How Students From Abroad Learn to Talk the Talk
"Now, North Carolina is rolling out a program called Honing Executive English Language Skills, or Heels (a catchy acronym to Tar Heels fans). It requires all of its foreign M.B.A. students -- more than a quarter of the class -- to take an oral and written test when they arrive on campus. The students are rated on a nine-point scale based on their accent, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and other factors. To boost their scores, students can pay a fee to take special classes taught by linguists that focus on speaking English in a business context...
"In the HEELS classes at North Carolina, students are grouped by their native regions, such as Western Europe, East Asia, South Asia, Africa or Latin America, because they tend to share similar problems with accent and pronunciation. The program also addresses nonverbal communication and body language, which may vary from culture to culture. The classes attempt to change behavior that might be misinterpreted by U.S. managers, co-workers or clients. "For example, a U.S. recruiter would expect direct eye contact and a firm handshake," says Mindy Storrie, interim director of Kenan-Flagler's career management center, "but that isn't a universal norm in other countries' business dealings."...
"In addition to the English classes, North Carolina offers courses for international M.B.A. students on American culture -- from sports and entertainment to the origin of slang expressions -- and on U.S. business communication, including practice exercises for impromptu speeches, team presentations, boardroom pitches and employee performance reviews...
"While North Carolina's courses are among the most comprehensive, other schools are also expanding programs to help foreign students prepare for careers in the U.S. The University of Rochester's Simon Graduate School of Business, where nearly half of the M.B.A. class is international, offers an English-language and U.S.-culture program that includes language instruction and trips to museums, theaters and sports events."
Here's my take. These foreign business students are, in a sense, trying to create models of what an American business co-worker is inside their heads. Once they do that, they can imitate that model and thus build rapport. The problem, from my perspective is that they are trying to model "half" a person. That is to say, they are trying to build a model of people by only looking at one side.
This idea was triggered by the last quoted paragraph: talking about taking them to museums, theaters, and sports events. This struck me is not a very effective way to achieve the desired goal. Better would be to take them to bars and allow them to see something of the "other side" of Americans.
One could argue that bars are themselves a somewhat artificial venue, but the point is, it is difficult to inject foreign business students into America in a real way. One key element of a bar is---it is publicly accessible. I would send in two-person teams consisting of one foreign business student at one American "expert" in bars. The job of the American would be: first of all, to keep the person safe; secondly, try to prevent too much emotional damage; and third, provide an opportunity for real exposure to Americans completely outside a business context.
It has to be one foreign student at a time or else they will circle the wagons.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Mossberg Says Amazon ebook Delivers Books---Short on Software
This is referencing a Mossberg article in the Wall Street Journal of the past couple of weeks. Probably around November 19 when two other articles on the subject appeared in WSJ, but I can't find the specific Mossberg reference.
Here is the essence of the matter. Mossberg checked out the new Amazon e-book called Kindle, or something, and found its access to books and periodicals was pretty decent. In addition, he found that reading it was like reading a piece of paper. (It uses the same technology as Sony e-book which apparently is for rent from the company that created it.)
On the other hand, Mossberg hand the product because the software was inadequate. My point is, what does this mean? Sony has already done a fairly good job on the software, I would set the solution of that problem is really quite trivial.
In other words, the demise of the book is in fact at hand.
Yes, there have been false alarms, but the technology is finally ready. Books may persist for a while in the form of novels were perhaps treatises on philosophy, that sort of thing. But in terms of sources of information, the book is clearly on its way out.
The implications are interesting. Of course, there will be "books" of information on various subjects that will be downloaded to e-books. unlike current paper books however, these books will be linked via the Internet to other sources of relevant information. So the entire concept of a book will to a significant extent, become much more fuzzy. A new group of words will develop to describe these new types of "books." "Books", will probably be much more of a collaboration in the near future than they are now. Getting credit for one's ideas and words will still be important, and authorship labels will still accompany the various pieces of text that will conglomerate to become a "book." But I don't think any one person will be controlling the boundaries of "books" anymore. Rather, I imagine that there would be multiple editors, each defining his or her version of the "book."
In addition, new editions of the books can be created virtually at any time and the frequency of new additions would be unrestrained by anything. Reminds me of some of the people who publish regularly on the Internet, who include a time of day with the article as well as a date. cat in the near future, there will in many cases be more than one addition of a book within a single day simply because an author has found new information and added it.
Here is the essence of the matter. Mossberg checked out the new Amazon e-book called Kindle, or something, and found its access to books and periodicals was pretty decent. In addition, he found that reading it was like reading a piece of paper. (It uses the same technology as Sony e-book which apparently is for rent from the company that created it.)
On the other hand, Mossberg hand the product because the software was inadequate. My point is, what does this mean? Sony has already done a fairly good job on the software, I would set the solution of that problem is really quite trivial.
In other words, the demise of the book is in fact at hand.
Yes, there have been false alarms, but the technology is finally ready. Books may persist for a while in the form of novels were perhaps treatises on philosophy, that sort of thing. But in terms of sources of information, the book is clearly on its way out.
The implications are interesting. Of course, there will be "books" of information on various subjects that will be downloaded to e-books. unlike current paper books however, these books will be linked via the Internet to other sources of relevant information. So the entire concept of a book will to a significant extent, become much more fuzzy. A new group of words will develop to describe these new types of "books." "Books", will probably be much more of a collaboration in the near future than they are now. Getting credit for one's ideas and words will still be important, and authorship labels will still accompany the various pieces of text that will conglomerate to become a "book." But I don't think any one person will be controlling the boundaries of "books" anymore. Rather, I imagine that there would be multiple editors, each defining his or her version of the "book."
In addition, new editions of the books can be created virtually at any time and the frequency of new additions would be unrestrained by anything. Reminds me of some of the people who publish regularly on the Internet, who include a time of day with the article as well as a date. cat in the near future, there will in many cases be more than one addition of a book within a single day simply because an author has found new information and added it.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Wikepedia Vulnerable to Malware, According to McAfee
"Organized Crime and the Internet," McAfee Virtual Criminology Report, http://www.mcafee.com/us/local_content/white_papers/threat_center/wp_virtual_criminology_report_2007.pdf
"Just like with social networking sites like My Space, the very openness of Wikepedia that allows its users to freely add or edit available content has made it an attractive target for virus authors to plant malicious code in articles. In October 2006, a piece on the German edition of Wikepedia was rewritten to contain false information about a supposedly new version of the infamous Blaster worm, along with the link to a supposed fix. In reality, the link pointed to a malware designed to infect Windows PCs.
An e-mail was also mass spammed to German computer users requiring them to download a security fix. The e-mail was crafted to supposedly appear from Wikepedia, complete with an official with an official Wikepedia logo."
"Just like with social networking sites like My Space, the very openness of Wikepedia that allows its users to freely add or edit available content has made it an attractive target for virus authors to plant malicious code in articles. In October 2006, a piece on the German edition of Wikepedia was rewritten to contain false information about a supposedly new version of the infamous Blaster worm, along with the link to a supposed fix. In reality, the link pointed to a malware designed to infect Windows PCs.
An e-mail was also mass spammed to German computer users requiring them to download a security fix. The e-mail was crafted to supposedly appear from Wikepedia, complete with an official with an official Wikepedia logo."
Web Site Lets Bloggers Make Their Own Ads for Big Company Products
"Nescafé Brews Buzz Via Blogs," WSJ, P. B3 11/23/07
[a French website]
"BlogBang [BlogBang.com, a website with 2,000 bloggers as participants] also has tried to draw bloggers into the creative process. Companies looking for new ways to pitch their products can post requests for bloggers to develop their own campaigns. BlogBang's members can then put their homemade ads on the site. The one that gets the most clicks is spread around the bloggers' Web sites, and the author of the winning ad earns a fee. Garnier, a division of cosmetics group L'Oréal, advertised its Fructis hair gel this way. Garnier couldn't be reached for comment."
http://insights20.com/2007/07/09/blogbang-a-network-for-consumer-generated-advertising/
"Blogbang: a network for consumer-generated advertising
Published July 9th, 2007 in blogging.
"My friend Julien Braun just launched in France a new ad network called BlogBang . BlogBang is a marketplace for advertisers, “creatives” and publishers (bloggers).
"An advertiser submits a creative brief, “creatives” (consumers, agencies, etc) generate their own commercial (mostly video), which show on the publisher’s blog. Example here or here. Publishers/bloggers can pick ads that might work well based on their editorial content. An optimization system (I am not sure how it works, but I think something like advertising.com) determines over time which ads work better for each blog.
"The interesting part is that creatives and publishers split the revenues (with the ad agency of course). And anyone can be a creative and try to compete with the professional agencies to create the most efficient ads. As opposed to traditional creative contests, which are judged on their creative qualities, the best ads here are those that perform better. So, consumers who understand how to create ads that would perform well with a particular audience, on a particular blog, etc, can get a share of the action and help publishers make more money with ads that perform better.
"Julien’s philosophy is that each media has its own advertising format (30 seconds for TV etc) but that social media has not found yet a format that works well. By letting users create their own ads, advertising becomes social and, while serving the advertiser’s brief, has a human voice."
[a French website]
"BlogBang [BlogBang.com, a website with 2,000 bloggers as participants] also has tried to draw bloggers into the creative process. Companies looking for new ways to pitch their products can post requests for bloggers to develop their own campaigns. BlogBang's members can then put their homemade ads on the site. The one that gets the most clicks is spread around the bloggers' Web sites, and the author of the winning ad earns a fee. Garnier, a division of cosmetics group L'Oréal, advertised its Fructis hair gel this way. Garnier couldn't be reached for comment."
http://insights20.com/2007/07/09/blogbang-a-network-for-consumer-generated-advertising/
"Blogbang: a network for consumer-generated advertising
Published July 9th, 2007 in blogging.
"My friend Julien Braun just launched in France a new ad network called BlogBang . BlogBang is a marketplace for advertisers, “creatives” and publishers (bloggers).
"An advertiser submits a creative brief, “creatives” (consumers, agencies, etc) generate their own commercial (mostly video), which show on the publisher’s blog. Example here or here. Publishers/bloggers can pick ads that might work well based on their editorial content. An optimization system (I am not sure how it works, but I think something like advertising.com) determines over time which ads work better for each blog.
"The interesting part is that creatives and publishers split the revenues (with the ad agency of course). And anyone can be a creative and try to compete with the professional agencies to create the most efficient ads. As opposed to traditional creative contests, which are judged on their creative qualities, the best ads here are those that perform better. So, consumers who understand how to create ads that would perform well with a particular audience, on a particular blog, etc, can get a share of the action and help publishers make more money with ads that perform better.
"Julien’s philosophy is that each media has its own advertising format (30 seconds for TV etc) but that social media has not found yet a format that works well. By letting users create their own ads, advertising becomes social and, while serving the advertiser’s brief, has a human voice."
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Breakthrough Idea: How to Prototype Software
Been thinking about this one for a while, and I got it.
Consider a software group writing a program for in-house use. The biggest problem is communication between the software group and the users. Creation of a dumb prototype is a well-known attempt to solve the problem. However, as I envision the creation of the prototype, I can see many problems potentially developing.
Essentially, time must be invested, people from two different departments must communicate, tensions may arise, and ultimately, the task of prototyping may be abandoned rather too easily at any time. The software group would like to abandon the task because it's not the sort of thing they like to do: they want to get on with writing the program. The users would like to abandon the task because they do not enjoy interacting with the software group.
In addition, the users have been assured by the software group that the writing of this software is really quite a simple and easy task that does not require the burdensome process of writing a prototype---imposed by the rather stupid types in management, at any rate. Naïvely, viewing the whole situation as a "simple, straightforward technical problem", the user group alludes with the software group in prematurely terminating the task of prototype-building, which in any case seems to be inordinately difficult for reasons that no one can quite understand. Happily, once the prototype task is abandoned, the software group can get down to the real business of writing the program and the user group can get down to their real job whatever it happens to be.
Unfortunately, the reason the prototype was difficult to write was because the task of the users that the software is designed to integrate with---a task which seems so simple to the software engineers that only a moron could be doing it for a job---is, in fact, complicated in a variety of subtle ways. Not to worry, all of the subtleties will turn up---later, after the software is written and tremendous work and effort has been put into doing so.
Okay, that's the problem. I know what you are thinking, "What a brilliant formulation of the problem!" However, let me modestly point out that the formulation of the problem is fairly obvious and well known.
Okay, here's the solution: we create super simple, super user-friendly prototype building software designed explicitly for non-programmers (i.e. "users") to use. Included with the product would be a "manual." (see, "Software; Ancient History in your encyclopedia for an explanation of this term.) However, instead of a nice, bound booklet with high-quality color illustrations, this manual would be online, that is to say it would be a living document.
Different versions of the manual would be written for people in different professions, the point of view of the manual being the process of getting some particular task done such as lawyering, being an accountant, or more specifically, deciding who gets to take out a loan to buy a house, helping someone write up a tax return, designing a of building out of steel, designing interior components like door handles for a car, etc.
Instead of a carefully crafted document designed to last for the ages, I envision a series of down- and-dirty versions of the manual. Scratch that, what I mean is there would be a core manual describing operations and then a variety of intros aimed at different professions. The idea being to not only tell people how to use it but to convince them that it's important to use it. There would also be a general intro for everyone, describing the perils of writing software without an effective prototype.
Consider a software group writing a program for in-house use. The biggest problem is communication between the software group and the users. Creation of a dumb prototype is a well-known attempt to solve the problem. However, as I envision the creation of the prototype, I can see many problems potentially developing.
Essentially, time must be invested, people from two different departments must communicate, tensions may arise, and ultimately, the task of prototyping may be abandoned rather too easily at any time. The software group would like to abandon the task because it's not the sort of thing they like to do: they want to get on with writing the program. The users would like to abandon the task because they do not enjoy interacting with the software group.
In addition, the users have been assured by the software group that the writing of this software is really quite a simple and easy task that does not require the burdensome process of writing a prototype---imposed by the rather stupid types in management, at any rate. Naïvely, viewing the whole situation as a "simple, straightforward technical problem", the user group alludes with the software group in prematurely terminating the task of prototype-building, which in any case seems to be inordinately difficult for reasons that no one can quite understand. Happily, once the prototype task is abandoned, the software group can get down to the real business of writing the program and the user group can get down to their real job whatever it happens to be.
Unfortunately, the reason the prototype was difficult to write was because the task of the users that the software is designed to integrate with---a task which seems so simple to the software engineers that only a moron could be doing it for a job---is, in fact, complicated in a variety of subtle ways. Not to worry, all of the subtleties will turn up---later, after the software is written and tremendous work and effort has been put into doing so.
Okay, that's the problem. I know what you are thinking, "What a brilliant formulation of the problem!" However, let me modestly point out that the formulation of the problem is fairly obvious and well known.
Okay, here's the solution: we create super simple, super user-friendly prototype building software designed explicitly for non-programmers (i.e. "users") to use. Included with the product would be a "manual." (see, "Software; Ancient History in your encyclopedia for an explanation of this term.) However, instead of a nice, bound booklet with high-quality color illustrations, this manual would be online, that is to say it would be a living document.
Different versions of the manual would be written for people in different professions, the point of view of the manual being the process of getting some particular task done such as lawyering, being an accountant, or more specifically, deciding who gets to take out a loan to buy a house, helping someone write up a tax return, designing a of building out of steel, designing interior components like door handles for a car, etc.
Instead of a carefully crafted document designed to last for the ages, I envision a series of down- and-dirty versions of the manual. Scratch that, what I mean is there would be a core manual describing operations and then a variety of intros aimed at different professions. The idea being to not only tell people how to use it but to convince them that it's important to use it. There would also be a general intro for everyone, describing the perils of writing software without an effective prototype.
Friday, November 16, 2007
I Predict Google Cell Phone Network
This information (aside from my clearly stated opinions) is from an article onpage B1, Wall Street Journal today (11/16/07)
Google has set up---with approval from the FCC---a small private cell phone network on its campus. The Wall Street Journal describes it as a "advanced high-speed wireless network." They are preparing to bid for a chunk of the wireless spectrum, though they have not officially confirmed their intentions to make the bid. (Yet it is obvious that they will bid.) Apparently it will be bidding $4.6 billion. It also appears that they will be bidding without a partner, in part to give them more flexibility in their bidding strategy -- which is being crafted by specialists in game theory. It is also said they are afraid that if they partnered with some people it would offend the people that they did not partner with. In addition, Wall Street seems eager to lend them money so that makes that part easy.
Part of what they're going after is 700 MHz, a type of signal that can travel very far between towers and therefore needs less towers.
A few days ago, the story came out about Google's new open platform for cell phones, called Android, I think. They have a Taiwan manufacturer preparing to make the cell phones, and I guess a few of them were made because they are already using them on their campus.
So far, the WSJ implies that it is unknown as to whether Google will make its own network but it seems like a certainty to me. Interestingly, Google applied a fair amount of pressure to the U. S. Government before this auction and succeeded certain conditions being placed on it. The idea is, that anyone who wins spectrum in this auction has to make their network open to other companies. I don't really know what that means but it is interesting. Now some people say Google may feel that they should be in the auction, having pressured the government and gotten their way on this.
Others say they will be afraid to alienate their telecommunications partners, but this seems pretty ridiculous to me. In addition, many people think Google will not be smart enough to put together a network, also highly unlikely. In addition, there are fears of dispersion of management focus. Usually, as I have repeatedly mentioned on this blog (Wal-Mart and others) -- I support the concept of maintaining management focus and oppose efforts that seem to dissipate it. However, in this case, I have a feeling that Google will be able to succeed in this venture without dropping the ball on search engines and advertising on the Internet.
It is Google's time; they are seizing the moment.
Google has set up---with approval from the FCC---a small private cell phone network on its campus. The Wall Street Journal describes it as a "advanced high-speed wireless network." They are preparing to bid for a chunk of the wireless spectrum, though they have not officially confirmed their intentions to make the bid. (Yet it is obvious that they will bid.) Apparently it will be bidding $4.6 billion. It also appears that they will be bidding without a partner, in part to give them more flexibility in their bidding strategy -- which is being crafted by specialists in game theory. It is also said they are afraid that if they partnered with some people it would offend the people that they did not partner with. In addition, Wall Street seems eager to lend them money so that makes that part easy.
Part of what they're going after is 700 MHz, a type of signal that can travel very far between towers and therefore needs less towers.
A few days ago, the story came out about Google's new open platform for cell phones, called Android, I think. They have a Taiwan manufacturer preparing to make the cell phones, and I guess a few of them were made because they are already using them on their campus.
So far, the WSJ implies that it is unknown as to whether Google will make its own network but it seems like a certainty to me. Interestingly, Google applied a fair amount of pressure to the U. S. Government before this auction and succeeded certain conditions being placed on it. The idea is, that anyone who wins spectrum in this auction has to make their network open to other companies. I don't really know what that means but it is interesting. Now some people say Google may feel that they should be in the auction, having pressured the government and gotten their way on this.
Others say they will be afraid to alienate their telecommunications partners, but this seems pretty ridiculous to me. In addition, many people think Google will not be smart enough to put together a network, also highly unlikely. In addition, there are fears of dispersion of management focus. Usually, as I have repeatedly mentioned on this blog (Wal-Mart and others) -- I support the concept of maintaining management focus and oppose efforts that seem to dissipate it. However, in this case, I have a feeling that Google will be able to succeed in this venture without dropping the ball on search engines and advertising on the Internet.
It is Google's time; they are seizing the moment.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
For Stratego Lovers Only
just came up with a great idea for a new version of Stratego -- this would only be played on a computer. The idea arose from thinking about the Spy piece and wondering what would be like if it could actually spy so the first step would be to change the name of the current Spy piece to the Assassin to eliminate confusion.
Here's how spying would work. Whenever one of your pieces moves into a position adjacent to one of the pieces of the enemy---doesn't matter if it's to the right left in front of or in back of -- both you and the enemy would have the opportunity to subvert the other person's piece and turn it into a spy.
However, you would only have the opportunity to do this twice per game. If you make the choice to do this, the enemy piece will then secretly become your spy. However, the enemy will not know about this. Once the piece is your spy, it means that every time that piece becomes adjacent to another of your opponent's pieces, you get to find out the identity of that other opponent's piece. In addition, you get to find out the identity of each piece directly adjacent to the piece you are spying on.
That means in any one move, you can find out about a maximum of four different enemy pieces. In addition, at any point in the game, you could decide to "take over" active control of this piece. At this point, the piece would lose its spy powers and revert to its ordinary powers depending on its rank. It would be just like one of your regular pieces. The enemy would find out when one of his pieces suddenly moved without him moving it, and then changed color.
One of the keys is, if you move next to an enemy piece, you have three seconds to "subvert it" into a spy. After those three seconds, the enemy can, if he chooses, subvert your piece into a spy. However, if you subvert an enemy piece into a spy and he subsequently tries to subvert your same piece into a spy---within the same move---then not only will his piece become your spy, but your piece will become a double agent. What this means is, that you will gain control of the flow of information going to the enemy about what your pieces supposedly are. You can send him any type of misinformation you want to.
Here's how spying would work. Whenever one of your pieces moves into a position adjacent to one of the pieces of the enemy---doesn't matter if it's to the right left in front of or in back of -- both you and the enemy would have the opportunity to subvert the other person's piece and turn it into a spy.
However, you would only have the opportunity to do this twice per game. If you make the choice to do this, the enemy piece will then secretly become your spy. However, the enemy will not know about this. Once the piece is your spy, it means that every time that piece becomes adjacent to another of your opponent's pieces, you get to find out the identity of that other opponent's piece. In addition, you get to find out the identity of each piece directly adjacent to the piece you are spying on.
That means in any one move, you can find out about a maximum of four different enemy pieces. In addition, at any point in the game, you could decide to "take over" active control of this piece. At this point, the piece would lose its spy powers and revert to its ordinary powers depending on its rank. It would be just like one of your regular pieces. The enemy would find out when one of his pieces suddenly moved without him moving it, and then changed color.
One of the keys is, if you move next to an enemy piece, you have three seconds to "subvert it" into a spy. After those three seconds, the enemy can, if he chooses, subvert your piece into a spy. However, if you subvert an enemy piece into a spy and he subsequently tries to subvert your same piece into a spy---within the same move---then not only will his piece become your spy, but your piece will become a double agent. What this means is, that you will gain control of the flow of information going to the enemy about what your pieces supposedly are. You can send him any type of misinformation you want to.
Software Released for Programming the Cell (PS3)
I can't figure out why this press release doesn't mention the PS3. I suppose game programmers may need different types of software suites to help them program that Cell Processor than other types of programmers.
http://www.mc.com/mediacenter/pressrelease.aspx?id=2062
"MultiCore Plus SDK empowers users with programming ease and maximizes application performance for Cell BE processor-based solutions from Mercury and IBM
"The Mercury MultiCore Plus TM SDK 1.0 (Software Development Kit) provides a complete, intuitive programming environment for products based on the Cell BE and other multicore processors. Combining a powerful set of software tools and libraries into a seamless package, the MultiCore Plus SDK enables users to maximize resources and application performance by taking full advantage of the multicore processor's computation model. The Beta version of this software has been in use at customers across industries since late 2005 including aerospace & defense, seismic, semiconductor, life sciences, digital media, and national labs."
Monday, November 12, 2007
Intel Using New Material for Chips---In Addition to Silicon Dioxide
As reported on page B7 of the Wall Street Journal today, a historic shift is occurring as Intel starts utilizing a key new substance in its IC chips, added to the ubiquitous silicon dioxide. The material being utilized by Intel in their new chip called the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 is called hafnium dioxide.
"Hafnium [all general info on hafnium and hafnium dioxide to follow quoted from Wikepedia] is a chemical element that has the symbol Hf and atomic number 72. A lustrous, silvery gray tetravalent transition metal, hafnium resembles zirconium chemically and it is found in zirconium minerals.
from http://www.genus.com/glossary.html:
High k dielectric: An insulator which will not conduct electricity but which, when sandwiched between metal plates, will easily allow these plates to talk to each other via electric fields (this is called a capacitor structure). These can be used as memories, and one structure that is being considered for very high density DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) is a layer of barium strontium titanate (BST -- a high k dielectric) between platinum electrodes. While high k dielectrics are good for capacitors, the opposite is true of the insulators used to separate metal lines, for which low k dielectrics are desirable (see low k dielectric).
These "new chips" are now on the market. Incredibly cool stuff and unfortunately I am buried with work and cannot pursue this. Here is some paraphrased material from the Chemistry World web site.
As they have been making the gates of transistors and IC chips smaller and smaller, they have now gotten down to gates that are only a few atoms wide. So, the electrons are utilizing quantum tunneling to go right through the gate, causing leakage of current and messing up the circuit. (Digital means everything is on or off---you don't want and off transistor leaking current. Quantum tunneling is a super cool phenomenon whereby electrons on one side of an impenetrable barrier sometimes appear on the other side of the barrier---without ever having actually passed through it---All in the parentheses are my own, possibly incorrect contributions.)
It has been known for a while that adding hafnium dioxide to the gate can rectify this problem. Unfortunately, silicon dioxide must be added on top of the HfO2, in this requires temperatures so high that the HfO2 is destroyed. So essentially, Intel and IBM came up with the "secret sauce" that solves this problem. Now that the chips are on the market, the techies can cut them open and figure out what this material is.
"Hafnium [all general info on hafnium and hafnium dioxide to follow quoted from Wikepedia] is a chemical element that has the symbol Hf and atomic number 72. A lustrous, silvery gray tetravalent transition metal, hafnium resembles zirconium chemically and it is found in zirconium minerals.
"Hafnium dioxide is quite inert. It reacts with strong acids such as concentrated sulfuric acid and with strong bases. It dissolves slowly in hydrofluoric acid to give fluorohafnate anions. At elevated temperatures, it reacts with chlorine in the presence of graphite or carbon tetrachloride to give hafnium tetrachloride. It is used in optical coatings, and as a high-k dielectric in DRAM capacitors.
"The term high-k dielectric refers to a material with a high dielectric constant (k) (as compared to silicon dioxide) used in semiconductor manufacturing processes which replaces the silicon dioxide gate dielectric. The implementation of high-k gate dielectrics is one of several strategies developed to allow further miniaturization of microelectronic components, colloquially referred to as extending Moore's Law." [end Wikepedia]from http://www.genus.com/glossary.html:
High k dielectric: An insulator which will not conduct electricity but which, when sandwiched between metal plates, will easily allow these plates to talk to each other via electric fields (this is called a capacitor structure). These can be used as memories, and one structure that is being considered for very high density DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) is a layer of barium strontium titanate (BST -- a high k dielectric) between platinum electrodes. While high k dielectrics are good for capacitors, the opposite is true of the insulators used to separate metal lines, for which low k dielectrics are desirable (see low k dielectric).
Next Material from:"Hafnium oxide helps make chips smaller and faster," Chemistry World, March 2007, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/March/HafniumOxideHelpsMakeChipsSmallerFaster.asp
"'Researchers have learnt to deposit very thin films of hafnium oxide and mix it with silica or silicon nitride at the molecular scale to tailor their insulating and charge storage properties,' explained Paul McIntyre from the Stanford University Engineering and Science Institute, California...
"But depositing conducting silicon gate materials on top of the insulating hafnium oxide is problematic. Though hafnium oxide is tough stuff, the high temperatures needed to lay down the silicon gate damage the insulator's surface, drastically reducing the transistor's clock speed compared to typical silicon gate/silica insulator devices. Enter Intel and IBM's secret new gate materials, which can be stuck to the dielectric at less extreme conditions.
'Research groups worldwide have demonstrated hafnium oxide-containing transistors with a variety of gate metal materials,' said McIntyre. 'These include titanium and hafnium nitrides, tungsten, ruthenium and ruthenium oxide and certain metal silicides,' he said. 'But mass producing reliable chips is a whole different ball game from single-device manufacture in the lab,' McIntyre told Chemistry World. 'Until we can buy the new chips and cut them open, we can't really know what gate metals Intel have chosen'...
"According to Gordon Moore, 'the implementation of high k and metal materials marks the biggest change in transistor technology since the introduction of polysilicon gate MOS transistors in the late 1960s.'"
These "new chips" are now on the market. Incredibly cool stuff and unfortunately I am buried with work and cannot pursue this. Here is some paraphrased material from the Chemistry World web site.
As they have been making the gates of transistors and IC chips smaller and smaller, they have now gotten down to gates that are only a few atoms wide. So, the electrons are utilizing quantum tunneling to go right through the gate, causing leakage of current and messing up the circuit. (Digital means everything is on or off---you don't want and off transistor leaking current. Quantum tunneling is a super cool phenomenon whereby electrons on one side of an impenetrable barrier sometimes appear on the other side of the barrier---without ever having actually passed through it---All in the parentheses are my own, possibly incorrect contributions.)
It has been known for a while that adding hafnium dioxide to the gate can rectify this problem. Unfortunately, silicon dioxide must be added on top of the HfO2, in this requires temperatures so high that the HfO2 is destroyed. So essentially, Intel and IBM came up with the "secret sauce" that solves this problem. Now that the chips are on the market, the techies can cut them open and figure out what this material is.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Source of Optimistic Thoughts Located in Brain
Wall Street Journal, November 9, page B1
"'These rosy thoughts triggered one key brain region most strongly. Called the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, this neural nub is active whenever we think of hopes and aspirations. "This region of the cortex may actually be taking information and transforming it in a way that creates this optimism bias," Dr. Phelps said."'
"'These rosy thoughts triggered one key brain region most strongly. Called the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, this neural nub is active whenever we think of hopes and aspirations. "This region of the cortex may actually be taking information and transforming it in a way that creates this optimism bias," Dr. Phelps said."'
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Pet Peeve: Where is the Map?
On Monday, October 22, 2007, Wall Street Journal had a special advertising page, "Investing in Japan" on page A 16. The subtitle was, "Country Offers Opportunities Beyond its Big Cities."
Actually, the page was pretty interesting, talking about the foreign direct investment (FDI) into Japan as a whole and then going into all of the less populated regions that they are trying to get money into. Since the whole premiseof the page was that people are not aware of these places, I am amazed that this advertising page was not accompanied by a map.
This lack is rather common, especially in news articles about obscure countries.
Actually, the page was pretty interesting, talking about the foreign direct investment (FDI) into Japan as a whole and then going into all of the less populated regions that they are trying to get money into. Since the whole premiseof the page was that people are not aware of these places, I am amazed that this advertising page was not accompanied by a map.
This lack is rather common, especially in news articles about obscure countries.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sam Zell -- Genius or Just Lucky?
October 20 -- 21 2007 article in WSJ page A11 talks about House Sam Zell, the real estate virtuoso at Master investor is supposedly some kind of genius. He built up his company, Equity Office Properties, a real estate investment trust out over decades and sold it to Blackstone for $39 billion in February of 2007. By August, the value of these properties had no doubt plummeted due to the real estate crash.
As a result, and for other reasons I suppose, Zell is considered some kind of genius. But when asked, he says that he did not know that the market was sitting atop. Rather, he says that he felt Blackstone offered him more money for the company than it was worth so he took it. If he's telling the truth, then he avoided disaster in the real estate market by blind luck. The story doesn't look too impressive to me: typical relic, that someone who gets lucky is called a genius.
That was not what happened, in my opinion, when Marty Zweig called the market bottom on Wall Street week before it happened, I believe this was in the early 1980s. He made the call about six months before the actual market bottom and stuck with it the whole time when everyone else in the country felt that stocks were equivalent to the Black plague. He was fully invested through that period. I saw him accumulate gray hairs during that six-month period. That was a combination of genius and guts, something real, not just luck.
As a result, and for other reasons I suppose, Zell is considered some kind of genius. But when asked, he says that he did not know that the market was sitting atop. Rather, he says that he felt Blackstone offered him more money for the company than it was worth so he took it. If he's telling the truth, then he avoided disaster in the real estate market by blind luck. The story doesn't look too impressive to me: typical relic, that someone who gets lucky is called a genius.
That was not what happened, in my opinion, when Marty Zweig called the market bottom on Wall Street week before it happened, I believe this was in the early 1980s. He made the call about six months before the actual market bottom and stuck with it the whole time when everyone else in the country felt that stocks were equivalent to the Black plague. He was fully invested through that period. I saw him accumulate gray hairs during that six-month period. That was a combination of genius and guts, something real, not just luck.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Programming the PS3's Cell Processor
I found that excellent article I mentioned in an earlier post about how to program the new Cell processor in the PS3.
Dr. Dobbs Portal, Programming the Cell Processor
"In this article, we present strategies we've used to make a Breadth-First Search on graphs as fast as possible on the Cell, reaching a performance that's 22 times higher than Intel's Woodcrest, comparable to a 256-processor BlueGene/L supercomputer—and all this with just with a single Cell processor! Some techniques (loop unrolling, function inlining, SIMDization) are familiar; others (bulk synchronous parallelization, DMA traffic scheduling, overlapping of computation and transfers) are less so."
Here's another article I just found that is less intensely technical than the above, but also very good.
Cell Architecture Explained Version 2
"It is when the SPEs are working on compute heavy streaming applications that the Cell will be working hardest. It's in these applications that the Cell may get close to it's theoretical maximum performance and perform an order of magnitude more calculations per second than any desktop processor currently available.
On the other hand if the stream uses large amounts of bandwidth and the data blocks can fit into the local stores the performance difference might actually be bigger. Even if conventional CPUs are capable of processing, the data at the same rate the transfers between the CPUs will be held up while they wait for chip to chip transfers. The Cell’s internal interconnect system allows transfers running into hundreds of Gigabytes per second, chip to chip interconnects allows transfers in the low 10’s of Gigabytes per second.
While conventional processors have vector units on board (SSE or VMX / AltiVec) they are not dedicated vector processors. The vector processing capability is an add-on to the existing instruction sets and has to share the CPUs resources. The SPEs are dedicated high speed vector processors and with their own memory don't need to share anything other than the memory (and not even this much if the data can fit in the local stores). Add to this the fact there are 8 of them and you can see why their potential computational capacity is so large."
Monday, September 24, 2007
GM plants hit by UAW pickets - Sep. 24, 2007
GM plants hit by UAW pickets - Sep. 24, 2007
My take on this may be surprising. The strike is good news. It means the union has decided to accept the massive concessions it must make to keep GM viable.
The key is contained in the quote below from the article cited above.
In addition, they need to bring GM reasonably close to devastating losses to give time for the reality of the situation to percolate through the reptile brands of union members and bubble up into their cerebral cortexes. In other words, union members need to be able to demonstrate anger and rage for awhile so they can feel a little better and also, having gotten these emotions out of their system, so they can think about what it really means---to both union members and retirees---if they destroy GM. Not that they lack that capability.
My take on this may be surprising. The strike is good news. It means the union has decided to accept the massive concessions it must make to keep GM viable.
The key is contained in the quote below from the article cited above.
"'David Healy, analyst with Burnham Securities, said he believes GM could take a strike of up to a month without a significant problem.
"It's sort of an odd thing, the first thing that happens with an automaker in case of a strike is their cash increases, as their payroll stops, and they still keep collecting cash for the cars that have been shipped," said Healy.
He believes the two sides are close enough that the strike will be a short one.
"Days, not weeks or months, that would be my guess," he said.'''
As we can see, the union, about to make unprecedented concessions, has decided that they must demonstrate a display of strength and/or recklessness to placate their members before collapsing in the negotiations.In addition, they need to bring GM reasonably close to devastating losses to give time for the reality of the situation to percolate through the reptile brands of union members and bubble up into their cerebral cortexes. In other words, union members need to be able to demonstrate anger and rage for awhile so they can feel a little better and also, having gotten these emotions out of their system, so they can think about what it really means---to both union members and retirees---if they destroy GM. Not that they lack that capability.
Toshiba to demonstrate prototype of new 'SpursEngine' processor
Toshiba to demonstrate prototype of new 'SpursEngine' processor
quote from the article:
"Notebook PCs integrating SpursEngine will be used in the world's first public demonstration of the processor's capabilities in 3D image processing and manipulation: real-time transformations of hair styles and makeup that instantaneously recognize and process changes in position, angle, and facial expression, and render them as computer graphics....SpursEngine, a co-processor that works in cooperation with a host CPU, fuses Cell/B.E.'s high performance multi-core technology with Toshiba's advanced image processing technology to perform stream processing of video sources--image recognition and processing--at the increasingly sophisticated level required by new generations of digital consumer products."
What interests me about these this article is not the SpursEngine, the new Toshiba chip, but the fact that it is integrated with the Cell/B.E.---the same chip that is at the core of the PlayStation 3.
While there may be other examples, this is the first example I know of the the revolutionary Cell/B.E. that is the core of the Sony PlayStation 3 being utilized for another (non-PlayStation) application. This powerful computer chip---jointly developed by IBM, Sony Group and Toshiba---was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 but the idea was that would be utilized for other applications as well.
This is an incredibly powerful chip that in some ways is analogous to a supercomputer (if I remember correctly). However, utilizing the full power is quite difficult and, as far as I know, no game maker has yet come close to doing so. As I recall, there are nine cells in the core of the chip. Each cell is somewhat akin to a separate microprocessor. What gives the system so much power potentially is the fact that each cell utilizes its own separate memory.
Unfortunately, this is also what makes the chip so incredibly difficult to program. The chip can be used in an easier, more conventional programming fashion without utilizing this great power, but then the results end up being somewhat mediocre. Mediocre is the description of all of the games made for PlayStation 3 so far ,and the reason is the failure of any group of programmers to fully utilize the power of the Cell/B.E..
However, it looks like a breakthrough has occurred in the utilization of the Cell/B.E. Although the Toshiba product does not utilize all the cells, it utilizes four of them according to this news story. The key question in regards to PlayStation 3 would be whether Toshiba would share with Sony the programming expertise it developed during the course of this project. If they did so, Sony would then share the expertise with all potential game makers. My understanding is that this means they would essentially make the knowledge public. Whether Toshiba would do this or not I do not know.
quote from the article:
"Notebook PCs integrating SpursEngine will be used in the world's first public demonstration of the processor's capabilities in 3D image processing and manipulation: real-time transformations of hair styles and makeup that instantaneously recognize and process changes in position, angle, and facial expression, and render them as computer graphics....SpursEngine, a co-processor that works in cooperation with a host CPU, fuses Cell/B.E.'s high performance multi-core technology with Toshiba's advanced image processing technology to perform stream processing of video sources--image recognition and processing--at the increasingly sophisticated level required by new generations of digital consumer products."
What interests me about these this article is not the SpursEngine, the new Toshiba chip, but the fact that it is integrated with the Cell/B.E.---the same chip that is at the core of the PlayStation 3.
While there may be other examples, this is the first example I know of the the revolutionary Cell/B.E. that is the core of the Sony PlayStation 3 being utilized for another (non-PlayStation) application. This powerful computer chip---jointly developed by IBM, Sony Group and Toshiba---was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 but the idea was that would be utilized for other applications as well.
This is an incredibly powerful chip that in some ways is analogous to a supercomputer (if I remember correctly). However, utilizing the full power is quite difficult and, as far as I know, no game maker has yet come close to doing so. As I recall, there are nine cells in the core of the chip. Each cell is somewhat akin to a separate microprocessor. What gives the system so much power potentially is the fact that each cell utilizes its own separate memory.
Unfortunately, this is also what makes the chip so incredibly difficult to program. The chip can be used in an easier, more conventional programming fashion without utilizing this great power, but then the results end up being somewhat mediocre. Mediocre is the description of all of the games made for PlayStation 3 so far ,and the reason is the failure of any group of programmers to fully utilize the power of the Cell/B.E..
However, it looks like a breakthrough has occurred in the utilization of the Cell/B.E. Although the Toshiba product does not utilize all the cells, it utilizes four of them according to this news story. The key question in regards to PlayStation 3 would be whether Toshiba would share with Sony the programming expertise it developed during the course of this project. If they did so, Sony would then share the expertise with all potential game makers. My understanding is that this means they would essentially make the knowledge public. Whether Toshiba would do this or not I do not know.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Armor: SAS Supacat
Armor: SAS Supacat
Interesting vehicle being purchased by the British, mainly for the SAS. Designed to hold four people, it is almost completely open on top, reminiscent of the old Jeep. However, it is heavily armored on the bottom against IED's. Kind of clashes with my view of the SAS; I don't think of them driving vehicles.
Interesting vehicle being purchased by the British, mainly for the SAS. Designed to hold four people, it is almost completely open on top, reminiscent of the old Jeep. However, it is heavily armored on the bottom against IED's. Kind of clashes with my view of the SAS; I don't think of them driving vehicles.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Web Site Designed to Supply Creative Solutions
The web site would have restricted submission categories for scientists, engineers, technicians, and the general public. In terms of supplying solutions, however, all categories would be accessible to anyone who visited the web site.
Before supplying solutions, each "problem solver" visiting the web site would be tested and given a provisional score in reference to his or her conative profile. Then pairs of problem solvers would be created to bring together sets of desirable strengths. For example, each person with a low QuickStart rating would be paired with someone with a high QuickStart rating. (QuickStart is the conative is trait that is heavily connected with creativity.)
Next, each pair would be presented with a list of suggested problems that particularly suited them. For example, a pair with a strong Implementor would be presented with a list of suggested mechanical problems. (Implementor is the conative trait that is most connected with the physical world three dimensions, athletes, and mechanics, etc.) Each pair could also work off the suggested list if desired.
There could be different strategies for posting solutions. They could be posted publicly and be public property (obviously none of the problems themselves could be considered proprietary information under this model). Alternately, the solutions could be posted privately to the people who posed the problems, possibly with some kind of payment involved. I suppose the payment system would up being similar to eBay, with people rating the people presenting problems for how reliable they were in being fair in paying for valid solutions. In some ways, I like the model of publicly posted solutions better. Makes the site more interesting. Or there might be both options, public or private. I suppose conceivably, solutions might be submitted privately to a trusted third-party that would give an evaluation of the solution to the problem-poser. Based on the solution evaluation, the problem poser would decide whether or not to pay the fee for the solution proposed by the problem solver .
Before supplying solutions, each "problem solver" visiting the web site would be tested and given a provisional score in reference to his or her conative profile. Then pairs of problem solvers would be created to bring together sets of desirable strengths. For example, each person with a low QuickStart rating would be paired with someone with a high QuickStart rating. (QuickStart is the conative is trait that is heavily connected with creativity.)
Next, each pair would be presented with a list of suggested problems that particularly suited them. For example, a pair with a strong Implementor would be presented with a list of suggested mechanical problems. (Implementor is the conative trait that is most connected with the physical world three dimensions, athletes, and mechanics, etc.) Each pair could also work off the suggested list if desired.
There could be different strategies for posting solutions. They could be posted publicly and be public property (obviously none of the problems themselves could be considered proprietary information under this model). Alternately, the solutions could be posted privately to the people who posed the problems, possibly with some kind of payment involved. I suppose the payment system would up being similar to eBay, with people rating the people presenting problems for how reliable they were in being fair in paying for valid solutions. In some ways, I like the model of publicly posted solutions better. Makes the site more interesting. Or there might be both options, public or private. I suppose conceivably, solutions might be submitted privately to a trusted third-party that would give an evaluation of the solution to the problem-poser. Based on the solution evaluation, the problem poser would decide whether or not to pay the fee for the solution proposed by the problem solver .
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Push a Stock Price Down So You Can Profit on the Upswing?
I've been reading a fair amount lately about companies that invest in another company with a depressed stock price and then try to make changes in the company to bring the stock price up. Nothing wrong with this.
However, I've noticed that sometimes these investor companies are invested for quite a long while before they make an aggressive move on the management. Sometimes, it seems, that a significant part of the downturn has occurred after the investor company got in. What if the investor company surreptitiously did things on purpose to cause the stock price to go down? Then they could greatly increase their holdings, having excellent insight into the "problem" (being as they caused it themselves). Then they could solve the problem and benefit from the rebound in the stock price.
Illegal, but people might be getting away with it.
However, I've noticed that sometimes these investor companies are invested for quite a long while before they make an aggressive move on the management. Sometimes, it seems, that a significant part of the downturn has occurred after the investor company got in. What if the investor company surreptitiously did things on purpose to cause the stock price to go down? Then they could greatly increase their holdings, having excellent insight into the "problem" (being as they caused it themselves). Then they could solve the problem and benefit from the rebound in the stock price.
Illegal, but people might be getting away with it.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Participatory Music Site
This idea is pretty far out. Increasingly, people are using the Internet to find rock groups they enjoy listening to. The Internet is then further utilized to allow these musical groups to have tours that garner them just enough money to support themselves on a low level.
In addition, the software for creating music is becoming increasingly sophisticated and powerful in terms of its effects but also increasingly easy to use. What if there was a way for users to not only find music they like on the Internet but add their own input to the music, changing it into something that fit their tastes better?
Once the user had made changes to a particular song, the web site could remember those changes and always apply them to the song when that user played it. Users could listen to each other's versions in a My Space-like community. The types of changes the user made in one song could be automatically applied to another song created by the same musical group, to make it something the user more wanted to listen to.
These types of changes could certainly be done with lyrics. There could be collaborative software for lyrics similar to Lotus Notes.
Eventually, some changes could percolate up into the groups own versions of songs. The data thus gathered could also cause the group to present songs differently in different venues, depending on the feedback of people from that geographical area.
Perhaps the process could advance to the point where a group of online users would not need to start with a musical group at all, but could create their own music according to their own taste. Obviously, the creation process would be much aided by software trying to fashion a desirable song. Perhaps people could start with templates of traditional songs not protected by copyrights. Once a desirable song had been created that was enjoyed by enough people in a particular part of the country, a group of actual musicians could learn the song and go perform it there for them.
In addition, the software for creating music is becoming increasingly sophisticated and powerful in terms of its effects but also increasingly easy to use. What if there was a way for users to not only find music they like on the Internet but add their own input to the music, changing it into something that fit their tastes better?
Once the user had made changes to a particular song, the web site could remember those changes and always apply them to the song when that user played it. Users could listen to each other's versions in a My Space-like community. The types of changes the user made in one song could be automatically applied to another song created by the same musical group, to make it something the user more wanted to listen to.
These types of changes could certainly be done with lyrics. There could be collaborative software for lyrics similar to Lotus Notes.
Eventually, some changes could percolate up into the groups own versions of songs. The data thus gathered could also cause the group to present songs differently in different venues, depending on the feedback of people from that geographical area.
Perhaps the process could advance to the point where a group of online users would not need to start with a musical group at all, but could create their own music according to their own taste. Obviously, the creation process would be much aided by software trying to fashion a desirable song. Perhaps people could start with templates of traditional songs not protected by copyrights. Once a desirable song had been created that was enjoyed by enough people in a particular part of the country, a group of actual musicians could learn the song and go perform it there for them.
Making TV Advertising Like the Internet
The Internet is rapidly gaining popularity as an advertising medium because ads are individually targeted to users. So Google, for example, can take into account a person's searching history when they present an ad for him or her to look at (at least, this is how I interpret the situation.)
TV on the other hand is "mass media" which is to say everyone watching a TV program sees the same ad. This could change, but it would require some modification of the technical system through which TV is currently delivered. I believe however, that these technical problems have already been solved in the pursuit of other product ideas that ended up not working (the various schemes that provided for viewer input. Do they have this on American Idol?)
For example, the cable company could build a profile of a viewer based on his or her viewing habits and then provide different ads to different people on that basis. Alternately, the cable company could link to "cookie" data accumulated by the person's Internet surfing. Presumably, this would have to be voluntarily done by people on an individual basis. It seems that some might do it nonetheless, however, in order to be able to see ads related to things they actually wanted, which would be more enjoyable (presuming they will have to see some kind of ads).
This idea is presented separately from the whole TiVo problem, which is reducing peoples viewing of ads. The fact is, ads are still sold so the idea could still be workable. Presumably, an early stage filter built into the system would be required to remove any porn-related Web surfing cookies for this to work. Some people would still feel uncomfortable about making public certain aspects of their Web surfing. For example, this could apply to politics. People who felt uncomfortable about those things would presumably not opt for the option to link to the cookie data. But the porn thing would need to be dealt with automatically, since this is supposedly the single biggest use of the Web.
TV on the other hand is "mass media" which is to say everyone watching a TV program sees the same ad. This could change, but it would require some modification of the technical system through which TV is currently delivered. I believe however, that these technical problems have already been solved in the pursuit of other product ideas that ended up not working (the various schemes that provided for viewer input. Do they have this on American Idol?)
For example, the cable company could build a profile of a viewer based on his or her viewing habits and then provide different ads to different people on that basis. Alternately, the cable company could link to "cookie" data accumulated by the person's Internet surfing. Presumably, this would have to be voluntarily done by people on an individual basis. It seems that some might do it nonetheless, however, in order to be able to see ads related to things they actually wanted, which would be more enjoyable (presuming they will have to see some kind of ads).
This idea is presented separately from the whole TiVo problem, which is reducing peoples viewing of ads. The fact is, ads are still sold so the idea could still be workable. Presumably, an early stage filter built into the system would be required to remove any porn-related Web surfing cookies for this to work. Some people would still feel uncomfortable about making public certain aspects of their Web surfing. For example, this could apply to politics. People who felt uncomfortable about those things would presumably not opt for the option to link to the cookie data. But the porn thing would need to be dealt with automatically, since this is supposedly the single biggest use of the Web.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Part 2 on the New Economy and Why I Don't Expect a Recession (Quite Rambling)
I was reading in the Wall Street Journal today about how there's a widespread expectation of the financial sector taking a heavy hit. In particular, the number one guy at Bear Stearns just fired the number two guy, their stock has plummeted, and everyone is expecting more bad news there. incorporating their own difficult to believe claims, I sum up Bear Stearns thusly: they made money in June, they made money in July, they will be bankrupt by September.
Reading between the lines however, I take heart that much of the deepest concern seems localized to the financial sector. So far, the overall losses in the stock market have not been large although the volatility has been. There was mention of losses in the consumer sector and of course the housing sector is a disaster; that is what has caused the current problem (Bear Stearns is a Wall Street firm that was especially heavily invested in mortgages.)
However, my optimism remains strong that we will not have a recession at this time. I consider this to be quite striking and notable, if true. No doubt, the complete collapse of the housing sector would have tended to cause a recession in the past. And make no doubt about it, I believe the housing sector will not recover for a decade, maybe three to five decades. I am much more pessimistic about the housing sector than the average analyst, so none of my optimism has to do with expecting "an upturn in the housing market in 2008."
No, the housing market has collapsed, completely and utterly. Now, people must learn that housing prices rise and fall just like the price of every other thing in the world. Is just that the cycle of the housing market prices is much slower than the cycle of prices of practically anything else. Housing prices tend to rise for 50 or 60 years at a time and fall for 50 or 60 years at a time; at least this is the implication of the data for the past one to 120 years (sorry I have no reference).
My optimism, rather is based on the notion that our US economy has become much more segmented in recent years. By this I mean much less integrated. Of course, this is only true in certain ways. In other ways, the economy is no doubt much more integrated.
But the segmentation I refer to focuses on the new ways of packaging debt. Due to these new types of debt packaging, many more players have gotten into the lending market who weren't in it before. Many of these players are smaller players. In some cases they are dumber players and for sure many are losing money and about to lose some more.
This is the result of the collapse of the housing market. However, unlike in the past, when most of the lending was done by the banks, this need not lead to a recession. When most of the lending was done by the banks, that particular segment of our economy would have been getting extremely cautious about now due to some very large losses. This would have caused the recession.
Of course, this is all a very tortured hypothetical. The recent hyper-boom was made possible by the new types of debt-packaging. That means that the new types of debt-packaging actually caused the current problem. This makes sense really. These new players are learning the hard way.
But mainly, what I wanted to say today to add to my previous post on this subject was thoughts about how the Great Depression occurred and what makes a country poor. In the Great Depression, as I understand it, banks stopped lending money and businesses generally could not grow or even continue to operate. This is in a sense, caused by the centralization of capital in banks. Now on the other hand, we have capital being spread out much more. This tends to result in more failures (like the current failure of the housing market) but make each failure less catastrophic.
Another result of the current situation is that it allows people to learn more and learn faster. Yet another result of the current situation is that it gives the smarter and more creative people more of an edge. It seems to me, at least at first glance, that this tends to benefit society by tending to put more resources in areas where there will be greater yield (i.e., someplace new).
Consider the tremendous pressures that so many companies face against raising prices for their customers even though the price of commodities, energy, and other expenses are currently rising rapidly. It seems to me (and I'll admit this could be quite a bit of a stretch) that these kinds of forces may squeeze some capital out of "commodity operations" and thus release some capital for innovative operations.
Commodity operations are operations in which the company does the same thing that other companies do. They hope the prices change in a way that will be favorable to them and they try to do things more efficiently than the other companies. However, is usually difficult to be very profitable in these areas and it seems that lately it is becoming more difficult.
Now look at where the money is flowing. Most obviously, it is flowing to China. How does this fit in with this thesis? It does because in a sense, all operations in China are currently innovative operations. Producing in China is an attempt to take advantage of previously underutilized resources. It is an attempt to seize on an investment opportunity as opposed to simply performing a commodity operation.
How about high-tech? I don't feel overly impressed with what is going on in the high-tech sector at this time. In fact, I feel that this sector was so successful in innovating in the past that it has resulted in innovation being stifled in the present. It seems to me that the idea of innovation in high-tech has become, "let's add video to it," "let's do it wirelessly," "let's increase the capacity/ throughput of the system," etc.
I don't see people doing new things all that much. I'll admit, I may be completely wrong on this one.
Let me give an example. Bluetooth has been an exciting innovation in recent years. it was fairly quickly applied to cell phone headsets because phone company technology has a certain amount of standardization---probably a hangover from the AT&T era.
On the other hand, it took years to see a single audio Bluetooth headset appear, and they still seem to be rare (I may be wrong on that last.) The reason there were no audio Bluetooth headsets for years after there were cell phone Bluetooth headsets is because audio technology is not standardized among companies. It was felt that any audio Bluetooth headset needed to be compatible with the products of all companies and this proved to be very difficult to do, so they simply went years without any products at all. Wouldn't it have made more sense to make products that were only compatible with specific companies as a temporary solution?
I apologize for all the rambling here today. Despite the non-innovativeness of the high-tech sector, I believe there is a lot of innovation in the world today that is creating a lot of wealth and benefiting many people. Admittedly this blog does not have much of an overall point today, but I did make some individual points that I wanted to make.
Reading between the lines however, I take heart that much of the deepest concern seems localized to the financial sector. So far, the overall losses in the stock market have not been large although the volatility has been. There was mention of losses in the consumer sector and of course the housing sector is a disaster; that is what has caused the current problem (Bear Stearns is a Wall Street firm that was especially heavily invested in mortgages.)
However, my optimism remains strong that we will not have a recession at this time. I consider this to be quite striking and notable, if true. No doubt, the complete collapse of the housing sector would have tended to cause a recession in the past. And make no doubt about it, I believe the housing sector will not recover for a decade, maybe three to five decades. I am much more pessimistic about the housing sector than the average analyst, so none of my optimism has to do with expecting "an upturn in the housing market in 2008."
No, the housing market has collapsed, completely and utterly. Now, people must learn that housing prices rise and fall just like the price of every other thing in the world. Is just that the cycle of the housing market prices is much slower than the cycle of prices of practically anything else. Housing prices tend to rise for 50 or 60 years at a time and fall for 50 or 60 years at a time; at least this is the implication of the data for the past one to 120 years (sorry I have no reference).
My optimism, rather is based on the notion that our US economy has become much more segmented in recent years. By this I mean much less integrated. Of course, this is only true in certain ways. In other ways, the economy is no doubt much more integrated.
But the segmentation I refer to focuses on the new ways of packaging debt. Due to these new types of debt packaging, many more players have gotten into the lending market who weren't in it before. Many of these players are smaller players. In some cases they are dumber players and for sure many are losing money and about to lose some more.
This is the result of the collapse of the housing market. However, unlike in the past, when most of the lending was done by the banks, this need not lead to a recession. When most of the lending was done by the banks, that particular segment of our economy would have been getting extremely cautious about now due to some very large losses. This would have caused the recession.
Of course, this is all a very tortured hypothetical. The recent hyper-boom was made possible by the new types of debt-packaging. That means that the new types of debt-packaging actually caused the current problem. This makes sense really. These new players are learning the hard way.
But mainly, what I wanted to say today to add to my previous post on this subject was thoughts about how the Great Depression occurred and what makes a country poor. In the Great Depression, as I understand it, banks stopped lending money and businesses generally could not grow or even continue to operate. This is in a sense, caused by the centralization of capital in banks. Now on the other hand, we have capital being spread out much more. This tends to result in more failures (like the current failure of the housing market) but make each failure less catastrophic.
Another result of the current situation is that it allows people to learn more and learn faster. Yet another result of the current situation is that it gives the smarter and more creative people more of an edge. It seems to me, at least at first glance, that this tends to benefit society by tending to put more resources in areas where there will be greater yield (i.e., someplace new).
Consider the tremendous pressures that so many companies face against raising prices for their customers even though the price of commodities, energy, and other expenses are currently rising rapidly. It seems to me (and I'll admit this could be quite a bit of a stretch) that these kinds of forces may squeeze some capital out of "commodity operations" and thus release some capital for innovative operations.
Commodity operations are operations in which the company does the same thing that other companies do. They hope the prices change in a way that will be favorable to them and they try to do things more efficiently than the other companies. However, is usually difficult to be very profitable in these areas and it seems that lately it is becoming more difficult.
Now look at where the money is flowing. Most obviously, it is flowing to China. How does this fit in with this thesis? It does because in a sense, all operations in China are currently innovative operations. Producing in China is an attempt to take advantage of previously underutilized resources. It is an attempt to seize on an investment opportunity as opposed to simply performing a commodity operation.
How about high-tech? I don't feel overly impressed with what is going on in the high-tech sector at this time. In fact, I feel that this sector was so successful in innovating in the past that it has resulted in innovation being stifled in the present. It seems to me that the idea of innovation in high-tech has become, "let's add video to it," "let's do it wirelessly," "let's increase the capacity/ throughput of the system," etc.
I don't see people doing new things all that much. I'll admit, I may be completely wrong on this one.
Let me give an example. Bluetooth has been an exciting innovation in recent years. it was fairly quickly applied to cell phone headsets because phone company technology has a certain amount of standardization---probably a hangover from the AT&T era.
On the other hand, it took years to see a single audio Bluetooth headset appear, and they still seem to be rare (I may be wrong on that last.) The reason there were no audio Bluetooth headsets for years after there were cell phone Bluetooth headsets is because audio technology is not standardized among companies. It was felt that any audio Bluetooth headset needed to be compatible with the products of all companies and this proved to be very difficult to do, so they simply went years without any products at all. Wouldn't it have made more sense to make products that were only compatible with specific companies as a temporary solution?
I apologize for all the rambling here today. Despite the non-innovativeness of the high-tech sector, I believe there is a lot of innovation in the world today that is creating a lot of wealth and benefiting many people. Admittedly this blog does not have much of an overall point today, but I did make some individual points that I wanted to make.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Idea to Prevent Bridge Collapses like the Tragic Minnesota I-35 Bridge
Admittedly harebrained. Drill thin holes into the core of the bridge at key points. Insert a strain sensor into the each hole. Each sensor would be connected by wire to the outside of the hole. Each sensor would incorporate a rechargeable battery and RF transmitter circuitry. On the outside of the hole would be an antenna for broadcasting signal and a solar cell for recharging the battery.
When a problem developed, a warning signal would be broadcasted. There would also be periodic "I'm OK," broadcasts to show that the system was still functioning. Probably, there would be a number of sensors and one bridge but only one antenna and solar cell array feeding and fed by all the sensors. This would allow the antenna and solar cell array to be in a transparent vandal-proof plastic box.
When a problem developed, a warning signal would be broadcasted. There would also be periodic "I'm OK," broadcasts to show that the system was still functioning. Probably, there would be a number of sensors and one bridge but only one antenna and solar cell array feeding and fed by all the sensors. This would allow the antenna and solar cell array to be in a transparent vandal-proof plastic box.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
I Have Decided that I Believe in the "New Economy"
I have been thinking for a while about the so-called "new economy." Of course, my knowledge of economics is quite limited, just what I've picked up from reading the Wall Street Journal of the years. Nonetheless, I have come to form an opinion on the "new economy," and I have decided I'm for it.
The "new economy," from the perspective of my limited understanding, consists of hedge funds, new ways of packaging debt and investment, and many more leveraged buyouts (LBO's) than in the past. On hedge funds, my understanding is still pretty cloudy. However, I've come to accept the idea that they sometimes serve as a sort of "shock absorber" in the economy.
The new ways of packaging debt and investment have, in large part, led to our current meltdown in the sub-prime housing loan market. This is that of course but it is a probably inevitable result of being in the early part of the learning curve in understanding these new ways of packaging debt and investment.
What is positive is that this sub-prime market meltdown has not resulted in a recession---at least not yet. Apparently, this is because, unlike in the past, banks are not holding the bulk of loans. Therefore, the meltdown in the sub-prime market is not resulting in overall withdrawal of credit from banks. This is a good thing.
Of course, banks are tightening their credit in certain ways this time. Most specifically, they are rapidly and extremely tightening the credit they extend to hedge funds. In part, this is related to the sub-prime market but to be honest, I cannot remember how. But mainly, it is related to the fact that hedge funds have gotten in trouble and banks are more reluctant to lend them money.
At the same time, it must be pointed out that banks are already very committed and vulnerable on large number of loans known as "bridge loans." These are short-term loans that banks give hedge funds and LBO companies. They allow hedge funds and LBO companies to close deals without actually having adequate cash on hand. The deals are closed using the banks money, than the hedge fund and/or LBO company arranges financing.
What is going on now is a bit like musical chairs when the music stops. Unfortunately for the banks, in some cases they are the ones without a chair. The banks are going to be losing some money here and it is making them more cautious in a general way. This is obviously bad news for the economy, reflected in the current stock market. However, it still seems more positive than the previous type of situation where the banks would have been carrying all of the subprime loans and when the sub-prime market fell apart, money would dry up all over the economy, causing a recession.
Because of new ways of packaging loans and investments, businesses are less dependent on banks for financing. This is a good thing. It helps stabilize the economy and allows it to keep a positive track for a longer period of time. On the other hand, the current meltdown in the subprime one market probably would not have occurred without these new ways of packaging loans and investments. Sorry that this is somewhat repetitive, but I was developing another point at the same time I was repeating myself. I lack the time and energy during this period my life to straighten this blog entry out into a well-written piece.
LBO companies are possibly the most positive part of the "new economy." Of course, they are quite negative for many individuals, causing large numbers of layoffs. Nonetheless, I feel that the overall positive for the economy is quite definite. In my mind, LBO's are converting the large-scale economy, which tends to consist of somewhat ossified corporations, into something more resembling the small-scale economy, which tends to consist of aggressive, pennypinching small businesses.
This conversion is uncomfortable to many people who lose their jobs. I was reading the Friday Wall Street Journal about the layoffs that resulted when Blackstone took over a company that was involved in airplane flight reservations. It seemed like they laid off many people in their 50s and 60s with very high paying jobs. Though the article didn't explicitly state this, I drew the implication that they were replacing some of them with younger employees. What the article said was that they were firing some people and then hiring others to adapt to "new technologies."
Yes, this is pretty brutal stuff. However, it is also the nature of capitalism. Our economy already has numerous features to try to help people in transitional job situations and we will probably need to develop more of these features. In regard to the Blackstone example cited above, I imagine some of the people in their 50s and 60s would be able to retire with reasonable comfort, but some would not. In addition, many younger people were also laid off.
In reading about waves of layoffs in the telecommunications industry in the 90s, I found that most of the people laid off got new jobs pretty quickly. This depends on two things: highly trained people and a healthy economy. This is not to discount the pain and suffering involved in being laid off, even if you find a new job fairly quickly. In addition, some do not get new jobs. Another unpleasant fact is that some of the people who were laid off do not perform as well. However, the article seemed to imply that this reality does not exist. They only referred to people who were laid off who had "good performance records." These records are often nonsense, in my opinion.
On the negative side of LBO companies, they are accelerating the process of turnaround. Laying off people faster, cutting expenses faster... This part seems like a scam. You can cut expenses past the desirable point and not affect profits for a while. Then if you sell it fast enough, you can make a big profit yourself. After it is sold however, the company crashes, goes into a hangover, and money needs to be spent to rebuild it. So part of the phenomenon is just a scam, in my view. However, is really impossible to separate this sort of thing from truly adding value, or a should say it is impossible in a general sense. For some people, it is possible to separate scams from adding value. These are the real investors.
Capitalism is pretty painful, but so is life. The alternative is a European-type system based on "job protection." However, it seems to me that the European system is inevitably sliding and spiraling downward. I will admit that I'm not sure about this last point.
I will close with a statement made by a person from England who had moved to America. This person said that most of all, they were struck by the optimism of this country. I think optimism springs from opportunity, and we still have it.
The "new economy," from the perspective of my limited understanding, consists of hedge funds, new ways of packaging debt and investment, and many more leveraged buyouts (LBO's) than in the past. On hedge funds, my understanding is still pretty cloudy. However, I've come to accept the idea that they sometimes serve as a sort of "shock absorber" in the economy.
The new ways of packaging debt and investment have, in large part, led to our current meltdown in the sub-prime housing loan market. This is that of course but it is a probably inevitable result of being in the early part of the learning curve in understanding these new ways of packaging debt and investment.
What is positive is that this sub-prime market meltdown has not resulted in a recession---at least not yet. Apparently, this is because, unlike in the past, banks are not holding the bulk of loans. Therefore, the meltdown in the sub-prime market is not resulting in overall withdrawal of credit from banks. This is a good thing.
Of course, banks are tightening their credit in certain ways this time. Most specifically, they are rapidly and extremely tightening the credit they extend to hedge funds. In part, this is related to the sub-prime market but to be honest, I cannot remember how. But mainly, it is related to the fact that hedge funds have gotten in trouble and banks are more reluctant to lend them money.
At the same time, it must be pointed out that banks are already very committed and vulnerable on large number of loans known as "bridge loans." These are short-term loans that banks give hedge funds and LBO companies. They allow hedge funds and LBO companies to close deals without actually having adequate cash on hand. The deals are closed using the banks money, than the hedge fund and/or LBO company arranges financing.
What is going on now is a bit like musical chairs when the music stops. Unfortunately for the banks, in some cases they are the ones without a chair. The banks are going to be losing some money here and it is making them more cautious in a general way. This is obviously bad news for the economy, reflected in the current stock market. However, it still seems more positive than the previous type of situation where the banks would have been carrying all of the subprime loans and when the sub-prime market fell apart, money would dry up all over the economy, causing a recession.
Because of new ways of packaging loans and investments, businesses are less dependent on banks for financing. This is a good thing. It helps stabilize the economy and allows it to keep a positive track for a longer period of time. On the other hand, the current meltdown in the subprime one market probably would not have occurred without these new ways of packaging loans and investments. Sorry that this is somewhat repetitive, but I was developing another point at the same time I was repeating myself. I lack the time and energy during this period my life to straighten this blog entry out into a well-written piece.
LBO companies are possibly the most positive part of the "new economy." Of course, they are quite negative for many individuals, causing large numbers of layoffs. Nonetheless, I feel that the overall positive for the economy is quite definite. In my mind, LBO's are converting the large-scale economy, which tends to consist of somewhat ossified corporations, into something more resembling the small-scale economy, which tends to consist of aggressive, pennypinching small businesses.
This conversion is uncomfortable to many people who lose their jobs. I was reading the Friday Wall Street Journal about the layoffs that resulted when Blackstone took over a company that was involved in airplane flight reservations. It seemed like they laid off many people in their 50s and 60s with very high paying jobs. Though the article didn't explicitly state this, I drew the implication that they were replacing some of them with younger employees. What the article said was that they were firing some people and then hiring others to adapt to "new technologies."
Yes, this is pretty brutal stuff. However, it is also the nature of capitalism. Our economy already has numerous features to try to help people in transitional job situations and we will probably need to develop more of these features. In regard to the Blackstone example cited above, I imagine some of the people in their 50s and 60s would be able to retire with reasonable comfort, but some would not. In addition, many younger people were also laid off.
In reading about waves of layoffs in the telecommunications industry in the 90s, I found that most of the people laid off got new jobs pretty quickly. This depends on two things: highly trained people and a healthy economy. This is not to discount the pain and suffering involved in being laid off, even if you find a new job fairly quickly. In addition, some do not get new jobs. Another unpleasant fact is that some of the people who were laid off do not perform as well. However, the article seemed to imply that this reality does not exist. They only referred to people who were laid off who had "good performance records." These records are often nonsense, in my opinion.
On the negative side of LBO companies, they are accelerating the process of turnaround. Laying off people faster, cutting expenses faster... This part seems like a scam. You can cut expenses past the desirable point and not affect profits for a while. Then if you sell it fast enough, you can make a big profit yourself. After it is sold however, the company crashes, goes into a hangover, and money needs to be spent to rebuild it. So part of the phenomenon is just a scam, in my view. However, is really impossible to separate this sort of thing from truly adding value, or a should say it is impossible in a general sense. For some people, it is possible to separate scams from adding value. These are the real investors.
Capitalism is pretty painful, but so is life. The alternative is a European-type system based on "job protection." However, it seems to me that the European system is inevitably sliding and spiraling downward. I will admit that I'm not sure about this last point.
I will close with a statement made by a person from England who had moved to America. This person said that most of all, they were struck by the optimism of this country. I think optimism springs from opportunity, and we still have it.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Some Thoughts on MEMS in the Human Body
definition from:
http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid44_gci214093,00.html
"Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) is a technology that combines computers with tiny mechanical devices such as sensors, valves, gears, mirrors, and actuators embedded in semiconductor chips. Paul Saffo of the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, California, believes MEMS or what he calls analog computing will be "the foundational technology of the next decade." MEMS is also sometimes called smart matter.
When one considers complex mechanisms like this that are involved in the creation of diseases, one can see the advantage of incorporating MEMS into the body to monitor highly localized processes. Of course, there would need to be some way of knowing where particular pieces of data came from in the body. One way to do this would be to somehow anchor each MEMS into a permanent, known position in the body. Then the doctor would be able to locate the origin of the data from the MEMS's own ID tag which would be included in each piece of data. However, anchoring a MEMS in the body does not sound very easy. Perhaps each MEMS could have a tropism for a particular biochemical environment located at a particular place in the body.
 | | | |
| SearchSMB.com Definitions, | |||
http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid44_gci214093,00.html
"Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) is a technology that combines computers with tiny mechanical devices such as sensors, valves, gears, mirrors, and actuators embedded in semiconductor chips. Paul Saffo of the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, California, believes MEMS or what he calls analog computing will be "the foundational technology of the next decade." MEMS is also sometimes called smart matter.
MEMS are already used as accelerometers in automobile air-bags. They've replaced a less reliable device at lower cost and show promise of being able to inflate a bag not only on the basis of sensed deceleration but also on the basis of the size of the person they are protecting. Basically, a MEMS device contains micro-circuitry on a tiny silicon chip into which some mechanical device such as a mirror or a sensor has been manufactured. Potentially, such chips can be built in large quantities at low cost, making them cost-effective for many uses.
Among the presently available uses of MEMS or those under study are:
- Global position system sensors that can be included with courier parcels for constant tracking and that can also sense parcel treatment en route
- Sensors built into the fabric of an airplane wing so that it can sense and react to air flow by changing the wing surface resistance; effectively creating a myriad of tiny wing flaps
- Optical switching devices that can switch light signals over different paths at 20-nanosecond switching speeds
- Sensor-driven heating and cooling systems that dramatically improve energy savings
- Building supports with imbedded sensors that can alter the flexibility properties of a material based on atmospheric stress sensing
Saffo distinguishes between sensor-effector type microcomputing (which he calls "MEMS") and micro-devices containing gears, mirrors, valves, and other parts (which he calls "micro-machines")."
My Thoughts:
MEMS devices will probably start being brought into the human body for therapeutic purposes before too long. How will they send data out of the body? MEMS devices could be organized in a network similar to the servers on the Internet. Each device would be capable of short range transmission. The data of the message would be divided into packets like the IP (Internet Protocol) packets. Packets would move randomly through the system until they reached the destination, possibly some kind of data collection device embedded under the skin. Presumably, the data from this device could be read without the direct contact of a port containing bare metal contacts. I presume this for aesthetic reasons---the preference of the patient. Data transfer could be done via RF transmission, possibly utilizing a passive RF circuit similar to those used anti-theft devices and stores. Perhaps data transmission could be done electromagnetically. However, I can't recall reading about data transmission based on this principle---only power transmission.
MEMS devices could be powered by electrical potentials inside the body. I believe devices powered in this way have already been developed, just for demonstration purposes at this point. However, I'm not sure about that, it may have only been speculation. MEMS devices could be composed of very small modules interconnected by biodegradable connectors. That way, the MEMS device would essentially dissolve after a set period of time and be expelled from the body in the urine or feces. I can't imagine that people would want to have this kind of stuff accumulating inside their bodies over time. This leads to an idea for another type of data collection. The MEMS devices could place the data into small capsules designed to be flushed out of the body with the urine. The patient would need to urinate into a receptacle handed over to his or her doctor. There could be redundancy of messages to cover the times when the patient was urinating away from home.The introduced of MEMS devices into the human body seems quite likely to me. Currently, scientific understanding of disease is advancing and many of the specific mechanisms involved with disease are becoming better understood. For example, microphages, cells inside the bodies of animals that are part of the immune system and that are designed to "eat" bacteria and other small living things, have now been shown to sometimes play a key role in the development of cancer. (This example comes from a recent scientific American article.)
The evidence relates to one of the breeds of mice that has been genetically developed to regularly create cancer inside themselves. It was found that destroying the microphages of this mouse prevented it from developing cancer. Precancerous cells were developed as is normal for this mouse, but they could not convert into cancer.
The microphages are normally controlled by chemical signals created by the mouse's body. However, it now appears that some cancer cells have evolved a way to send bogus chemical signals to the microphages and hijack them. The microphages then play key role in converting precancerous cells into cancer. Killing the microphages in the mouse inhibits the final development of the cancer.When one considers complex mechanisms like this that are involved in the creation of diseases, one can see the advantage of incorporating MEMS into the body to monitor highly localized processes. Of course, there would need to be some way of knowing where particular pieces of data came from in the body. One way to do this would be to somehow anchor each MEMS into a permanent, known position in the body. Then the doctor would be able to locate the origin of the data from the MEMS's own ID tag which would be included in each piece of data. However, anchoring a MEMS in the body does not sound very easy. Perhaps each MEMS could have a tropism for a particular biochemical environment located at a particular place in the body.
Monday, July 23, 2007
New Ford CEO---Titanic Analogy?
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal today about the new Ford CEO. He talked a lot about the things he was doing to turn Ford around. His statements sounded reasonable as far as they went. However, his basic prioritizing referred to things that were obvious to myself before he took over---just from reading the Wall Street Journal. I refer to the fact that Ford is now building too many SUVs and large cars and has been doing so for a while.
After this rather broad initial analysis, he starts to descend directly into the daily minutia of running each of Ford's many different sections. I would've liked a sharper, deeper cutting analysis of Ford's overall problems---even if he wasn't yet sure what he was going to do about them.
Apparently, he started running Boeing shortly before the 9/11 disaster delivered a major shock to the company---I think it was in the year 2000 that he took over. According to the article, he apparently navigated Boeing through that period of time, which was a great setback to Boeing. Again according to the article, he did very well and turned things around for the company after 9/11.
However, it seems to me to Boeing's major crisis was earlier than this---in the 90s. Furthermore, it seems to me that their major coup of the last 20 years, the Dream liner, was decided on, conceived, and largely developed in the 90s as well. Perhaps my memory is not completely accurate in this matter (excuse my laziness in not googling it up).
But imagine a scenario in which an ace ship captain agrees to take over the Titanic shortly after it has made contact with the iceberg. Suppose he was skillful enough to have avoided hitting the iceberg had he been at the helm. Could he really make a difference after contact had been made? And wouldn't his willingness to take over the ship at that time tell us something about his ability to make assessments?
After this rather broad initial analysis, he starts to descend directly into the daily minutia of running each of Ford's many different sections. I would've liked a sharper, deeper cutting analysis of Ford's overall problems---even if he wasn't yet sure what he was going to do about them.
Apparently, he started running Boeing shortly before the 9/11 disaster delivered a major shock to the company---I think it was in the year 2000 that he took over. According to the article, he apparently navigated Boeing through that period of time, which was a great setback to Boeing. Again according to the article, he did very well and turned things around for the company after 9/11.
However, it seems to me to Boeing's major crisis was earlier than this---in the 90s. Furthermore, it seems to me that their major coup of the last 20 years, the Dream liner, was decided on, conceived, and largely developed in the 90s as well. Perhaps my memory is not completely accurate in this matter (excuse my laziness in not googling it up).
But imagine a scenario in which an ace ship captain agrees to take over the Titanic shortly after it has made contact with the iceberg. Suppose he was skillful enough to have avoided hitting the iceberg had he been at the helm. Could he really make a difference after contact had been made? And wouldn't his willingness to take over the ship at that time tell us something about his ability to make assessments?
Why Can't a Microsoft PC Connect Directly to an Online Diagnostic Program?
I did something I don't usually do yesterday: tried to clean out my PC following some instructions I've been given by Microsoft technician when he had earlier solved some problem or other over the telephone. I suppose I made a mistake because I got some dire warnings to the effect that some important file was missing that was crucial for the computer's operation.
I was instructed to insert the XP operating system disc to replace this critical file. Upon doing so, the program told me it was reluctant to download from this desk because I now had a newer version of the operating system that I would lose if I downloaded from the disc.
This scenario makes it seem as if Laurel and Hardy are in charge of Microsoft diagnostics, but that might not be fair. The Microsoft operating system is very complex, it does change pretty quickly, and it is hard to keep track of what is going on, let alone anticipate future changes when the initial diagnostic system is developed.
What I can't understand though, is why I cannot go on to a Microsoft web site that would connect up to built-in "hooks" in the operating system, take a look at what is going on, and recommend a course of action that I could take or not take as I chose. This would, it seems, be much more effective than the built-in diagnostic functions of the operating system, which seem to become obsolete when the first software update occurs.
Of course, such a web site would cost money to operate and maintain but it seems like it would be much less expensive than maintaining the current size of the telephone technician force that is needed. In addition, the online solution would be more effective. Since each specific variation of a problem would only need to be solved once, Microsoft could restrict the personnel working on the diagnostic web site to the very highest quality people. This would eliminate the frequent mistakes that occur with the current current telephone-based diagnostic system. In addition, diagnosis would be much faster.
In terms of my current problem by the way, I remembered how I had solved similar problems in the past. This was done by simply rebooting the computer, apparently eliminating all awareness in the operating system of this "vital" missing file.
I was instructed to insert the XP operating system disc to replace this critical file. Upon doing so, the program told me it was reluctant to download from this desk because I now had a newer version of the operating system that I would lose if I downloaded from the disc.
This scenario makes it seem as if Laurel and Hardy are in charge of Microsoft diagnostics, but that might not be fair. The Microsoft operating system is very complex, it does change pretty quickly, and it is hard to keep track of what is going on, let alone anticipate future changes when the initial diagnostic system is developed.
What I can't understand though, is why I cannot go on to a Microsoft web site that would connect up to built-in "hooks" in the operating system, take a look at what is going on, and recommend a course of action that I could take or not take as I chose. This would, it seems, be much more effective than the built-in diagnostic functions of the operating system, which seem to become obsolete when the first software update occurs.
Of course, such a web site would cost money to operate and maintain but it seems like it would be much less expensive than maintaining the current size of the telephone technician force that is needed. In addition, the online solution would be more effective. Since each specific variation of a problem would only need to be solved once, Microsoft could restrict the personnel working on the diagnostic web site to the very highest quality people. This would eliminate the frequent mistakes that occur with the current current telephone-based diagnostic system. In addition, diagnosis would be much faster.
In terms of my current problem by the way, I remembered how I had solved similar problems in the past. This was done by simply rebooting the computer, apparently eliminating all awareness in the operating system of this "vital" missing file.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Taiwanese Blunder: Taiwan PC Makers Going in Wrong Direction
Within the past few days, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) about how Taiwan PC makers, who have until now been making most of the PCs manufactured in the world, are feeling price pressure competition from China. The feeling in Taiwan is that their PC manufacturing business, as it is currently constituted, is starting to die. The main indication of this is shrinking profit margins.
Clearly, the Taiwan PC manufacturers need to respond in some way. Their response however, as reported in the WSJ, looks like a classic blunder to me. The WSJ reports that they are planning to start branding their PCs themselves. The general form of this blunder is as follows. A manufacturer starts to be forced out of a previous niche. The company responds by saying, "I am about this type of product. What new skills can I acquire to remain competitive in this market?"
The response should be, "I am about these types of skills. What new product can I find to apply these skills to?" Clearly, the skill set would probably need to be modified somewhat to be applied to a new type of product.
In regard to the specific situation of the Taiwan PC manufacturers, the manufacturers see themselves as "PC people." They are going to respond to the crisis by learning how to brand and market PCs, which would largely be done in the United States, Europe, and Japan which make up the bulk of the world market. Their reasoning probably go something like this. "I understand the PC product well. Until recently, I have been manufacturing them profitably. This is something that HP and Dell haven't been able to do for years in their own factories. Compared to manufacturing, branding and marketing seems pretty easy. And there's a bigger mark up in that part of the business."
This is a recipe for disaster. Anyone competing successfully in today's competitive world market, possesses a set of sophisticated skills that they developed over time with considerable effort. Everything is considerably more difficult than it looks. The Taiwan PC manufacturers will fail in their effort to brand and market PCs because they know nothing about how to do it and there is no reason to think they will be able to catch up with those who do. The advantages of vertical integration will prove marginal.
What should they do? It seems to me that one possible good answer would be to look for technical manufacturing niches they can evolve into. They should look for a number of products to replace their current single product because none of the new products will be as big as the PC. Learning how to manufacture more technically difficult products will require the development of new skills and the purchase of new equipment. But the skills needed would be an extension of skills they currently have so expanding into these areas would be an organic and natural progression.
Another possible good the answer would be to try to move into the novelty manufacturing area, possibly by forming partnerships with current novelty manufacturing companies (for products such as alarm clocks). These companies excel in things like plastic manufacture, rapid realignment of assembly lines, and stringent price control. However, they are relatively unsophisticated in the area of electronics. A strategy could be developed to upgrade the sophistication of electronics and novelty products while containing costs.
Clearly, the Taiwan PC manufacturers need to respond in some way. Their response however, as reported in the WSJ, looks like a classic blunder to me. The WSJ reports that they are planning to start branding their PCs themselves. The general form of this blunder is as follows. A manufacturer starts to be forced out of a previous niche. The company responds by saying, "I am about this type of product. What new skills can I acquire to remain competitive in this market?"
The response should be, "I am about these types of skills. What new product can I find to apply these skills to?" Clearly, the skill set would probably need to be modified somewhat to be applied to a new type of product.
In regard to the specific situation of the Taiwan PC manufacturers, the manufacturers see themselves as "PC people." They are going to respond to the crisis by learning how to brand and market PCs, which would largely be done in the United States, Europe, and Japan which make up the bulk of the world market. Their reasoning probably go something like this. "I understand the PC product well. Until recently, I have been manufacturing them profitably. This is something that HP and Dell haven't been able to do for years in their own factories. Compared to manufacturing, branding and marketing seems pretty easy. And there's a bigger mark up in that part of the business."
This is a recipe for disaster. Anyone competing successfully in today's competitive world market, possesses a set of sophisticated skills that they developed over time with considerable effort. Everything is considerably more difficult than it looks. The Taiwan PC manufacturers will fail in their effort to brand and market PCs because they know nothing about how to do it and there is no reason to think they will be able to catch up with those who do. The advantages of vertical integration will prove marginal.
What should they do? It seems to me that one possible good answer would be to look for technical manufacturing niches they can evolve into. They should look for a number of products to replace their current single product because none of the new products will be as big as the PC. Learning how to manufacture more technically difficult products will require the development of new skills and the purchase of new equipment. But the skills needed would be an extension of skills they currently have so expanding into these areas would be an organic and natural progression.
Another possible good the answer would be to try to move into the novelty manufacturing area, possibly by forming partnerships with current novelty manufacturing companies (for products such as alarm clocks). These companies excel in things like plastic manufacture, rapid realignment of assembly lines, and stringent price control. However, they are relatively unsophisticated in the area of electronics. A strategy could be developed to upgrade the sophistication of electronics and novelty products while containing costs.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
the real story behind PS3
I've been doing some research on the Web of the past few months on PS3. Unfortunately, I did not bookmark any of the web sites and cannot provide any references.
Nonetheless, this is what I've discovered. PS3 contains an amazingly powerful computer. It is immensely more powerful than the Xbox 360. The problem is, at least at the time of the release of PS3, it was also immensely more difficult to program to its full potential than Xbox 360.
As I have come to understand it, Sony released the PS3 before programming aids for the PS3 were available. The references to this are not completely clear and I may be wrong, but this is what I think. According to what I've read, programming the PS three to its full potential without programming aids is so difficult as to be impractical.
At this point in time, at least some of the programming aids have been created and released by Sony. Sony provides these free to any game developer who wants them. I read said at least one game company is developing a "real" version of a PS3 game---a version that utilizes the PS3 to its real potential. The name of this game (an update of a previous game) includes the words "Ninja Gardens."
I'm not a gamer and have played few videogames in my life. However, I am fascinated with technology in general and computer technology in particular. I'm very interested in the PS3 as a piece of technology. as I understand it from my reading, once the PS3 has been programmed to something approaching its full potential, it will be completely incomparable to the Xbox 360. Not only will graphics, strictly speaking be in another league, but the program will be able to incorporate such things as the principles of physics applied to video games. A least one such program is already available. You simply draw some objects, for example, and let them "fall." The program automatically figures out the effects of gravity, momentum, collisions, etc. and automatically generates the graphics for you.
Current versions of PS3 games utilize only a small percentage of the total potential. This kind of programming is much easier on the PS3. There is some debate about exactly how difficult it is to currently program a PS3 to near its full potential, even with the programming aids devised by Sony up to this point, but it clearly seems to be more difficult than programming an Xbox. As a result of this and the fact that programming aids were not available at the time of release (as far as I can determine) current versions of PS3 games are slightly inferior to Xbox 360 versions.
However, when the next generation of games comes out, it will be seen that the PS3 is in a class of its on. I fully believe this at this point, though I do not presented as a fully established fact because some of the evidence has been a little unclear.
As far as I'm concerned, the question now is whether a great PS3 will have a hugely positive impact on Sony or not. Specifically, will it propel Sony's Blu Ray version of the next-generation high-definition DVD player into dominance against its competitor, which I believe is called HD DVD or something like that.
You'll recall, this is a replay of the VCR wars that Sony lost. This despite the apparent fact that they had the best technology. Well, we'll see what happens.
Nonetheless, this is what I've discovered. PS3 contains an amazingly powerful computer. It is immensely more powerful than the Xbox 360. The problem is, at least at the time of the release of PS3, it was also immensely more difficult to program to its full potential than Xbox 360.
As I have come to understand it, Sony released the PS3 before programming aids for the PS3 were available. The references to this are not completely clear and I may be wrong, but this is what I think. According to what I've read, programming the PS three to its full potential without programming aids is so difficult as to be impractical.
At this point in time, at least some of the programming aids have been created and released by Sony. Sony provides these free to any game developer who wants them. I read said at least one game company is developing a "real" version of a PS3 game---a version that utilizes the PS3 to its real potential. The name of this game (an update of a previous game) includes the words "Ninja Gardens."
I'm not a gamer and have played few videogames in my life. However, I am fascinated with technology in general and computer technology in particular. I'm very interested in the PS3 as a piece of technology. as I understand it from my reading, once the PS3 has been programmed to something approaching its full potential, it will be completely incomparable to the Xbox 360. Not only will graphics, strictly speaking be in another league, but the program will be able to incorporate such things as the principles of physics applied to video games. A least one such program is already available. You simply draw some objects, for example, and let them "fall." The program automatically figures out the effects of gravity, momentum, collisions, etc. and automatically generates the graphics for you.
Current versions of PS3 games utilize only a small percentage of the total potential. This kind of programming is much easier on the PS3. There is some debate about exactly how difficult it is to currently program a PS3 to near its full potential, even with the programming aids devised by Sony up to this point, but it clearly seems to be more difficult than programming an Xbox. As a result of this and the fact that programming aids were not available at the time of release (as far as I can determine) current versions of PS3 games are slightly inferior to Xbox 360 versions.
However, when the next generation of games comes out, it will be seen that the PS3 is in a class of its on. I fully believe this at this point, though I do not presented as a fully established fact because some of the evidence has been a little unclear.
As far as I'm concerned, the question now is whether a great PS3 will have a hugely positive impact on Sony or not. Specifically, will it propel Sony's Blu Ray version of the next-generation high-definition DVD player into dominance against its competitor, which I believe is called HD DVD or something like that.
You'll recall, this is a replay of the VCR wars that Sony lost. This despite the apparent fact that they had the best technology. Well, we'll see what happens.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I just read an article in today's Wall Street Journal about people who have a strange deficiency -- they are unable to recognize other people's faces. Apparently, as many as 2.5% of the population may suffer from this condition to one extent or another.
However, it is most interesting in its extreme form. There is a story about a young boy with this problem. His parents have had to transfer him to a small private school because it is so hard for him to deal with other students. The reporter talks to the child and he apparently can only identify two people in his class---due to their distinctive hairstyles. The kid is really struggling to deal with this problem on a daily basis.
While this is indeed unfortunate condition, I couldn't help but wonder. Why don't they just have all the students and teachers in the school wear name tags?
However, it is most interesting in its extreme form. There is a story about a young boy with this problem. His parents have had to transfer him to a small private school because it is so hard for him to deal with other students. The reporter talks to the child and he apparently can only identify two people in his class---due to their distinctive hairstyles. The kid is really struggling to deal with this problem on a daily basis.
While this is indeed unfortunate condition, I couldn't help but wonder. Why don't they just have all the students and teachers in the school wear name tags?
Friday, April 27, 2007
from Physorg.com
http://www.physorg.com/news96891553.html
"Nanogap-nanohole devices can be used in the manufacture of single-molecule detectors and provide new opportunities for DNA nanopore sequencing."
Scientists have developed a way to "hand craft" nano devices with features smaller than 10 nanometers for the first time. Apparently this may allow the creation of machines small enough to manipulate DNA---at least, that is the implication I draw from the above sentence. Pretty amazing possibility.
http://www.physorg.com/news96891553.html
"Nanogap-nanohole devices can be used in the manufacture of single-molecule detectors and provide new opportunities for DNA nanopore sequencing."
Scientists have developed a way to "hand craft" nano devices with features smaller than 10 nanometers for the first time. Apparently this may allow the creation of machines small enough to manipulate DNA---at least, that is the implication I draw from the above sentence. Pretty amazing possibility.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Why are printers not designed with the paper feed on the top?
Since the main problem with printers is paper jams, wouldn't it be much easier to design an efficient path for the paper that went with the force of gravity instead of moving against it?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Industries Square Off on Patent Bill
Comment on a WSJ article of that title, 4/19/07, p. A8
There is a new patent bill in Congress (not yet passed) that is going to try to protect industries that have been hurt excessively by patent battles such as the tech industry and financial services.
"The bill would require patent holders to be given a "reasonable royalty" for patent infringements, but would limit that to the economic value of the patent's "specific contribution over prior art" or the value of the new "thing" the patent reflects rather than the value of the entire product of which it is a part."
The problem is the bill is opposed by the drug companies because they fear it will hurt their ability to protect their own innovations.
It occurs to me that it may be telling to "split up" the patent law into different sections for broadly different types of products. Can one patent law really cover everything from software to drugs?
There is a new patent bill in Congress (not yet passed) that is going to try to protect industries that have been hurt excessively by patent battles such as the tech industry and financial services.
"The bill would require patent holders to be given a "reasonable royalty" for patent infringements, but would limit that to the economic value of the patent's "specific contribution over prior art" or the value of the new "thing" the patent reflects rather than the value of the entire product of which it is a part."
The problem is the bill is opposed by the drug companies because they fear it will hurt their ability to protect their own innovations.
It occurs to me that it may be telling to "split up" the patent law into different sections for broadly different types of products. Can one patent law really cover everything from software to drugs?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Another soup idea
I like creamy soups best. There are a lot of dry soups (add water) but they are obviously not of the creamy type. Could a dry, creamy soup be marketed---requiring the user to just add milk and butter? I would buy it as it would taste fresher than canned (see previous entry).
New Kind of Soup; Partitioned Can Attached to Package
I am a single guy who sometimes eats a lot of canned soup. Lately, however, I have been substituting a dish from my childhood---Kraft macaroni and cheese, with the addition of tuna (the tuna trick taught to me by a lovely lady I knew years ago).
I make it with butter instead of margarine, and I have found it helps to slice up the butter into thin pats before mixing it in with the macaroni. It all amounts to a little preparation before eating, which small level of work I enjoy.
But I have come to notice something else. I like this food, in part, because it tastes "fresher" than canned soup. This got me thinking. Having the ingredients of soup sit together in a can over time apparently makes the soup taste less fresh. Why not partition the can into sections, each section with different ingredients? The internal partitions would not need to be strong like the outside package. Instead of metal, the internal partition could be made of plastic bonded to metal. The user would simply pour the soup out into a saucepan, allowing it to mix. A disc-shaped plastic container could be attached to the top of the can for dried ingredients, also to be added. This would taste significantly better than ordinary canned soup, I am sure.
I make it with butter instead of margarine, and I have found it helps to slice up the butter into thin pats before mixing it in with the macaroni. It all amounts to a little preparation before eating, which small level of work I enjoy.
But I have come to notice something else. I like this food, in part, because it tastes "fresher" than canned soup. This got me thinking. Having the ingredients of soup sit together in a can over time apparently makes the soup taste less fresh. Why not partition the can into sections, each section with different ingredients? The internal partitions would not need to be strong like the outside package. Instead of metal, the internal partition could be made of plastic bonded to metal. The user would simply pour the soup out into a saucepan, allowing it to mix. A disc-shaped plastic container could be attached to the top of the can for dried ingredients, also to be added. This would taste significantly better than ordinary canned soup, I am sure.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
The Revolving Door for Predator Pilots
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20070404.aspx
"New operator equipment was developed to enable one pilot to handle more than one Predator simultaneously. But this did not work out as well as expected, and pilots were rarely able to deal with more than two Predators at a time."
In my opinion this is a clear indicator that more intelligence needs to be built into the Predator. It should do more flying of itself. While the human operators will still be making decisions, the implementation of these decisions should be carried out, by and large, by the Predator. I have a feeling these sorts of changes will be implemented very soon.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20070404.aspx
"New operator equipment was developed to enable one pilot to handle more than one Predator simultaneously. But this did not work out as well as expected, and pilots were rarely able to deal with more than two Predators at a time."
In my opinion this is a clear indicator that more intelligence needs to be built into the Predator. It should do more flying of itself. While the human operators will still be making decisions, the implementation of these decisions should be carried out, by and large, by the Predator. I have a feeling these sorts of changes will be implemented very soon.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Eavesdropping nuthatches distinguish danger threats in chickadee alarm calls
http://www.physorg.com/news93544258.html
The false separation between research in brain science and psychology
I was recently in a Psychology Library picking out interesting things to read in journals. It amused me to notice the journals I selected were of 2 types: psychology and brain science. Though both subjects interest me, I was dissatisfied with both, and a little reflection showed me why.
Brain science journals are still studying psychological issues that are too small because that is within the scope of the things they can resolve with brain observations. Psychology journals also tackle issues that are, in a way too small, because that is within the scope of things that can be resolved with the methods of psychological experiments (statistics, questionnaires, etc.). In some way, the issues of psychology journals are interesting, but there is another problem---these journals don't really prove things due to the limitations of their methods.
I also realized the solution.
Brain scientists need to start getting more aggressive and tackle questions of larger scope---similar to the questions psychological philosophers tackle in their books, questions about the nature of perception, conceptualization, decision-making, goal formation, action, etc.
It is true that these experiments will be failed scientific experiments at this time; our scientific knowledge of the brain is not yet strong enough, so these experiments will be over-aggressive, not sufficiently controlled, and fail to prove anything. They might even have trouble getting published in a brain science journal.
But they will yield real, interesting knowledge on significant questions about the mind, and that is what we need.
Brain science journals are still studying psychological issues that are too small because that is within the scope of the things they can resolve with brain observations. Psychology journals also tackle issues that are, in a way too small, because that is within the scope of things that can be resolved with the methods of psychological experiments (statistics, questionnaires, etc.). In some way, the issues of psychology journals are interesting, but there is another problem---these journals don't really prove things due to the limitations of their methods.
I also realized the solution.
Brain scientists need to start getting more aggressive and tackle questions of larger scope---similar to the questions psychological philosophers tackle in their books, questions about the nature of perception, conceptualization, decision-making, goal formation, action, etc.
It is true that these experiments will be failed scientific experiments at this time; our scientific knowledge of the brain is not yet strong enough, so these experiments will be over-aggressive, not sufficiently controlled, and fail to prove anything. They might even have trouble getting published in a brain science journal.
But they will yield real, interesting knowledge on significant questions about the mind, and that is what we need.
I've come up with an idea to allow CAD/CAM designers to backtrack
Recently, I was reading a slightly out of date (perhaps a month old, I'm not sure) NASA Tech Brief article about the biggest outstanding problems facing the designers of CAD/CAM software. NASA Tech Brief, by the way, is a monthly magazine put out by NASA about a variety of extremely cool technical subjects. occasionally the subjects are directly related to space exploration. I suppose all of the articles could be related to space exploration in some way, but most of them, like the CAD/CAM software article, have no particular direct connection to space exploration. There is also an online version of this and both are highly recommended.
One major problem delineated by the CAD/CAM article was that designers like to be able to backtrack to a previous point in the design, but they are generally not able to do so with currently existing software.
I came up with the solution---although I am admittedly not qualified in this area (and perhaps not qualified in any area!)
My idea is to have a "shadow" CAD/CAM hardware/software system that would-be slaved to the main system actually utilized by the user to create the design. This would be a master/slave set up, analogous to a master/slave flip-flop---but instead of the slave system being an inversion of the master system, the slave system would be an identical copy of the Master system.
At the core of this new CAD/CAM system, I presume, would be a pair of microprocessors linked together. Microprocessor 1 would be like an ordinary microprocessor at the core of the CAD/CAM system---except it would output a second stream of signals duplicating each signal in its ordinary output. The ordinary output would interface with the CAD/CAM system in the ordinary way doing things like changing the screen display, changing the data file describing the design, etc.
The second output of microprocessor 1 would be the input to microprocessor 2. Microprocessor 2 would not need to concern itself with user inputs since all of its inputs would come from microprocessor 1. Nor would microprocessor 2 need to concern itself with inputs from the knowledge base of the system, since it would be operating in "simple slave" mode. The main thing microprocessor to would do would be to compile a duplicate design data file, identical to the "real" design data file created by microprocessor 1.
Periodically, microprocessor 2 would rapidly copy the entire current design data file. I can't indicate how frequently such a snapshot would need to be taken because of never done CAD/CAM. All of the snapshots would be stored, thus providing a way for the designer to backtrack.
The tricky part of the system is being able to take the snapshots without screwing up the process all of maintaining an accurate design data file. This would be achieved via the insertion of a variable delay line in the data stream connecting microprocessor one and microprocessor 2. The size of the delay would be controlled by microprocessor 2 depending on how "pressed for time" it was.
Suppose a snap shot was once taken every five minutes. Microprocessor 2 would have the capability of shutting off all output from microprocessor 1 for 2-1/2 minutes, thus allowing the system 2-1/2 minutes to make a complete copy of the current design data file. During this 2-1/2 minute period, the content of the working design data file for microprocessor 2 would be frozen, enabling the copy process to go forward.
Once the copy was completed, microprocessor 2 would start allowing new data to flow into itself and start updating the design data file---for 2-1/2 minutes. Microprocessor 2 would be able to input new data twice as fast as microprocessor 1, thus allowing it to "catch-up" with the 5 minute data gap over the 2-1/2 minute period. Microprocessor 2 would also have the power to accelerate the flow of data through the dateline, enabling the "catch-up."
I can't see any logical flaw in this system. Obviously a large amount of storage space would be required for all these designs. in most cases however once the design of the project was finalized and sent to manufacturing, these various partial design data files could be erased---regaining the storage space. It occurs to me that this type of CAD/CAM system might work best with a dumb terminal directly connected to a server.
One major problem delineated by the CAD/CAM article was that designers like to be able to backtrack to a previous point in the design, but they are generally not able to do so with currently existing software.
I came up with the solution---although I am admittedly not qualified in this area (and perhaps not qualified in any area!)
My idea is to have a "shadow" CAD/CAM hardware/software system that would-be slaved to the main system actually utilized by the user to create the design. This would be a master/slave set up, analogous to a master/slave flip-flop---but instead of the slave system being an inversion of the master system, the slave system would be an identical copy of the Master system.
At the core of this new CAD/CAM system, I presume, would be a pair of microprocessors linked together. Microprocessor 1 would be like an ordinary microprocessor at the core of the CAD/CAM system---except it would output a second stream of signals duplicating each signal in its ordinary output. The ordinary output would interface with the CAD/CAM system in the ordinary way doing things like changing the screen display, changing the data file describing the design, etc.
The second output of microprocessor 1 would be the input to microprocessor 2. Microprocessor 2 would not need to concern itself with user inputs since all of its inputs would come from microprocessor 1. Nor would microprocessor 2 need to concern itself with inputs from the knowledge base of the system, since it would be operating in "simple slave" mode. The main thing microprocessor to would do would be to compile a duplicate design data file, identical to the "real" design data file created by microprocessor 1.
Periodically, microprocessor 2 would rapidly copy the entire current design data file. I can't indicate how frequently such a snapshot would need to be taken because of never done CAD/CAM. All of the snapshots would be stored, thus providing a way for the designer to backtrack.
The tricky part of the system is being able to take the snapshots without screwing up the process all of maintaining an accurate design data file. This would be achieved via the insertion of a variable delay line in the data stream connecting microprocessor one and microprocessor 2. The size of the delay would be controlled by microprocessor 2 depending on how "pressed for time" it was.
Suppose a snap shot was once taken every five minutes. Microprocessor 2 would have the capability of shutting off all output from microprocessor 1 for 2-1/2 minutes, thus allowing the system 2-1/2 minutes to make a complete copy of the current design data file. During this 2-1/2 minute period, the content of the working design data file for microprocessor 2 would be frozen, enabling the copy process to go forward.
Once the copy was completed, microprocessor 2 would start allowing new data to flow into itself and start updating the design data file---for 2-1/2 minutes. Microprocessor 2 would be able to input new data twice as fast as microprocessor 1, thus allowing it to "catch-up" with the 5 minute data gap over the 2-1/2 minute period. Microprocessor 2 would also have the power to accelerate the flow of data through the dateline, enabling the "catch-up."
I can't see any logical flaw in this system. Obviously a large amount of storage space would be required for all these designs. in most cases however once the design of the project was finalized and sent to manufacturing, these various partial design data files could be erased---regaining the storage space. It occurs to me that this type of CAD/CAM system might work best with a dumb terminal directly connected to a server.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Paul Mercer---former iPod guru---takes on the iPhone
Today's New York Times has a story about how Palm has hired Paul Mercer, who was instrumental in developing the iPod, to help Palm compete with the iPhone. ("Palm Responds to the iPhone", p. C7)
This article interested me, so I looked up another article on the Web--- here is a small quote.
"'He is an unusually detail-oriented software engineer," said Steve Capps, a former Apple and Microsoft software engineer, who was one of the designers of the original Macintosh interface and the leader of the Newton project, which created a hand-held computer. "He knows how to architect small pieces of software code.'
"Alliances between small firms and big electronics makers are becoming increasingly common as companies are forced to bring new devices to market practically every season.
"'We're seeing the rise of independent specialists who have a deep understanding of things that big companies don't have the ability to do,' said Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley consultant who is chairman of Samsung's science board, an advisory group."
"He Helped Build the iPod, Now He Has Built a Rival;" the New York Times, February 27, 2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27mercer.html?ex=1298696400&en=7ea45081168b7a7f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Here is another reference of some interest I found on Paul Mercer.
"Little-known startup was behind iPod's easy-to-use interface,
Firm's founder now working on the latest handhelds"; San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2004; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/16/BUGTG878AR1.DTL
This article interested me, so I looked up another article on the Web--- here is a small quote.
"'He is an unusually detail-oriented software engineer," said Steve Capps, a former Apple and Microsoft software engineer, who was one of the designers of the original Macintosh interface and the leader of the Newton project, which created a hand-held computer. "He knows how to architect small pieces of software code.'
"Alliances between small firms and big electronics makers are becoming increasingly common as companies are forced to bring new devices to market practically every season.
"'We're seeing the rise of independent specialists who have a deep understanding of things that big companies don't have the ability to do,' said Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley consultant who is chairman of Samsung's science board, an advisory group."
"He Helped Build the iPod, Now He Has Built a Rival;" the New York Times, February 27, 2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27mercer.html?ex=1298696400&en=7ea45081168b7a7f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Here is another reference of some interest I found on Paul Mercer.
"Little-known startup was behind iPod's easy-to-use interface,
Firm's founder now working on the latest handhelds"; San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2004; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/16/BUGTG878AR1.DTL
Friday, February 16, 2007
idea to combine retail and the Internet
I think when people go to a store such as Rite Aid or CVS---what used to be called a drugstore but I can't even think what it would be called now, convenience store does not seem correct---they should be able to order items within a certain range of categories from the Internet.
The person making the order would have to identify himself or herself by name and show the driver's license to verify identity. However, the person would not be legally responsible for picking up the ordered item once it came and, if he or she did not buy it---the person would not be responsible for paying for the item.
Rather, the store would notify the person by e-mail that the item had arrived, hold it for one week, and then put it up for general sale. Anyone who feel to pick up an item however, or failed to pick up a certain number of items, say maybe three, would lose their ability to order new items.
There are number of purposes contained in this idea. one is an easier and less expensive way to order from the Internet, since a company like Rite Aid would be able to set up some bundled, lower-cost method of shipping. Even more important, however, would be the idea of Rite Aid getting new ideas for products to stock.
In fact, the whole idea of the store would change and become more flexible. In fact, this store would be halfway into the Internet.
A related idea of mine is that each store of this type should list every item they have on the Internet, along with their current price. It seems to be this would be something they could attain for software alone with no hours contributed from people working in the stores. I say this because stores like Rite Aid, due to their computerized cash registers, pretty much know everything that is in each store and have this information in their company servers. Of course, such information would be accompanied by a disclaimer that the information did not constitute a guarantee that a particular item would be in the store and an acknowledgment that errors could happen. However, I believe errors would be extremely rare.
This system would be particularly useful for people without cars for whom it can really be difficult to throttle round from one store to another looking for a particular item.
The idea
The person making the order would have to identify himself or herself by name and show the driver's license to verify identity. However, the person would not be legally responsible for picking up the ordered item once it came and, if he or she did not buy it---the person would not be responsible for paying for the item.
Rather, the store would notify the person by e-mail that the item had arrived, hold it for one week, and then put it up for general sale. Anyone who feel to pick up an item however, or failed to pick up a certain number of items, say maybe three, would lose their ability to order new items.
There are number of purposes contained in this idea. one is an easier and less expensive way to order from the Internet, since a company like Rite Aid would be able to set up some bundled, lower-cost method of shipping. Even more important, however, would be the idea of Rite Aid getting new ideas for products to stock.
In fact, the whole idea of the store would change and become more flexible. In fact, this store would be halfway into the Internet.
A related idea of mine is that each store of this type should list every item they have on the Internet, along with their current price. It seems to be this would be something they could attain for software alone with no hours contributed from people working in the stores. I say this because stores like Rite Aid, due to their computerized cash registers, pretty much know everything that is in each store and have this information in their company servers. Of course, such information would be accompanied by a disclaimer that the information did not constitute a guarantee that a particular item would be in the store and an acknowledgment that errors could happen. However, I believe errors would be extremely rare.
This system would be particularly useful for people without cars for whom it can really be difficult to throttle round from one store to another looking for a particular item.
The idea
Thursday, February 15, 2007
some references on entrepreneurship.
angels; how to snag one to invest in your company; http://www.naturalentrepreneur.com/articles/20040630-01.html
entrepreneurs of expositions (like conventions) http://www.expoweb.com/For_Profit_Shows/April2322200524156PM.htm
drug entrepreneurs; small and aggressive and creative; http://www.startupjournal.com/howto/successstories/20070209-whalen.html
Small Drug Firms Eye Castoffs of Larger Rivals
By JEANNE WHALEN
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal.--February 09, 2007
angels; how to snag one to invest in your company; http://www.naturalentrepreneur.com/articles/20040630-01.html
entrepreneurs of expositions (like conventions) http://www.expoweb.com/For_Profit_Shows/April2322200524156PM.htm
drug entrepreneurs; small and aggressive and creative; http://www.startupjournal.com/howto/successstories/20070209-whalen.html
Small Drug Firms Eye Castoffs of Larger Rivals
By JEANNE WHALEN
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal.--February 09, 2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Sony's Diffuse Strategy
I have always been a fan of Sony, buying their electronic products and appreciating their quality---as well as appreciating the amazing story of the company---how it arose from the ashes of post-World War II Japan, starting with little more than a few educated, ingenious workers.
So the long, slow decline of the company has been painful for me to watch. It started for me when I bought a Sony device---either a very small entertainment system or a very large boom box depending on how you look at it---that turned out to be crap. Since then, I have followed their stumbling course on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Their decline has multiple causes. The arrogant dismissal of LCD and plasma TVs because the Trinitron has a better picture. (The Trinitron still has a better picture, but finally, Sony has acknowledged that it doesn't matter, they were wrong, and they are scrambling to try to catch up in LCD TV production. They have teamed up with Samsung to build an expensive new factory---probably just at the point when the best profits from LCD TVs are gone and they are turning into a commodity. Ironically, plasma and LCD TV picture quality is not equal to CRT picture quality, but people want giant screens and a giant CRT screen would have a box behind it that filled up your whole living room. This is because CRT pictures are made by shooting all the electrons out of a "gun"---a single point origin, and the box must encompass this cone, which requires a certain depth per amount of screen area.)
But for me, the central mistake of Sony is their purchase of, and continued ownership of---Time Warner. I think Time may now be sold, which would make it just Warner. In addition, I'll confess I don't know all the details of Sony's ownership of media companies.
What I object to is the basic idea of Sony owning media companies. It stems from them not knowing who they are anymore. They are the tinkerers, they are the builders of great electronic gizmos. This is their business and an attempt to add movies to this is bound to fail. The purchase came about, some of you will recall, in the go-go 90s. There was a theory at that time that hardware didn't matter anymore---only software. When applied to consumer electronics, that meant all the stuff Sony made didn't matter, so Sony went out and bought Warner Brothers said they could own the "content"---which 90's gurus assured everyone was the only source of future profit.
I remember reading at that time (can't specify the year, sorry, but obviously more toward the beginning of the 90s and the end of the 90s) that Cisco was irrelevant company because they only supplied the physical means for the Internet and that didn't matter---only for software and the "content". I remember when I read that I thought, "that's wrong," but I didn't take the next logical leap to realize "Cisco stock must thereby be undervalued and I should buy it." Had I taken that next logical leap, I would now be an extremely wealthy man---had I had any money to buy the stock in the first place.
So Sony went out and bought Warner Brothers, like a million other similar dumb moves in the 90s. But all that BS has been discredited for a long time now, so why hasn't Sony sold Warner Bros. long ago?
These various threads came together in the train wreck of the release of PlayStation 3. They still make the best video games I told myself, the true believer clinging to his faith. I noted the PlayStation 2---which was how many years old?---was still outselling the relatively new Xbox 360 on a month-to-month basis. Okay, that is just competing against Microsoft---not a real company. Everything they make outside of their desktop software fails, from their mobile phone operating systems, to the software they built for one of the Baby Bells to help the deliver TV, etc. They are in fact a utility, not accompany---they cannot compete.
But still, PlayStation has been a great product, everyone agrees. Not that I play video games.
So what did Sony do? They put a Blu-Ray DVD player into each PlayStation 3. This ended up delaying the release of PlayStation 3 quite a while---maybe a year---because they had trouble moving into mass production of the new Blu-Ray technology. The delay gave Nintendo the chance to come up with their innovative new Wii and released at the same time as PlayStation 3. Another case perhaps of Sony, the former king of innovation, being out-innovated. The Blu- Ray story itself looks like a Sony replay. Sony came up with the best videotape machine technology, I think it was called BetaMax. But the other technology ended it up winning and becoming the standard somehow. I have a feeling the same thing will happen with high-definition DVDs players.
But the real key to this whole screw-up is the linkage to Time Warner. That is why the Blu-Ray had to be in the PlayStation 3. Because controlling the dominant DVD player technology, will help boost their distribution of movies---or so they imagine. So they tie the whole company into one long string---and it's sink or swim for everyone at the same time. Except that such an unwieldy strategy almost guarantees the sink outcome---with a delayed, expensive, unprofitable PS3.
It reminds me of Wal-Mart's current floundering---once again stemming from not knowing who you are. Wal-Mart has been having trouble expanding in recent years. This has come about because they are one of the most successful companies in the history of the world and they have almost completely filled up their niche---which is selling retail commodities of every imaginable type at the lowest possible price in America outside the major cities.
Having achieved this singular success, all they had to do was maintain what they had. Shareholders of stock could have been rewarded with dividends---eliminating the need for constant expansion. Instead, Wal-Mart has embarked on two major strategies---international expansion and becoming the next Target. International expansion has failed because there are quintessentially an American company. Becoming the next Target has failed as well. Why is this? Run the historical tape. Target came onto the scene after Wal-Mart was already there (as I understand it). They knew they could never out Wal-Mart Wal-Mart. So, they created their own similar, but somewhat different specialty. It is called Target. They do it extremely well, and like most specialties, it is not easily learned. Target happens to make somewhat more money per square foot because they sell slightly higher-end items. So some accountant at Wal-Mart decided if they just do what Target does, they will boost Wal-Mart's income by X. amount. How sad.
Watching the once great elephant flounder.
So the long, slow decline of the company has been painful for me to watch. It started for me when I bought a Sony device---either a very small entertainment system or a very large boom box depending on how you look at it---that turned out to be crap. Since then, I have followed their stumbling course on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Their decline has multiple causes. The arrogant dismissal of LCD and plasma TVs because the Trinitron has a better picture. (The Trinitron still has a better picture, but finally, Sony has acknowledged that it doesn't matter, they were wrong, and they are scrambling to try to catch up in LCD TV production. They have teamed up with Samsung to build an expensive new factory---probably just at the point when the best profits from LCD TVs are gone and they are turning into a commodity. Ironically, plasma and LCD TV picture quality is not equal to CRT picture quality, but people want giant screens and a giant CRT screen would have a box behind it that filled up your whole living room. This is because CRT pictures are made by shooting all the electrons out of a "gun"---a single point origin, and the box must encompass this cone, which requires a certain depth per amount of screen area.)
But for me, the central mistake of Sony is their purchase of, and continued ownership of---Time Warner. I think Time may now be sold, which would make it just Warner. In addition, I'll confess I don't know all the details of Sony's ownership of media companies.
What I object to is the basic idea of Sony owning media companies. It stems from them not knowing who they are anymore. They are the tinkerers, they are the builders of great electronic gizmos. This is their business and an attempt to add movies to this is bound to fail. The purchase came about, some of you will recall, in the go-go 90s. There was a theory at that time that hardware didn't matter anymore---only software. When applied to consumer electronics, that meant all the stuff Sony made didn't matter, so Sony went out and bought Warner Brothers said they could own the "content"---which 90's gurus assured everyone was the only source of future profit.
I remember reading at that time (can't specify the year, sorry, but obviously more toward the beginning of the 90s and the end of the 90s) that Cisco was irrelevant company because they only supplied the physical means for the Internet and that didn't matter---only for software and the "content". I remember when I read that I thought, "that's wrong," but I didn't take the next logical leap to realize "Cisco stock must thereby be undervalued and I should buy it." Had I taken that next logical leap, I would now be an extremely wealthy man---had I had any money to buy the stock in the first place.
So Sony went out and bought Warner Brothers, like a million other similar dumb moves in the 90s. But all that BS has been discredited for a long time now, so why hasn't Sony sold Warner Bros. long ago?
These various threads came together in the train wreck of the release of PlayStation 3. They still make the best video games I told myself, the true believer clinging to his faith. I noted the PlayStation 2---which was how many years old?---was still outselling the relatively new Xbox 360 on a month-to-month basis. Okay, that is just competing against Microsoft---not a real company. Everything they make outside of their desktop software fails, from their mobile phone operating systems, to the software they built for one of the Baby Bells to help the deliver TV, etc. They are in fact a utility, not accompany---they cannot compete.
But still, PlayStation has been a great product, everyone agrees. Not that I play video games.
So what did Sony do? They put a Blu-Ray DVD player into each PlayStation 3. This ended up delaying the release of PlayStation 3 quite a while---maybe a year---because they had trouble moving into mass production of the new Blu-Ray technology. The delay gave Nintendo the chance to come up with their innovative new Wii and released at the same time as PlayStation 3. Another case perhaps of Sony, the former king of innovation, being out-innovated. The Blu- Ray story itself looks like a Sony replay. Sony came up with the best videotape machine technology, I think it was called BetaMax. But the other technology ended it up winning and becoming the standard somehow. I have a feeling the same thing will happen with high-definition DVDs players.
But the real key to this whole screw-up is the linkage to Time Warner. That is why the Blu-Ray had to be in the PlayStation 3. Because controlling the dominant DVD player technology, will help boost their distribution of movies---or so they imagine. So they tie the whole company into one long string---and it's sink or swim for everyone at the same time. Except that such an unwieldy strategy almost guarantees the sink outcome---with a delayed, expensive, unprofitable PS3.
It reminds me of Wal-Mart's current floundering---once again stemming from not knowing who you are. Wal-Mart has been having trouble expanding in recent years. This has come about because they are one of the most successful companies in the history of the world and they have almost completely filled up their niche---which is selling retail commodities of every imaginable type at the lowest possible price in America outside the major cities.
Having achieved this singular success, all they had to do was maintain what they had. Shareholders of stock could have been rewarded with dividends---eliminating the need for constant expansion. Instead, Wal-Mart has embarked on two major strategies---international expansion and becoming the next Target. International expansion has failed because there are quintessentially an American company. Becoming the next Target has failed as well. Why is this? Run the historical tape. Target came onto the scene after Wal-Mart was already there (as I understand it). They knew they could never out Wal-Mart Wal-Mart. So, they created their own similar, but somewhat different specialty. It is called Target. They do it extremely well, and like most specialties, it is not easily learned. Target happens to make somewhat more money per square foot because they sell slightly higher-end items. So some accountant at Wal-Mart decided if they just do what Target does, they will boost Wal-Mart's income by X. amount. How sad.
Watching the once great elephant flounder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)