable password.
Create a System
So if you're in the midst of changing passwords, now's a good time to start a password system, rather than picking one new, universal password. Using this method, you can not only prevent most identity thieves from accessing more than one account if they do get your password, you can also make sure you remember what they all are.
1. Pick a meaningless combination of letters and numbers that you can remember. However, don't use a maiden name (and especially not your mother's), a child's name or a favored pet. Pick the name of a beloved (or un-beloved) cousin twice removed, the name of a song you loved as a kid, or even the nursery school your best friend attended. Make up an acronym for the first line of your favorite novel or movie quote.
2. Replace a letter or two with a number or symbol (like a 5 - or a $ -- instead of an "s," or a 3 instead of an "e").
3. Add a punctuation mark or two to the password at random.
4. Surround your random meaningful word with the name of the site for which it is the password, in a way that makes sense for you. If your word is "TGIF" (which it shouldn't be!), and your punctuation mark an exclamation point (not the best one to use), then your Facebook password might be "face!TG1Fbook" and your Amazon password might be "ama!TG1Fzon." For added security, you could also abbreviate the site names in some way that works for you.
5. Change your passwords regularly. If you shop online at various sites, or if you know that an account was compromised or you were victim of another form of offline identity theft, consider changing your passwords once a month. If your risk is more moderate, do it once a quarter. If you can't stomach either, do it once a year - but know that, for instance, the Heartbleed bug was operational for two years before it was brought to the developers' attention and fixed, which means a password you used in 2011 could still be operational in a hacker's hands today.
There are a lot of naysayers out there right now who claim you don't need to be so careful, that there's no evidence the bug was exploited by hackers and that, even if it was, the consequences are likely to be pretty minimal for most people. Don't listen to them, and don't give in to your own weariness with this sort of vigilance. At this point, the businesses who have your security in their hands aren't failsafe, the government is still debating how much they should have to tell you when their security fails, and hackers are bombarding businesses and individuals in an effort to make a quick buck. The only person who can even begin to protect you is you.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Women in Tech Share Three Secrets of the Job
This post has contributions from Internet Society TrusteesDesiree Miloshevic, Theresa Swinehart and Narelle Clark.
International Women's Day is March 8, and this year's theme is "Equality for women is progress for all." This sentiment is especially resonant in the technology fields, where recent studies have shown that increased diversity fuels greater innovation, creativity and competitiveness. Even so, numbers of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) remain alarmingly low in some of the world's leading economies.
These figures must change, and these changes must start with us. It's crucial that we help our daughters understand the benefits and value of participating in the technology field. Some of these benefits are well known: according to a recent study, women working in the STEM fields in the U.S. earn 33 percent more on average than counterparts working in non-STEM fields. But other benefits are less apparent: I can speak from experience when I say that, in the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) sector, opportunities abound for collaboration, a deeper connection to community and a strong sense of having a very real impact on your world. Indeed, the rewards of using the most profound technology of our time to make a global impact are innumerable.
The issue of women in ICT came up in a recent conversation I had with several women members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, all of whom are extremely accomplished in the field. I was interested to hear what lessons they had learned and could share with young women contemplating a profession. Here's what they said:
Lesson 1: There's tremendous power in establishing and building community
After Desiree Miloshevic landed a job in a networking department at an ISP in the early 1990s, she joined Boadicea, a group for women working in digital media in London. "This group, which inspired many women to launch their own Internet start-ups, demonstrated to me the power of building a support infrastructure for women," notes Desiree. Later, as a Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) board member, she helped organize 'Women in Computing' workshops and install wireless Internet antennas on remote islands in the Pacific. Now a senior public policy and international affairs advisor/Europe for Afilias, Desiree continues to see the positive impact of building community, and established an open, informal space for computer programming (www.oosm.org) in Belgrade where women developers teach each other, as well as men, various computing skills.
Lesson 2: Technology isn't just for engineers
The ICT field wasn't a foreseen career path for Theresa Swinehart, senior advisor to the president on global strategy at ICANN. She came to it with a background in international relations, human rights and law. But it's an example of the mix of backgrounds engaged in the ICT sector, which is often perceived to be limited to those with technical experience. But in fact, this sector bridges many industries and underlies almost every social, economic and cultural facet of our lives. "There's a misperception that an ICT career involves a technical education or background, but this isn't the case," adds Theresa. "Because ICT is so pervasive, all backgrounds and expertise are essential. A crucial part of the job is about working to build consensus to bridge diverse views and interests, and the increasing use of mobile is going to open the future up even more to new wonders and opportunities yet unforeseen."
Lesson 3: ICT is actually a 'people' job
Narelle Clark, president of the Internet Society Australia Chapter, spent years working with Females in IT and Telecommunications, which offered mentoring programs and topics of interest to women in the ICT industry. She observes, "In many places, ICT jobs can offer more work flexibility and more money than many other jobs, so they are a great choice for women who want to have a family. Roles are really diverse too: there are many successful women in the ICT field with not only deeply technical jobs requiring analytical thought and the latest in particle physics, but many more women work directly with people--understanding their needs and creatively weaving other women into the global tapestry of modern digital life."
Indeed, if greater diversity fuels greater innovation, we'll all be the beneficiaries of global inclusion in the Internet.
Five Great Resources for Women in Technology
1. Internet Society Community Grants Program: Provides funding annually to projects around the world that will bring technological resources to under-served populations. Applications for 2014 will be accepted from March 3-31, and winners will be announced in June.
2. The Internet Society Fellows to IETF Program: This award enables technologists from developing countries to participate in meetings of the IETF, the premier Internet standards-making body. First-time fellows are paired with an experienced mentor and are given the opportunity to make a positive contribution to IETF work.
3. ABI LeanIn Circles: The Anita Borg Institute and LeanIn.org have partnered to offer support for women pursuing or considering careers as technologists. Circles meet regularly to learn and share together.
4. Systers-IETF: A list for Systers involved in IETF topics -- both technical and specific to women. Open to any woman interested in the IETF, whether she participates only by mail or also in person.
5. Girls in Tech: Girls in Tech (GIT) is a global organization focused on the engagement, education and empowerment of influential women in technology.
For more information and resources, visit www.internetsociety.org/womensday2014.
International Women's Day is March 8, and this year's theme is "Equality for women is progress for all." This sentiment is especially resonant in the technology fields, where recent studies have shown that increased diversity fuels greater innovation, creativity and competitiveness. Even so, numbers of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) remain alarmingly low in some of the world's leading economies.
These figures must change, and these changes must start with us. It's crucial that we help our daughters understand the benefits and value of participating in the technology field. Some of these benefits are well known: according to a recent study, women working in the STEM fields in the U.S. earn 33 percent more on average than counterparts working in non-STEM fields. But other benefits are less apparent: I can speak from experience when I say that, in the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) sector, opportunities abound for collaboration, a deeper connection to community and a strong sense of having a very real impact on your world. Indeed, the rewards of using the most profound technology of our time to make a global impact are innumerable.
The issue of women in ICT came up in a recent conversation I had with several women members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, all of whom are extremely accomplished in the field. I was interested to hear what lessons they had learned and could share with young women contemplating a profession. Here's what they said:
Lesson 1: There's tremendous power in establishing and building community
After Desiree Miloshevic landed a job in a networking department at an ISP in the early 1990s, she joined Boadicea, a group for women working in digital media in London. "This group, which inspired many women to launch their own Internet start-ups, demonstrated to me the power of building a support infrastructure for women," notes Desiree. Later, as a Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) board member, she helped organize 'Women in Computing' workshops and install wireless Internet antennas on remote islands in the Pacific. Now a senior public policy and international affairs advisor/Europe for Afilias, Desiree continues to see the positive impact of building community, and established an open, informal space for computer programming (www.oosm.org) in Belgrade where women developers teach each other, as well as men, various computing skills.
Lesson 2: Technology isn't just for engineers
The ICT field wasn't a foreseen career path for Theresa Swinehart, senior advisor to the president on global strategy at ICANN. She came to it with a background in international relations, human rights and law. But it's an example of the mix of backgrounds engaged in the ICT sector, which is often perceived to be limited to those with technical experience. But in fact, this sector bridges many industries and underlies almost every social, economic and cultural facet of our lives. "There's a misperception that an ICT career involves a technical education or background, but this isn't the case," adds Theresa. "Because ICT is so pervasive, all backgrounds and expertise are essential. A crucial part of the job is about working to build consensus to bridge diverse views and interests, and the increasing use of mobile is going to open the future up even more to new wonders and opportunities yet unforeseen."
Lesson 3: ICT is actually a 'people' job
Narelle Clark, president of the Internet Society Australia Chapter, spent years working with Females in IT and Telecommunications, which offered mentoring programs and topics of interest to women in the ICT industry. She observes, "In many places, ICT jobs can offer more work flexibility and more money than many other jobs, so they are a great choice for women who want to have a family. Roles are really diverse too: there are many successful women in the ICT field with not only deeply technical jobs requiring analytical thought and the latest in particle physics, but many more women work directly with people--understanding their needs and creatively weaving other women into the global tapestry of modern digital life."
Indeed, if greater diversity fuels greater innovation, we'll all be the beneficiaries of global inclusion in the Internet.
Five Great Resources for Women in Technology
1. Internet Society Community Grants Program: Provides funding annually to projects around the world that will bring technological resources to under-served populations. Applications for 2014 will be accepted from March 3-31, and winners will be announced in June.
2. The Internet Society Fellows to IETF Program: This award enables technologists from developing countries to participate in meetings of the IETF, the premier Internet standards-making body. First-time fellows are paired with an experienced mentor and are given the opportunity to make a positive contribution to IETF work.
3. ABI LeanIn Circles: The Anita Borg Institute and LeanIn.org have partnered to offer support for women pursuing or considering careers as technologists. Circles meet regularly to learn and share together.
4. Systers-IETF: A list for Systers involved in IETF topics -- both technical and specific to women. Open to any woman interested in the IETF, whether she participates only by mail or also in person.
5. Girls in Tech: Girls in Tech (GIT) is a global organization focused on the engagement, education and empowerment of influential women in technology.
For more information and resources, visit www.internetsociety.org/womensday2014.
iO Tillet Wright, Equality, and How Gay Are You?
Click here to watch the TEDTalk that inspired this post.
10 years ago I wrote a book called Chicken, about when I was a 17-year-old prostitute/rent boy/escort/industrial sex technician. I was lucky enough to get a big splashy deal with a big splashy publisher who sent me on a big splashy tour. I was under the mistaken impression that people would ask me about my book, about what it was like sexually servicing middle-aged women for money, about the writing I worked so hard on. To my surprise, most readers, writers, bloggers and journalists wanted to know if I was gay or straight. And exactly how gay or how straight.
After careful consideration, I concluded I was 10% gay, 20% lesbian, and 70% heterosexual. But I always emphasize that those numbers are fluid. When I walk into a gay bar I immediately find myself flirting and being flirted with, feeling about 70% gay. When I go to a lesbian activist gathering (my mom was gay for about 2/3 of my life) I find myself listening and sharing and sharing and listening, feeling about 70% lesbian. When I'm playing with my chock-full of breeders softball team, I feel about 110% heterosexual.
So it was with great fascination that I watched iO Tillet Wright's TED talk: 50 Shades of Gay. Her story about the fluidity of her sexuality spoke to me in a very personal way. As I said earlier, my mom was gay. In her late thirties she transformed herself from an immigrant homemaker mother of four into a bra-burning consciousness-raising sandal-wearing Gertrude-Stein-haired lesbian. People are always asking me how my mother "turned" gay. Like she'd taken a pill, or eaten too many tofu, or read too many Simone de Beauvoir books. I can't seem to get people to understand that she fell in love with a woman. That's all it took to "turn" her gay. The woman she fell in love with was a much better listener, communicator, friend, partner, and lover than my father ever was.
I was 16 at the time my mother came out, and she seemed so much happier than when she was married to my cold, withholding, unfaithful father. So I was happy for her. She raised me to have an open mind about these things, and not judge people by the color of their skin, or who they loved, or what they worshiped. She raised me to judge them by their words and their actions. And her new partner was kind and smart and wise and compassionate in her words and actions.
As I listened to iO Tillet Wright's talk, and watched all those beautiful pictures of Americans on the LGTB spectrum: black, white, brown, tall, short, stout, skinny, shy and wild, I thought about my mom. She and her partner moved to a small rural town in Oregon, where she had a neighbor who absolutely hated them. Not because they were too loud, too messy, too nosy, or in any way bad neighbors. He loathed them with biblical fury because they loved each other. And they were women. He threatened, taunted, intimidated, bullied and made their life a living hell. My mom tried to give this bigot love, tried to reason with him, tried to show him what a great neighbor she was. All to no avail. He just kept hating and hating and hating. I was ready to go over with a baseball bat and beat the hate out of this ugly pustule. My mom, the lesbian, talked me out of it. Eventually my mom and her partner had to leave their bucolic paradise and move to lesbian-friendly Portland.
Watching iO Tillet Wright's TED talk I was struck by the statistic that a citizen of the United States can be legally discriminated against because of who they love in 29 states. That's downright un-American.
I am a man of action. So that made me start thinking about what is to be done. And made me admire how iO Tillet Wright is a tomboy of action. I just love how she took this idea of egregious gender inequality and did something about it. Just a small local action. With a camera. And I love how it spread into a grassroots movement. It gives me faith in human beings. Faith in America.
So, as a 10% gay, 20% lesbian, 70% heterosexual man, I rejoiced in seeing all the beautifully diverse LGBTish Americans, and hearing iO Tillet Wright's message about making this country a place where equality reigns everywhere for everyone. It made me think about why America was formed in the first place. Wasn't it so everybody could worship their own God? Pursue life, liberty and happiness to their heart's content, so long as they didn't hurt anybody? So why can't we make America a place where citizens are allowed to love who they want to love? Isn't that beautiful idea of what America can be?
We want to know what you think. Join the discussion by posting a comment below or tweeting #TEDWeekends. Interested in blogging for a future edition of TED Weekends? Email us at tedweekends@huffingtonpost.com.
10 years ago I wrote a book called Chicken, about when I was a 17-year-old prostitute/rent boy/escort/industrial sex technician. I was lucky enough to get a big splashy deal with a big splashy publisher who sent me on a big splashy tour. I was under the mistaken impression that people would ask me about my book, about what it was like sexually servicing middle-aged women for money, about the writing I worked so hard on. To my surprise, most readers, writers, bloggers and journalists wanted to know if I was gay or straight. And exactly how gay or how straight.
After careful consideration, I concluded I was 10% gay, 20% lesbian, and 70% heterosexual. But I always emphasize that those numbers are fluid. When I walk into a gay bar I immediately find myself flirting and being flirted with, feeling about 70% gay. When I go to a lesbian activist gathering (my mom was gay for about 2/3 of my life) I find myself listening and sharing and sharing and listening, feeling about 70% lesbian. When I'm playing with my chock-full of breeders softball team, I feel about 110% heterosexual.
So it was with great fascination that I watched iO Tillet Wright's TED talk: 50 Shades of Gay. Her story about the fluidity of her sexuality spoke to me in a very personal way. As I said earlier, my mom was gay. In her late thirties she transformed herself from an immigrant homemaker mother of four into a bra-burning consciousness-raising sandal-wearing Gertrude-Stein-haired lesbian. People are always asking me how my mother "turned" gay. Like she'd taken a pill, or eaten too many tofu, or read too many Simone de Beauvoir books. I can't seem to get people to understand that she fell in love with a woman. That's all it took to "turn" her gay. The woman she fell in love with was a much better listener, communicator, friend, partner, and lover than my father ever was.
I was 16 at the time my mother came out, and she seemed so much happier than when she was married to my cold, withholding, unfaithful father. So I was happy for her. She raised me to have an open mind about these things, and not judge people by the color of their skin, or who they loved, or what they worshiped. She raised me to judge them by their words and their actions. And her new partner was kind and smart and wise and compassionate in her words and actions.
As I listened to iO Tillet Wright's talk, and watched all those beautiful pictures of Americans on the LGTB spectrum: black, white, brown, tall, short, stout, skinny, shy and wild, I thought about my mom. She and her partner moved to a small rural town in Oregon, where she had a neighbor who absolutely hated them. Not because they were too loud, too messy, too nosy, or in any way bad neighbors. He loathed them with biblical fury because they loved each other. And they were women. He threatened, taunted, intimidated, bullied and made their life a living hell. My mom tried to give this bigot love, tried to reason with him, tried to show him what a great neighbor she was. All to no avail. He just kept hating and hating and hating. I was ready to go over with a baseball bat and beat the hate out of this ugly pustule. My mom, the lesbian, talked me out of it. Eventually my mom and her partner had to leave their bucolic paradise and move to lesbian-friendly Portland.
Watching iO Tillet Wright's TED talk I was struck by the statistic that a citizen of the United States can be legally discriminated against because of who they love in 29 states. That's downright un-American.
I am a man of action. So that made me start thinking about what is to be done. And made me admire how iO Tillet Wright is a tomboy of action. I just love how she took this idea of egregious gender inequality and did something about it. Just a small local action. With a camera. And I love how it spread into a grassroots movement. It gives me faith in human beings. Faith in America.
So, as a 10% gay, 20% lesbian, 70% heterosexual man, I rejoiced in seeing all the beautifully diverse LGBTish Americans, and hearing iO Tillet Wright's message about making this country a place where equality reigns everywhere for everyone. It made me think about why America was formed in the first place. Wasn't it so everybody could worship their own God? Pursue life, liberty and happiness to their heart's content, so long as they didn't hurt anybody? So why can't we make America a place where citizens are allowed to love who they want to love? Isn't that beautiful idea of what America can be?
We want to know what you think. Join the discussion by posting a comment below or tweeting #TEDWeekends. Interested in blogging for a future edition of TED Weekends? Email us at tedweekends@huffingtonpost.com.
In Praise of Moogfest
The more I perform at music festivals, the more I'm baffled by what might compel a person to attend one. The blazing heat of the mid-afternoon sun over an open field, the less-than-favorable hygiene conditions -- to say nothing of the cavernous stages, which showcase headlining acts and dwarf smaller bands, who try to create a lasting impression on a crowd always one frisbee game away from wandering off.
The exposure can be terrific, of course, and there is a certain glory in transcending the milieu, but much of the time, playing a music festival can be like having an art show at an airport: thousands of people see it, but nobody is there to see it. And you can't much control how they see it, either.
And then there's Moogfest, in Asheville, North Carolina.
Asheville is a college town tucked at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was here that Bob (née Robert) Moog, inventor of the Moog Modular synthesizer, settled in the late 1970s. In the years since his death in 2005, Moog Music has continued to thrive. Even in the age of bootlegged Pro Tools and audio plugins, Moog workers still hand-solder their in-demand analog synths, like the Minimoog Voyager, from a homespun factory on the edge of town.
Moog synthesizers are a hybrid of technology and art. In the early years, when they were festooned with colorful patch cables, they made strange bedfellows with the usual kit of rock n' roll, but musicians flocked to them regardless. Keith Emerson of Emerson, Lake & Palmer played a custom modular Moog synthesizer the size of a refrigerator. The Beatles used a Moog on Abbey Road. It's hardware--an alchemy of analog circuits, electronic modules, and oscillators--but, when operated by the right person, it becomes something greater than the sum of its parts.
It makes sense, then, that Moogfest would become what it has: a place where technology and art interact, in wonky but undeniable synthesis. For me, Moogfest was the first occasion I've ever had to experience such synthesis. Besides playing music, I've been a science writer and science-fiction editor for many years. At Moogfest, I had the opportunity to present a panel, called "Science Fiction & The Synthesized Sound," which brought together an artist, two musicians, and a SETI researcher to discuss the music of the future, and the future of music. The same audience that thoughtfully took notes and asked probing questions of the panelists had been, only a day earlier, dancing like maniacs at my band's show. I can't imagine that this could happen anywhere else.
DJ Awesome Tapes From Africa
Moogfest was once a more traditional festival, but it metamorphosed this year into a celebration of art, science, music and technology -- TED filtered through a distortion pedal, if you will. For five days, the festival proposed a cocktail of daytime talks to be chased by music late into the night. The day panels featured many old-school synth pioneers -- Dave Smith, designer of the first programmable polyphonic synthesizer, and Herbert Deutsch, Bob Moog's closest collaborator -- and a thoughtful variety of future-learning artists and thinkers: the cyborg activist Neil Harbisson, Oxford futurist Nick Bostrom, the pop android Janelle Monáe, and dozens more.
Escort at Asheville Music Hall
Geekery thrived everywhere. The festival's Modular Marketplace was a veritable science fair of home-brew analog and digital synthesizers from all over the country. Some festivalgoers could be seen sporting headset brainwave sensors, creating auditory maps of the streets of Asheville as they ogled a virtual-reality iPhone rendition of their locations. Others just rocked Google Glass at panels on cybernetics, alternative interfaces, and hardware hacking. Even Monáe, with whom I was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion, name-dropped Ray Kurzweil and the science fiction author Octavia Butler.
The programming was precisely engineered, it seemed, to create a far more inclusive Venn diagram between music and technology. Musicians were lured out into the daylight to twiddle knobs and soak up talks by electronic music pioneers, while scientists, artists, and philosophers found themselves, in the late hours of the night, at the temple of sounds both synthesized and not. In an age where increased access to tools and information allows us all to be Renaissance people, and specialization feels more and more isolating, such an open--to say nothing of fun--venue for cross-disciplinary engagement feels long overdue.
The Modular Marketplace, Moogfest's electronics pop-up shop
I commend Moogfest for its courage in creating this unorthodox, cheerfully intellectual festival. They have spotted a node in culture, where musicians teach themselves electronics to rewire keyboards and technologists create symphonies of data, that feels extremely relevant to our shared future. It's not an art show at the airport--if anything, it's an art show that is an airport. Or a spaceport. It takes you places. At Moogfest, every event is transportive, and behind every gate is something marvelous.
Photos courtesy of Nick Zinner
The exposure can be terrific, of course, and there is a certain glory in transcending the milieu, but much of the time, playing a music festival can be like having an art show at an airport: thousands of people see it, but nobody is there to see it. And you can't much control how they see it, either.
And then there's Moogfest, in Asheville, North Carolina.
Asheville is a college town tucked at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was here that Bob (née Robert) Moog, inventor of the Moog Modular synthesizer, settled in the late 1970s. In the years since his death in 2005, Moog Music has continued to thrive. Even in the age of bootlegged Pro Tools and audio plugins, Moog workers still hand-solder their in-demand analog synths, like the Minimoog Voyager, from a homespun factory on the edge of town.
Moog synthesizers are a hybrid of technology and art. In the early years, when they were festooned with colorful patch cables, they made strange bedfellows with the usual kit of rock n' roll, but musicians flocked to them regardless. Keith Emerson of Emerson, Lake & Palmer played a custom modular Moog synthesizer the size of a refrigerator. The Beatles used a Moog on Abbey Road. It's hardware--an alchemy of analog circuits, electronic modules, and oscillators--but, when operated by the right person, it becomes something greater than the sum of its parts.
It makes sense, then, that Moogfest would become what it has: a place where technology and art interact, in wonky but undeniable synthesis. For me, Moogfest was the first occasion I've ever had to experience such synthesis. Besides playing music, I've been a science writer and science-fiction editor for many years. At Moogfest, I had the opportunity to present a panel, called "Science Fiction & The Synthesized Sound," which brought together an artist, two musicians, and a SETI researcher to discuss the music of the future, and the future of music. The same audience that thoughtfully took notes and asked probing questions of the panelists had been, only a day earlier, dancing like maniacs at my band's show. I can't imagine that this could happen anywhere else.
DJ Awesome Tapes From Africa
Moogfest was once a more traditional festival, but it metamorphosed this year into a celebration of art, science, music and technology -- TED filtered through a distortion pedal, if you will. For five days, the festival proposed a cocktail of daytime talks to be chased by music late into the night. The day panels featured many old-school synth pioneers -- Dave Smith, designer of the first programmable polyphonic synthesizer, and Herbert Deutsch, Bob Moog's closest collaborator -- and a thoughtful variety of future-learning artists and thinkers: the cyborg activist Neil Harbisson, Oxford futurist Nick Bostrom, the pop android Janelle Monáe, and dozens more.
Escort at Asheville Music Hall
Geekery thrived everywhere. The festival's Modular Marketplace was a veritable science fair of home-brew analog and digital synthesizers from all over the country. Some festivalgoers could be seen sporting headset brainwave sensors, creating auditory maps of the streets of Asheville as they ogled a virtual-reality iPhone rendition of their locations. Others just rocked Google Glass at panels on cybernetics, alternative interfaces, and hardware hacking. Even Monáe, with whom I was fortunate enough to moderate a panel discussion, name-dropped Ray Kurzweil and the science fiction author Octavia Butler.
The programming was precisely engineered, it seemed, to create a far more inclusive Venn diagram between music and technology. Musicians were lured out into the daylight to twiddle knobs and soak up talks by electronic music pioneers, while scientists, artists, and philosophers found themselves, in the late hours of the night, at the temple of sounds both synthesized and not. In an age where increased access to tools and information allows us all to be Renaissance people, and specialization feels more and more isolating, such an open--to say nothing of fun--venue for cross-disciplinary engagement feels long overdue.
The Modular Marketplace, Moogfest's electronics pop-up shop
I commend Moogfest for its courage in creating this unorthodox, cheerfully intellectual festival. They have spotted a node in culture, where musicians teach themselves electronics to rewire keyboards and technologists create symphonies of data, that feels extremely relevant to our shared future. It's not an art show at the airport--if anything, it's an art show that is an airport. Or a spaceport. It takes you places. At Moogfest, every event is transportive, and behind every gate is something marvelous.
Photos courtesy of Nick Zinner
The 'Traffic Jam' You Can't See
A recent New York Times headline cautioned, "Wireless carriers warn of crisis in mobile spectrum." Is spectrum -- the essential building block of cell phone service -- really in short supply? What is causing the shortage? How would a shortage affect the typical smartphone and wireless tablet user?
It's hard to visualize spectrum, how it works and why the U.S. needs more. Some experts describe wireless spectrum as an invisible super highway in the sky that allows radio signals to stream back and forth between smartphones or tablets. The comparison to highways is a good one, except the wireless capacity is more like a two-lane state road than a four-lane divided interstate highway. The Wall Street Journal CIO Journal elaborates, "For users, a spectrum shortage is like a traffic jam. They can expect wireless 'rush hours' to be characterized by failed attempts to connect, and more instances of dropped calls or frozen Web browsing."
The comparison with the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s can provide some insights into what is likely to happen to wireless broadband capacity in the next 10 years.
In 1950 there were 40 million vehicles in the U.S., a number that was projected to more than double by 1970. In addition, the annual average mileage per car was expected to significantly increase. If you combined both these factors, the total number of highway miles traveled in that 20-year window was expected to triple. Yet the number of two-lane highways had changed little since World War II. Gridlock loomed.
In 1956 the Eisenhower Administration moved to address the imminent crisis, passing the Federal Highway Act which would fund the construction of over 40,000 miles of four-lane interstate highway. By 1960, 10,000 miles of interstate highway were operational and by 1970, half of the project was completed. However, it would take another 20 years for the entire 40,000 miles to be constructed.
The U.S. faces a similar situation today with wireless broadband. There were 60 million smartphone users in 2010. That number is expected to triple by 2015 and reach over 200 million by 2020. To make matters worse, the average smartphone user is likely to use 24 times more data than the traditional cell phone customer. The combination of these two changes means that wireless networks will see their phone and data traffic increase more than tenfold by 2020. However, the amount of new spectrum available for wireless use has changed little in the past five years.
In 2010 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a National Broadband Plan which was a wakeup call to Congress and the wireless industry. The FCC concluded that the amount of wireless spectrum would need to double by 2020, or the speed of wireless transmissions would slow to a snail's pace.
Starting in 1983, the FCC began converting unused UHF TV licenses to cellular phone use. Each cellular carrier received four TV channels. Today the average wireless carrier uses the equivalent of 15 TV channels. The FCC estimates that each wireless carrier will need the equivalent of 35 TV channels by 2020 in order to keep pace with the wireless demand of consumers.
However, to reach that goal the FCC faces a monumental task of relocating television stations and government agencies to new frequencies. The biggest challenge for the FCC will be relocating over 1,700 full power television stations, and then auctioning the old TV spectrum to the wireless companies. Many industry experts think it will take five to seven years for the FCC to accomplish this TV relocation... in the best case. However, a 10-year timeline is more likely.
So, what is likely to happen?
1) A spectrum shortage is likely to occur, because of the dramatic increase in the number of smartphones and the use of smartphones to access the web and view videos.
2) There is not a spectrum shortage yet, but there is likely to be one in several years, unless the FCC is able to repurpose some of the existing TV channels, and Department of Defense ("DoD") frequencies quickly and effectively.
3) If the FCC does not repurpose spectrum quickly enough, the speed at which you access the internet wirelessly will be very frustrating or the wireless carriers will start charging you more for heavy data use during peak times.
Ultimately, the FCC is likely to be successful at repurposing some existing TV and DoD spectrum. However, like the interstate highway system, it is likely to take a lot longer than the U.S. government expects and be more frustrating for consumers than people realize. The best guess is that consumers won't start to be really affected until 2015 and that only the really heavy users will notice a big difference -- at first. By 2017, however, most consumers will want higher speeds: a demand the wireless carriers won't be able to satisfy until around 2020.
Like the interstate highway system, the U.S. will eventually provide a good wireless super highway network in the sky. But like the interstate highway system, it will take longer to complete, have many inconveniences along the way and will cost more than anyone planned.
Charles Townsend, an early advocate for the need for additional wireless spectrum to accommodate the needs of wireless data, is President of Aloha Partners II, the 8th largest wireless spectrum owner in the United States. After reviewing the FCC's National Broadband Plan in 2010, Aloha Partners concluded that it would need significantly more spectrum to be competitive and has explored purchasing additional spectrum and doing joint ventures or spectrum sharing arrangements with other carriers.
It's hard to visualize spectrum, how it works and why the U.S. needs more. Some experts describe wireless spectrum as an invisible super highway in the sky that allows radio signals to stream back and forth between smartphones or tablets. The comparison to highways is a good one, except the wireless capacity is more like a two-lane state road than a four-lane divided interstate highway. The Wall Street Journal CIO Journal elaborates, "For users, a spectrum shortage is like a traffic jam. They can expect wireless 'rush hours' to be characterized by failed attempts to connect, and more instances of dropped calls or frozen Web browsing."
The comparison with the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 1960s can provide some insights into what is likely to happen to wireless broadband capacity in the next 10 years.
In 1950 there were 40 million vehicles in the U.S., a number that was projected to more than double by 1970. In addition, the annual average mileage per car was expected to significantly increase. If you combined both these factors, the total number of highway miles traveled in that 20-year window was expected to triple. Yet the number of two-lane highways had changed little since World War II. Gridlock loomed.
In 1956 the Eisenhower Administration moved to address the imminent crisis, passing the Federal Highway Act which would fund the construction of over 40,000 miles of four-lane interstate highway. By 1960, 10,000 miles of interstate highway were operational and by 1970, half of the project was completed. However, it would take another 20 years for the entire 40,000 miles to be constructed.
The U.S. faces a similar situation today with wireless broadband. There were 60 million smartphone users in 2010. That number is expected to triple by 2015 and reach over 200 million by 2020. To make matters worse, the average smartphone user is likely to use 24 times more data than the traditional cell phone customer. The combination of these two changes means that wireless networks will see their phone and data traffic increase more than tenfold by 2020. However, the amount of new spectrum available for wireless use has changed little in the past five years.
In 2010 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a National Broadband Plan which was a wakeup call to Congress and the wireless industry. The FCC concluded that the amount of wireless spectrum would need to double by 2020, or the speed of wireless transmissions would slow to a snail's pace.
Starting in 1983, the FCC began converting unused UHF TV licenses to cellular phone use. Each cellular carrier received four TV channels. Today the average wireless carrier uses the equivalent of 15 TV channels. The FCC estimates that each wireless carrier will need the equivalent of 35 TV channels by 2020 in order to keep pace with the wireless demand of consumers.
However, to reach that goal the FCC faces a monumental task of relocating television stations and government agencies to new frequencies. The biggest challenge for the FCC will be relocating over 1,700 full power television stations, and then auctioning the old TV spectrum to the wireless companies. Many industry experts think it will take five to seven years for the FCC to accomplish this TV relocation... in the best case. However, a 10-year timeline is more likely.
So, what is likely to happen?
1) A spectrum shortage is likely to occur, because of the dramatic increase in the number of smartphones and the use of smartphones to access the web and view videos.
2) There is not a spectrum shortage yet, but there is likely to be one in several years, unless the FCC is able to repurpose some of the existing TV channels, and Department of Defense ("DoD") frequencies quickly and effectively.
3) If the FCC does not repurpose spectrum quickly enough, the speed at which you access the internet wirelessly will be very frustrating or the wireless carriers will start charging you more for heavy data use during peak times.
Ultimately, the FCC is likely to be successful at repurposing some existing TV and DoD spectrum. However, like the interstate highway system, it is likely to take a lot longer than the U.S. government expects and be more frustrating for consumers than people realize. The best guess is that consumers won't start to be really affected until 2015 and that only the really heavy users will notice a big difference -- at first. By 2017, however, most consumers will want higher speeds: a demand the wireless carriers won't be able to satisfy until around 2020.
Like the interstate highway system, the U.S. will eventually provide a good wireless super highway network in the sky. But like the interstate highway system, it will take longer to complete, have many inconveniences along the way and will cost more than anyone planned.
Charles Townsend, an early advocate for the need for additional wireless spectrum to accommodate the needs of wireless data, is President of Aloha Partners II, the 8th largest wireless spectrum owner in the United States. After reviewing the FCC's National Broadband Plan in 2010, Aloha Partners concluded that it would need significantly more spectrum to be competitive and has explored purchasing additional spectrum and doing joint ventures or spectrum sharing arrangements with other carriers.
Why Courtney Love's 'Twibel' Lawsuit Is Good for the Internet
In a landmark case that will set a major precedent for online speech, Courtney Love has become the first person ever in the United States to go to trial over a libelous tweet and be cleared by a jury.
This is a particularly noteworthy case as it is a sign of the legitimacy of Twitter as a publishing platform in the eyes of the law. The standards of traditional publishing are now being applied to the ephemerality of online commentary -- and that's good for freedom of speech because it's bringing an established means of legal recourse to both those speaking and those spoken ill of on social media.
To offer some background, in 2010, the volatile Love fired off a tweet stating her lawyer at the time, Rhonda Holmes, had been "bought off."
"@noozjunkie I was f***ing devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of san diego was bought off @fairnewsspears perhaps you can get a quote."
Love was upset that Holmes refused to help her take legal action against the managers of her late husband Kurt Cobain's estate. In Holmes's $8 million lawsuit, her lawyers argued that Love deliberately used her "fame and influence to reach millions of people in attempt to cause irreparable damage to plaintiff's business, name, and reputation."
Last Friday, the jury ruled that while Love's tweet contained false information and naturally harmed Holmes's reputation, the rock star did not know that it was false and therefore not guilty of libel.
Under U.S. law, libel is defined as the written form of defamation where false information is published to harm another's reputation. In this case, Holmes's lawyers could not clearly prove that Love did not know her claim that Holmes had been "bought off" was untrue.
Now, whether Love's tweet was an opinion or not is a different question with serious implications. Opinions are not verifiable statements and therefore not considered defamatory, so if Tweets are deemed as opinion, users would be granted additional legal protection.
Love's lawyers initially argued that the case should not even go before a jury since tweets are clearly opinion and in line with the hyperbolic and opinionated norm of online discourse; however, a judge rejected this argument and where Twitter falls in protected online speech is now uncertain.
It is also particularly important to note in this case that only one or two people saw Love's tweet before she deleted it. According to Jeff John Roberts, a reporter and former intellectual property and media lawyer, "[I]t doesn't matter if the statement was seen by one person or a million."
"Libel law only requires that a statement was published to a third party," Roberts explained. This means any user could be liable for what they tweet even if it exists for a few seconds.
Fear not, "Twibel" lawsuits are not an infringement of free speech per se, but rather the transferal of standards from more traditional media to Twitter and Love's libel case is the natural next frontier in the ongoing battle over free speech.
Just as print journalists were taken to court for libel, and more recently bloggers, so too are Twitter users being sued for libel, which in turn has opened a path for users to be formally protected by the Constitution.
Print journalists are protected against libel by the First Amendment, and recently, those same constitutional rights were extended to bloggers who have been sued for libel. Earlier this month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a blogger who had previously lost a defamation trial over a blog post she had written.
The Judge argued, "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities ... As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable."
It remains to be seen whether Twitter users will be considered journalists, but Love's trial is only the opening salvo in what is likely to be a complicated battle for what courts consider protected social media speech and who gets those protections.
While the future of Twitter speech may be uncertain, it is clear that when it comes to the court room, social media is now considered a legitimate form of publishing, and with that legitimacy also comes protections for those on the opposite end of the spectrum, the subjects of Tweets, individuals who are the focus of viral smear campaigns or nasty comments.
Defamation law is aimed at protecting individuals and their reputations from those with the ability to command a large audience -- the press. But now that Twitter has given users the ability to broadcast to a wide audience, anyone can easily smear someone's reputation.
Even though this opens the door for future lawsuits, it officially links Twitter to an established means of legal recourse along with years of First Amendment precedent, so rather than stifling freedom of speech, Twibel suits could actually strengthen it.
This is a particularly noteworthy case as it is a sign of the legitimacy of Twitter as a publishing platform in the eyes of the law. The standards of traditional publishing are now being applied to the ephemerality of online commentary -- and that's good for freedom of speech because it's bringing an established means of legal recourse to both those speaking and those spoken ill of on social media.
To offer some background, in 2010, the volatile Love fired off a tweet stating her lawyer at the time, Rhonda Holmes, had been "bought off."
"@noozjunkie I was f***ing devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of san diego was bought off @fairnewsspears perhaps you can get a quote."
Love was upset that Holmes refused to help her take legal action against the managers of her late husband Kurt Cobain's estate. In Holmes's $8 million lawsuit, her lawyers argued that Love deliberately used her "fame and influence to reach millions of people in attempt to cause irreparable damage to plaintiff's business, name, and reputation."
Last Friday, the jury ruled that while Love's tweet contained false information and naturally harmed Holmes's reputation, the rock star did not know that it was false and therefore not guilty of libel.
Under U.S. law, libel is defined as the written form of defamation where false information is published to harm another's reputation. In this case, Holmes's lawyers could not clearly prove that Love did not know her claim that Holmes had been "bought off" was untrue.
Now, whether Love's tweet was an opinion or not is a different question with serious implications. Opinions are not verifiable statements and therefore not considered defamatory, so if Tweets are deemed as opinion, users would be granted additional legal protection.
Love's lawyers initially argued that the case should not even go before a jury since tweets are clearly opinion and in line with the hyperbolic and opinionated norm of online discourse; however, a judge rejected this argument and where Twitter falls in protected online speech is now uncertain.
It is also particularly important to note in this case that only one or two people saw Love's tweet before she deleted it. According to Jeff John Roberts, a reporter and former intellectual property and media lawyer, "[I]t doesn't matter if the statement was seen by one person or a million."
"Libel law only requires that a statement was published to a third party," Roberts explained. This means any user could be liable for what they tweet even if it exists for a few seconds.
Fear not, "Twibel" lawsuits are not an infringement of free speech per se, but rather the transferal of standards from more traditional media to Twitter and Love's libel case is the natural next frontier in the ongoing battle over free speech.
Just as print journalists were taken to court for libel, and more recently bloggers, so too are Twitter users being sued for libel, which in turn has opened a path for users to be formally protected by the Constitution.
Print journalists are protected against libel by the First Amendment, and recently, those same constitutional rights were extended to bloggers who have been sued for libel. Earlier this month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a blogger who had previously lost a defamation trial over a blog post she had written.
The Judge argued, "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities ... As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable."
It remains to be seen whether Twitter users will be considered journalists, but Love's trial is only the opening salvo in what is likely to be a complicated battle for what courts consider protected social media speech and who gets those protections.
While the future of Twitter speech may be uncertain, it is clear that when it comes to the court room, social media is now considered a legitimate form of publishing, and with that legitimacy also comes protections for those on the opposite end of the spectrum, the subjects of Tweets, individuals who are the focus of viral smear campaigns or nasty comments.
Defamation law is aimed at protecting individuals and their reputations from those with the ability to command a large audience -- the press. But now that Twitter has given users the ability to broadcast to a wide audience, anyone can easily smear someone's reputation.
Even though this opens the door for future lawsuits, it officially links Twitter to an established means of legal recourse along with years of First Amendment precedent, so rather than stifling freedom of speech, Twibel suits could actually strengthen it.
No, Russia Isn't About To Take Over Your Internet: Protecting Internet Freedom From Both Simplistic Defenders, Internet Restricting Countries
Let there be no mistake: the future and openness of the Internet is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, recent headlines could easily lead someone who hasn't followed Internet policy to think the United States recently and suddenly decided to give up control over the Internet - and that this will give rise to censorship and other misfortune around the world.
The truth, as explained by the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in testimony before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee Wednesday, is that relinquishing control of the Internet addressing system is a strategic move not just for the United States, but for all those around the world committed to Internet freedom.
It is exactly because such countries like Russia and China are seeking greater international governmental control over Internet content, that the recent NTIA proposal is to be lauded. It conditionally frees the existing multi-stakeholder institution from the remaining minor residual control the Department of Commerce has maintained. Under this institutional model the Internet has flourished and resisted most attempts to limit Internet freedom by various governments, including at times the U.S.
Those who have been the leaders in the development and protection of the Internet and its freedom are convinced this move by the U.S., leading by example, will actually strengthen the role of democratic principles, and encourage liberty respecting countries to join non-profits and other legitimate stakeholders to resist authoritarian attempts to increase the role and control of governments .
It's worth noting that the only area in which the U.S. has significant jurisdiction relating to the Internet is in connection with a contract it has with the non-profit that manages the Internet addressing system so that no two websites share the same address.
The gradual transfer of remaining U.S. government stewardship of Internet addresses to the Internet's global multi-stakeholder community - a process being facilitated by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) -- has been established U.S. policy since 1998, supported by successive administrations and the legislative branch. Reneging on this promise would seriously damage U.S. credibility worldwide and provide an excuse and rationale for Russia, China, and others to seek enhanced roles for their governments.
ICANN is an international group that facilitates multi-stakeholder Internet governance, and it is in a strong position to take the Internet to its next stage of growth and combat challenges by those who would seek to censor the Internet or exert more government control over content.
In response to the NTIA announcement, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who co-chairs the Internet Caucus, said that a "strong multi-stakeholder system free from the control of any government" is desirable, and that "innovators and entrepreneurs" are more trusted than government "bureaucrats" when it comes to ensuring an open, well-functioning global Internet.
But lawmakers who have not been as deeply involved in the details of Internet policy did not seem to understand why this was an adroit strategic move and instead called it a defeatist policy.
Sadly even former Wall Street Journal publisher L. Gordon Crovitz's opinion piece "America's Internet Surrender" (March 18) argues that the United States is making a big mistake by giving up its remaining control over Internet addresses to the global multi-stakeholder community. While we appreciate someone of Mr. Crovitz's stature supporting Internet freedom in general, it is short-sighted and unwise to think the U.S. can somehow prevail on this, alone, through sheer force of will.
My tech association has been a steadfast voice for Internet Freedom for many years and recently participated as part of the U.S. State Department delegation to the WCIT conference and helped resist efforts by countries like Russia and China who seeks greater international government regulation of the Internet through a U.N. group that Crovitz references in his editorial.
Having been on the ground fighting Internet surveillance and censorship for two decades, my tech trade association would be the first to join the chorus of those denouncing this U.S. move if there was truth to these arguments that it would lead to a less open Internet. But we are convinced it is the right move for the outcome that both those praising and criticizing the Commerce Department want.
The Internet faces unprecedented challenges and it faces them while the U.S. credibility is damaged in the wake of the Snowden revelations. Strengthening a multi-stakeholder group like ICANN, backed by like-minded Internet freedom allies, is likely a more effective way to prevent Internet restricting countries from succeeding. We do not -- and should not -- try to retain or expand the role of any governments seeking to control of this borderless communications tool.
The U.S. is much stronger by fighting alongside not just other democratic countries, but also with their NGOs and non-profits. We're going to need those numbers and breadth of support because we'll be up against any religious group, government or government faction around the world that has ever had a complaint about any Internet content or its inherent ability to facilitate free speech and strengthen democracies.
The truth, as explained by the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in testimony before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee Wednesday, is that relinquishing control of the Internet addressing system is a strategic move not just for the United States, but for all those around the world committed to Internet freedom.
It is exactly because such countries like Russia and China are seeking greater international governmental control over Internet content, that the recent NTIA proposal is to be lauded. It conditionally frees the existing multi-stakeholder institution from the remaining minor residual control the Department of Commerce has maintained. Under this institutional model the Internet has flourished and resisted most attempts to limit Internet freedom by various governments, including at times the U.S.
Those who have been the leaders in the development and protection of the Internet and its freedom are convinced this move by the U.S., leading by example, will actually strengthen the role of democratic principles, and encourage liberty respecting countries to join non-profits and other legitimate stakeholders to resist authoritarian attempts to increase the role and control of governments .
It's worth noting that the only area in which the U.S. has significant jurisdiction relating to the Internet is in connection with a contract it has with the non-profit that manages the Internet addressing system so that no two websites share the same address.
The gradual transfer of remaining U.S. government stewardship of Internet addresses to the Internet's global multi-stakeholder community - a process being facilitated by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) -- has been established U.S. policy since 1998, supported by successive administrations and the legislative branch. Reneging on this promise would seriously damage U.S. credibility worldwide and provide an excuse and rationale for Russia, China, and others to seek enhanced roles for their governments.
ICANN is an international group that facilitates multi-stakeholder Internet governance, and it is in a strong position to take the Internet to its next stage of growth and combat challenges by those who would seek to censor the Internet or exert more government control over content.
In response to the NTIA announcement, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who co-chairs the Internet Caucus, said that a "strong multi-stakeholder system free from the control of any government" is desirable, and that "innovators and entrepreneurs" are more trusted than government "bureaucrats" when it comes to ensuring an open, well-functioning global Internet.
But lawmakers who have not been as deeply involved in the details of Internet policy did not seem to understand why this was an adroit strategic move and instead called it a defeatist policy.
Sadly even former Wall Street Journal publisher L. Gordon Crovitz's opinion piece "America's Internet Surrender" (March 18) argues that the United States is making a big mistake by giving up its remaining control over Internet addresses to the global multi-stakeholder community. While we appreciate someone of Mr. Crovitz's stature supporting Internet freedom in general, it is short-sighted and unwise to think the U.S. can somehow prevail on this, alone, through sheer force of will.
My tech association has been a steadfast voice for Internet Freedom for many years and recently participated as part of the U.S. State Department delegation to the WCIT conference and helped resist efforts by countries like Russia and China who seeks greater international government regulation of the Internet through a U.N. group that Crovitz references in his editorial.
Having been on the ground fighting Internet surveillance and censorship for two decades, my tech trade association would be the first to join the chorus of those denouncing this U.S. move if there was truth to these arguments that it would lead to a less open Internet. But we are convinced it is the right move for the outcome that both those praising and criticizing the Commerce Department want.
The Internet faces unprecedented challenges and it faces them while the U.S. credibility is damaged in the wake of the Snowden revelations. Strengthening a multi-stakeholder group like ICANN, backed by like-minded Internet freedom allies, is likely a more effective way to prevent Internet restricting countries from succeeding. We do not -- and should not -- try to retain or expand the role of any governments seeking to control of this borderless communications tool.
The U.S. is much stronger by fighting alongside not just other democratic countries, but also with their NGOs and non-profits. We're going to need those numbers and breadth of support because we'll be up against any religious group, government or government faction around the world that has ever had a complaint about any Internet content or its inherent ability to facilitate free speech and strengthen democracies.
President Obama Pushing Support for Technology Industry
President Obama is pushing an initiative to create 15 innovation partnership centers across the country, funded, in part, by $1 billion in federal support. Congress never approved the money, but the administration is still moving forward on three sites with previously approved funding. In a recent address, President Obama touted a new manufacturing institute: "Today, I'm here to act," Obama told students at North Carolina State University, the leading partner behind the new innovation center in the Research Triangle.
The goal, he said, was "to help make Raleigh-Durham and America a magnet for the good high-tech manufacturing jobs that a growing middle class requires and that are going to continue to keep this country on the cutting edge."
The new innovation center is a public-private partnership consortium involving 18 companies. The focus of the consortium will be on developing semiconductor technology used in energy-efficient products.
The project was selected as part of a competition for federal support that President Obama first announced in his State Of The Union address a year ago. It will receive $70 million over five years from the Department of Energy, a figure that will be matched by at $70 million from businesses, universities and the state.
While on the surface such partnerships merit support, the technology to be created will benefit the wealthy ownership class of corporate America, while providing desired high-tech jobs for a relative few who will directly benefit during the research period necessary to create the new technology and to operate and maintain the technology once applied to the private sector.
There is nothing disturbing about that outcome except for the reality that the resulting technology will become narrowly owned, given the invisible structure of the present-day workings of our economy.
President Obama and his economic advisors are stuck in one-factor LABOR ONLY thinking. Their focus is on JOBS CREATION and particularly high-tech technology jobs--the selling point to muster support for the initiative.
Given the current invisible structure of the economy, except for a relative few, the majority of the population, no matter how well educated, will not be able to find a job that pays sufficient wages or salaries to support a family or prevent a lifestyle, which is gradually being crippled by near poverty or poverty earnings. Thus, education is not the panacea, though it is critical for our future societal development and needs to be vigorously supported and advanced. But there are limits as to how many Americans will directly benefit financially as a result of obtaining high-tech technology jobs.
For the majority of younger, as well as older Americans, it will increasingly be harder and harder to find and secure a well-paying job--for most, their ONLY source of income. Unless we reform the system they will find themselves dependent on taxpayer-supported government welfare, open and or concealed.
President Obama's intent to bolster the tech sector with skilled workers is a worth-while objective, but what we, as a nation, must realize is that our scientists, engineers, and executive managers who are not owners themselves of the technological assets they create for corporations, except for those in the highest employed positions, are encouraged to work to destroy employment by making the capital "worker" owner more productive. How much employment can be destroyed by substituting machines for people is a measure of their success--always focused on producing at the lowest cost. Only the people who already own productive capital (non-human means of production) are the beneficiaries of their work, as they systematically concentrate more and more capital ownership in their stationary 1 percent ranks. Yet the 1 percent are not the people who do the overwhelming consuming. The result is the consumer populous is not able to get the money to buy the products and services produced as a result of substituting machines for people. And yet you can't have mass production without mass human consumption. It is the exponential disassociation of production and consumption that is the problem in the United States economy, and the reason that ordinary citizens must gain access to wealth-creating, income-producing productive capital ownership to improve their economic well-being.
If President Obama and his economist advisors viewed the process of production of products and services as consisting of two independent factors--human and non-human--they would realize that the non-human factor--productive capital--is becoming more productive, NOT human labor. They should also realize that most changes in the productive capacity of the world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can be attributed to technological improvements in our capital assets, and a relatively diminishing proportion to human labor. Productive capital does not "enhance" labor productivity (labor's ability to produce economic goods). In fact, the opposite is true. It makes many forms of labor unnecessary.
Technological change makes tools, machines, structures, and processes ever more productive while leaving human productiveness largely unchanged (our human abilities are limited by physical strength and brain power--and relatively constant). The technology industry is always changing, evolving and innovating. The result is that primary distribution through the free market economy, whose distributive principle is "to each according to his production," delivers progressively more market-sourced income to capital owners and progressively less to workers who make their contribution through labor.
This is a simple concept that describes the economics of reality, but President Obama and his advisors have yet to show that they grasp its significance, which when understood leads to ONLY ONE possible solution that strengthens our country's founding principles in private property.
What President Obama and other politicians as well as economists and national media pundits should be advocating is equal opportunity for every citizen to become a capital owner.
The goal, he said, was "to help make Raleigh-Durham and America a magnet for the good high-tech manufacturing jobs that a growing middle class requires and that are going to continue to keep this country on the cutting edge."
The new innovation center is a public-private partnership consortium involving 18 companies. The focus of the consortium will be on developing semiconductor technology used in energy-efficient products.
The project was selected as part of a competition for federal support that President Obama first announced in his State Of The Union address a year ago. It will receive $70 million over five years from the Department of Energy, a figure that will be matched by at $70 million from businesses, universities and the state.
While on the surface such partnerships merit support, the technology to be created will benefit the wealthy ownership class of corporate America, while providing desired high-tech jobs for a relative few who will directly benefit during the research period necessary to create the new technology and to operate and maintain the technology once applied to the private sector.
There is nothing disturbing about that outcome except for the reality that the resulting technology will become narrowly owned, given the invisible structure of the present-day workings of our economy.
President Obama and his economic advisors are stuck in one-factor LABOR ONLY thinking. Their focus is on JOBS CREATION and particularly high-tech technology jobs--the selling point to muster support for the initiative.
Given the current invisible structure of the economy, except for a relative few, the majority of the population, no matter how well educated, will not be able to find a job that pays sufficient wages or salaries to support a family or prevent a lifestyle, which is gradually being crippled by near poverty or poverty earnings. Thus, education is not the panacea, though it is critical for our future societal development and needs to be vigorously supported and advanced. But there are limits as to how many Americans will directly benefit financially as a result of obtaining high-tech technology jobs.
For the majority of younger, as well as older Americans, it will increasingly be harder and harder to find and secure a well-paying job--for most, their ONLY source of income. Unless we reform the system they will find themselves dependent on taxpayer-supported government welfare, open and or concealed.
President Obama's intent to bolster the tech sector with skilled workers is a worth-while objective, but what we, as a nation, must realize is that our scientists, engineers, and executive managers who are not owners themselves of the technological assets they create for corporations, except for those in the highest employed positions, are encouraged to work to destroy employment by making the capital "worker" owner more productive. How much employment can be destroyed by substituting machines for people is a measure of their success--always focused on producing at the lowest cost. Only the people who already own productive capital (non-human means of production) are the beneficiaries of their work, as they systematically concentrate more and more capital ownership in their stationary 1 percent ranks. Yet the 1 percent are not the people who do the overwhelming consuming. The result is the consumer populous is not able to get the money to buy the products and services produced as a result of substituting machines for people. And yet you can't have mass production without mass human consumption. It is the exponential disassociation of production and consumption that is the problem in the United States economy, and the reason that ordinary citizens must gain access to wealth-creating, income-producing productive capital ownership to improve their economic well-being.
If President Obama and his economist advisors viewed the process of production of products and services as consisting of two independent factors--human and non-human--they would realize that the non-human factor--productive capital--is becoming more productive, NOT human labor. They should also realize that most changes in the productive capacity of the world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can be attributed to technological improvements in our capital assets, and a relatively diminishing proportion to human labor. Productive capital does not "enhance" labor productivity (labor's ability to produce economic goods). In fact, the opposite is true. It makes many forms of labor unnecessary.
Technological change makes tools, machines, structures, and processes ever more productive while leaving human productiveness largely unchanged (our human abilities are limited by physical strength and brain power--and relatively constant). The technology industry is always changing, evolving and innovating. The result is that primary distribution through the free market economy, whose distributive principle is "to each according to his production," delivers progressively more market-sourced income to capital owners and progressively less to workers who make their contribution through labor.
This is a simple concept that describes the economics of reality, but President Obama and his advisors have yet to show that they grasp its significance, which when understood leads to ONLY ONE possible solution that strengthens our country's founding principles in private property.
What President Obama and other politicians as well as economists and national media pundits should be advocating is equal opportunity for every citizen to become a capital owner.
The Daily App: CloudOn -- Microsoft Office on the Go
Apps come and go, but when it comes to software for work, Microsoft Office seems to endure. Released in 1983, the earliest versions of Office ran on MS-DOS, then lauded for its ability to display limited text formats, though fonts were still a distant dream. And two years later, Microsoft released Office for Macs, when the two companies were still on friendly terms.
As the years rolled by, Word -- and its later cousins, Excel and PowerPoint, among others -- became entrenched in offices, schools and home computers around the world, adding features and components to stay up-to-date. It's such a stalwart that it still powers much of Microsoft's revenue growth.
Even as competition ramps up from cloud-based products like Google Drive, chances are you still opened a Word, Excel or PowerPoint document to do your job. But as the workplaces become decentralized, you need agile and flexible software to work with different devices at home and on the road. Office, though, is anything but agile.
Microsoft tried to keep up -- it released Office 2013 and updated Office 365, which lets you access all its software online. But they're clunky, especially on smartphones and tablets. Need to edit Word or Excel on your phone? Have no fear -- here are some apps to help you work on your phone.
What's the App?
Even with keyboard and accessories, creating documents on an iPad is awkward. That's where CloudOn, free on iOS, delivers. You get a lot of Word, Excel and PowerPoint features in an elegantly, lightweight package.
The app is easy to set up. Sign up for cloud storage from Dropbox, Box, Google Drive or SkyDrive and login from within the app. It connects quickly and seamlessly. From there, you can edit, create and store documents on those services. CloudOn treats it like one workspace -- you can change, rename and even email and share documents.
Beyond Office, you can also read and view images, PDFs and other file types as well -- no need to open several programs.
CloudOn is basically a version of Office 2010, but it's not easy to use on a touch screen. Once you get used to the layout, though, you can easily format text with a wide choice of fonts and type styles. You can also insert page numbers and tables, but it's difficult to select the element to work with -- I had a hard time highlighting text and cells, for example, especially on the iPhone's tiny screen.
The interface shows the most popular editing and reviewing tools upfront, with a lot of functions tucked away due to the limited screen space. It's hard to find everything you need, but it's all there. There are a few idiosyncrasies, too. I noticed when you hold the backspace key down, it doesn't keep deleting.
Excel's functions are mostly there, but macro or VBA functions are missing, so you can't run complex spreadsheets or merge documents with source files. You can import pictures, though, but it's not very intuitive and takes a few steps.
Working remotely with others is tricky, too -- you can only share and email files from the File view, for example, and not the Recent Files tab. And you need a constant 3G connection, but if your Internet drops out, don't panic -- it all auto-saves everything. Undoing unwanted changes is a pain, though.
The biggest drawback is the mouse controls. Simple tasks like drag and drop, arranging items and even navigation are often tedious. The pinch-to-zoom is scrolling is great, but you'll need to tap or hold a lot, or various combinations of the two. The software runs quickly, but the usability could be easier.
You'll Want It If
You work on multiple devices, within multiple settings and use several storage services shared between your co-workers, and you need a simple yet powerful way to look at documents on your phone or tablet. For a free app, CloudOn does a lot. And if you need to untether from a PC or laptop, it gets the job done nicely.
It's Not My Thing -- What Else Ya Got?
If you want to do away with the PC or laptop and just do all your work on an iPad, CloudOn is simply too limited -- it's designed for on-the-go work. To turn the tablet into a spreadsheet-making, presentation-designing, word-processing workhorse, you need a more robust app like QuickOffice Pro HD for iPad or Android.
Both versions cost $20, but it's well worth it for the full access to functions like formatting and tracking, as well as seamless saving and updating to cloud services like Google Drive. There's a bit of lag as you type, though, but QuickOffice is one of the best office apps around. Google bought it out earlier, so it'll tie to more services in the future.
Microsoft's Office app won't arrive until late 2014, so you'll have to improvise a patchwork of apps and cloud services until then. CloudOn isn't the most powerful or agile solution, but for its price and convenience, it's a great stop-gap for any on-the-go worker that doesn't want to lug around extra devices.
This article was published by Mobiledia and originally appeared here.
As the years rolled by, Word -- and its later cousins, Excel and PowerPoint, among others -- became entrenched in offices, schools and home computers around the world, adding features and components to stay up-to-date. It's such a stalwart that it still powers much of Microsoft's revenue growth.
Even as competition ramps up from cloud-based products like Google Drive, chances are you still opened a Word, Excel or PowerPoint document to do your job. But as the workplaces become decentralized, you need agile and flexible software to work with different devices at home and on the road. Office, though, is anything but agile.
Microsoft tried to keep up -- it released Office 2013 and updated Office 365, which lets you access all its software online. But they're clunky, especially on smartphones and tablets. Need to edit Word or Excel on your phone? Have no fear -- here are some apps to help you work on your phone.
What's the App?
Even with keyboard and accessories, creating documents on an iPad is awkward. That's where CloudOn, free on iOS, delivers. You get a lot of Word, Excel and PowerPoint features in an elegantly, lightweight package.
The app is easy to set up. Sign up for cloud storage from Dropbox, Box, Google Drive or SkyDrive and login from within the app. It connects quickly and seamlessly. From there, you can edit, create and store documents on those services. CloudOn treats it like one workspace -- you can change, rename and even email and share documents.
Beyond Office, you can also read and view images, PDFs and other file types as well -- no need to open several programs.
CloudOn is basically a version of Office 2010, but it's not easy to use on a touch screen. Once you get used to the layout, though, you can easily format text with a wide choice of fonts and type styles. You can also insert page numbers and tables, but it's difficult to select the element to work with -- I had a hard time highlighting text and cells, for example, especially on the iPhone's tiny screen.
The interface shows the most popular editing and reviewing tools upfront, with a lot of functions tucked away due to the limited screen space. It's hard to find everything you need, but it's all there. There are a few idiosyncrasies, too. I noticed when you hold the backspace key down, it doesn't keep deleting.
Excel's functions are mostly there, but macro or VBA functions are missing, so you can't run complex spreadsheets or merge documents with source files. You can import pictures, though, but it's not very intuitive and takes a few steps.
Working remotely with others is tricky, too -- you can only share and email files from the File view, for example, and not the Recent Files tab. And you need a constant 3G connection, but if your Internet drops out, don't panic -- it all auto-saves everything. Undoing unwanted changes is a pain, though.
The biggest drawback is the mouse controls. Simple tasks like drag and drop, arranging items and even navigation are often tedious. The pinch-to-zoom is scrolling is great, but you'll need to tap or hold a lot, or various combinations of the two. The software runs quickly, but the usability could be easier.
You'll Want It If
You work on multiple devices, within multiple settings and use several storage services shared between your co-workers, and you need a simple yet powerful way to look at documents on your phone or tablet. For a free app, CloudOn does a lot. And if you need to untether from a PC or laptop, it gets the job done nicely.
It's Not My Thing -- What Else Ya Got?
If you want to do away with the PC or laptop and just do all your work on an iPad, CloudOn is simply too limited -- it's designed for on-the-go work. To turn the tablet into a spreadsheet-making, presentation-designing, word-processing workhorse, you need a more robust app like QuickOffice Pro HD for iPad or Android.
Both versions cost $20, but it's well worth it for the full access to functions like formatting and tracking, as well as seamless saving and updating to cloud services like Google Drive. There's a bit of lag as you type, though, but QuickOffice is one of the best office apps around. Google bought it out earlier, so it'll tie to more services in the future.
Microsoft's Office app won't arrive until late 2014, so you'll have to improvise a patchwork of apps and cloud services until then. CloudOn isn't the most powerful or agile solution, but for its price and convenience, it's a great stop-gap for any on-the-go worker that doesn't want to lug around extra devices.
This article was published by Mobiledia and originally appeared here.
The 30 Second Habit That Can Have a Big Impact On Your Life
There are no quick fixes. I know this as a social science junkie, who's read endless books and blogs on the subject, and tried out much of the advice -- mostly to no avail. So I do not entitle this post lightly. And I write it only having become convinced, after several months of experimentation, that one of the simplest pieces of advice I've heard is also one of the best.
It is not from a bestselling book -- indeed no publisher would want it: even the most eloquent management thinker would struggle to spin a whole book around it. Nor is it born out of our world of digital excess and discontent. Instead, it was given by a man born in the 19th century, to his teenage grandson, today in his fifth decade.
The man in question, an eminience grise of the business world, is one of the most interesting people I have ever met. He has helped devise brands that are household names. These days, working only when he feels he has something to offer, he is parachuted in to solve stock price threatening corporate crises. Occasionally, when he's sufficiently interested, he pens speeches for Fortune 500 CEOs and politicians, his words billed out out at six figures. He is exceptionally well read, and also writes prolifically. Novels. But just for fun: on completion, he destroys them. He does not see the point in being published, or of seeking publicity in general. Amongst his friends are some of the most powerful people on the planet -- from business leaders, to politicians, actors and other luminaries of the arts. But Google him, and you will find barely a ripple on the cyber seas.
I met him first over a coffee in his apartment, to discuss the strategy for a highly political non-profit working in Africa. Around his table sat an eclectic mix of very vocal people. Our host, making the coffee, said almost nothing. But on the few occasions he did interject, with a brief question or observation, it invariably clarified exactly what mattered-- politely sweeping away the sludge of opinion that clogs such discussions. It was masterful: like watching a conductor of the London Philharmonic coaxing a small town student orchestra into shape.
So when he shared some of the best advice he'd ever received, I was captivated.
If you only do one thing, do this
He was in his early teens, about to start senior school, when his grandfather took him aside and told him the following:
Immediately after every lecture, meeting, or any significant experience, take 30 seconds -- no more, no less -- to write down the most important points. If you always do just this, said his grandfather, and even if you only do this, with no other revision, you will be okay.
He did, and he was. In everything he has done since, with such accomplishment, and with enough room still to experience life so richly. He later inducted into the pact both his sons, who have excelled in their young careers.
I've been trying it out for a few months. Here's what I've found so far:
It is not from a bestselling book -- indeed no publisher would want it: even the most eloquent management thinker would struggle to spin a whole book around it. Nor is it born out of our world of digital excess and discontent. Instead, it was given by a man born in the 19th century, to his teenage grandson, today in his fifth decade.
The man in question, an eminience grise of the business world, is one of the most interesting people I have ever met. He has helped devise brands that are household names. These days, working only when he feels he has something to offer, he is parachuted in to solve stock price threatening corporate crises. Occasionally, when he's sufficiently interested, he pens speeches for Fortune 500 CEOs and politicians, his words billed out out at six figures. He is exceptionally well read, and also writes prolifically. Novels. But just for fun: on completion, he destroys them. He does not see the point in being published, or of seeking publicity in general. Amongst his friends are some of the most powerful people on the planet -- from business leaders, to politicians, actors and other luminaries of the arts. But Google him, and you will find barely a ripple on the cyber seas.
I met him first over a coffee in his apartment, to discuss the strategy for a highly political non-profit working in Africa. Around his table sat an eclectic mix of very vocal people. Our host, making the coffee, said almost nothing. But on the few occasions he did interject, with a brief question or observation, it invariably clarified exactly what mattered-- politely sweeping away the sludge of opinion that clogs such discussions. It was masterful: like watching a conductor of the London Philharmonic coaxing a small town student orchestra into shape.
So when he shared some of the best advice he'd ever received, I was captivated.
If you only do one thing, do this
He was in his early teens, about to start senior school, when his grandfather took him aside and told him the following:
Immediately after every lecture, meeting, or any significant experience, take 30 seconds -- no more, no less -- to write down the most important points. If you always do just this, said his grandfather, and even if you only do this, with no other revision, you will be okay.
He did, and he was. In everything he has done since, with such accomplishment, and with enough room still to experience life so richly. He later inducted into the pact both his sons, who have excelled in their young careers.
I've been trying it out for a few months. Here's what I've found so far:
- It's not note taking: Don't think, just because you write down everything in a meeting, that you're excused from the 30 second summation. Though brief, this exercise is entirely different from taking notes. It's an act of interpretation, prioritisation and decision-making.
- It's hard work: Deciding what's most important is exhausting. It's amazing how easy it is to tell yourself you've captured everything that matters, to find excuses to avoid this brief mental sprint -- a kind of 100 metres for your brain.
- Detail is a trap: But precisely because we so often, ostensibly, capture everything -- and thus avoid the hard work of deciding what something counts -- that everything is worth less. So much of excellence is, of course, the art of elimination. And the 30 second review stops you using quantity as an excuse.
- You must act quickly: If you wait a few hours, you may recall the facts, but you lose the nuance. And this makes all the difference in deciding what matters. Whether it's the tone in someone's voice, or the way one seemingly simple suggestions sparks so many others, or the shadow of an idea in your mind triggered by a passing comment.
- You learn to listen better, and ask better questions: Once you get into the habit of the 30 second review, it starts to change the way you pay attention, whether listening to a talk or participating in a discussion. It's like learning to detect a simple melody amidst a cacophony of sound. And as you listen with more focus, and ask better questions which prompt actionable answers, so your 30 second review becomes more useful.
- You're able to help others more: Much of what makes the 30 second cut are observations about what matters to other people. Even if the purpose is to help better manage different interests in future conversations, it also helps you understand others needs, and so solve their problems. This does not surprise me: in months of interviewing people who make generous connections, I've been struck by how many have their own unconscious version of the 30 second review: focused on the question of how best they can help.
- It gets easier and more valuable: Each time you practice, it gets a little easier, a little more helpful and little more fun.
Why I'm Quitting Social Media for 30 Days
In my completely unscientific and unfounded opinion, there are two types of social media users: the persistent posters and the compulsive checkers. We all know who the persistent posters are (and if you're unsure, check out this comic by The Oatmeal for further explanation). But the compulsive checkers often fly under the radar. It wasn't until a few months ago I realized I'd become one of them.
Moving to New York City three years ago hadn't been an easy choice. I grew up in the Midwest surrounded by a great community of family and friends, and I worried about all I'd miss when I wasn't just a short car ride away. My young cousins were growing up at what seemed an exponential rate. Friends were planning weddings and celebrating housewarmings. Shortly after came the job promotions and baby showers.
For a few years, I justified my burgeoning social media use by insisting platforms like Facebook and Instagram were the best and easiest way to stay connected with loved ones. And for a long time, that was true, and my social media use remained fairly controlled. I didn't sneak a glance at my phone for updates while out to dinner with friends (not even a quick check beneath the table while hiding the bright screen from view), and I didn't scroll through my feeds while walking between work and home (partly because it takes a very gifted person to do this without colliding with passersby, and I'm not that talented).
Eventually, my compulsive checking became less about staying in the loop and more about being the first person in the loop. If someone asked, "Did you hear the news about so-and-so?" and I hadn't, my heart would race as I leapt for my phone to check for updates. Oh, no! I'd think. All of these people have already commented, and I'm so behind! I look like a horrible friend.
All of this may have turned out fine (if not a bit unnecessarily stressful), had my compulsive checking not transformed into a whole different beast several months ago. I'd be sitting on the couch on the weekend, snuggled under a blanket, enjoying some downtime while scrolling through my various social media feeds, only to be assailed by a heap of obnoxious inner dialogue:
He has a new job! His dream job, no less. What a great opportunity.
I wish I could afford a trip to Europe. She's so lucky. Sometimes I worry if I wait too long I won't get to see as much of the world as I'd like.
He got to go to the football game? And it was an overtime win? That's a once-in-a-lifetime experience -- I wish I'd been there.
She finally had her baby! What a blessing. I wonder if I'll have kids, someday.
He's moving across the country! I've always wondered what it would be like to live there.
Look at their beautiful home -- so cozy! My tiny city apartment pales in comparison.
Wow. Everyone seems to have things together and really know what they want and where they're going next.
And then, I'd ask myself: WHY do I care so much?
After some self-evaluation (and after opening my Instagram app one last time before going to bed, despite it having only been 2.3 minutes since I last refreshed), I diagnosed myself with FOUL. Most are probably familiar with FOUL's older sibling, FOMO -- the fear of missing out. But that wasn't quite my issue; I was perfectly happy staying home, cooking dinner and bingeing on Netflix reruns while friends posted photos with their sparkly necklaces and fancy drinks. What I had was the fear of an unfulfilled life. A fear of regret. I didn't want to look back on things and discover I hadn't lived the life I wanted.
Social media can be a wonderful thing. But when I started questioning my ambitions and goals and comparing my life choices to others' based on something as silly as a photo upload or status update, I knew something had to give. My compulsive checking had become a burden instead of a fun way to keep in touch. I wanted to live a better, more present life, and in order to do that I had to stop bombarding myself with information on how everyone else was living theirs.
Beginning tomorrow, I'll be giving up all of my social media accounts for 30 days. That means you, Facebook and Instagram. Twitter, too. And yes, even you, Goodreads and LinkedIn. I've moved all of these apps into remote folders on my devices so I don't accidentally access them in those few blurry and confusing moments right after I turn off my alarm in the morning (because yes, an early-morning feed read has been known to happen).
Though I don't quite know what to expect from this project, I hope to reclaim some of that lost perspective and learn to stop worrying so much about anything except myself and what I'm doing that day. Halfway through, I'll update on how things are going. In the meantime, if anyone would like to share a similar experience, please feel free to reach out at screensense@huffingtonpost.com.
Listening to the Public's Concerns About Big Data
On March 19, Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education and former governor of West Virginia, gave the following presentation to school district technology leaders at the Consortium for School Networking's (CoSN) annual conference in Washington, D.C.
In the next two years, the future of truly personalized learning and student achievement outcomes will largely be determined on how effectively data is used. Success depends on addressing fast growing issues of how data is collected and maintaining student privacy. Right now the issues are largely being defined by reaction to public concerns -- some well-founded and some unfounded -- as opposed to a full discussion of what student data is necessary, for what it should be used, and what policies are necessary to ensure appropriate use and protection.
Make no mistake; failure to address these issues now in an active and transparent manner may well set back the promise of technology enabling teachers to achieve the learning outcomes for all students that we fervently seek.
With the advent and implementation of new technology comes the natural gathering of larger amounts of data, literally from each key stroke. Applied well, data transforms education from a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to a true personalized learning experience for every student. Digital learning -- the effective use of technology to enhance teaching and learning -- and data do not diminish the role of the teacher; rather, the teacher now becomes an "educational designer," working with each student to maximize his or her learning opportunities.
Think about the student who was truly struggling and at risk of dropping out of high school. Perhaps the quick detection of a change in his/her performance in math led to a conversation with other teachers who saw similar trends, which led to the filling-in of learning gaps.
Good teachers try to do this for every student at every grade level, but time constraints make it impossible to differentiate instruction for every student every day. Enter the effective use of data that supports the student's learning objectives.
The nation has yet to realize data's full potential to support student achievement, but some schools are already showing real promise in moving education from a global, industrial age of teaching where every student was taught the same content in the same way, to a much more surgical approach to learning, in which teachers have the tools they need to meet every student where they are.
I compare the expanding use of data in education to health care. When a parent takes a child to the doctor, is he or she satisfied if the doctor only has access to the child's height, weight, age and, perhaps, past illness? Of course not. The parent wants that doctor to assess to every piece of relevant data that permits truly personalizing the care and treatment for that individual child.
Likewise, students benefit most when their teachers have access and can use the emerging data that permits immediate observation, planning and, when necessary, intervention. But just as health care data use and privacy became contentious issues a decade ago, so has education data become the same today.
Of course, this only adds to the pressure school districts are facing as they make critical decisions about implementing Common Core State Standards and the assessments aligned to them that measure deeper learning competencies, the changing role of teaching, and how to effectively use technology to advance student learning outcomes.
I have learned a lot serving as the co-chair of inBloom, a nonprofit organization that developed an infrastructure to connect disparate school district data systems into a single, secure access point where teachers can get a more complete picture of student progress. Another goal was to offer substantial security upgrades.
Yes, inBloom has faced challenges. But whether or not inBloom ever arrived on the scene, everyone from school district chief technology officer to third party vendors, is going to have to answer the same concerns and questions that inBloom has faced. We -- as educators, policymakers, parents and advocates -- must be willing to roll up our sleeves to listen to the public's concerns, develop the necessary policies to use data effectively while protecting student privacy, and then advocate for those policies and explain why use of data sets is necessary.
In the next year, each one of us must be actively involved in:
-- Listening closely to the public concerns that are increasingly being voiced about use of student data and safeguarding its privacy. We must also communicate frequently with each other to be aware of what issues are emerging.
-- Communicate how the promise for robust, intelligent lesson-planning tools using learning analytics is real but needs to be addressed with individual privacy considerations at the forefront.
-- Develop clear policies of responsible use at all levels. District and state policies must be in place to protect student level data and have processes in place in case of a breach.
-- Provide necessary principal and teacher training about the proper use of data including preserving student privacy.
-- Provide transparency regarding what is being collected, how it will be used, and who has access to the information is necessary.
-- Communicate to policymakers at the national, state and district levels to ensure they are addressing the right issues and not being derailed by misconceptions.
By using data in a meaningful and effective manner, we can individualize instruction for many more students -- helping those who are struggling and enriching those who are ready to do more.
In the next two years, the future of truly personalized learning and student achievement outcomes will largely be determined on how effectively data is used. Success depends on addressing fast growing issues of how data is collected and maintaining student privacy. Right now the issues are largely being defined by reaction to public concerns -- some well-founded and some unfounded -- as opposed to a full discussion of what student data is necessary, for what it should be used, and what policies are necessary to ensure appropriate use and protection.
Make no mistake; failure to address these issues now in an active and transparent manner may well set back the promise of technology enabling teachers to achieve the learning outcomes for all students that we fervently seek.
With the advent and implementation of new technology comes the natural gathering of larger amounts of data, literally from each key stroke. Applied well, data transforms education from a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to a true personalized learning experience for every student. Digital learning -- the effective use of technology to enhance teaching and learning -- and data do not diminish the role of the teacher; rather, the teacher now becomes an "educational designer," working with each student to maximize his or her learning opportunities.
Think about the student who was truly struggling and at risk of dropping out of high school. Perhaps the quick detection of a change in his/her performance in math led to a conversation with other teachers who saw similar trends, which led to the filling-in of learning gaps.
Good teachers try to do this for every student at every grade level, but time constraints make it impossible to differentiate instruction for every student every day. Enter the effective use of data that supports the student's learning objectives.
The nation has yet to realize data's full potential to support student achievement, but some schools are already showing real promise in moving education from a global, industrial age of teaching where every student was taught the same content in the same way, to a much more surgical approach to learning, in which teachers have the tools they need to meet every student where they are.
I compare the expanding use of data in education to health care. When a parent takes a child to the doctor, is he or she satisfied if the doctor only has access to the child's height, weight, age and, perhaps, past illness? Of course not. The parent wants that doctor to assess to every piece of relevant data that permits truly personalizing the care and treatment for that individual child.
Likewise, students benefit most when their teachers have access and can use the emerging data that permits immediate observation, planning and, when necessary, intervention. But just as health care data use and privacy became contentious issues a decade ago, so has education data become the same today.
Of course, this only adds to the pressure school districts are facing as they make critical decisions about implementing Common Core State Standards and the assessments aligned to them that measure deeper learning competencies, the changing role of teaching, and how to effectively use technology to advance student learning outcomes.
I have learned a lot serving as the co-chair of inBloom, a nonprofit organization that developed an infrastructure to connect disparate school district data systems into a single, secure access point where teachers can get a more complete picture of student progress. Another goal was to offer substantial security upgrades.
Yes, inBloom has faced challenges. But whether or not inBloom ever arrived on the scene, everyone from school district chief technology officer to third party vendors, is going to have to answer the same concerns and questions that inBloom has faced. We -- as educators, policymakers, parents and advocates -- must be willing to roll up our sleeves to listen to the public's concerns, develop the necessary policies to use data effectively while protecting student privacy, and then advocate for those policies and explain why use of data sets is necessary.
In the next year, each one of us must be actively involved in:
-- Listening closely to the public concerns that are increasingly being voiced about use of student data and safeguarding its privacy. We must also communicate frequently with each other to be aware of what issues are emerging.
-- Communicate how the promise for robust, intelligent lesson-planning tools using learning analytics is real but needs to be addressed with individual privacy considerations at the forefront.
-- Develop clear policies of responsible use at all levels. District and state policies must be in place to protect student level data and have processes in place in case of a breach.
-- Provide necessary principal and teacher training about the proper use of data including preserving student privacy.
-- Provide transparency regarding what is being collected, how it will be used, and who has access to the information is necessary.
-- Communicate to policymakers at the national, state and district levels to ensure they are addressing the right issues and not being derailed by misconceptions.
By using data in a meaningful and effective manner, we can individualize instruction for many more students -- helping those who are struggling and enriching those who are ready to do more.
The Latest #InstaTrend
I'm addressing the latest trend to sweep Instagram, Facebook and even Tumblr: photos taken to honor a sick, dying or dead loved one. I'm sure you guys have noticed it too, but these photos get likes on likes on likes. These posts are usually captioned with something sweet such as "I love you poppy <3" or "RIP to the most loving grandma a girl could ask for... I love you so much." And I can infer that there are the most loving and kind intentions behind the post. It is great to seek support from your friends and family through social media especially while going through a hard time, but I would really love to draw your attention to a different way these posts could be interpreted.
First of all, if you like or post these pictures, you are not alone. I posted a survey on my Facebook page and asked my friends to take it. Out of 100 people, ranging from 15-21 (except for my 60-year-old aunt who answered -- shout out to Aunt Pam), 20 percent of the people said that they have posted a picture of themselves and a loved one who was sick/dying in honor of them on Facebook or Instagram. Sixty-one percent of the people said that they have liked a picture on Facebook or Instagram that was taken from a funeral or from a hospital room that was in honor or memory of a sick/dead/dying loved one. Lastly, 71 percent of my Facebook friends surveyed agreed that most pictures taken at a funeral or in a hospital to honor a sick/dead/dying loved one gets at least 100 likes on Facebook or Instagram. Even statistically speaking, these pictures get likes.
I know posting photos like this seems like a great way to honor a loved one, gain support from friends and followers and to get a lot of likes on a picture -- and believe me I understand the importance of likes in today's society. #Confession -- I've Instagrammed my bestie's French toast because it just looked way better than my lame egg white omelet. And you know that if my mom's froyo looks better than mine, hers is going on Insta.
There is such a generation gap between us, our parents and especially our grandparents. Going through my teenage years on social media (I mean I have it all: FB, Insta, Twitter, Tumblr, Vine), I've realized that my me and my friends have just become more open and public.
Instagramming, muploading and tweeting about what we're doing or funny and awkward things that happen to us is just a part of our culture. But God forbid I Insta a selfie with my dad at a Jets game without telling him about it, he freaks out. He usually says something like this: "Jessica, I don't understand why the whole world needs to know that we're here." Or if I post vacation pictures of us on Facebook, he just doesn't get it and will saying something like "What ever happened to privacy, Jessica?" #parentsjustdontunderstand. But, when he saw a picture on Instagram feed of one of my family friends and their dying grandfather, my Dad really opened my eyes. He started to explain to me that privacy is everything to people in older generations. This is not something they grew up with, and it isn't OK to post pictures of older people on Instagram or Facebook without their permission.
That really got me thinking, if my own 50-year-old dad had a problem with a harmless selfie of us taken at a Jets game, how would an older or sick person feel if you Instagrammed a picture of them while they are at their lowest most vulnerable place? I know you may be reaching to your followers and friends for support as you are also going through a tough time, but do you really think that a sick person wants to broadcast their illness, weakness and vulnerability to your nearest and dearest Facebook friends and followers? I'm sure it was hard enough to have even their closest friends and family see them like this. A selfie from a hospital room with your grandfather on a feeding tube does not do him justice. Most people looking at the picture probably never even met the man, and I know this is not the way that people like your parents or grandparents want to be remembered.
The Tumblr selfiesatfunerals.tumblr.com also got a lot of attention and accumulated 17,179 followers after it's inaugural post one month ago. The creator, Jason Feifer, complies photos that were posted mostly on Instagram and Twitter that were taken from funerals. Captions of these selfies usually consist of "#boyfriend #gorgeous #wake #hipster #tagsforlikes #photooftheday" or "Love my hair today, hate why I'm dressed up #funeral". Before Instagramming, posting or liking I urge you all to take in the moment at hand. Funerals are one of tricky times that really puts the human life in perspective. Look inward, pay your respects to your loved one, and really think before posting. Is this how you want to honor your loved one? With a selfie?
I hope you all think twice before your next post and like. As Miley Cyrus said in her 2009 YouTube video: Good-bye Twitter, "I stopped living for moments, and started living for likes and people." When going through a hard time, make sure you keep this quote in mind. Live in the moment and grieve as you need to, but try not to make such a devastating situation another situation that's infected by the social media "like"-craze. Keep it sacred.
First of all, if you like or post these pictures, you are not alone. I posted a survey on my Facebook page and asked my friends to take it. Out of 100 people, ranging from 15-21 (except for my 60-year-old aunt who answered -- shout out to Aunt Pam), 20 percent of the people said that they have posted a picture of themselves and a loved one who was sick/dying in honor of them on Facebook or Instagram. Sixty-one percent of the people said that they have liked a picture on Facebook or Instagram that was taken from a funeral or from a hospital room that was in honor or memory of a sick/dead/dying loved one. Lastly, 71 percent of my Facebook friends surveyed agreed that most pictures taken at a funeral or in a hospital to honor a sick/dead/dying loved one gets at least 100 likes on Facebook or Instagram. Even statistically speaking, these pictures get likes.
I know posting photos like this seems like a great way to honor a loved one, gain support from friends and followers and to get a lot of likes on a picture -- and believe me I understand the importance of likes in today's society. #Confession -- I've Instagrammed my bestie's French toast because it just looked way better than my lame egg white omelet. And you know that if my mom's froyo looks better than mine, hers is going on Insta.
There is such a generation gap between us, our parents and especially our grandparents. Going through my teenage years on social media (I mean I have it all: FB, Insta, Twitter, Tumblr, Vine), I've realized that my me and my friends have just become more open and public.
Instagramming, muploading and tweeting about what we're doing or funny and awkward things that happen to us is just a part of our culture. But God forbid I Insta a selfie with my dad at a Jets game without telling him about it, he freaks out. He usually says something like this: "Jessica, I don't understand why the whole world needs to know that we're here." Or if I post vacation pictures of us on Facebook, he just doesn't get it and will saying something like "What ever happened to privacy, Jessica?" #parentsjustdontunderstand. But, when he saw a picture on Instagram feed of one of my family friends and their dying grandfather, my Dad really opened my eyes. He started to explain to me that privacy is everything to people in older generations. This is not something they grew up with, and it isn't OK to post pictures of older people on Instagram or Facebook without their permission.
That really got me thinking, if my own 50-year-old dad had a problem with a harmless selfie of us taken at a Jets game, how would an older or sick person feel if you Instagrammed a picture of them while they are at their lowest most vulnerable place? I know you may be reaching to your followers and friends for support as you are also going through a tough time, but do you really think that a sick person wants to broadcast their illness, weakness and vulnerability to your nearest and dearest Facebook friends and followers? I'm sure it was hard enough to have even their closest friends and family see them like this. A selfie from a hospital room with your grandfather on a feeding tube does not do him justice. Most people looking at the picture probably never even met the man, and I know this is not the way that people like your parents or grandparents want to be remembered.
The Tumblr selfiesatfunerals.tumblr.com also got a lot of attention and accumulated 17,179 followers after it's inaugural post one month ago. The creator, Jason Feifer, complies photos that were posted mostly on Instagram and Twitter that were taken from funerals. Captions of these selfies usually consist of "#boyfriend #gorgeous #wake #hipster #tagsforlikes #photooftheday" or "Love my hair today, hate why I'm dressed up #funeral". Before Instagramming, posting or liking I urge you all to take in the moment at hand. Funerals are one of tricky times that really puts the human life in perspective. Look inward, pay your respects to your loved one, and really think before posting. Is this how you want to honor your loved one? With a selfie?
I hope you all think twice before your next post and like. As Miley Cyrus said in her 2009 YouTube video: Good-bye Twitter, "I stopped living for moments, and started living for likes and people." When going through a hard time, make sure you keep this quote in mind. Live in the moment and grieve as you need to, but try not to make such a devastating situation another situation that's infected by the social media "like"-craze. Keep it sacred.
Tool Maker: Ken Banks On Technology As The Great Democratizer
This post was originally published on The Toolbox, a new platform, founded by Peter Gabriel, that is dedicated to bringing together people and digital tools aiding social change.
At The Toolbox, we believe that the adage that education is the great equalizer can be suitably accompanied by the theory that technology is the great democratizer, at least when it's put in the right hands. Social entrepreneur and technologist, Ken Banks, is living proof of this. He's not simply a triple threat in the social change realm. He's a multiple threat with a seasoned background of 25 years in IT, 20 years of development experience in Africa, 10 years in the mobile industry, and a degree in social anthropology. As the founder of kiwanja.net, which helps change makers better harness information and technology, and the creator of FrontlineSMS, a text messaging platform used by nonprofits in over 140 counties, Ken has deep insight into what works and what doesn't in creating tools to aid social change. He recently launched the new project website for Means of Exchange, a global initiative focusing on how everyday technologies can be used to democratize opportunities for economic self-sufficiency and rebuild local communities.
Topping this off, Ken recently published a book on social innovation titled, The Rise of the Reluctant Innovator.
We caught up with Ken to get his expert opinion about the tools shaping social change.
TB: Are there tools you wished existed to help your initiatives?
KB: With Means of Exchange, I'm interested in exploring how we might use innovative technologies to help reconnect communities with local businesses, local resources, and each other. It's all about building resilience, and buffering them from future economic shocks. There are many apps out there (online, and mobile-based) which help people do favors for each other, for swapping, bartering and so on. But many are hard to use and not well thought-out, or they fail at making those things meaningful to younger people. I'd love a tool which managed to capture all the activities that people do in this area, and that helps score them in some way.
TB: What is the greatest potential in regards to technology in this field?
KB: I believe the biggest role technology is playing today is in its ability to empower local problem owners to develop solutions. Historically, particularly in the development sector, outsiders have been seen as the ones with the best answers because they've had all the best resources, and the best access to the information to make use of them. The internet has changed much of this, as has the mobile phone. A student in an African university can now study computer science, learn to code, and write an app which solves a social problem in his or her village. The mobile phone is the platform, and these are finding their way into even the most remote rural areas. So, we live in an incredibly exciting time, one which is turning development on its head (and that's a good thing). I touch on this again in the next question.
TB: What are the greatest dangers or pitfalls that you have seen or can imagine concerning technology and social good?
KB: Many of the bigger dangers lie in the rush to try and close the 'digital divide'. The rate of innovation in the technology sector, particularly in communications and home entertainment, is as high as it's ever been. Armed with iPads, tablets and other high-tech devices and services, development workers rush off into the developing world in search of problems that their technology might fix. This is clearly not the right way of going about it.
Many of the bigger challenges, at least in a development perspective, are behavioral and there's a need for many people working in the Information and Communications for Development (ICT4D) sector to recognize that there's a shift taking place. As more and more students across continents, such as Africa, graduate with computer science degrees, and as increasing numbers of innovation hubs spring up across the continent, and as mobile phones continue to penetrate deep into rural areas, increasing numbers of home-grown and local technology solutions to problems are emerging. It's hard to argue against a shift which sees people solving their own problems, rather than outsiders coming in with often little real understanding of them.
At the same time, technology continues to be hyped as a solution to almost every problem everywhere across the developing world. I think we need to be a little cautious that we don't look at problems with technology-tinted glasses. The solution to a particular problem might be a crayon, or a blackboard, and we're less likely to develop appropriate solutions if we start off with preconceived ideas that the answer is, for example, a mobile phone. And, finally, we need to recognize that low-technology is not a poor or cheap substitute for "real solutions." At the end of the day, technology has to be sensitive and appropriate to the geographical, economic, technical, and cultural conditions of its users. If it's not it will often fail.
Check out Ken's tool FrontlineSMS here.
At The Toolbox, we believe that the adage that education is the great equalizer can be suitably accompanied by the theory that technology is the great democratizer, at least when it's put in the right hands. Social entrepreneur and technologist, Ken Banks, is living proof of this. He's not simply a triple threat in the social change realm. He's a multiple threat with a seasoned background of 25 years in IT, 20 years of development experience in Africa, 10 years in the mobile industry, and a degree in social anthropology. As the founder of kiwanja.net, which helps change makers better harness information and technology, and the creator of FrontlineSMS, a text messaging platform used by nonprofits in over 140 counties, Ken has deep insight into what works and what doesn't in creating tools to aid social change. He recently launched the new project website for Means of Exchange, a global initiative focusing on how everyday technologies can be used to democratize opportunities for economic self-sufficiency and rebuild local communities.
Topping this off, Ken recently published a book on social innovation titled, The Rise of the Reluctant Innovator.
We caught up with Ken to get his expert opinion about the tools shaping social change.
TB: Are there tools you wished existed to help your initiatives?
KB: With Means of Exchange, I'm interested in exploring how we might use innovative technologies to help reconnect communities with local businesses, local resources, and each other. It's all about building resilience, and buffering them from future economic shocks. There are many apps out there (online, and mobile-based) which help people do favors for each other, for swapping, bartering and so on. But many are hard to use and not well thought-out, or they fail at making those things meaningful to younger people. I'd love a tool which managed to capture all the activities that people do in this area, and that helps score them in some way.
TB: What is the greatest potential in regards to technology in this field?
KB: I believe the biggest role technology is playing today is in its ability to empower local problem owners to develop solutions. Historically, particularly in the development sector, outsiders have been seen as the ones with the best answers because they've had all the best resources, and the best access to the information to make use of them. The internet has changed much of this, as has the mobile phone. A student in an African university can now study computer science, learn to code, and write an app which solves a social problem in his or her village. The mobile phone is the platform, and these are finding their way into even the most remote rural areas. So, we live in an incredibly exciting time, one which is turning development on its head (and that's a good thing). I touch on this again in the next question.
TB: What are the greatest dangers or pitfalls that you have seen or can imagine concerning technology and social good?
KB: Many of the bigger dangers lie in the rush to try and close the 'digital divide'. The rate of innovation in the technology sector, particularly in communications and home entertainment, is as high as it's ever been. Armed with iPads, tablets and other high-tech devices and services, development workers rush off into the developing world in search of problems that their technology might fix. This is clearly not the right way of going about it.
Many of the bigger challenges, at least in a development perspective, are behavioral and there's a need for many people working in the Information and Communications for Development (ICT4D) sector to recognize that there's a shift taking place. As more and more students across continents, such as Africa, graduate with computer science degrees, and as increasing numbers of innovation hubs spring up across the continent, and as mobile phones continue to penetrate deep into rural areas, increasing numbers of home-grown and local technology solutions to problems are emerging. It's hard to argue against a shift which sees people solving their own problems, rather than outsiders coming in with often little real understanding of them.
At the same time, technology continues to be hyped as a solution to almost every problem everywhere across the developing world. I think we need to be a little cautious that we don't look at problems with technology-tinted glasses. The solution to a particular problem might be a crayon, or a blackboard, and we're less likely to develop appropriate solutions if we start off with preconceived ideas that the answer is, for example, a mobile phone. And, finally, we need to recognize that low-technology is not a poor or cheap substitute for "real solutions." At the end of the day, technology has to be sensitive and appropriate to the geographical, economic, technical, and cultural conditions of its users. If it's not it will often fail.
Check out Ken's tool FrontlineSMS here.
Are Common Core Standards Actually Data Tags?
Don't think of them as standards. Think of them as tags.
Think of them as the pedagogical equivalent of people's names on Facebook, the tags you attach to each and every photo that you upload.
We know from our friends at Knewton what the Grand Design is -- a system in which student progress is mapped down to the atomic level. Atomic level (a term that Knewton lervs deeply) means test by test, assignment by assignment, sentence by sentence, item by item. We want to enter every single thing a student does into the Big Data Bank.
But that will only work if we're all using the same set of tags.
We've been saying that CCSS are limited because the standards were written around what can be tested. That's not exactly correct. The standards have been written around what can be tracked.
The standards aren't just about defining what should be taught. They're about cataloging what students have done.
Remember when Facebook introduced emoticons? This was not a public service. Facebook wanted to up its data gathering capabilities by tracking the emotional states of users. If users just defined their own emotions, the data would be too noisy, too hard to crunch. But if the user had to pick from the Facebook standard set of user emotions -- then Facebook would have manageable data.
Ditto for CCSS. If we all just taught to our own local standards, the data noise would be too great. The Data Overlords need us all to be standardized, to be using the same set of tags. That is also why no deviation can be allowed. Okay, we'll let you have 15 percent over and above the standards. The system can probably tolerate that much noise. But under no circumstances can you change the standards -- because that would be changing the national student data tagging system, and THAT we can't tolerate.
This is why the "aligning" process inevitably involves all that marking of standards onto everything we do. It's not instructional. It's not even about accountability.
It's about having us sit and tag every instructional thing we do so that student results can be entered and tracked in the Big Data Bank.
If you are in a state that "dropped" the Core, here's one simple test -- look at your "new" standards and ask just how hard it would be to convert your standards/tags to the CCSS standards/tags. If it's as simple as switching some numbers and letters, guess what -- you haven't really changed a thing, and your data is still ready to be tagged and bagged.
And that is why CCSS can never, ever be decoupled from anything. Why would Facebook keep a face-tagging system and then forbid users to upload photos?
The test does not exist to prove that we're following the standards. The standards exist to let us tag the results from the test. And ultimately, not just the test, but everything that's done in a classroom. Standards-ready material is material that has already been bagged and tagged for data overlord use.
Oddly enough, this understanding of the CCSS system also reveals more reasons why the system sucks.
Facebook's photo-tagging system is active and robust. Anybody can add tags, and so the system grows because it is useful. On the other hand, their emoticon system, which requires users to feel only the standardized Facebook emotions, is rigid and dying on the vine because it's not useful, and it can't adapt.
The CCSS are lousy standards precisely because they are too specific in some areas, too vague in others and completely missing other aspects of teaching entirely. We all know how the aligning works -- you take what you already do and find a standard that it more or less fits with and tag it.
Because the pedagogical fantasy delineated by the CCSS does not match the teacher reality in a classroom, the tags are applied in inexact and not-really-true ways. In effect, we've been given color tags that only cover one side of the color wheel, but we've been told to tag everything, so we end up tagging purple green. When a tagging system doesn't represent the full range of reality, and it isn't flexible enough to adapt, you end up with crappy tagging. Look! It's a purple apple! And that's the CCSS.
It's true that in a massive tagging system like this, a big test could be rendered unnecessary -- just use all the data that's pouring in from everywhere else. Two reasons that won't happen:
1) While our data overlord's eyes were on the data prize, their need for tagged and connected data opened the door for profiteering, and once that stream is flowing, no Pearsonesque group will stand for interfering with it.
2) High stakes tests are necessary to force cooperation. To get people to fork over this much data, they must be motivated. We've seen that evolution in PA, as the folks in charge have realized that nothing less than the highest stakes will get students to stop writing the pledge to the flag on their tests and teachers to stop laughing when they do.
Decoupling? Not going to happen. You can't have a data system without tagging, and you can't have a tagging system with nothing to tag. Education and teaching are just collateral damage in all this, and not really the main thing at all.
Think of them as the pedagogical equivalent of people's names on Facebook, the tags you attach to each and every photo that you upload.
We know from our friends at Knewton what the Grand Design is -- a system in which student progress is mapped down to the atomic level. Atomic level (a term that Knewton lervs deeply) means test by test, assignment by assignment, sentence by sentence, item by item. We want to enter every single thing a student does into the Big Data Bank.
But that will only work if we're all using the same set of tags.
We've been saying that CCSS are limited because the standards were written around what can be tested. That's not exactly correct. The standards have been written around what can be tracked.
The standards aren't just about defining what should be taught. They're about cataloging what students have done.
Remember when Facebook introduced emoticons? This was not a public service. Facebook wanted to up its data gathering capabilities by tracking the emotional states of users. If users just defined their own emotions, the data would be too noisy, too hard to crunch. But if the user had to pick from the Facebook standard set of user emotions -- then Facebook would have manageable data.
Ditto for CCSS. If we all just taught to our own local standards, the data noise would be too great. The Data Overlords need us all to be standardized, to be using the same set of tags. That is also why no deviation can be allowed. Okay, we'll let you have 15 percent over and above the standards. The system can probably tolerate that much noise. But under no circumstances can you change the standards -- because that would be changing the national student data tagging system, and THAT we can't tolerate.
This is why the "aligning" process inevitably involves all that marking of standards onto everything we do. It's not instructional. It's not even about accountability.
It's about having us sit and tag every instructional thing we do so that student results can be entered and tracked in the Big Data Bank.
If you are in a state that "dropped" the Core, here's one simple test -- look at your "new" standards and ask just how hard it would be to convert your standards/tags to the CCSS standards/tags. If it's as simple as switching some numbers and letters, guess what -- you haven't really changed a thing, and your data is still ready to be tagged and bagged.
And that is why CCSS can never, ever be decoupled from anything. Why would Facebook keep a face-tagging system and then forbid users to upload photos?
The test does not exist to prove that we're following the standards. The standards exist to let us tag the results from the test. And ultimately, not just the test, but everything that's done in a classroom. Standards-ready material is material that has already been bagged and tagged for data overlord use.
Oddly enough, this understanding of the CCSS system also reveals more reasons why the system sucks.
Facebook's photo-tagging system is active and robust. Anybody can add tags, and so the system grows because it is useful. On the other hand, their emoticon system, which requires users to feel only the standardized Facebook emotions, is rigid and dying on the vine because it's not useful, and it can't adapt.
The CCSS are lousy standards precisely because they are too specific in some areas, too vague in others and completely missing other aspects of teaching entirely. We all know how the aligning works -- you take what you already do and find a standard that it more or less fits with and tag it.
Because the pedagogical fantasy delineated by the CCSS does not match the teacher reality in a classroom, the tags are applied in inexact and not-really-true ways. In effect, we've been given color tags that only cover one side of the color wheel, but we've been told to tag everything, so we end up tagging purple green. When a tagging system doesn't represent the full range of reality, and it isn't flexible enough to adapt, you end up with crappy tagging. Look! It's a purple apple! And that's the CCSS.
It's true that in a massive tagging system like this, a big test could be rendered unnecessary -- just use all the data that's pouring in from everywhere else. Two reasons that won't happen:
1) While our data overlord's eyes were on the data prize, their need for tagged and connected data opened the door for profiteering, and once that stream is flowing, no Pearsonesque group will stand for interfering with it.
2) High stakes tests are necessary to force cooperation. To get people to fork over this much data, they must be motivated. We've seen that evolution in PA, as the folks in charge have realized that nothing less than the highest stakes will get students to stop writing the pledge to the flag on their tests and teachers to stop laughing when they do.
Decoupling? Not going to happen. You can't have a data system without tagging, and you can't have a tagging system with nothing to tag. Education and teaching are just collateral damage in all this, and not really the main thing at all.
Dropbox's Hiring Practices Explain Its Disappointing​ Lack of Female Employees
"If someone came in right now and announced that the zombie apocalypse had just started outside, what would you do in the next hour? What is something that you're geeky about? What is a superpower you would give to your best friend?" These are the types of questions that you could be asked if you apply for a job at Dropbox. Business Insider culled these and other quirky interview questions from a career website, Glassdoor.
Dropbox, which provides online storage, is clearly looking for creative people who can think outside the box and wants to make interviews more fun. It is not alone; many Silicon Valley companies ask such questions. The problem is that such questions are fun only for people who understand the jokes -- and who can think like the young men doing the interviews.
They don't lead to better hiring outcomes as Google learned. Its senior vice president for people operations, Laszlo Bock, said last June in an interview with New York Times, "...we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don't predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart."
Such hiring practices also disadvantage women. They hurt the employer by limiting the talent pool. They fortify the male dominated frat-boy culture that Silicon Valley is increasingly being criticized for.
Telle Whitney, CEO of Anita Borg Institute, which is working on getting more women to study computer science and have more women fully engaged in creating technology, says its research shows questions such as these cause women to get screened out more often than men. As an example, the superhero concept is going to resonate much more with men, as demonstrated by the demographics of the superhero movie attendance. Whitney cites research which shows that a strong and pervasive stereotype of computer professionals as devoid of a social life alienates women. Subtle cues in the physical environment of companies such as Star Trek posters and video games lead to women being less interested in being a part of an organization when compared to a neutral office environment. This causes women to self-select out of technology jobs.
Indeed, the trend is getting worse. In 1985, 37 percent of computer science undergraduate degree recipients were women. By 2011 this proportion had dropped to 18 percent. Most technology firms refuse to release gender and diversity numbers. Data collected on Github explains why. Dropbox, for example, had only 9 women in its 143 person engineering team as of October 2013. That's 6.3 percent in an industry in which 18 percent of the hiring pool is women.
Dropbox recently completed $250 million of funding at a valuation close to $10 billion according to the Wall Street Journal. It is rumored to be heading towards an IPO. The company has been expanding its hiring yet the number of women in management is declining. Kim Malone Scott, who headed operations and sales, left in April 2013; Anna Christina Douglas, who headed product marketing, left in August; and VP of Operations Ruchi Sanghvi left the company last October.
Two former female employees and one current employee of Dropbox shared their concerns with me. They asked not to be named because they had signed non-disparagement agreements and feared negative consequences for their careers if they spoke critically of Dropbox. One wrote in an email, "When I interviewed for Dropbox, I was interviewed in a room called 'The Break-up Room,' by a male. It was right next to a room called the 'Bromance Chamber.' It felt weird I would be interviewed in such a strangely named conference room." She said that "every time the company holds an all hands 'goals' meeting, the only people who talk are men. There are no females in leadership. The highest ranking is a team lead on the User Ops team."
She spoke up because she believes that "having more females in leadership positions results in more females; when they all leave those positions, it signals poorly to the rest of us." Freada Kapor Klein, founder of the Level Playing Field Institute, was invited in by Dropbox to talk about hidden bias research and how it may apply to startups. Her husband, Mitch Kapor, also came to the talk as someone who has been a successful entrepreneur and feels that the culture set at the outset of a company is critical. (Coincidentally they became shareholders in Dropbox when the company bought a startup in which they had invested.) Klein says that Dropbox executives, like other startup founders, honestly believe they are a meritocracy and are unaware as to how hidden bias operates. Employee referrals play a large role in their hiring as in most start-ups which further introduces bias and makes the culture exclusionary.
Her advice to Dropbox? "Founders are looking for 'objective' measures such as school ranking, GPAs, SAT scores, but fail to recognize that these are biased. Dropbox and other start-ups should pioneer new ways to identify people who can succeed on the core set of job responsibilities. Perhaps a question on how Dropbox might be used to solve income inequality or the unaffordability of housing in San Francisco would reveal as much about someone's creativity -- and more about their character -- than questions about superheroes."
___________
Vivek Wadhwa is a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, director of research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke’s engineering school and distinguished scholar at Singularity and Emory universities. His past appointments include Harvard Law School and University of California Berkeley.
Dropbox, which provides online storage, is clearly looking for creative people who can think outside the box and wants to make interviews more fun. It is not alone; many Silicon Valley companies ask such questions. The problem is that such questions are fun only for people who understand the jokes -- and who can think like the young men doing the interviews.
They don't lead to better hiring outcomes as Google learned. Its senior vice president for people operations, Laszlo Bock, said last June in an interview with New York Times, "...we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don't predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart."
Such hiring practices also disadvantage women. They hurt the employer by limiting the talent pool. They fortify the male dominated frat-boy culture that Silicon Valley is increasingly being criticized for.
Telle Whitney, CEO of Anita Borg Institute, which is working on getting more women to study computer science and have more women fully engaged in creating technology, says its research shows questions such as these cause women to get screened out more often than men. As an example, the superhero concept is going to resonate much more with men, as demonstrated by the demographics of the superhero movie attendance. Whitney cites research which shows that a strong and pervasive stereotype of computer professionals as devoid of a social life alienates women. Subtle cues in the physical environment of companies such as Star Trek posters and video games lead to women being less interested in being a part of an organization when compared to a neutral office environment. This causes women to self-select out of technology jobs.
Indeed, the trend is getting worse. In 1985, 37 percent of computer science undergraduate degree recipients were women. By 2011 this proportion had dropped to 18 percent. Most technology firms refuse to release gender and diversity numbers. Data collected on Github explains why. Dropbox, for example, had only 9 women in its 143 person engineering team as of October 2013. That's 6.3 percent in an industry in which 18 percent of the hiring pool is women.
Dropbox recently completed $250 million of funding at a valuation close to $10 billion according to the Wall Street Journal. It is rumored to be heading towards an IPO. The company has been expanding its hiring yet the number of women in management is declining. Kim Malone Scott, who headed operations and sales, left in April 2013; Anna Christina Douglas, who headed product marketing, left in August; and VP of Operations Ruchi Sanghvi left the company last October.
Two former female employees and one current employee of Dropbox shared their concerns with me. They asked not to be named because they had signed non-disparagement agreements and feared negative consequences for their careers if they spoke critically of Dropbox. One wrote in an email, "When I interviewed for Dropbox, I was interviewed in a room called 'The Break-up Room,' by a male. It was right next to a room called the 'Bromance Chamber.' It felt weird I would be interviewed in such a strangely named conference room." She said that "every time the company holds an all hands 'goals' meeting, the only people who talk are men. There are no females in leadership. The highest ranking is a team lead on the User Ops team."
She spoke up because she believes that "having more females in leadership positions results in more females; when they all leave those positions, it signals poorly to the rest of us." Freada Kapor Klein, founder of the Level Playing Field Institute, was invited in by Dropbox to talk about hidden bias research and how it may apply to startups. Her husband, Mitch Kapor, also came to the talk as someone who has been a successful entrepreneur and feels that the culture set at the outset of a company is critical. (Coincidentally they became shareholders in Dropbox when the company bought a startup in which they had invested.) Klein says that Dropbox executives, like other startup founders, honestly believe they are a meritocracy and are unaware as to how hidden bias operates. Employee referrals play a large role in their hiring as in most start-ups which further introduces bias and makes the culture exclusionary.
Her advice to Dropbox? "Founders are looking for 'objective' measures such as school ranking, GPAs, SAT scores, but fail to recognize that these are biased. Dropbox and other start-ups should pioneer new ways to identify people who can succeed on the core set of job responsibilities. Perhaps a question on how Dropbox might be used to solve income inequality or the unaffordability of housing in San Francisco would reveal as much about someone's creativity -- and more about their character -- than questions about superheroes."
___________
Vivek Wadhwa is a fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, director of research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke’s engineering school and distinguished scholar at Singularity and Emory universities. His past appointments include Harvard Law School and University of California Berkeley.
Ready to Open Up the Throttle of High-Speed Networking?
Okay class, gather 'round. Anyone out there know what the draft 802.11ac protocol is?
Hint: It's not a secret CIA plot to take over the Earth, and it's not the focus of a new James Bond film.
What it is, however, is a fairly new high-speed technology that is quickly taking over the networking community, and can be found in many of the new routers, and other network devices, that have hit store shelves in the past few months.
We managed to get out hands on several of these devices, and have been playing with them for the past month.
From D-Link, we have the new Wireless AC1750 Dual-Band Gigabit Cloud Router ($169.99). We also have three items from Linksys, including the AC1200 SMART Wi-Fi Wireless Router ($169.99), the Wireless AC Wi-Fi 5 GHz Universal Connector Bridge ($149) and the Mini Wi-Fi Wireless Dual-Band USB Adapter ($59.99).
Now, for those of you that are still pondering the 802.11 ac protocol, here's a short (and edited) explanation from Wikipedia:
"IEEE 802.11ac is a wireless computer networking standard (which is marketed under the brand name Wi-Fi) providing high-throughput wireless local area networks (WLANs) on the 5 GHz band] The standard was developed from 2011 through 2013, with final 802.11 Working Group approval and publication scheduled for early 2014. This specification has expected multi-station WLAN throughput of at least 1 gigabit per second and a single link throughput of at least 500 megabits per second (500 Mbit/s)."
Simply put, 802.11ac is faster and more reliable than 802.11n, or any of the previous standards.
There is one big drawback though: 802.11ac has a shorter range than its predecessors, because it only operates in the 5 GHz range, but this is negligible and probably won't affect the typical home network or SOHO network. The advantage of operating at 5 GHz is that it virtually eliminates interference from other wireless devices and microwave ovens. Older Wi-Fi routers operated in the 2.4 GHz range, which is shared by many of these devices, although we've seen a lot of dual-band routers/modems that switch from 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz.
Of course, for true 802.11ac connectivity, the computer, or other device you're using, needs to be able to connect to the higher speed devices. For that, you'll need to install a new 802.11ac Wi-Fi card or use an USB adapter or other device to communicate with these routers, etc.
The D-Link cloud router delivers the best of both worlds -- 802.11 ac connectivity and dual-band capabilities, depending on the wireless device you're using on your network. Also, you can access files remotely on any Apple or Android device using D-Link's "mydlink" SharePort app. Simply plug an USB drive into the USB port on the router, and everything that's stored on that drive is accessible anywhere, at any time. And, being a 802.11ac router, it can stream video and audio files, and deliver network access at speeds up to 1,300 megabits per second.
This app can also be used to set up your router remotely.
Other features include:
The Linksys AC1200 is also a dual-band router that switches between 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz, It basically has all of the features of the D-Link router, including access to files using mobile apps and home cloud technology. So, what makes it different?
Further extend the range of your network using the Linksys Wireless-AC Wi-Fi 5 GHz Universal Connector Bridge, which boasts four Ether net ports and is backwards compatible with 802.11a and n routers. This will allow you to connect any device to your network that doesn't have Wi-Fi compatibility built in, such as DVD players, so-called smart TVs, music servers ad others.
Top this all off with the Mini Wi-Fi Wireless AC583 Dual-Band USB Adapter, and your network is complete. While it's designed to upgrade your computer to 802.11ac compatibility, it is backwards compatible to work with older routers, and is designed to work with routers manufactured by other companies.
More information on any of these Wi-Fi devices can be found at www.dlink.com or www.store.linksys.com.
Attention Facebook users: Check out Michael Berman's Jocgeek fan page at www.facebook.com/jocgeek, or follow him on Twitter @jocgeek. You can also contact him via email at jocgeek@earthlink.net or through his website at www.jocgeek.com.
Hint: It's not a secret CIA plot to take over the Earth, and it's not the focus of a new James Bond film.
What it is, however, is a fairly new high-speed technology that is quickly taking over the networking community, and can be found in many of the new routers, and other network devices, that have hit store shelves in the past few months.
We managed to get out hands on several of these devices, and have been playing with them for the past month.
From D-Link, we have the new Wireless AC1750 Dual-Band Gigabit Cloud Router ($169.99). We also have three items from Linksys, including the AC1200 SMART Wi-Fi Wireless Router ($169.99), the Wireless AC Wi-Fi 5 GHz Universal Connector Bridge ($149) and the Mini Wi-Fi Wireless Dual-Band USB Adapter ($59.99).
Now, for those of you that are still pondering the 802.11 ac protocol, here's a short (and edited) explanation from Wikipedia:
"IEEE 802.11ac is a wireless computer networking standard (which is marketed under the brand name Wi-Fi) providing high-throughput wireless local area networks (WLANs) on the 5 GHz band] The standard was developed from 2011 through 2013, with final 802.11 Working Group approval and publication scheduled for early 2014. This specification has expected multi-station WLAN throughput of at least 1 gigabit per second and a single link throughput of at least 500 megabits per second (500 Mbit/s)."
Simply put, 802.11ac is faster and more reliable than 802.11n, or any of the previous standards.
There is one big drawback though: 802.11ac has a shorter range than its predecessors, because it only operates in the 5 GHz range, but this is negligible and probably won't affect the typical home network or SOHO network. The advantage of operating at 5 GHz is that it virtually eliminates interference from other wireless devices and microwave ovens. Older Wi-Fi routers operated in the 2.4 GHz range, which is shared by many of these devices, although we've seen a lot of dual-band routers/modems that switch from 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz.
Of course, for true 802.11ac connectivity, the computer, or other device you're using, needs to be able to connect to the higher speed devices. For that, you'll need to install a new 802.11ac Wi-Fi card or use an USB adapter or other device to communicate with these routers, etc.
The D-Link cloud router delivers the best of both worlds -- 802.11 ac connectivity and dual-band capabilities, depending on the wireless device you're using on your network. Also, you can access files remotely on any Apple or Android device using D-Link's "mydlink" SharePort app. Simply plug an USB drive into the USB port on the router, and everything that's stored on that drive is accessible anywhere, at any time. And, being a 802.11ac router, it can stream video and audio files, and deliver network access at speeds up to 1,300 megabits per second.
This app can also be used to set up your router remotely.
Other features include:
- AC SmartBeam, which locates and focuses bandwidth to your devices by automatically switching between 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz.
- Gigabit Ethernet, which delivers data 10-times faster than traditional Fast Ethernet using Ethernet cables.
- USB 3.0.
- It works with existing and future Wi-Fi devices.
- WPS connectivity, which means you can connect any WPS-enabled devices with the push of a button.
- Easy setup without a CD, using either the D-Link mobile apps (via the cloud) or your computer.
- IPV6 security and parental controls.
The Linksys AC1200 is also a dual-band router that switches between 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz, It basically has all of the features of the D-Link router, including access to files using mobile apps and home cloud technology. So, what makes it different?
- It will connect to all NFC-enabled devices -- such as a Samsung Galaxy S4 -- using a SimpleTap card. Just tap the card with the NFC device, and you're connected.
- Linksys has simplified the setup process to a few steps without an installation CD using SMART Wi-Fi software.
- You get increased range with the company's SpeedBoost antenna technology.
Further extend the range of your network using the Linksys Wireless-AC Wi-Fi 5 GHz Universal Connector Bridge, which boasts four Ether net ports and is backwards compatible with 802.11a and n routers. This will allow you to connect any device to your network that doesn't have Wi-Fi compatibility built in, such as DVD players, so-called smart TVs, music servers ad others.
Top this all off with the Mini Wi-Fi Wireless AC583 Dual-Band USB Adapter, and your network is complete. While it's designed to upgrade your computer to 802.11ac compatibility, it is backwards compatible to work with older routers, and is designed to work with routers manufactured by other companies.
More information on any of these Wi-Fi devices can be found at www.dlink.com or www.store.linksys.com.
Attention Facebook users: Check out Michael Berman's Jocgeek fan page at www.facebook.com/jocgeek, or follow him on Twitter @jocgeek. You can also contact him via email at jocgeek@earthlink.net or through his website at www.jocgeek.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)