The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
Let's talk about manias.Let's start with Beatle mania:hysterical teenagers,crying, screaming, pandemonium.Sports mania:deafening crowds,all for one idea -- get the ball in the net.Okay, religious mania:there's rapture, there's weeping,there's visions.Manias can be good.Manias can be alarming.Or manias can be deadly.
The world has a new mania.A mania for learning English.Listen as Chinese students practice their Englishby screaming it.
Teacher: ... change my life!
Students: I will change my life.
T: I don't want to let my parents down.
S: I don't want to let my parents down.
T: I don't ever want to let my country down.
S: I don't ever want to let my country down.
T: Most importantly ... S: Most importantly ...
T: I don't want to let myself down.
S: I don't want to let myself down.
Jay Walker: How many people are trying to learn English worldwide?Two billion of them.
Students: A t-shirt. A dress.
JW: In Latin America,in India, in Southeast Asia,and most of all in China.If you are a Chinese studentyou start learning English in the third grade, by law.That's why this yearChina will become the world's largest English-speaking country.(Laughter)Why English? In a single word: Opportunity.Opportunity for a better life, a job,to be able to pay for school, or put better food on the table.Imagine a student taking a giant test for three full days.Her score on this one testliterally determines her future.She studies 12 hours a dayfor three years to prepare.25 percent of her gradeis based on English.It's called the Gaokao, and 80 million high school Chinese studentshave already taken this grueling test.The intensity to learn Englishis almost unimaginable, unless you witness it.
Teacher: Perfect! Students: Perfect!
T: Perfect! S: Perfect!
T: I want to speak perfect English.
S: I want to speak perfect English.
T: I want to speak -- S: I want to speak --
T: perfect English. S: perfect English.
T: I want to change my life!
S: I want to change my life!
JW: So is English mania good or bad?Is English a tsunami, washing awayother languages? Not likely.English is the world's second language.Your native language is your life.But with English you can become part of a wider conversation:a global conversation about global problems,like climate change or poverty,or hunger or disease.The world has other universal languages.Mathematics is the language of science.Music is the language of emotions.And now English is becoming the language of problem-solving.Not because America is pushing it,but because the world is pulling it.So English mania is a turning point.Like the harnessing of electricity in our citiesor the fall of the Berlin Wall,English represents hopefor a better future --a future where the world has a common languageto solve its common problems.
Thank you very much.(Applause)
In this blog, teachers, students and all those who have some kind of interest in the English language will find useful, interesting, curious and funny things to be used in their classes or for their personal enjoyment.
Monday, April 29, 2013
LANG/TEACH-TED Talks-Patricia Ryan: Don´t insist on English!
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
I know what you're thinking.You think I've lost my way,and somebody's going to come on the stage in a minuteand guide me gently back to my seat.(Applause)I get that all the time in Dubai."Here on holiday are you, dear?"(Laughter)"Come to visit the children?How long are you staying?"
Well actually, I hope for a while longer yet.I have been living and teaching in the Gulffor over 30 years.(Applause)And in that time, I have seen a lot of changes.Now that statisticis quite shocking.And I want to talk to you todayabout language lossand the globalization of English.I want to tell you about my friendwho was teaching English to adults in Abu Dhabi.And one fine day,she decided to take them into the gardento teach them some nature vocabulary.But it was she who ended up learningall the Arabic words for the local plants,as well as their uses --medicinal uses, cosmetics,cooking, herbal.How did those students get all that knowledge?Of course, from their grandparentsand even their great-grandparents.It's not necessary to tell you how important it isto be able to communicateacross generations.
But sadly, today,languages are dyingat an unprecedented rate.A language dies every 14 days.Now, at the same time,English is the undisputed global language.Could there be a connection?Well I don't know.But I do know that I've seen a lot of changes.When I first came out to the Gulf, I came to Kuwaitin the days when it was still a hardship post.Actually, not that long ago.That is a little bit too early.But nevertheless,I was recruited by the British Council,along with about 25 other teachers.And we were the first non-Muslimsto teach in the state schools there in Kuwait.We were brought to teach Englishbecause the government wanted to modernize the countryand to empower the citizens through education.And of course, the U.K. benefitedfrom some of that lovely oil wealth.
Okay.Now this is the major change that I've seen --how teaching Englishhas morphedfrom being a mutually beneficial practiceto becoming a massive international business that it is today.No longer just a foreign language on the school curriculum,and no longer the sole domainof mother England,it has become a bandwagonfor every English-speaking nation on earth.And why not?After all, the best education --according to the latest World University Rankings --is to be found in the universitiesof the U.K. and the U.S.So everybody wants to have an English education, naturally.But if you're not a native speaker,you have to pass a test.
Now can it be rightto reject a studenton linguistic ability alone?Perhaps you have a computer scientistwho's a genius.Would he need the same language as a lawyer, for example?Well, I don't think so.We English teachers reject them all the time.We put a stop sign,and we stop them in their tracks.They can't pursue their dream any longer,'til they get English.Now let me put it this way:if I met a monolingual Dutch speakerwho had the cure for cancer,would I stop him from entering my British University?I don't think so.But indeed, that is exactly what we do.We English teachers are the gatekeepers.And you have to satisfy us firstthat your English is good enough.Now it can be dangerousto give too much powerto a narrow segment of society.Maybe the barrier would be too universal.
Okay."But," I hear you say,"what about the research?It's all in English."So the books are in English,the journals are done in English,but that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.It feeds the English requirement.And so it goes on.I ask you, what happened to translation?If you think about the Islamic Golden Age,there was lots of translation then.They translated from Latin and Greekinto Arabic, into Persian,and then it was translated oninto the Germanic languages of Europeand the Romance languages.And so light shone upon the Dark Ages of Europe.Now don't get me wrong;I am not against teaching English,all you English teachers out there.I love it that we have a global language.We need one today more than ever.But I am against using itas a barrier.Do we really want to end up with 600 languagesand the main one being English, or Chinese?We need more than that. Where do we draw the line?This systemequates intelligencewith a knowledge of English,which is quite arbitrary.
(Applause)
And I want to remind youthat the giants upon whose shoulderstoday's intelligentsia standdid not have to have English,they didn't have to pass an English test.Case in point, Einstein.He, by the way, was considered remedial at schoolbecause he was, in fact, dyslexic.But fortunately for the world,he did not have to pass an English test.Because they didn't start until 1964with TOEFL,the American test of English.Now it's exploded.There are lots and lots of tests of English.And millions and millions of studentstake these tests every year.Now you might think, you and me,"Those fees aren't bad, they're okay,"but they are prohibitiveto so many millions of poor people.So immediately, we're rejecting them.
(Applause)
It brings to mind a headline I saw recently:"Education: The Great Divide."Now I get it,I understand why people would want to focus on English.They want to give their children the best chance in life.And to do that, they need a Western education.Because, of course, the best jobsgo to people out of the Western Universities,that I put on earlier.It's a circular thing.
Okay.Let me tell you a story about two scientists,two English scientists.They were doing an experimentto do with geneticsand the forelimbs and the hind limbs of animals.But they couldn't get the results they wanted.They really didn't know what to do,until along came a German scientistwho realized that they were using two wordsfor forelimb and hind limb,whereas genetics does not differentiateand neither does German.So bingo,problem solved.If you can't think a thought,you are stuck.But if another language can think that thought,then, by cooperating,we can achieve and learn so much more.
My daughtercame to England from Kuwait.She had studied science and mathematics in Arabic.It's an Arabic medium school.She had to translate it into English at her grammar school.And she was the best in the classat those subjects.Which tells usthat when students come to us from abroad,we may not be giving them enough creditfor what they know,and they know it in their own language.When a language dies,we don't know what we lose with that language.
This is -- I don't know if you saw it on CNN recently --they gave the Heroes Awardto a young Kenyan shepherd boywho couldn't study at night in his village,like all the village children,because the kerosene lamp,it had smoke and it damaged his eyes.And anyway, there was never enough kerosene,because what does a dollar a day buy for you?So he inventeda cost-free solar lamp.And now the children in his villageget the same grades at schoolas the children who have electricity at home.(Applause)When he received his award,he said these lovely words:"The children can lead Africa from what it is today,a dark continent,to a light continent."A simple idea,but it could have such far-reaching consequences.
People who have no light,whether it's physical or metaphorical,cannot pass our exams,and we can never know what they know.Let us not keep them and ourselvesin the dark.Let us celebrate diversity.Mind your language.Use it to spread great ideas.
(Applause)
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Transcript:
I know what you're thinking.You think I've lost my way,and somebody's going to come on the stage in a minuteand guide me gently back to my seat.(Applause)I get that all the time in Dubai."Here on holiday are you, dear?"(Laughter)"Come to visit the children?How long are you staying?"
Well actually, I hope for a while longer yet.I have been living and teaching in the Gulffor over 30 years.(Applause)And in that time, I have seen a lot of changes.Now that statisticis quite shocking.And I want to talk to you todayabout language lossand the globalization of English.I want to tell you about my friendwho was teaching English to adults in Abu Dhabi.And one fine day,she decided to take them into the gardento teach them some nature vocabulary.But it was she who ended up learningall the Arabic words for the local plants,as well as their uses --medicinal uses, cosmetics,cooking, herbal.How did those students get all that knowledge?Of course, from their grandparentsand even their great-grandparents.It's not necessary to tell you how important it isto be able to communicateacross generations.
But sadly, today,languages are dyingat an unprecedented rate.A language dies every 14 days.Now, at the same time,English is the undisputed global language.Could there be a connection?Well I don't know.But I do know that I've seen a lot of changes.When I first came out to the Gulf, I came to Kuwaitin the days when it was still a hardship post.Actually, not that long ago.That is a little bit too early.But nevertheless,I was recruited by the British Council,along with about 25 other teachers.And we were the first non-Muslimsto teach in the state schools there in Kuwait.We were brought to teach Englishbecause the government wanted to modernize the countryand to empower the citizens through education.And of course, the U.K. benefitedfrom some of that lovely oil wealth.
Okay.Now this is the major change that I've seen --how teaching Englishhas morphedfrom being a mutually beneficial practiceto becoming a massive international business that it is today.No longer just a foreign language on the school curriculum,and no longer the sole domainof mother England,it has become a bandwagonfor every English-speaking nation on earth.And why not?After all, the best education --according to the latest World University Rankings --is to be found in the universitiesof the U.K. and the U.S.So everybody wants to have an English education, naturally.But if you're not a native speaker,you have to pass a test.
Now can it be rightto reject a studenton linguistic ability alone?Perhaps you have a computer scientistwho's a genius.Would he need the same language as a lawyer, for example?Well, I don't think so.We English teachers reject them all the time.We put a stop sign,and we stop them in their tracks.They can't pursue their dream any longer,'til they get English.Now let me put it this way:if I met a monolingual Dutch speakerwho had the cure for cancer,would I stop him from entering my British University?I don't think so.But indeed, that is exactly what we do.We English teachers are the gatekeepers.And you have to satisfy us firstthat your English is good enough.Now it can be dangerousto give too much powerto a narrow segment of society.Maybe the barrier would be too universal.
Okay."But," I hear you say,"what about the research?It's all in English."So the books are in English,the journals are done in English,but that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.It feeds the English requirement.And so it goes on.I ask you, what happened to translation?If you think about the Islamic Golden Age,there was lots of translation then.They translated from Latin and Greekinto Arabic, into Persian,and then it was translated oninto the Germanic languages of Europeand the Romance languages.And so light shone upon the Dark Ages of Europe.Now don't get me wrong;I am not against teaching English,all you English teachers out there.I love it that we have a global language.We need one today more than ever.But I am against using itas a barrier.Do we really want to end up with 600 languagesand the main one being English, or Chinese?We need more than that. Where do we draw the line?This systemequates intelligencewith a knowledge of English,which is quite arbitrary.
(Applause)
And I want to remind youthat the giants upon whose shoulderstoday's intelligentsia standdid not have to have English,they didn't have to pass an English test.Case in point, Einstein.He, by the way, was considered remedial at schoolbecause he was, in fact, dyslexic.But fortunately for the world,he did not have to pass an English test.Because they didn't start until 1964with TOEFL,the American test of English.Now it's exploded.There are lots and lots of tests of English.And millions and millions of studentstake these tests every year.Now you might think, you and me,"Those fees aren't bad, they're okay,"but they are prohibitiveto so many millions of poor people.So immediately, we're rejecting them.
(Applause)
It brings to mind a headline I saw recently:"Education: The Great Divide."Now I get it,I understand why people would want to focus on English.They want to give their children the best chance in life.And to do that, they need a Western education.Because, of course, the best jobsgo to people out of the Western Universities,that I put on earlier.It's a circular thing.
Okay.Let me tell you a story about two scientists,two English scientists.They were doing an experimentto do with geneticsand the forelimbs and the hind limbs of animals.But they couldn't get the results they wanted.They really didn't know what to do,until along came a German scientistwho realized that they were using two wordsfor forelimb and hind limb,whereas genetics does not differentiateand neither does German.So bingo,problem solved.If you can't think a thought,you are stuck.But if another language can think that thought,then, by cooperating,we can achieve and learn so much more.
My daughtercame to England from Kuwait.She had studied science and mathematics in Arabic.It's an Arabic medium school.She had to translate it into English at her grammar school.And she was the best in the classat those subjects.Which tells usthat when students come to us from abroad,we may not be giving them enough creditfor what they know,and they know it in their own language.When a language dies,we don't know what we lose with that language.
This is -- I don't know if you saw it on CNN recently --they gave the Heroes Awardto a young Kenyan shepherd boywho couldn't study at night in his village,like all the village children,because the kerosene lamp,it had smoke and it damaged his eyes.And anyway, there was never enough kerosene,because what does a dollar a day buy for you?So he inventeda cost-free solar lamp.And now the children in his villageget the same grades at schoolas the children who have electricity at home.(Applause)When he received his award,he said these lovely words:"The children can lead Africa from what it is today,a dark continent,to a light continent."A simple idea,but it could have such far-reaching consequences.
People who have no light,whether it's physical or metaphorical,cannot pass our exams,and we can never know what they know.Let us not keep them and ourselvesin the dark.Let us celebrate diversity.Mind your language.Use it to spread great ideas.
(Applause)
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
TECH/GRALINT-TED Talks-David Pogue on cool phone tricks
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
I'm the weekly tech critic for the New York Times.I review gadgets and stuff.And mostly what good dads should be doing this time of yearis nestling with their kids and decorating the Christmas tree.What I'm mostly doing this yearis going on cable TV and answering the same question:"What are the tech trends for next year?"And I'm like, "Didn't we just go through this last year?"
But I'm going to pick the one that interests me most, and that is thecompleted marriage of the cell phone and the Internet.You know, I found that volcano on Google Images,not realizing how much it makes me look like the cover of Dianetics.
(Laughter)
Anyway, this all started a few years ago,when they started carrying your voice over the Internet rather than over a phone line,and we've come a long way since that.But that was interesting in itself. This is companies like Vonage.Basically you take an ordinary telephone, you plug it into this little boxthat they give you and the box plugs into your cable modem.Now, it works just like a regular phone.So you can pick up the phone, you hear a dial tone,but its just a fake-out. It's a WAV file of a dial tone,just to reassure you that the world hasn't ended.It could be anything. It could be salsa musicor a comedy routine -- it doesn't matter.The little box has your phone number.So that's really cool -- you can take it to London or Siberia,and your next door neighbor can dial your home number and your phone will ring,because it's got everything in the box.They've got every feature known to man in there,because adding a new feature is just software.
And as a result of Voice Over IP --I hate that term -- Voice Over Internet --land-line home-phone service has gone down 30 percent in the last three years.I mean, no self-respecting college kid has home phone service anymore.This is what college kids are more likely to have. It's the most popularVOIP service in the world: It's Skype.It's a free program you download for your Mac or PC,and you make free phone calls anywhere in the worldThe downside is that you have to wear a headset like a nerd.It's not your phone -- it's your computer.But nonetheless, if you're a college kid and you have no money,believe me, this is better than trying to use your cellphone.
It's really cute seeing middle-aged peoplelike me, try out Skype for the first time,which is usually when their kid goes away for a semester abroad.They don't want to pay the international fees,so they're like, "Timmy! Is that you?"
(Laughter)
It's really cute.But I -- at least it was when I did it --
(Laughter)
I think where VOIP is really going to get interestingis when they start putting it on cell phones.Imagine if you had an ordinary cell phone,and any time you were in a wireless hotspot --free calls anywhere in the world,never pay the cellular company a nickel.It'd be really, really cool -- and yet,even though the technology for this has been availablefor five years, incredibly,the number of standard cellphonesoffered by US carriers with free VOIPis zero!I can't figure out why!
(Laughter)
Actually, I need to update that. There's one now.And it's so interesting that I thought I would tell you about it.It comes from T-Mobile.And I am not paid by T-Mobile.I'm not plugging T-Mobile.The New York Times has very rigid policies about that.Ever since that Jayson Blair jerk ruined it for all of us.
(Laughter)
Basically, the reason you haven't heard about this programis because it was introduced last yearon June 29.Does anyone remember what else happened on June 29 last year?It was the iPhone. The iPhone came out that day.I'm like, can you imagine being theT-Mobile PR lady? You know?
"Hi, we have an announcement to -- WAH!!!"
(Laughter)
But it's actually really, really cool. You have a choice of phones,and we're not talking smartphones --ordinary phones, including a Blackberry, that have Wi-Fi.The deal is, any time you're in a Wi-Fi hotspot,all your calls are free.And when you're out of the hotspot, you're on the regular cellular network.You're thinking, "Well, how often am I in a hotspot?"The answer is, "All the time!"Because they give youa regular wireless router that works with the phone,for your house.Which is really ingenious, because we all know thatT-Mobile is the most pathetic carrier.They have coverage like the size of my thumbnail.(Laughter)But it's a hundred million dollars to put up one of those towers. Right?They don't have that kind of money. Instead they give each of usa seven-dollar-and-95-cent box. They're like a stealth tower installation program.We're putting it in our homes for them!
Anyway, they have Wi-Fi phones in Europe.But the thing that T-Mobile did that nobody's done beforeis, when you're on a call an you move from Wi-Fi into cellular range,the call is handed off in mid-syllable,seamlessly. I'll show you the advanced technologieswe use at the New York Times to test this gear.This is me with a camcorder on a phonegoing like this.
(Laughter)
As I walk out of the house from my Wi-Fi hotspotinto the cellular network on a call with my wife --look at the upper left. That's the Wi-Fi signal.
(Video): Jennifer Pogue: Hello?
David Pogue: Hi babes, it's me.
JP: Oh, hi darling, how are you?
DP: You're on Wi-Fi. How does it sound?
JP: Oh, it sounds pretty good.
Now, I'm leaving the house. DP: I'm going for a walk -- do you mind?
JP: No not at all. I'm having a great day with the kids.
DP: What are you guys doing?
Right there!It just changed to the cellular tower in mid-call.I don't know why my wife says I never listen to her. I don't get that.
(Laughter)
The bottom line is that the boundaries,because of the Internet plus cellphone, are melting.The cool thing about the T-Mobile phonesis that although switching technologies is very advanced,the billing technology has not caught up.So what I mean is that you can start a callin your house in the Wi-Fi hotspot,you can get in your car and talk until the battery's dead --which would be like 10 minutes --
(Laughter)
And the call will continue to be free.Because they don't, they haven't --well, no, wait! Not so fast.It also works the other way.So if you start a call on your cellular networkand you come home, you keep being billed.Which is why most people with this serviceget into the habit of saying,"Hey, I just got home. Can I call you right back?"Now you get it.It's also true that if you use one of these phones overseas,it doesn't know what Internet hotspot you're in.On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog,right? Nobody knows you're in Pakistan.You can make free unlimited callshome to the US with these phones. So, very, very interesting.
This is another favorite of mine.Does anyone here have a working cellphonethat's on, with coverage, who can make a call right now without a lot of fussing?OK. Would you call me please right now? [Phone number given.]And don't you all call me at three a.m. asking me to fix your printer.
(Laughter)
I have two cellphones, so this going to be very odd, if it works.I should know not to do technology demosin front of an audience. It's just, like, absurd.This one is going off. And -- oh, I have the ringer off. Tsh! Great.Anyway, this one is also going off. So they're both ringing at the same time.Excuse me one second.Hello?Oh. Where are you calling from?No, no just kidding. There he is. Thank you very much for doing that.I didn't even know it was you -- I was looking at this guy.Oh great! Yeah. Yeah you can all stop calling now!
(Laughter)
All right! We've made the point.All right. Ringer off. Everyone wants in on the action.
(Laughter)
So this is Grand Central at work -- it's a --oh, for gods sake!
(Laughter)
I have your numbers now!
(Laughter)
You will pay.
Grand Central is this really brilliant ideawhere they give you a new phone number,and then at that point one phone number rings all your phones at once.Your home phone, your work phone, your cellphone, your yacht phone(this is the EG crowd).
(Laughter)
The beauty of that is you never miss a call.I know a lot of you are like,"Ooh, I don't want to be reached at any hour."But the beauty is it's all going through the internet,so you get all of these really cool features --like you can say, I want these people to be able to call me only during these hours.And I want these people to hear this greeting,"Hi boss, I'm out making us both some money. Leave a message."And then your wife calls, and, "Hi honey, leave me a message."Very, very customizable.Google bought it, and they've been working on it for a year.They're supposed to come out with it very shortly in a public method.
By the way, this is something that really bothers me.I don't know if you realize this. When you call 411 on your cellphone,they charge you two bucks.Did you know that? It's an outrage.I actually got a photograph of the Verizon employee right there.I'm going to tell you how to avoid that now.What you're going to use is Google Cellular.It's totally free -- there's not even ads.If you know how to send a text message, you can get the same information for free.I'm about to change your life. So here's me doing it.You send a text message to the word "Google,"which turns out to be 46645.Leave off the last "e" for savings.
Anyway, so lets say you need a drugstore near Chicago.You type "pharmacy Chicago," or the zip code.You hit send, and in five seconds,they will send you back the two closest drugstores,complete with name address and phone number.Here it comes.And it's already written down -- so, like, if you're driving,you don't have to do one of these things, "Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh."
It works with weather, too.You can say "Weather," and the name of the city you're going to travel to.And then in five seconds, they send you backthe complete weather forecast for that town.Shortly I'll tell you why I was in Milan.Here we go. And those are just the beginning.These are all the different things that you can text to Google and they will --yeah! You're all trying to write this down.That's cute. I do have an email address. You can just ask me.It's absolutely phenomenal. The only downsideis that it requires you to know how to text --send a text message. Nobody over 40 knows how to do that.
So I'm going to teach you something even better.This is called Google Info.They've just launched this voice-activated version of the same thing.It's speech recognition like you've never heard before.So lets say I'm in Monterey,and I want what?I want to find what? Bagels. OK.
Google: Say the business and the city and state.
DP: Bagels, Monterey, California.I got the Chinese line.
(Laughter)
Google: Bagels, Monterey, California.Top eight results: Number one,Bagel Bakery on El Dorado Street.To select number one, you can press one or say "number one."Number two: Bagel Bakery, commissary department.
Number Two. Number Two. Two.
(Laughter)
Why do I listen to people in the audience?Well anyway -- oh! Here we go!
Google: ... commissary department on McClellan Avenue, Monterey.I'll connect you, or say "details," or "go back."
DP: He's connecting me! He doesn't even tell me the phone number.He's just connecting me directly. It's like having a personal valet.
Google: Hold on.
(Laughter)
DP: Hi, could I have 400 with a schmear?No, no, no -- just kidding, no no.So anyway, you never even find out the number.It's just so amazing.And it has incredible, incredible accuracy.This is even more amazing. Put this in your speed dial.This you can ask by voice any question.Who won the 1958 World Series?What's the recipe for a certain cocktail?It's absolutely amazing -- and they text you back the answer.I tried this this morning just to make sure it's still alive."Which actors have played James Bond?"They text me back this: "Sean Connery,George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig."Right! And then I was trying to pretend I was like a Valley girl.I'm like, "What's the word that means you know, like,when the sun, the moon and the earth are, like, all in a line?"Just to see how the recognition was.They texted me back, "It's called a syzygy."Which I knew, because it's the word that won me the Ohio spelling bee in 1976.
You know, there's a lot of people wondering, "How on earth are they going tomake money doing this?" And the answer is: look at the last line.They put this teeny-weeny little ad, about 10 characters long.And a lot of people also want to know, "How does it work?How can it be so good? It's as though there is a human beingon the other end of the line."Because there is one!They have 10,000 peoplewho are being paid 20 cents per answer.As you can imagine, it's college kids and old people.That's who can afford to do that.But it's a human being on the line. And it's gotten me out of so manytough positions like, "When's the last flight out of Chicago?"You know. It's just absolutely amazing.
Another thing that really bothers me about cell phones today --this is probably my biggest pet peeve in all of technology.When I call to leave you a message,I get 15 seconds of instructionsfrom a third-grade teacher on Ambien!
(Laughter)
"To page this person ... "Page? What is this, 1975?Nobody has pagers anymore."You may begin speaking at the tone.When you have finished recording,you may hang up." No!
(Laughter)
And then it gets worse:when I call to retrieve my messages,first of all: "You have 87 messages.To listen to your messages ... "Why else am I calling?
(Laughter)
Of course I want to listen to the messages!
(Laughter)
Oh! You all have cell phones too.So last year I went to Milan, Italy,and I got to speak to an audienceof cellular executives from 200 countries around the world.And I said as a joke -- as a joke, I said,"I did the math. Verizon has 70 million customers.If you check your voicemail twice a day,that's 100 million dollars a year.I bet you guys are doing this just to run up our airtime, aren't you?"No chuckle. They're like this --
(Laughter)
Where is the outrage, people? Rise up!
(Laughter)
Sorry. I'm not bitter.
(Laughter)
So now I'm going to tell you how to get out of that.There are these services that transcribeyour voicemail into text.And they send it either to your emailor as text messages to your phone.It is a life-changer.And by the way, they don't always get the words right,because it's over the phone and all that.So they attach the audio file at the bottom of the emailso you can listen to double-check.The services are called things like Spinvox,Phonetag -- this is the one I use --Callwave. A lot of people say, "How are they doing this?I don't really want people listening in to my calls."The executives at these companies told me,"Well we use a proprietary B-to-B, best-of-breed, peer-to-peer soluti -- " you know.I think basically it's like these guys in India with headsets, you know, listening in.
The reason I think that is thaton the first day I tried one of these services,I got two voicemail messages. One was from a guy named Michael Stevenson,which shouldn't be that hard to transcribe, and it was misspelled.The other was from my video producer at the Times, whose name is Vijaiy Singh,with the silent 'h'. Nailed that one.
(Laughter)
So you be the judge.
(Laughter)
Anyway, this service, Callwave, promisesthat it's all software -- nobody is listening to your messages.And they also promise that they're going to transcribe only the gistof your messages.
(Laughter)
So I thought I'd see how that goes.This is me testing it out.
(Video): Hello, this is Michael.Hope you're doing well. I'm fine here. Everything's good.Hey, I was walking along the street and the sky was blue.And your daughter broke her leg at soccer practice.I'm going to have a sandwich for lunch.She's in room -- emergency room 53W.OK, talk to you later -- bye.
(Laughter)
I love my job.
(Laughter)
So a couple minutes later, this I got by email.It's a very good transcription. But a couple minutes after that,I got the text message version. Now remember,a text message can only be 160 characters long.So it had better be the gist of the gist, right?I'm not kidding you. The message said,
"Was walking along the street" and "sky was blue" and "emergency"!
(Laughter)
What the f -- ?
(Laughter)
Well I guess that was the gist.
(Laughter)
And lastly, I just have to talk about this one.This is my favorite of all time. It's called Popularitydialer.com.Basically, you're going to go on someiffy date, or a potentially bad meeting.So you go and you type in your phone number,and at the exact minute where you want to be called --
(Laughter)
And at that moment your phone will ring.And you're like, "I'm sorry. I've got to take this."The really beautiful thing is,you know how when somebody's sitting next to you, sometimes they can sort ofhear a little bit of the caller.So they give you a choiceof what you want to hear on the other end.Here's the girlfriend.
Phone: Hey you, what's going on?
DP: I'm kinda, like, giving a talk right now.
Phone: Well, that's good.
DP: What are you doing?
Phone: I was just wondering what you were up to.
DP: Right, I can't really talk right now.This is the -- I love this -- the boss call.
Phone: Hey, this is Mr. Johnson calling from the office.
DP: Oh, hi, sir.
Phone: Did you complete that thing about a month ago? That photocopier training?
DP: Oh -- sorry I forgot.
Phone: Yeah, well so when was the last time you used the photocopier?
DP: It was like three weeks ago.
Phone: Well, I don't know if you heard, you might have heard from Lenny, but --
(Laughter)
I think the biggest change when Internet met phonewas with the iPhone.Not my finest moment in New York Times journalism.It was when in the fall of 2006,I explained why Apple would never do a cellphone.
(Laughter)
I looked like a moron. However, my logic was good,because -- I don't know if you realize this, but -- until the iPhone came along,the carriers -- Verizon, AT&T, Cingular --held veto power over every aspectof every design of every phone.I know the people who worked on the Treo.They went around to these carriers and said,
"Look at these cool features." And Verizon is like, "Hmm, no.I don't think so."It was not very conducive to innovation.What I didn't anticipate was that Steve Jobswent around and said, "Tell you what -- I'll give you a five-year exclusiveif you'll let me design this phone in peace --and you won't even see it till it's done."Actually, even so, he was turned down by Verizon and others.Finally Cingular said OK.
I'm going to talk about the effect of the iPhone.Please don't corner me at the party tonightand go, "What are you? An Apple fan boy?"- you know. I'm not.You can see what I said about it. It's a flawed masterpiece.It's got bad things and good things. Lets all acknowledge that right now.
But it did change a few things. The first thing it changedwas that all those carriers sawthat they sold 10 million of these things in a year.And they said, "Oh my gosh, maybe we've been doing it wrong.Maybe we should let phone designers design the phones."
(Applause)
Another thing was that it let 10 million people,for the first time, experience being online all the time.Not using these 60-dollar-a-monthcellular cards for their laptops.I don't understand why we're not there yet.When I'm an old man, I'm going to tell my grandchildren,"When I was your age, if I wanted to check my email,I used to drive around town looking for a coffee shop. I did!"
(Laughter)
"We had wireless base stations that couldbroadcast -- yay, about 150 feet across."
(Laughter)
It's absurd. We have power outletsin every room of every building. We have running water.What's the problem?Anyway -- but this teaches people what it's like.You have to go to YouTubeand type in "iPhone Shuffle."This guy did a mock video of onethat's one inch square, like the real iPod Shuffle.It's like, "It only has one button.Touch it and it dials a number at random."
(Laughter)
"Who the hell is this?"
(Laughter)
But the other thing it didis it opened up this idea of an app store.It downloads right to the phone.And you can use the tilt sensorto steer this car using this game.These programs can use all the componentsof the iPhone -- the touch screen.This is the Etch-A-Sketch program -- the theme of EG 2008.You know how you erase it?Of course. You shake it.Right, of course. We shake it to erase, like this.
They have 10,000 of these programs.This is the translator program. They have every language in the world.You type in what you want, and it gives you the translation.This is amazing. This is Midomi.A song is running through your head --you sing it into the thing:do do do do do, da da da da da da, da dum ...OK, you tap, "Done" and it will find out the song and play it for you.I know. It's insane, right?
This is Pandora. Free Internet radio. Not just free Internet radio --you type in a band or a song name.It will immediately play you that song or that band.It has a thumbs-up and a thumbs-down.You say if you like this song or not.If you like it, it tries another song on youfrom a different band, with the same instrumentation, vocals,theme and tempo.If you like that one, or don't like it,you do thumbs-up and thumbs-down. Over time it tailors the songsso that it completely stops playing bad songs.It eventually only plays songs you like.
This is Urbanspoon. You're in a city. It knows from GPS where you're standing.You want to find a place to eat. You shake it.It proposes a restaurant.It gives you the price, and the location and ratings.Video: I'm not going all the way to Flushing.Anyway, just amazing, amazing things.Of course, its not just about the iPhone.
The iPhone broke the dyke, the wall.But now it's everybody else. So Google has done their own Android operating systemthat will soon be on handsets -- phones from 34 companies.Touch screen -- very, very nice.Also with its own app store, where you can download programs.
This is amazing. In the wake of all this,Verizon, the most calcified, corporate,conservative carrier of all,said, "You can use any phone you want on our network."I love the Wired headline:Pigs Fly, Hell Freezes Overand Verizon Opens Up Its Network -- No. Really.
So everything is changing. We've entereda new world of innovation, where the cell phone becomes your laptop,customized the way you want it.Every cell phone is unique. There is software that you can add on.Can I do one more one-minute song? Thank you.
(Applause)
Just to round it up -- this is the new Apple Power Music Stand.It's only three pounds,or 12 if you install Microsoft Office.
(Laughter)
Sorry, that was mean.This is a song I did for the New York Times website as a music video.Ladies and gentlemen, for seven blissful hoursit was the number one video on YouTube.(To the tune of "My Way")
And now the end is near.I'm sick to deathof this old cell phone.Bad sound, the signal's weak,the software stinks.A made-in-Hell phone.I've heard there's something new --a million times more rad than my phone.I too will join the cult.I want an iPhone.Concerns -- I have a few. It's got some flaws;we may just face it.No keys, no memory card,the battery's sealed --you can't replace it.But God, this thing is sweet.A multitouch, iPod, Wi-Fi phone.You had me from, "Hello."I want an iPhone.I want to touch its precious screen.I want to wipe the smudges clean.I want my friends to look and drool.I want to say, "Look -- now I'm cool"I stood in line and I'll get mine.I want an iPhone.For what is a man?What has he got? If not iPhone,then he's got squat.It's all the things a phone should be.Who cares if it's AT&T?I took a stand, paid half a grand!And I got an iPhone!
(Applause)
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Transcript:
I'm the weekly tech critic for the New York Times.I review gadgets and stuff.And mostly what good dads should be doing this time of yearis nestling with their kids and decorating the Christmas tree.What I'm mostly doing this yearis going on cable TV and answering the same question:"What are the tech trends for next year?"And I'm like, "Didn't we just go through this last year?"
But I'm going to pick the one that interests me most, and that is thecompleted marriage of the cell phone and the Internet.You know, I found that volcano on Google Images,not realizing how much it makes me look like the cover of Dianetics.
(Laughter)
Anyway, this all started a few years ago,when they started carrying your voice over the Internet rather than over a phone line,and we've come a long way since that.But that was interesting in itself. This is companies like Vonage.Basically you take an ordinary telephone, you plug it into this little boxthat they give you and the box plugs into your cable modem.Now, it works just like a regular phone.So you can pick up the phone, you hear a dial tone,but its just a fake-out. It's a WAV file of a dial tone,just to reassure you that the world hasn't ended.It could be anything. It could be salsa musicor a comedy routine -- it doesn't matter.The little box has your phone number.So that's really cool -- you can take it to London or Siberia,and your next door neighbor can dial your home number and your phone will ring,because it's got everything in the box.They've got every feature known to man in there,because adding a new feature is just software.
And as a result of Voice Over IP --I hate that term -- Voice Over Internet --land-line home-phone service has gone down 30 percent in the last three years.I mean, no self-respecting college kid has home phone service anymore.This is what college kids are more likely to have. It's the most popularVOIP service in the world: It's Skype.It's a free program you download for your Mac or PC,and you make free phone calls anywhere in the worldThe downside is that you have to wear a headset like a nerd.It's not your phone -- it's your computer.But nonetheless, if you're a college kid and you have no money,believe me, this is better than trying to use your cellphone.
It's really cute seeing middle-aged peoplelike me, try out Skype for the first time,which is usually when their kid goes away for a semester abroad.They don't want to pay the international fees,so they're like, "Timmy! Is that you?"
(Laughter)
It's really cute.But I -- at least it was when I did it --
(Laughter)
I think where VOIP is really going to get interestingis when they start putting it on cell phones.Imagine if you had an ordinary cell phone,and any time you were in a wireless hotspot --free calls anywhere in the world,never pay the cellular company a nickel.It'd be really, really cool -- and yet,even though the technology for this has been availablefor five years, incredibly,the number of standard cellphonesoffered by US carriers with free VOIPis zero!I can't figure out why!
(Laughter)
Actually, I need to update that. There's one now.And it's so interesting that I thought I would tell you about it.It comes from T-Mobile.And I am not paid by T-Mobile.I'm not plugging T-Mobile.The New York Times has very rigid policies about that.Ever since that Jayson Blair jerk ruined it for all of us.
(Laughter)
Basically, the reason you haven't heard about this programis because it was introduced last yearon June 29.Does anyone remember what else happened on June 29 last year?It was the iPhone. The iPhone came out that day.I'm like, can you imagine being theT-Mobile PR lady? You know?
"Hi, we have an announcement to -- WAH!!!"
(Laughter)
But it's actually really, really cool. You have a choice of phones,and we're not talking smartphones --ordinary phones, including a Blackberry, that have Wi-Fi.The deal is, any time you're in a Wi-Fi hotspot,all your calls are free.And when you're out of the hotspot, you're on the regular cellular network.You're thinking, "Well, how often am I in a hotspot?"The answer is, "All the time!"Because they give youa regular wireless router that works with the phone,for your house.Which is really ingenious, because we all know thatT-Mobile is the most pathetic carrier.They have coverage like the size of my thumbnail.(Laughter)But it's a hundred million dollars to put up one of those towers. Right?They don't have that kind of money. Instead they give each of usa seven-dollar-and-95-cent box. They're like a stealth tower installation program.We're putting it in our homes for them!
Anyway, they have Wi-Fi phones in Europe.But the thing that T-Mobile did that nobody's done beforeis, when you're on a call an you move from Wi-Fi into cellular range,the call is handed off in mid-syllable,seamlessly. I'll show you the advanced technologieswe use at the New York Times to test this gear.This is me with a camcorder on a phonegoing like this.
(Laughter)
As I walk out of the house from my Wi-Fi hotspotinto the cellular network on a call with my wife --look at the upper left. That's the Wi-Fi signal.
(Video): Jennifer Pogue: Hello?
David Pogue: Hi babes, it's me.
JP: Oh, hi darling, how are you?
DP: You're on Wi-Fi. How does it sound?
JP: Oh, it sounds pretty good.
Now, I'm leaving the house. DP: I'm going for a walk -- do you mind?
JP: No not at all. I'm having a great day with the kids.
DP: What are you guys doing?
Right there!It just changed to the cellular tower in mid-call.I don't know why my wife says I never listen to her. I don't get that.
(Laughter)
The bottom line is that the boundaries,because of the Internet plus cellphone, are melting.The cool thing about the T-Mobile phonesis that although switching technologies is very advanced,the billing technology has not caught up.So what I mean is that you can start a callin your house in the Wi-Fi hotspot,you can get in your car and talk until the battery's dead --which would be like 10 minutes --
(Laughter)
And the call will continue to be free.Because they don't, they haven't --well, no, wait! Not so fast.It also works the other way.So if you start a call on your cellular networkand you come home, you keep being billed.Which is why most people with this serviceget into the habit of saying,"Hey, I just got home. Can I call you right back?"Now you get it.It's also true that if you use one of these phones overseas,it doesn't know what Internet hotspot you're in.On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog,right? Nobody knows you're in Pakistan.You can make free unlimited callshome to the US with these phones. So, very, very interesting.
This is another favorite of mine.Does anyone here have a working cellphonethat's on, with coverage, who can make a call right now without a lot of fussing?OK. Would you call me please right now? [Phone number given.]And don't you all call me at three a.m. asking me to fix your printer.
(Laughter)
I have two cellphones, so this going to be very odd, if it works.I should know not to do technology demosin front of an audience. It's just, like, absurd.This one is going off. And -- oh, I have the ringer off. Tsh! Great.Anyway, this one is also going off. So they're both ringing at the same time.Excuse me one second.Hello?Oh. Where are you calling from?No, no just kidding. There he is. Thank you very much for doing that.I didn't even know it was you -- I was looking at this guy.Oh great! Yeah. Yeah you can all stop calling now!
(Laughter)
All right! We've made the point.All right. Ringer off. Everyone wants in on the action.
(Laughter)
So this is Grand Central at work -- it's a --oh, for gods sake!
(Laughter)
I have your numbers now!
(Laughter)
You will pay.
Grand Central is this really brilliant ideawhere they give you a new phone number,and then at that point one phone number rings all your phones at once.Your home phone, your work phone, your cellphone, your yacht phone(this is the EG crowd).
(Laughter)
The beauty of that is you never miss a call.I know a lot of you are like,"Ooh, I don't want to be reached at any hour."But the beauty is it's all going through the internet,so you get all of these really cool features --like you can say, I want these people to be able to call me only during these hours.And I want these people to hear this greeting,"Hi boss, I'm out making us both some money. Leave a message."And then your wife calls, and, "Hi honey, leave me a message."Very, very customizable.Google bought it, and they've been working on it for a year.They're supposed to come out with it very shortly in a public method.
By the way, this is something that really bothers me.I don't know if you realize this. When you call 411 on your cellphone,they charge you two bucks.Did you know that? It's an outrage.I actually got a photograph of the Verizon employee right there.I'm going to tell you how to avoid that now.What you're going to use is Google Cellular.It's totally free -- there's not even ads.If you know how to send a text message, you can get the same information for free.I'm about to change your life. So here's me doing it.You send a text message to the word "Google,"which turns out to be 46645.Leave off the last "e" for savings.
Anyway, so lets say you need a drugstore near Chicago.You type "pharmacy Chicago," or the zip code.You hit send, and in five seconds,they will send you back the two closest drugstores,complete with name address and phone number.Here it comes.And it's already written down -- so, like, if you're driving,you don't have to do one of these things, "Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh."
It works with weather, too.You can say "Weather," and the name of the city you're going to travel to.And then in five seconds, they send you backthe complete weather forecast for that town.Shortly I'll tell you why I was in Milan.Here we go. And those are just the beginning.These are all the different things that you can text to Google and they will --yeah! You're all trying to write this down.That's cute. I do have an email address. You can just ask me.It's absolutely phenomenal. The only downsideis that it requires you to know how to text --send a text message. Nobody over 40 knows how to do that.
So I'm going to teach you something even better.This is called Google Info.They've just launched this voice-activated version of the same thing.It's speech recognition like you've never heard before.So lets say I'm in Monterey,and I want what?I want to find what? Bagels. OK.
Google: Say the business and the city and state.
DP: Bagels, Monterey, California.I got the Chinese line.
(Laughter)
Google: Bagels, Monterey, California.Top eight results: Number one,Bagel Bakery on El Dorado Street.To select number one, you can press one or say "number one."Number two: Bagel Bakery, commissary department.
Number Two. Number Two. Two.
(Laughter)
Why do I listen to people in the audience?Well anyway -- oh! Here we go!
Google: ... commissary department on McClellan Avenue, Monterey.I'll connect you, or say "details," or "go back."
DP: He's connecting me! He doesn't even tell me the phone number.He's just connecting me directly. It's like having a personal valet.
Google: Hold on.
(Laughter)
DP: Hi, could I have 400 with a schmear?No, no, no -- just kidding, no no.So anyway, you never even find out the number.It's just so amazing.And it has incredible, incredible accuracy.This is even more amazing. Put this in your speed dial.This you can ask by voice any question.Who won the 1958 World Series?What's the recipe for a certain cocktail?It's absolutely amazing -- and they text you back the answer.I tried this this morning just to make sure it's still alive."Which actors have played James Bond?"They text me back this: "Sean Connery,George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig."Right! And then I was trying to pretend I was like a Valley girl.I'm like, "What's the word that means you know, like,when the sun, the moon and the earth are, like, all in a line?"Just to see how the recognition was.They texted me back, "It's called a syzygy."Which I knew, because it's the word that won me the Ohio spelling bee in 1976.
You know, there's a lot of people wondering, "How on earth are they going tomake money doing this?" And the answer is: look at the last line.They put this teeny-weeny little ad, about 10 characters long.And a lot of people also want to know, "How does it work?How can it be so good? It's as though there is a human beingon the other end of the line."Because there is one!They have 10,000 peoplewho are being paid 20 cents per answer.As you can imagine, it's college kids and old people.That's who can afford to do that.But it's a human being on the line. And it's gotten me out of so manytough positions like, "When's the last flight out of Chicago?"You know. It's just absolutely amazing.
Another thing that really bothers me about cell phones today --this is probably my biggest pet peeve in all of technology.When I call to leave you a message,I get 15 seconds of instructionsfrom a third-grade teacher on Ambien!
(Laughter)
"To page this person ... "Page? What is this, 1975?Nobody has pagers anymore."You may begin speaking at the tone.When you have finished recording,you may hang up." No!
(Laughter)
And then it gets worse:when I call to retrieve my messages,first of all: "You have 87 messages.To listen to your messages ... "Why else am I calling?
(Laughter)
Of course I want to listen to the messages!
(Laughter)
Oh! You all have cell phones too.So last year I went to Milan, Italy,and I got to speak to an audienceof cellular executives from 200 countries around the world.And I said as a joke -- as a joke, I said,"I did the math. Verizon has 70 million customers.If you check your voicemail twice a day,that's 100 million dollars a year.I bet you guys are doing this just to run up our airtime, aren't you?"No chuckle. They're like this --
(Laughter)
Where is the outrage, people? Rise up!
(Laughter)
Sorry. I'm not bitter.
(Laughter)
So now I'm going to tell you how to get out of that.There are these services that transcribeyour voicemail into text.And they send it either to your emailor as text messages to your phone.It is a life-changer.And by the way, they don't always get the words right,because it's over the phone and all that.So they attach the audio file at the bottom of the emailso you can listen to double-check.The services are called things like Spinvox,Phonetag -- this is the one I use --Callwave. A lot of people say, "How are they doing this?I don't really want people listening in to my calls."The executives at these companies told me,"Well we use a proprietary B-to-B, best-of-breed, peer-to-peer soluti -- " you know.I think basically it's like these guys in India with headsets, you know, listening in.
The reason I think that is thaton the first day I tried one of these services,I got two voicemail messages. One was from a guy named Michael Stevenson,which shouldn't be that hard to transcribe, and it was misspelled.The other was from my video producer at the Times, whose name is Vijaiy Singh,with the silent 'h'. Nailed that one.
(Laughter)
So you be the judge.
(Laughter)
Anyway, this service, Callwave, promisesthat it's all software -- nobody is listening to your messages.And they also promise that they're going to transcribe only the gistof your messages.
(Laughter)
So I thought I'd see how that goes.This is me testing it out.
(Video): Hello, this is Michael.Hope you're doing well. I'm fine here. Everything's good.Hey, I was walking along the street and the sky was blue.And your daughter broke her leg at soccer practice.I'm going to have a sandwich for lunch.She's in room -- emergency room 53W.OK, talk to you later -- bye.
(Laughter)
I love my job.
(Laughter)
So a couple minutes later, this I got by email.It's a very good transcription. But a couple minutes after that,I got the text message version. Now remember,a text message can only be 160 characters long.So it had better be the gist of the gist, right?I'm not kidding you. The message said,
"Was walking along the street" and "sky was blue" and "emergency"!
(Laughter)
What the f -- ?
(Laughter)
Well I guess that was the gist.
(Laughter)
And lastly, I just have to talk about this one.This is my favorite of all time. It's called Popularitydialer.com.Basically, you're going to go on someiffy date, or a potentially bad meeting.So you go and you type in your phone number,and at the exact minute where you want to be called --
(Laughter)
And at that moment your phone will ring.And you're like, "I'm sorry. I've got to take this."The really beautiful thing is,you know how when somebody's sitting next to you, sometimes they can sort ofhear a little bit of the caller.So they give you a choiceof what you want to hear on the other end.Here's the girlfriend.
Phone: Hey you, what's going on?
DP: I'm kinda, like, giving a talk right now.
Phone: Well, that's good.
DP: What are you doing?
Phone: I was just wondering what you were up to.
DP: Right, I can't really talk right now.This is the -- I love this -- the boss call.
Phone: Hey, this is Mr. Johnson calling from the office.
DP: Oh, hi, sir.
Phone: Did you complete that thing about a month ago? That photocopier training?
DP: Oh -- sorry I forgot.
Phone: Yeah, well so when was the last time you used the photocopier?
DP: It was like three weeks ago.
Phone: Well, I don't know if you heard, you might have heard from Lenny, but --
(Laughter)
I think the biggest change when Internet met phonewas with the iPhone.Not my finest moment in New York Times journalism.It was when in the fall of 2006,I explained why Apple would never do a cellphone.
(Laughter)
I looked like a moron. However, my logic was good,because -- I don't know if you realize this, but -- until the iPhone came along,the carriers -- Verizon, AT&T, Cingular --held veto power over every aspectof every design of every phone.I know the people who worked on the Treo.They went around to these carriers and said,
"Look at these cool features." And Verizon is like, "Hmm, no.I don't think so."It was not very conducive to innovation.What I didn't anticipate was that Steve Jobswent around and said, "Tell you what -- I'll give you a five-year exclusiveif you'll let me design this phone in peace --and you won't even see it till it's done."Actually, even so, he was turned down by Verizon and others.Finally Cingular said OK.
I'm going to talk about the effect of the iPhone.Please don't corner me at the party tonightand go, "What are you? An Apple fan boy?"- you know. I'm not.You can see what I said about it. It's a flawed masterpiece.It's got bad things and good things. Lets all acknowledge that right now.
But it did change a few things. The first thing it changedwas that all those carriers sawthat they sold 10 million of these things in a year.And they said, "Oh my gosh, maybe we've been doing it wrong.Maybe we should let phone designers design the phones."
(Applause)
Another thing was that it let 10 million people,for the first time, experience being online all the time.Not using these 60-dollar-a-monthcellular cards for their laptops.I don't understand why we're not there yet.When I'm an old man, I'm going to tell my grandchildren,"When I was your age, if I wanted to check my email,I used to drive around town looking for a coffee shop. I did!"
(Laughter)
"We had wireless base stations that couldbroadcast -- yay, about 150 feet across."
(Laughter)
It's absurd. We have power outletsin every room of every building. We have running water.What's the problem?Anyway -- but this teaches people what it's like.You have to go to YouTubeand type in "iPhone Shuffle."This guy did a mock video of onethat's one inch square, like the real iPod Shuffle.It's like, "It only has one button.Touch it and it dials a number at random."
(Laughter)
"Who the hell is this?"
(Laughter)
But the other thing it didis it opened up this idea of an app store.It downloads right to the phone.And you can use the tilt sensorto steer this car using this game.These programs can use all the componentsof the iPhone -- the touch screen.This is the Etch-A-Sketch program -- the theme of EG 2008.You know how you erase it?Of course. You shake it.Right, of course. We shake it to erase, like this.
They have 10,000 of these programs.This is the translator program. They have every language in the world.You type in what you want, and it gives you the translation.This is amazing. This is Midomi.A song is running through your head --you sing it into the thing:do do do do do, da da da da da da, da dum ...OK, you tap, "Done" and it will find out the song and play it for you.I know. It's insane, right?
This is Pandora. Free Internet radio. Not just free Internet radio --you type in a band or a song name.It will immediately play you that song or that band.It has a thumbs-up and a thumbs-down.You say if you like this song or not.If you like it, it tries another song on youfrom a different band, with the same instrumentation, vocals,theme and tempo.If you like that one, or don't like it,you do thumbs-up and thumbs-down. Over time it tailors the songsso that it completely stops playing bad songs.It eventually only plays songs you like.
This is Urbanspoon. You're in a city. It knows from GPS where you're standing.You want to find a place to eat. You shake it.It proposes a restaurant.It gives you the price, and the location and ratings.Video: I'm not going all the way to Flushing.Anyway, just amazing, amazing things.Of course, its not just about the iPhone.
The iPhone broke the dyke, the wall.But now it's everybody else. So Google has done their own Android operating systemthat will soon be on handsets -- phones from 34 companies.Touch screen -- very, very nice.Also with its own app store, where you can download programs.
This is amazing. In the wake of all this,Verizon, the most calcified, corporate,conservative carrier of all,said, "You can use any phone you want on our network."I love the Wired headline:Pigs Fly, Hell Freezes Overand Verizon Opens Up Its Network -- No. Really.
So everything is changing. We've entereda new world of innovation, where the cell phone becomes your laptop,customized the way you want it.Every cell phone is unique. There is software that you can add on.Can I do one more one-minute song? Thank you.
(Applause)
Just to round it up -- this is the new Apple Power Music Stand.It's only three pounds,or 12 if you install Microsoft Office.
(Laughter)
Sorry, that was mean.This is a song I did for the New York Times website as a music video.Ladies and gentlemen, for seven blissful hoursit was the number one video on YouTube.(To the tune of "My Way")
And now the end is near.I'm sick to deathof this old cell phone.Bad sound, the signal's weak,the software stinks.A made-in-Hell phone.I've heard there's something new --a million times more rad than my phone.I too will join the cult.I want an iPhone.Concerns -- I have a few. It's got some flaws;we may just face it.No keys, no memory card,the battery's sealed --you can't replace it.But God, this thing is sweet.A multitouch, iPod, Wi-Fi phone.You had me from, "Hello."I want an iPhone.I want to touch its precious screen.I want to wipe the smudges clean.I want my friends to look and drool.I want to say, "Look -- now I'm cool"I stood in line and I'll get mine.I want an iPhone.For what is a man?What has he got? If not iPhone,then he's got squat.It's all the things a phone should be.Who cares if it's AT&T?I took a stand, paid half a grand!And I got an iPhone!
(Applause)
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
TECH/GRALINT-TED Talks-David Pogue: 10 tech tips (you might be surprised you didn´t know)
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
I've noticed something interesting about society and culture.Everything risky requires a license,so learning to drive, owning a gun, getting married.
(Laughter)
That's true in everything risky except technology.For some reason, there's no standard syllabus,there's no basic course.They just sort of give you your computer and then kick you out of the nest.You're supposed to learn this stuff how?Just by osmosis. Nobody ever sits down and tells you, "This is how it works."So today I'm going to tell you 10 things that you thought everybody knew, but it turns out they don't.
All right, first of all, on the web, when you're on the web and you want to scroll down, don't pick up the mouse and use the scroll bar. That's a terrible waste of time.Do that only if you're paid by the hour.Instead, hit the space bar.The space bar scrolls down one page.Hold down the Shift key to scroll back up again.So space bar to scroll down one page.It works in every browser on every kind of computer.
Also on the web, when you're filling in one of these forms like your addresses,I assume you know that you can hit the Tab key to jump from box to box to box.But what about the pop-up menu where you put in your state?Don't open the pop-up menu. That's a terrible waste of calories.Type the first letter of your state over and over and over.So if you want Connecticut, go, C, C, C.If you want Texas, go T, T, and you jump right to that thing without even opening the pop-up menu.
Also on the web, when the text is too small,what you do is hold down the Control key and hit plus, plus, plus.You make the text larger with each tap.It works on every computer, every web browser,or minus, minus, minus to get smaller again.If you're on the Mac, it might be Command instead.
When you're typing on your Blackberry, Android, iPhone,don't bother switching layouts to the punctuation layout to hit the period and then a space and then try to capitalize the next letter.Just hit the space bar twice.The phone puts the period, the space, and the capital for you.Go space, space. It is totally amazing.
Also when it comes to cell phones, on all phones,if you want to redial somebody that you've dialed before,all you have to do is hit the call button,and it puts the last phone number into the box for you,and at that point you can hit call again to actually dial it.So you don't need to go into the recent calls list,so if you're trying to get through to somebody,just hit the call button again.
Here's something that drives me crazy.When I call you and leave a message on your voicemail,I hear you saying, "Leave a message,"and then I get these 15 seconds of frickin' instructions,like we haven't had answering machines for 45 years!(Laughter)I'm not bitter.So it turns out there's a keyboard shortcut that lets you jump directly to the beep like this.
Answering machine: At the tone, please — BEEP.
David Pogue: Unfortunately, the carriers didn't adopt the same keystroke, so it's different by carrier,so it devolves upon you to learn the keystroke for the person you're calling.I didn't say these were going to be perfect.
Okay, so most of you think of Google as something that lets you look up a webpage, but it is also a dictionary.Type the word "define" and then the word you want to know.You don't even have to click anything.There's the definition as you type.It's also a complete FAA database.Type the name of the airline and the flight.It shows you where the flight is, the gate, the terminal,how long till it lands. You don't need an app for that.It's also a unit and currency conversion.Again, you don't have to click one of the results.Just type it into the box, and there's your answer.
While we're talking about text,when you want to highlight --this is just an example. (Laughter)When you want to highlight a word,please don't waste your life dragging across it with the mouse like a newbie.Double click the word. Watch 200. I go double click.It neatly selects just that word.Also, don't delete what you've highlighted.You can just type over it. This is in every program.Also, you can go double click, drag to highlight in one-word increments as you drag.Much more precise. Again, don't bother deleting.Just type over it. (Laughter)
Shutter lag is the time between your pressing the shutter button and the moment the camera actually snaps.It's extremely frustrating on any camera under 1,000 dollars.(Camera click)(Laughter)So that's because the camera needs time to calculate the focus and the exposure,but if you pre-focus with a half-press,leave your finger down, no shutter lag!You get it every time.I've just turned your $50 camera into a $1,000 camera with that trick.
And finally, it often happens that you're giving a talk,and for some reason the audience is looking at the slide instead of at you! (Laughter)So when that happens, this works in Keynote, PowerPoint,it works in every program, all you do is hit the letter B key,B for blackout, to black out the slide and make everybody look at you, and then when you're ready to go on,you hit B again, and if you're really on a roll,you can hit the W key for whiteout,and you white out the slide, and then you can hit W again to unblank it.
So I know I went super fast. If you missed anything,I'll be happy to send you the list of these tips.In the meantime, congratulations.You all get your California technology license.
Have a great day.
(Applause)
Transcript:
I've noticed something interesting about society and culture.Everything risky requires a license,so learning to drive, owning a gun, getting married.
(Laughter)
That's true in everything risky except technology.For some reason, there's no standard syllabus,there's no basic course.They just sort of give you your computer and then kick you out of the nest.You're supposed to learn this stuff how?Just by osmosis. Nobody ever sits down and tells you, "This is how it works."So today I'm going to tell you 10 things that you thought everybody knew, but it turns out they don't.
All right, first of all, on the web, when you're on the web and you want to scroll down, don't pick up the mouse and use the scroll bar. That's a terrible waste of time.Do that only if you're paid by the hour.Instead, hit the space bar.The space bar scrolls down one page.Hold down the Shift key to scroll back up again.So space bar to scroll down one page.It works in every browser on every kind of computer.
Also on the web, when you're filling in one of these forms like your addresses,I assume you know that you can hit the Tab key to jump from box to box to box.But what about the pop-up menu where you put in your state?Don't open the pop-up menu. That's a terrible waste of calories.Type the first letter of your state over and over and over.So if you want Connecticut, go, C, C, C.If you want Texas, go T, T, and you jump right to that thing without even opening the pop-up menu.
Also on the web, when the text is too small,what you do is hold down the Control key and hit plus, plus, plus.You make the text larger with each tap.It works on every computer, every web browser,or minus, minus, minus to get smaller again.If you're on the Mac, it might be Command instead.
When you're typing on your Blackberry, Android, iPhone,don't bother switching layouts to the punctuation layout to hit the period and then a space and then try to capitalize the next letter.Just hit the space bar twice.The phone puts the period, the space, and the capital for you.Go space, space. It is totally amazing.
Also when it comes to cell phones, on all phones,if you want to redial somebody that you've dialed before,all you have to do is hit the call button,and it puts the last phone number into the box for you,and at that point you can hit call again to actually dial it.So you don't need to go into the recent calls list,so if you're trying to get through to somebody,just hit the call button again.
Here's something that drives me crazy.When I call you and leave a message on your voicemail,I hear you saying, "Leave a message,"and then I get these 15 seconds of frickin' instructions,like we haven't had answering machines for 45 years!(Laughter)I'm not bitter.So it turns out there's a keyboard shortcut that lets you jump directly to the beep like this.
Answering machine: At the tone, please — BEEP.
David Pogue: Unfortunately, the carriers didn't adopt the same keystroke, so it's different by carrier,so it devolves upon you to learn the keystroke for the person you're calling.I didn't say these were going to be perfect.
Okay, so most of you think of Google as something that lets you look up a webpage, but it is also a dictionary.Type the word "define" and then the word you want to know.You don't even have to click anything.There's the definition as you type.It's also a complete FAA database.Type the name of the airline and the flight.It shows you where the flight is, the gate, the terminal,how long till it lands. You don't need an app for that.It's also a unit and currency conversion.Again, you don't have to click one of the results.Just type it into the box, and there's your answer.
While we're talking about text,when you want to highlight --this is just an example. (Laughter)When you want to highlight a word,please don't waste your life dragging across it with the mouse like a newbie.Double click the word. Watch 200. I go double click.It neatly selects just that word.Also, don't delete what you've highlighted.You can just type over it. This is in every program.Also, you can go double click, drag to highlight in one-word increments as you drag.Much more precise. Again, don't bother deleting.Just type over it. (Laughter)
Shutter lag is the time between your pressing the shutter button and the moment the camera actually snaps.It's extremely frustrating on any camera under 1,000 dollars.(Camera click)(Laughter)So that's because the camera needs time to calculate the focus and the exposure,but if you pre-focus with a half-press,leave your finger down, no shutter lag!You get it every time.I've just turned your $50 camera into a $1,000 camera with that trick.
And finally, it often happens that you're giving a talk,and for some reason the audience is looking at the slide instead of at you! (Laughter)So when that happens, this works in Keynote, PowerPoint,it works in every program, all you do is hit the letter B key,B for blackout, to black out the slide and make everybody look at you, and then when you're ready to go on,you hit B again, and if you're really on a roll,you can hit the W key for whiteout,and you white out the slide, and then you can hit W again to unblank it.
So I know I went super fast. If you missed anything,I'll be happy to send you the list of these tips.In the meantime, congratulations.You all get your California technology license.
Have a great day.
(Applause)
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Lilly Allen-Friday Night (Video with lyrics)
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Source: www.youtube.com
Source: www.youtube.com
Saturday, April 27, 2013
BUS-How Walmart Plans to Bring Back ‘Made in America’
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
How Walmart Plans to Bring Back ‘Made in America’
By Bill Saporito, April 12, 2013
Walmart doesn’t make anything. But the giant retailer could play a part in the manufacturing rebound that is taking place in the U.S. with its promise to buy $50 billion more U.S. made goods over the next decade for its Walmart and Sam’s Club stores. It’s a bit ironic, given Walmart’s vast global sourcing organization. But the same forces that are making the U.S. a more hospitable place for manufacturing —higher shipping costs and wage rates overseas among them—have prompted the company to reevaluate its sourcing on a variety of products. “This is a commitment around manufacturing and more economic renewal. We see it as a critical issue for us in the American economy,” says Duncan Mac Naughton chief merchandising and marketing officer for Walmart U.S.
What Walmart sees is a way to lower costs while smoothing its supply cycle by looking more broadly at its distribution system. Although the company may be able to buy an item cheaper from China, the price it pays per piece doesn’t always reflect what it spends to get the product to the shelves. “When we buy from overseas, we may buy more than we need to fill the container,” says Mac Naughton. “We’re looking at carrying costs through the system in addition to landed costs.” (Walmart has recently been criticized for being out of stock on items, due to a lack of store employees, but the company says its in-stock position is at record levels and that it hasn’t cut employee hours.)
Walmart is also hitting some unexpected supply snags as local demand increases in the developing countries where it buys goods. Recently, it found itself short of memory foam for mattress toppers and had to add a U.S. supplier, Sleep Studio, to augment its foreign source. That need to increase capacity can only increase as the middle class grows in India, China and elsewhere. The company will still likely rely on foreign suppliers for those products, such as cut-and-sew garments, that have a very high labor input. But given the more robust regulatory environment in the U.S., domestic suppliers are far less likely to run shoddy plants that endanger workers, as some of Walmart’s overseas subcontracters have been accused of doing.
Which suppliers stand to benefit from Walmart’s strategy? The company says that products with a “high cube” (supply-chain speak for big and/or bulky, such as furniture) are candidates. So are products that have more highly-automated production, meaning lower direct labor, or products that have a less predictable sales curves and might have to be produced quickly to meet a sharp rise in demand. The company says items such as sporting goods, storage products, games and paper products are likely categories.
One of the first companies to benefit is 1888 Mills in Griffin, Georgia, which makes better-quality towels. Walmart’s version will be labeled “Made Here.” 1888 Mills had some spare manufacturing capacity, but since the size of Walmart’s orders can distort any vendor’s production, 1888 Mills needed a longer-term deal to be able to make the investment required to produce the needed quantities. “We made a commitment that was longer term than we would normally do. There’s transparency on the part of both parties: we worked with collaboratively with them,” says Michelle Gloeckler, Walmart’s senior vice president of home.
Camping and outdoor goods company Coleman is another participant. The firm, owned by Jarden Corp. is manufacturing its hard-sided coolers and personal flotation devices in the U.S., adding 160 jobs according to Walmart. Jarden, whose brands range from Quickie mops to K2 skis, has been ahead of Walmart on domestic manufacturing. Jarden has been on a reshoring kick for about two years.
Some of Walmart’s vendors will get a chuckle out of the idea that Walmart is willing to become more transparent. Walmart has a reputation for getting vendors into its buying rooms and beating the hell out of them on price, essentially leaving them with little margin. But Mac Naughton says that Walmart has to start thinking longer term, rather than season-to-season and that this kind of collaboration will reduce costs for both parties over time, paving the way for lower prices for consumers. For instance, a U.S. manufacturer can bypass Walmart’s distribution centers and deliver directly to stores, so-called “no touch” distribution.
Although $50 billion is a lot of goods, it’s about 10% of what Walmart will sell this year at retail. The company says the $50 billion is just a starting point, and that if other retailers joined the party the figure could be much, much higher, perhaps $500 billion. Walmart’s U.S. president, Bill Simon, suggested in a speech to fellow retailers that the power of their order books can help reshore U.S. production in textiles, furniture, pet supplies, some outdoor categories, and higher end appliances.
This isn’t Walmart’s first crack at a Made in America program. An earlier one fizzled, amid some bad publicity, because Walmart couldn’t get enough low-priced merchandise to sell. Americans may love their country, but they will buy Chinese if the price differential is too high. This time Walmart says consumers won’t have to pay up to buy domestic. “I hope the American consumer values this and we’ll make it easy for them,” says Mac Naughton. If not, consumers won’t make it easy for Walmart.
Source:http://business.time.com
How Walmart Plans to Bring Back ‘Made in America’
By Bill Saporito, April 12, 2013
Walmart doesn’t make anything. But the giant retailer could play a part in the manufacturing rebound that is taking place in the U.S. with its promise to buy $50 billion more U.S. made goods over the next decade for its Walmart and Sam’s Club stores. It’s a bit ironic, given Walmart’s vast global sourcing organization. But the same forces that are making the U.S. a more hospitable place for manufacturing —higher shipping costs and wage rates overseas among them—have prompted the company to reevaluate its sourcing on a variety of products. “This is a commitment around manufacturing and more economic renewal. We see it as a critical issue for us in the American economy,” says Duncan Mac Naughton chief merchandising and marketing officer for Walmart U.S.
What Walmart sees is a way to lower costs while smoothing its supply cycle by looking more broadly at its distribution system. Although the company may be able to buy an item cheaper from China, the price it pays per piece doesn’t always reflect what it spends to get the product to the shelves. “When we buy from overseas, we may buy more than we need to fill the container,” says Mac Naughton. “We’re looking at carrying costs through the system in addition to landed costs.” (Walmart has recently been criticized for being out of stock on items, due to a lack of store employees, but the company says its in-stock position is at record levels and that it hasn’t cut employee hours.)
Walmart is also hitting some unexpected supply snags as local demand increases in the developing countries where it buys goods. Recently, it found itself short of memory foam for mattress toppers and had to add a U.S. supplier, Sleep Studio, to augment its foreign source. That need to increase capacity can only increase as the middle class grows in India, China and elsewhere. The company will still likely rely on foreign suppliers for those products, such as cut-and-sew garments, that have a very high labor input. But given the more robust regulatory environment in the U.S., domestic suppliers are far less likely to run shoddy plants that endanger workers, as some of Walmart’s overseas subcontracters have been accused of doing.
Which suppliers stand to benefit from Walmart’s strategy? The company says that products with a “high cube” (supply-chain speak for big and/or bulky, such as furniture) are candidates. So are products that have more highly-automated production, meaning lower direct labor, or products that have a less predictable sales curves and might have to be produced quickly to meet a sharp rise in demand. The company says items such as sporting goods, storage products, games and paper products are likely categories.
One of the first companies to benefit is 1888 Mills in Griffin, Georgia, which makes better-quality towels. Walmart’s version will be labeled “Made Here.” 1888 Mills had some spare manufacturing capacity, but since the size of Walmart’s orders can distort any vendor’s production, 1888 Mills needed a longer-term deal to be able to make the investment required to produce the needed quantities. “We made a commitment that was longer term than we would normally do. There’s transparency on the part of both parties: we worked with collaboratively with them,” says Michelle Gloeckler, Walmart’s senior vice president of home.
Camping and outdoor goods company Coleman is another participant. The firm, owned by Jarden Corp. is manufacturing its hard-sided coolers and personal flotation devices in the U.S., adding 160 jobs according to Walmart. Jarden, whose brands range from Quickie mops to K2 skis, has been ahead of Walmart on domestic manufacturing. Jarden has been on a reshoring kick for about two years.
Some of Walmart’s vendors will get a chuckle out of the idea that Walmart is willing to become more transparent. Walmart has a reputation for getting vendors into its buying rooms and beating the hell out of them on price, essentially leaving them with little margin. But Mac Naughton says that Walmart has to start thinking longer term, rather than season-to-season and that this kind of collaboration will reduce costs for both parties over time, paving the way for lower prices for consumers. For instance, a U.S. manufacturer can bypass Walmart’s distribution centers and deliver directly to stores, so-called “no touch” distribution.
Although $50 billion is a lot of goods, it’s about 10% of what Walmart will sell this year at retail. The company says the $50 billion is just a starting point, and that if other retailers joined the party the figure could be much, much higher, perhaps $500 billion. Walmart’s U.S. president, Bill Simon, suggested in a speech to fellow retailers that the power of their order books can help reshore U.S. production in textiles, furniture, pet supplies, some outdoor categories, and higher end appliances.
This isn’t Walmart’s first crack at a Made in America program. An earlier one fizzled, amid some bad publicity, because Walmart couldn’t get enough low-priced merchandise to sell. Americans may love their country, but they will buy Chinese if the price differential is too high. This time Walmart says consumers won’t have to pay up to buy domestic. “I hope the American consumer values this and we’ll make it easy for them,” says Mac Naughton. If not, consumers won’t make it easy for Walmart.
Source:http://business.time.com
TECH/MD-The Internet Doesn’t Hurt People — People Do: ‘The New Digital Age’
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Technology & Media
The Internet Doesn’t Hurt People — People Do: ‘The New Digital Age’
By Sam Gustin,April 26, 2013
The rise of the Internet has been one of the most transformative developments in human history, at least comparable in impact to the advent of the printing press and the telegraph. Over two billion people worldwide now have access to vastly more information than ever before, and can communicate with each other almost instantaneously, often using Web-connected mobile devices they carry everywhere. But according to Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, the Internet’s disruptive impact has only just begun.
“Mass adoption of the Internet is driving one of the most exciting social, cultural, and political transformations in history, and unlike earlier periods of change, this time the effects are fully global,” Schmidt and Cohen write in their new book, The New Digital Age, published Tuesday.
Perhaps the most profound changes will come when the five billion people worldwide who currently lack Internet access get online. The authors do an excellent job of examining the implications of the Internet revolution for individuals, governments, and institutions like the news media. But if the book has one major short-coming, it’s that the authors don’t spend enough time applying a critical eye to the role of Internet businesses — particularly giants like Google and Facebook — in these sweeping changes.
Schmidt and Cohen, who first met in Baghdad in 2009, are well-situated to document the digital changes transforming our society, and they spent three years writing the book, which includes interviews with several prominent figures, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Schmidt, a 58-year-old billionaire, was Google’s CEO for a decade; he now serves as the company’s executive chairman. Cohen, a 31-year-old geopolitical expert, is now director of Google Ideas, the company’s New York-based “think/do tank.” This year, Cohen, who earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from Stanford and Oxford, is on the TIME 100 list of the most influential people in the world.
In The New Digital Age, the authors aim to provide the most authoritative volume to date that describes — and more importantly predicts — how the Internet and other new technological advances will shape our lives in the coming decades and beyond. Schmidt and Cohen paint a picture of a world in which individuals, companies, institutions, and governments must navigate two realities, one physical, and one virtual.
At the core of the book is the idea that “technology is neutral, but people aren’t.” By using this concept as a starting point, the authors aim to move beyond the now familiar optimist vs. pessimist dichotomy that has characterized many recent debates about whether the rise of the Internet will ultimately be good or bad for society. In an interview with TIME earlier this week at Google’s New York City headquarters, Cohen said that although he and his co-author are certainly optimistic about many aspects of the Internet, they’re also realistic about the risks and dangers that lie ahead when the next 5 billion people come online, particularly with respect to personal privacy and state surveillance.
“We have a fundamental belief that there is no country that’s worse off because the Internet arrived,” Cohen told TIME. “We don’t believe the Internet makes countries worse. So yes, we’re optimistic about that, but we’re also realistic about the world’s problems, and we’re determined to have an honest and frank conversation about the good and the bad that awaits us, where technology is implicated, and where technology can be a useful tool.”
In developed countries like the United States, Schmidt and Cohen write, the Internet and other technological advances will make individuals and companies more efficient, increasing productivity and improving standards of living. Imagine driverless cars, thought-controlled robotic motion, and “augmented reality,” the likes of which Google has begun testing with its Google Glass Web-connected spectacles. The rise of 3-D printing — in which designs are downloaded from the Internet and manufactured on a smale scale — could herald the emergence of a new generation of producers, who will bring “an unprecedented variety to the products used in the developed world.” And forget about the traditional conference call: Meeting participants will be projected as holograms into your home or office.
In the future envisioned by Schmidt and Cohen, new technologies and information systems will streamline mundane, everyday tasks: Imagine a refrigerator that automatically orders groceries, or a washing machine that cleans, dries, and folds laundry, before “algorithmically” recommending the optimal outfit based on the weather and day of the week. Robots will vacuum our homes, take out the trash, and manage the recycling. Haircuts will be automated. Personal schedules and to-do lists will be stored online and linked to the rest of your devices. Typing itself may soon become a lost art as emails, terms-papers, articles, and speeches are dictated using the next generation of voice-recognition software. The automation of everyday chores will leave more time for people to address the most important tasks, according to Schmidt and Cohen, such as preparing for a key work presentation, watching an important lecture, attending a child’s sports game, or simply engaging in what the authors call a “deep think.”
The impact of the Internet, mobile phones and technological miniaturization in the developing world may be even more profound. Consider the Congolese fisherwoman who will leave fish on the line in the river until individual orders are phoned in, rather than bringing her entire catch to market and watching it spoil in the heat. Or the Masai herder in the Serengeti, who will check market prices and the whereabouts of predators, and receive spoken answers from his mobile device. Or the young Kenyan inventor who designed a tiny, pressure-activated electronic chip, that, when placed in a shoe, can charge a mobile phone with every step.
The authors’ optimistic-but-realistic orientation is a welcome approach, particularly when it comes to international affairs. The Internet is not a panacea for solving the world’s ills, Schmidt and Cohen argue, but it can make a huge difference in the lives of billions of people around the world. Technology can help spark and accelerate revolutionary movements, as it did during the Arab Spring. But activists on the ground — real people — bear the responsibility and dangerous work of toppling dictators, and must be prepared to replace autocratic regimes with democratic governments. “It’s the people who make or break revolutions, not the tools they use,” Schmidt and Cohen write. “Building a Facebook page does not constitute a plan; actual operational skills are what will carry a revolution to a successful conclusion.”
Because no one government, institution, or company controls the Internet, it amounts to “the largest experiment involving anarchy in human history,” Schmidt and Cohen write. “Hundreds of millions of people are, each minute, creating and consuming an untold amount of digital content in an online world that is not truly bound by terrestrial laws.” In this respect, the Internet shares a key trait with the classic theory of international relations that describes an anarchic, leaderless world. On the global stage, the most significant impact of the emergence of the Internet will be the reallocation of power from states and institutions to individuals. “Authoritarian governments will find their newly connected populations more difficult to control, repress and influence, while democratic states will be forced to include many more voices (individuals, organizations and companies) in their affairs.”
But this state of anarchy on the Internet comes with a dark side, the authors acknowledge. The lack of a central authority allows the proliferation of online scams, bullying campaigns, hate-group websites, and terrorist chat rooms. Unlike traditional media, in which reporters and editors place a premium on accuracy and context, Internet-based media allow anyone with a connection to publish inaccurate information, libel, or outright propaganda on a massive scale — frequently with few consequences to the author. (Consider a notorious recent example, when the Associated Press Twitter account was hacked, and a false message was sent to the news organization’s two million followers saying the White House had been attacked and President Obama had been injured. The message was quickly removed, but not before the stock market plunged 130 points, wiping out $130 billion in a matter of seconds.)
The emergence of hundreds of millions of potential “citizen journalists” with Internet connections will fundamentally change the nature of the news media business, the authors write. People all over the world will become amateur reporters: Remember the man in Abbottabad, Pakistan who tweeted that a helicopter was hovering overhead the night Osama bin Laden was killed? These new “correspondents” will play an important role as eyes and ears on the ground, according to Schmidt and Cohen. The mainstream media, meanwhile, will serve as a “credibility filter,” as its function “primarily becomes one of an aggregator, custodian and verifier.” The elite will come to rely even more on the mainstream media for cogent analysis, the authors argue, “simply because of the massive swell of low-grade reporting and information in the system.”
Another risk that Schmidt and Cohen identify is “data permanence,” in which our personal information, from financial and medical data, to our status updates and Tweets, to that photo from the graduation party you forgot you posted, will live online, often permanently. “This is the first generation of humans to have an indelible record,” the authors write. Rarely a week goes by these days when a private citizen doesn’t find his or her supposedly private information disseminated widely online. Hackers and online vigilantes routinely “dox” both public and private figures who provoke their ire, by publishing social security numbers, home addresses, and credit card numbers. The public will have to demand strict privacy protections from governments and companies, the authors write, but no information you put online will ever be 100% secure.
Data permanence, coupled with the spread of mobile devices, also has troubling implications for surveillance, blackmail, and even darker outcomes, in authoritarian states. “Without question, the increased access to people’s lives that the data revolution brings will give some repressive autocracies a dangerous advantage in targeting their citizens,” Schmidt and Cohen write. “What little privacy existed before will be long gone, because the handsets that citizens have with them at all times will double as the surveillance bugs regimes have long wished they could put in people’s homes.” Repressive states and other malevolent actors, meanwhile, will use advances in facial and voice recognition to pick dissidents and protestors out of crowds at demonstrations in order to target them.
It’s clear from the book that although Schmidt and Cohen believe in the power of the Internet to improve people’s lives, they aren’t shying away from the potential risks and downsides of billions of Internet-connected, mobile device-wielding citizens. They’re also clear-eyed about the limits of technology in the poorest and most violent regions of the world. “You can’t eat a cellphone,” Cohen told TIME. “It’s not medicine. If a bullet is being shot in the direction of somebody, it won’t stop that. And it doesn’t stop the police from showing up at your door at 3 o’clock in the morning. But it is a tremendous source of information to increase the likelihood that those things won’t be as devastating.”
The rapid pace of global technological change underscores one of the most important lessons of the book: the need for interdisciplinary expertise and insight. It is no longer satisfactory for experts in the discrete fields of technology, business, politics, and international affairs to remain cloistered in their respective silos. Because technology permeates all of these areas, the next generation of experts, journalists, and policymakers will need to be well-versed in each, in order to understand how technology, the catalytic driver of change in today’s world, is radically transforming industries, governments, and the age-old dynamic at the heart of political science: the relationship between the individual and the state.
Sam Gustin @samgustin
Sam Gustin is a reporter at TIME focused on business, technology, and public policy. A native of New York City, he graduated from Reed College and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.
Source:http://business.time.com
Technology & Media
The Internet Doesn’t Hurt People — People Do: ‘The New Digital Age’
By Sam Gustin,April 26, 2013
The rise of the Internet has been one of the most transformative developments in human history, at least comparable in impact to the advent of the printing press and the telegraph. Over two billion people worldwide now have access to vastly more information than ever before, and can communicate with each other almost instantaneously, often using Web-connected mobile devices they carry everywhere. But according to Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, the Internet’s disruptive impact has only just begun.
“Mass adoption of the Internet is driving one of the most exciting social, cultural, and political transformations in history, and unlike earlier periods of change, this time the effects are fully global,” Schmidt and Cohen write in their new book, The New Digital Age, published Tuesday.
Perhaps the most profound changes will come when the five billion people worldwide who currently lack Internet access get online. The authors do an excellent job of examining the implications of the Internet revolution for individuals, governments, and institutions like the news media. But if the book has one major short-coming, it’s that the authors don’t spend enough time applying a critical eye to the role of Internet businesses — particularly giants like Google and Facebook — in these sweeping changes.
Schmidt and Cohen, who first met in Baghdad in 2009, are well-situated to document the digital changes transforming our society, and they spent three years writing the book, which includes interviews with several prominent figures, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Schmidt, a 58-year-old billionaire, was Google’s CEO for a decade; he now serves as the company’s executive chairman. Cohen, a 31-year-old geopolitical expert, is now director of Google Ideas, the company’s New York-based “think/do tank.” This year, Cohen, who earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from Stanford and Oxford, is on the TIME 100 list of the most influential people in the world.
In The New Digital Age, the authors aim to provide the most authoritative volume to date that describes — and more importantly predicts — how the Internet and other new technological advances will shape our lives in the coming decades and beyond. Schmidt and Cohen paint a picture of a world in which individuals, companies, institutions, and governments must navigate two realities, one physical, and one virtual.
At the core of the book is the idea that “technology is neutral, but people aren’t.” By using this concept as a starting point, the authors aim to move beyond the now familiar optimist vs. pessimist dichotomy that has characterized many recent debates about whether the rise of the Internet will ultimately be good or bad for society. In an interview with TIME earlier this week at Google’s New York City headquarters, Cohen said that although he and his co-author are certainly optimistic about many aspects of the Internet, they’re also realistic about the risks and dangers that lie ahead when the next 5 billion people come online, particularly with respect to personal privacy and state surveillance.
“We have a fundamental belief that there is no country that’s worse off because the Internet arrived,” Cohen told TIME. “We don’t believe the Internet makes countries worse. So yes, we’re optimistic about that, but we’re also realistic about the world’s problems, and we’re determined to have an honest and frank conversation about the good and the bad that awaits us, where technology is implicated, and where technology can be a useful tool.”
In developed countries like the United States, Schmidt and Cohen write, the Internet and other technological advances will make individuals and companies more efficient, increasing productivity and improving standards of living. Imagine driverless cars, thought-controlled robotic motion, and “augmented reality,” the likes of which Google has begun testing with its Google Glass Web-connected spectacles. The rise of 3-D printing — in which designs are downloaded from the Internet and manufactured on a smale scale — could herald the emergence of a new generation of producers, who will bring “an unprecedented variety to the products used in the developed world.” And forget about the traditional conference call: Meeting participants will be projected as holograms into your home or office.
In the future envisioned by Schmidt and Cohen, new technologies and information systems will streamline mundane, everyday tasks: Imagine a refrigerator that automatically orders groceries, or a washing machine that cleans, dries, and folds laundry, before “algorithmically” recommending the optimal outfit based on the weather and day of the week. Robots will vacuum our homes, take out the trash, and manage the recycling. Haircuts will be automated. Personal schedules and to-do lists will be stored online and linked to the rest of your devices. Typing itself may soon become a lost art as emails, terms-papers, articles, and speeches are dictated using the next generation of voice-recognition software. The automation of everyday chores will leave more time for people to address the most important tasks, according to Schmidt and Cohen, such as preparing for a key work presentation, watching an important lecture, attending a child’s sports game, or simply engaging in what the authors call a “deep think.”
The impact of the Internet, mobile phones and technological miniaturization in the developing world may be even more profound. Consider the Congolese fisherwoman who will leave fish on the line in the river until individual orders are phoned in, rather than bringing her entire catch to market and watching it spoil in the heat. Or the Masai herder in the Serengeti, who will check market prices and the whereabouts of predators, and receive spoken answers from his mobile device. Or the young Kenyan inventor who designed a tiny, pressure-activated electronic chip, that, when placed in a shoe, can charge a mobile phone with every step.
The authors’ optimistic-but-realistic orientation is a welcome approach, particularly when it comes to international affairs. The Internet is not a panacea for solving the world’s ills, Schmidt and Cohen argue, but it can make a huge difference in the lives of billions of people around the world. Technology can help spark and accelerate revolutionary movements, as it did during the Arab Spring. But activists on the ground — real people — bear the responsibility and dangerous work of toppling dictators, and must be prepared to replace autocratic regimes with democratic governments. “It’s the people who make or break revolutions, not the tools they use,” Schmidt and Cohen write. “Building a Facebook page does not constitute a plan; actual operational skills are what will carry a revolution to a successful conclusion.”
Because no one government, institution, or company controls the Internet, it amounts to “the largest experiment involving anarchy in human history,” Schmidt and Cohen write. “Hundreds of millions of people are, each minute, creating and consuming an untold amount of digital content in an online world that is not truly bound by terrestrial laws.” In this respect, the Internet shares a key trait with the classic theory of international relations that describes an anarchic, leaderless world. On the global stage, the most significant impact of the emergence of the Internet will be the reallocation of power from states and institutions to individuals. “Authoritarian governments will find their newly connected populations more difficult to control, repress and influence, while democratic states will be forced to include many more voices (individuals, organizations and companies) in their affairs.”
But this state of anarchy on the Internet comes with a dark side, the authors acknowledge. The lack of a central authority allows the proliferation of online scams, bullying campaigns, hate-group websites, and terrorist chat rooms. Unlike traditional media, in which reporters and editors place a premium on accuracy and context, Internet-based media allow anyone with a connection to publish inaccurate information, libel, or outright propaganda on a massive scale — frequently with few consequences to the author. (Consider a notorious recent example, when the Associated Press Twitter account was hacked, and a false message was sent to the news organization’s two million followers saying the White House had been attacked and President Obama had been injured. The message was quickly removed, but not before the stock market plunged 130 points, wiping out $130 billion in a matter of seconds.)
The emergence of hundreds of millions of potential “citizen journalists” with Internet connections will fundamentally change the nature of the news media business, the authors write. People all over the world will become amateur reporters: Remember the man in Abbottabad, Pakistan who tweeted that a helicopter was hovering overhead the night Osama bin Laden was killed? These new “correspondents” will play an important role as eyes and ears on the ground, according to Schmidt and Cohen. The mainstream media, meanwhile, will serve as a “credibility filter,” as its function “primarily becomes one of an aggregator, custodian and verifier.” The elite will come to rely even more on the mainstream media for cogent analysis, the authors argue, “simply because of the massive swell of low-grade reporting and information in the system.”
Another risk that Schmidt and Cohen identify is “data permanence,” in which our personal information, from financial and medical data, to our status updates and Tweets, to that photo from the graduation party you forgot you posted, will live online, often permanently. “This is the first generation of humans to have an indelible record,” the authors write. Rarely a week goes by these days when a private citizen doesn’t find his or her supposedly private information disseminated widely online. Hackers and online vigilantes routinely “dox” both public and private figures who provoke their ire, by publishing social security numbers, home addresses, and credit card numbers. The public will have to demand strict privacy protections from governments and companies, the authors write, but no information you put online will ever be 100% secure.
Data permanence, coupled with the spread of mobile devices, also has troubling implications for surveillance, blackmail, and even darker outcomes, in authoritarian states. “Without question, the increased access to people’s lives that the data revolution brings will give some repressive autocracies a dangerous advantage in targeting their citizens,” Schmidt and Cohen write. “What little privacy existed before will be long gone, because the handsets that citizens have with them at all times will double as the surveillance bugs regimes have long wished they could put in people’s homes.” Repressive states and other malevolent actors, meanwhile, will use advances in facial and voice recognition to pick dissidents and protestors out of crowds at demonstrations in order to target them.
It’s clear from the book that although Schmidt and Cohen believe in the power of the Internet to improve people’s lives, they aren’t shying away from the potential risks and downsides of billions of Internet-connected, mobile device-wielding citizens. They’re also clear-eyed about the limits of technology in the poorest and most violent regions of the world. “You can’t eat a cellphone,” Cohen told TIME. “It’s not medicine. If a bullet is being shot in the direction of somebody, it won’t stop that. And it doesn’t stop the police from showing up at your door at 3 o’clock in the morning. But it is a tremendous source of information to increase the likelihood that those things won’t be as devastating.”
The rapid pace of global technological change underscores one of the most important lessons of the book: the need for interdisciplinary expertise and insight. It is no longer satisfactory for experts in the discrete fields of technology, business, politics, and international affairs to remain cloistered in their respective silos. Because technology permeates all of these areas, the next generation of experts, journalists, and policymakers will need to be well-versed in each, in order to understand how technology, the catalytic driver of change in today’s world, is radically transforming industries, governments, and the age-old dynamic at the heart of political science: the relationship between the individual and the state.
Sam Gustin @samgustin
Sam Gustin is a reporter at TIME focused on business, technology, and public policy. A native of New York City, he graduated from Reed College and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.
Source:http://business.time.com
FIN-The Real Significance of the Bitcoin Boom (and Bust)
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
World Finance
The Real Significance of the Bitcoin Boom (and Bust)
By Michael Sivy,April 12, 2013
The volatile rise-and-fall of Bitcoin has prompted lots of stories explaining why the online virtual currency is a classic bubble. Many compare it to tulip mania in 17th century Holland, where prices of rare tulip bulbs soared to absurd heights and then crashed, ruining the speculative investors who had bought them. But the Bitcoin phenomenon is more than a bubble. It says something important about the current and future state of the global economy.
The scale of the recent boom-and-bust has been staggering indeed. At the start of the year, a Bitcoin was worth $13.51. Earlier this week, it traded as high as $266. And on Thursday, it plummeted to less than $100, as one of the exchanges where Bitcoins are traded closed temporarily. This would be comparable to the exchange rate for the British pound soaring from $1.62 (where it was on Jan. 1) to $31.90 and then falling back to $12.
Such monumental appreciation and volatility are clearly the result of speculation — people buying the online currency just because they think its value will rise, not because they want to use it to purchase goods and services. But Bitcoins’ gains are not the result of speculation alone. They partly reflect the fact that the Bitcoin system is much better designed than previous online currencies. And more significantly, the run-up also reflects anxiety about the safety of the global banking system and the stability of major international currencies.
The technicalities of the Bitcoin system are complex, but to make this online currency more successful than previous versions, the designers overcame two key challenges. First, to prevent counterfeiting, they attached a history of transactions to each currency unit — but allowed users to keep their transactions nearly anonymous. Counterfeiting is hard because fake Bitcoins would need an authenticated history to pass muster.
Second, they strictly controlled the supply of Bitcoins outstanding — thereby saving it from the disastrous fate of, for example, the paper currency known as assignats that were issued during the later stages of the French Revolution. Initially, assignats were backed by land and buildings that had been seized from the church. If the French government had issued only enough assignats for that property, there would have been plenty of assignats to spend until the property was disposed of. But the government liked having extra money and didn’t cancel the assignats as the property was sold. In fact, France kept printing more, and within five years there was very serious inflation.
Unlike assignats, Bitcoins have no backing at all. What they do have, however — and what has turned out to be more important — is a formula limiting the growth of the supply outstanding. Over time the formula for the Bitcoin supply actually reduces the amount of new currency added to the system. And the new Bitcoins are not created by fiat, but in exchange for valuable labor: they are paid to computer hobbyists who monitor the Bitcoin system to keep it running and prevent counterfeiting.
Critics have argued that a currency like Bitcoins would be inherently deflationary because the supply can’t be adjusted in response to economic conditions. The same argument could be made about a gold standard, of course, or an extremely hard currency like the Swiss franc. Moreover, the relatively small supply of such hard currencies means that the inflow and outflow of hot money can make them highly volatile. The price of gold, for example, climbed from less than $300 an ounce 11 years ago to almost $1,800 late last year before dropping to $1,564 today, and the Swiss franc rose from $0.82 in 2008 to $1.38 three years later before settling back to $1.07.
But there’s a strong argument that the appreciation and volatility of all these currencies reflect reasonable concerns about the global economy and banking system. The economic debacle in Cyprus keeps getting worse, after all; in fact, the losses there figure to be far greater than any that have occurred in the Bitcoin universe. In addition, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are pumping out money like French assignats.
Of course, real countries do have massive wealth backing their currencies and their bonds, as well as the police power to arrest counterfeiters. And, as I’ve argued in an earlier article, the U.S. dollar appears to be in better shape for the near term than most other major currencies. But the Bitcoin is doubtless only the first well-designed online virtual currency — and is sure to be followed by Bitcoin 2.0 and other even more sophisticated successors.
Could these online currencies ever reach a level at which they alter or obstruct government policy? Former President Bill Clinton’s adviser James Carville famously joked that if he were reincarnated, he would want to come back as the bond market because “you can intimidate everyone.” Just as the so-called bond vigilantes acted as a brake on Washington’s fiscal policy in the 1990s, one day “currency vigilantes” could act as a similar brake on monetary policy.
The Internet will almost certainly offer access to a growing number of currencies in one form or another that are beyond national control. If a future Fed chairman tries to repeat Ben Bernanke’s policy of quantitative easing (effectively printing money), worried investors could start pulling their savings out of the dollar and send it streaming into the cloud so fast that the Fed would be forced to change course.
Governments will fight back, no doubt. But virtual currencies will be no easier to control than Facebook. Stopping the movement of capital will be possible only if countries are willing to impose harsh taxes and capital controls. Once alternative currencies are frictionlessly available on the Internet, every laptop will become its own Cayman Islands. However the current boom-and-bust plays out, Bitcoin is the beginning of something, not the end.
Source: www.time.com
World Finance
The Real Significance of the Bitcoin Boom (and Bust)
By Michael Sivy,April 12, 2013
The volatile rise-and-fall of Bitcoin has prompted lots of stories explaining why the online virtual currency is a classic bubble. Many compare it to tulip mania in 17th century Holland, where prices of rare tulip bulbs soared to absurd heights and then crashed, ruining the speculative investors who had bought them. But the Bitcoin phenomenon is more than a bubble. It says something important about the current and future state of the global economy.
The scale of the recent boom-and-bust has been staggering indeed. At the start of the year, a Bitcoin was worth $13.51. Earlier this week, it traded as high as $266. And on Thursday, it plummeted to less than $100, as one of the exchanges where Bitcoins are traded closed temporarily. This would be comparable to the exchange rate for the British pound soaring from $1.62 (where it was on Jan. 1) to $31.90 and then falling back to $12.
Such monumental appreciation and volatility are clearly the result of speculation — people buying the online currency just because they think its value will rise, not because they want to use it to purchase goods and services. But Bitcoins’ gains are not the result of speculation alone. They partly reflect the fact that the Bitcoin system is much better designed than previous online currencies. And more significantly, the run-up also reflects anxiety about the safety of the global banking system and the stability of major international currencies.
The technicalities of the Bitcoin system are complex, but to make this online currency more successful than previous versions, the designers overcame two key challenges. First, to prevent counterfeiting, they attached a history of transactions to each currency unit — but allowed users to keep their transactions nearly anonymous. Counterfeiting is hard because fake Bitcoins would need an authenticated history to pass muster.
Second, they strictly controlled the supply of Bitcoins outstanding — thereby saving it from the disastrous fate of, for example, the paper currency known as assignats that were issued during the later stages of the French Revolution. Initially, assignats were backed by land and buildings that had been seized from the church. If the French government had issued only enough assignats for that property, there would have been plenty of assignats to spend until the property was disposed of. But the government liked having extra money and didn’t cancel the assignats as the property was sold. In fact, France kept printing more, and within five years there was very serious inflation.
Unlike assignats, Bitcoins have no backing at all. What they do have, however — and what has turned out to be more important — is a formula limiting the growth of the supply outstanding. Over time the formula for the Bitcoin supply actually reduces the amount of new currency added to the system. And the new Bitcoins are not created by fiat, but in exchange for valuable labor: they are paid to computer hobbyists who monitor the Bitcoin system to keep it running and prevent counterfeiting.
Critics have argued that a currency like Bitcoins would be inherently deflationary because the supply can’t be adjusted in response to economic conditions. The same argument could be made about a gold standard, of course, or an extremely hard currency like the Swiss franc. Moreover, the relatively small supply of such hard currencies means that the inflow and outflow of hot money can make them highly volatile. The price of gold, for example, climbed from less than $300 an ounce 11 years ago to almost $1,800 late last year before dropping to $1,564 today, and the Swiss franc rose from $0.82 in 2008 to $1.38 three years later before settling back to $1.07.
But there’s a strong argument that the appreciation and volatility of all these currencies reflect reasonable concerns about the global economy and banking system. The economic debacle in Cyprus keeps getting worse, after all; in fact, the losses there figure to be far greater than any that have occurred in the Bitcoin universe. In addition, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are pumping out money like French assignats.
Of course, real countries do have massive wealth backing their currencies and their bonds, as well as the police power to arrest counterfeiters. And, as I’ve argued in an earlier article, the U.S. dollar appears to be in better shape for the near term than most other major currencies. But the Bitcoin is doubtless only the first well-designed online virtual currency — and is sure to be followed by Bitcoin 2.0 and other even more sophisticated successors.
Could these online currencies ever reach a level at which they alter or obstruct government policy? Former President Bill Clinton’s adviser James Carville famously joked that if he were reincarnated, he would want to come back as the bond market because “you can intimidate everyone.” Just as the so-called bond vigilantes acted as a brake on Washington’s fiscal policy in the 1990s, one day “currency vigilantes” could act as a similar brake on monetary policy.
The Internet will almost certainly offer access to a growing number of currencies in one form or another that are beyond national control. If a future Fed chairman tries to repeat Ben Bernanke’s policy of quantitative easing (effectively printing money), worried investors could start pulling their savings out of the dollar and send it streaming into the cloud so fast that the Fed would be forced to change course.
Governments will fight back, no doubt. But virtual currencies will be no easier to control than Facebook. Stopping the movement of capital will be possible only if countries are willing to impose harsh taxes and capital controls. Once alternative currencies are frictionlessly available on the Internet, every laptop will become its own Cayman Islands. However the current boom-and-bust plays out, Bitcoin is the beginning of something, not the end.
Source: www.time.com
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Report writing in Business-Different slides
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Source: www.slideshare.net
Source: www.slideshare.net
LANG/TED Talks-John McWhorter:Txtng is killing language.JK!!!
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
We always hear that texting is a scourge.The idea is that texting spells the decline and fallof any kind of serious literacy, or at least writing ability,among young people in the United Statesand now the whole world today.The fact of the matter is that it just isn't true,and it's easy to think that it is true,but in order to see it in another way,in order to see that actually texting is a miraculous thing,not just energetic, but a miraculous thing,a kind of emergent complexitythat we're seeing happening right now,we have to pull the camera back for a bitand look at what language really is,in which case, one thing that we seeis that texting is not writing at all.What do I mean by that?
Basically, if we think about language,language has existed for perhaps 150,000 years,at least 80,000 years,and what it arose as is speech. People talked.That's what we're probably genetically specified for.That's how we use language most.Writing is something that came along much later,and as we saw in the last talk,there's a little bit of controversy as to exactly when that happened,but according to traditional estimates,if humanity had existed for 24 hours,then writing only came along at about 11:07 p.m.That's how much of a latterly thing writing is.So first there's speech, and then writing comes alongas a kind of artifice.
Now don't get me wrong, writing has certain advantages.When you write, because it's a conscious process,because you can look backwards,you can do things with language that are much less likelyif you're just talking.For example, imagine a passage from Edward Gibbon's"The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:"
"The whole engagement lasted above twelve hours,till the graduate retreat of the Persians was changedinto a disorderly flight, of which the shameful examplewas given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself."
That's beautiful, but let's face it, nobody talks that way.Or at least, they shouldn't if they're interestedin reproducing. That --(Laughter)is not the way any human being speaks casually.
Casual speech is something quite different.Linguists have actually shownthat when we're speaking casually in an unmonitored way,we tend to speak in word packets of maybeseven to 10 words.You'll notice this if you ever have occasion to recordyourself or a group of people talking.That's what speech is like.Speech is much looser. It's much more telegraphic.It's much less reflective -- very different from writing.So we naturally tend to think, because we see languagewritten so often, that that's what language is,but actually what language is, is speech. They are two things.
Now of course, as history has gone by,it's been natural for there to be a certain amount of bleedbetween speech and writing.So, for example, in a distant era now,it was common when one gave a speechto basically talk like writing.So I mean the kind of speech that you see someone givingin an old movie where they clear their throat, and they go,"Ahem, ladies and gentlemen," and then they speakin a certain way which has nothing to do with casual speech.It's formal. It uses long sentences like this Gibbon one.It's basically talking like you write, and so, for example,we're thinking so much these days about Lincolnbecause of the movie.The Gettysburg Address was not the main meal of that event.For two hours before that, Edward Everett spokeon a topic that, frankly, cannot engage us todayand barely did then.The point of it was to listen to himspeaking like writing.Ordinary people stood and listened to that for two hours.It was perfectly natural.That's what people did then, speaking like writing.
Well, if you can speak like writing,then logically it follows that you might want to alsosometimes write like you speak.The problem was just that in the material,mechanical sense, that was harder back in the dayfor the simple reason that materials don't lend themselves to it.It's almost impossible to do that with your handexcept in shorthand, and then communication is limited.On a manual typewriter it was very difficult,and even when we had electric typewriters,or then computer keyboards, the fact isthat even if you can type easily enough to keep upwith the pace of speech, more or less, you have to havesomebody who can receive your message quickly.
Once you have things in your pocket that can receive that message,then you have the conditions that allowthat we can write like we speak.And that's where texting comes in.And so, texting is very loose in its structure.No one thinks about capital letters or punctuation when one texts,but then again, do you think about those things when you talk?No, and so therefore why would you when you were texting?
What texting is, despite the fact that it involvesthe brute mechanics of something that we call writing,is fingered speech. That's what texting is.Now we can write the way we talk.And it's a very interesting thing, but neverthelesseasy to think that still it represents some sort of decline.We see this general bagginess of the structure,the lack of concern with rules and the way that we're used tolearning on the blackboard, and so we thinkthat something has gone wrong.It's a very natural sense.
But the fact of the matter is that what is going onis a kind of emergent complexity.That's what we're seeing in this fingered speech.And in order to understand it, what we want to seeis the way, in this new kind of language,there is new structure coming up.
And so, for example, there is in texting a convention,which is LOL.Now LOL, we generally think ofas meaning "laughing out loud."And of course, theoretically, it does,and if you look at older texts, then people used itto actually indicate laughing out loud.But if you text now, or if you are someone whois aware of the substrate of texting the way it's become,you'll notice that LOLdoes not mean laughing out loud anymore.It's evolved into something that is much subtler.
This is an actual text that was doneby a non-male person of about 20 years oldnot too long ago.
"I love the font you're using, btw."
Julie: "lol thanks gmail is being slow right now"
Now if you think about it, that's not funny.No one's laughing. (Laughter)And yet, there it is, so you assumethere's been some kind of hiccup.
Then Susan says "lol, I know,"again more guffawing than we're used towhen you're talking about these inconveniences.
So Julie says, "I just sent you an email."
Susan: "lol, I see it."
Very funny people, if that's what LOL means.
This Julie says, "So what's up?"
Susan: "lol, I have to write a 10 page paper."
She's not amused. Let's think about it.LOL is being used in a very particular way.It's a marker of empathy. It's a marker of accommodation.We linguists call things like that pragmatic particles.Any spoken language that's used by real people has them.If you happen to speak Japanese, think aboutthat little word "ne" that you use at the end of a lot of sentences.If you listen to the way black youth today speak,think about the use of the word "yo."Whole dissertations could be written about it,and probably are being written about it.A pragmatic particle, that's what LOL has gradually become.It's a way of using the language between actual people.
Another example is "slash."Now, we can use slash in the way that we're used to,along the lines of, "We're going to havea party-slash-networking session."That's kind of like what we're at.Slash is used in a very different wayin texting among young people today.It's used to change the scene.
So for example, this Sally person says,"So I need to find people to chill with"and Jake says, "Haha" --you could write a dissertation about "Haha" too, but we don't have time for that —"Haha so you're going by yourself? Why?"
Sally: "For this summer program at NYU."
Jake: "Haha. Slash I'm watching this video with suns playerstrying to shoot with one eye."
The slash is interesting.I don't really even know what Jake is talking about after that,but you notice that he's changing the topic.Now that seems kind of mundane,but think about how in real life,if we're having a conversation and we want to change the topic,there are ways of doing it gracefully.You don't just zip right into it.You'll pat your thighs and look wistfully off into the distance,or you'll say something like, "Hmm, makes you think --"when it really didn't, but what you're really --(Laughter) —what you're really trying to do is change the topic.You can't do that while you're texting,and so ways are developing of doing it within this medium.All spoken languages have what a linguist callsa new information marker -- or two, or three.Texting has developed one from this slash.
So we have a whole battery of new constructionsthat are developing, and yet it's easy to think,well, something is still wrong.There's a lack of structure of some sort.It's not as sophisticatedas the language of The Wall Street Journal.Well, the fact of the matter is,look at this person in 1956,and this is when texting doesn't exist,"I Love Lucy" is still on the air.
"Many do not know the alphabet or multiplication table,cannot write grammatically -- "
We've heard that sort of thing before,not just in 1956. 1917, Connecticut schoolteacher.1917. This is the time when we all assumethat everything somehow in terms of writing was perfectbecause the people on "Downton Abbey" are articulate,or something like that.
So, "From every college in the country goes up the cry,'Our freshmen can't spell, can't punctuate.'"
And so on. You can go even further back than this.It's the President of Harvard. It's 1871.There's no electricity. People have three names.
"Bad spelling,incorrectness as well as inelegance of expression in writing."
And he's talking about people who are otherwisewell prepared for college studies.
You can go even further back.1841, some long-lost superintendent of schools is upsetbecause of what he has for a long time "noted with regretthe almost entire neglect of the original" blah blah blah blah blah.
Or you can go all the way back to 63 A.D. -- (Laughter) --and there's this poor man who doesn't like the waypeople are speaking Latin.As it happens, he was writing about what had become French.And so, there are always — (Laughter) (Applause) —there are always people worrying about these thingsand the planet somehow seems to keep spinning.
And so, the way I'm thinking of texting these days isthat what we're seeing is a whole new way of writingthat young people are developing,which they're using alongside their ordinary writing skills,and that means that they're able to do two things.Increasing evidence is that being bilingualis cognitively beneficial.That's also true of being bidialectal.That's certainly true of being bidialectal in terms of your writing.And so texting actually is evidence of a balancing actthat young people are using today, not consciously, of course,but it's an expansion of their linguistic repertoire.It's very simple.If somebody from 1973 looked atwhat was on a dormitory message board in 1993,the slang would have changed a little bitsince the era of "Love Story,"but they would understand what was on that message board.Take that person from 1993 -- not that long ago,this is "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" -- those people.Take those people and they reada very typical text written by a 20-year-old today.Often they would have no idea what half of it meantbecause a whole new language has developedamong our young people doing something as mundaneas what it looks like to us when they're batting aroundon their little devices.
So in closing, if I could go into the future,if I could go into 2033,the first thing I would ask is whether David Simonhad done a sequel to "The Wire." I would want to know.And — I really would ask that —and then I'd want to know actually what was going on on "Downton Abbey."That'd be the second thing.And then the third thing would be,please show me a sheaf of textswritten by 16-year-old girls,because I would want to know where this languagehad developed since our times,and ideally I would then send them back to you and me nowso we could examine this linguistic miraclehappening right under our noses.Thank you very much.
(Applause)Thank you. (Applause)
Transcript:
We always hear that texting is a scourge.The idea is that texting spells the decline and fallof any kind of serious literacy, or at least writing ability,among young people in the United Statesand now the whole world today.The fact of the matter is that it just isn't true,and it's easy to think that it is true,but in order to see it in another way,in order to see that actually texting is a miraculous thing,not just energetic, but a miraculous thing,a kind of emergent complexitythat we're seeing happening right now,we have to pull the camera back for a bitand look at what language really is,in which case, one thing that we seeis that texting is not writing at all.What do I mean by that?
Basically, if we think about language,language has existed for perhaps 150,000 years,at least 80,000 years,and what it arose as is speech. People talked.That's what we're probably genetically specified for.That's how we use language most.Writing is something that came along much later,and as we saw in the last talk,there's a little bit of controversy as to exactly when that happened,but according to traditional estimates,if humanity had existed for 24 hours,then writing only came along at about 11:07 p.m.That's how much of a latterly thing writing is.So first there's speech, and then writing comes alongas a kind of artifice.
Now don't get me wrong, writing has certain advantages.When you write, because it's a conscious process,because you can look backwards,you can do things with language that are much less likelyif you're just talking.For example, imagine a passage from Edward Gibbon's"The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:"
"The whole engagement lasted above twelve hours,till the graduate retreat of the Persians was changedinto a disorderly flight, of which the shameful examplewas given by the principal leaders and the Surenas himself."
That's beautiful, but let's face it, nobody talks that way.Or at least, they shouldn't if they're interestedin reproducing. That --(Laughter)is not the way any human being speaks casually.
Casual speech is something quite different.Linguists have actually shownthat when we're speaking casually in an unmonitored way,we tend to speak in word packets of maybeseven to 10 words.You'll notice this if you ever have occasion to recordyourself or a group of people talking.That's what speech is like.Speech is much looser. It's much more telegraphic.It's much less reflective -- very different from writing.So we naturally tend to think, because we see languagewritten so often, that that's what language is,but actually what language is, is speech. They are two things.
Now of course, as history has gone by,it's been natural for there to be a certain amount of bleedbetween speech and writing.So, for example, in a distant era now,it was common when one gave a speechto basically talk like writing.So I mean the kind of speech that you see someone givingin an old movie where they clear their throat, and they go,"Ahem, ladies and gentlemen," and then they speakin a certain way which has nothing to do with casual speech.It's formal. It uses long sentences like this Gibbon one.It's basically talking like you write, and so, for example,we're thinking so much these days about Lincolnbecause of the movie.The Gettysburg Address was not the main meal of that event.For two hours before that, Edward Everett spokeon a topic that, frankly, cannot engage us todayand barely did then.The point of it was to listen to himspeaking like writing.Ordinary people stood and listened to that for two hours.It was perfectly natural.That's what people did then, speaking like writing.
Well, if you can speak like writing,then logically it follows that you might want to alsosometimes write like you speak.The problem was just that in the material,mechanical sense, that was harder back in the dayfor the simple reason that materials don't lend themselves to it.It's almost impossible to do that with your handexcept in shorthand, and then communication is limited.On a manual typewriter it was very difficult,and even when we had electric typewriters,or then computer keyboards, the fact isthat even if you can type easily enough to keep upwith the pace of speech, more or less, you have to havesomebody who can receive your message quickly.
Once you have things in your pocket that can receive that message,then you have the conditions that allowthat we can write like we speak.And that's where texting comes in.And so, texting is very loose in its structure.No one thinks about capital letters or punctuation when one texts,but then again, do you think about those things when you talk?No, and so therefore why would you when you were texting?
What texting is, despite the fact that it involvesthe brute mechanics of something that we call writing,is fingered speech. That's what texting is.Now we can write the way we talk.And it's a very interesting thing, but neverthelesseasy to think that still it represents some sort of decline.We see this general bagginess of the structure,the lack of concern with rules and the way that we're used tolearning on the blackboard, and so we thinkthat something has gone wrong.It's a very natural sense.
But the fact of the matter is that what is going onis a kind of emergent complexity.That's what we're seeing in this fingered speech.And in order to understand it, what we want to seeis the way, in this new kind of language,there is new structure coming up.
And so, for example, there is in texting a convention,which is LOL.Now LOL, we generally think ofas meaning "laughing out loud."And of course, theoretically, it does,and if you look at older texts, then people used itto actually indicate laughing out loud.But if you text now, or if you are someone whois aware of the substrate of texting the way it's become,you'll notice that LOLdoes not mean laughing out loud anymore.It's evolved into something that is much subtler.
This is an actual text that was doneby a non-male person of about 20 years oldnot too long ago.
"I love the font you're using, btw."
Julie: "lol thanks gmail is being slow right now"
Now if you think about it, that's not funny.No one's laughing. (Laughter)And yet, there it is, so you assumethere's been some kind of hiccup.
Then Susan says "lol, I know,"again more guffawing than we're used towhen you're talking about these inconveniences.
So Julie says, "I just sent you an email."
Susan: "lol, I see it."
Very funny people, if that's what LOL means.
This Julie says, "So what's up?"
Susan: "lol, I have to write a 10 page paper."
She's not amused. Let's think about it.LOL is being used in a very particular way.It's a marker of empathy. It's a marker of accommodation.We linguists call things like that pragmatic particles.Any spoken language that's used by real people has them.If you happen to speak Japanese, think aboutthat little word "ne" that you use at the end of a lot of sentences.If you listen to the way black youth today speak,think about the use of the word "yo."Whole dissertations could be written about it,and probably are being written about it.A pragmatic particle, that's what LOL has gradually become.It's a way of using the language between actual people.
Another example is "slash."Now, we can use slash in the way that we're used to,along the lines of, "We're going to havea party-slash-networking session."That's kind of like what we're at.Slash is used in a very different wayin texting among young people today.It's used to change the scene.
So for example, this Sally person says,"So I need to find people to chill with"and Jake says, "Haha" --you could write a dissertation about "Haha" too, but we don't have time for that —"Haha so you're going by yourself? Why?"
Sally: "For this summer program at NYU."
Jake: "Haha. Slash I'm watching this video with suns playerstrying to shoot with one eye."
The slash is interesting.I don't really even know what Jake is talking about after that,but you notice that he's changing the topic.Now that seems kind of mundane,but think about how in real life,if we're having a conversation and we want to change the topic,there are ways of doing it gracefully.You don't just zip right into it.You'll pat your thighs and look wistfully off into the distance,or you'll say something like, "Hmm, makes you think --"when it really didn't, but what you're really --(Laughter) —what you're really trying to do is change the topic.You can't do that while you're texting,and so ways are developing of doing it within this medium.All spoken languages have what a linguist callsa new information marker -- or two, or three.Texting has developed one from this slash.
So we have a whole battery of new constructionsthat are developing, and yet it's easy to think,well, something is still wrong.There's a lack of structure of some sort.It's not as sophisticatedas the language of The Wall Street Journal.Well, the fact of the matter is,look at this person in 1956,and this is when texting doesn't exist,"I Love Lucy" is still on the air.
"Many do not know the alphabet or multiplication table,cannot write grammatically -- "
We've heard that sort of thing before,not just in 1956. 1917, Connecticut schoolteacher.1917. This is the time when we all assumethat everything somehow in terms of writing was perfectbecause the people on "Downton Abbey" are articulate,or something like that.
So, "From every college in the country goes up the cry,'Our freshmen can't spell, can't punctuate.'"
And so on. You can go even further back than this.It's the President of Harvard. It's 1871.There's no electricity. People have three names.
"Bad spelling,incorrectness as well as inelegance of expression in writing."
And he's talking about people who are otherwisewell prepared for college studies.
You can go even further back.1841, some long-lost superintendent of schools is upsetbecause of what he has for a long time "noted with regretthe almost entire neglect of the original" blah blah blah blah blah.
Or you can go all the way back to 63 A.D. -- (Laughter) --and there's this poor man who doesn't like the waypeople are speaking Latin.As it happens, he was writing about what had become French.And so, there are always — (Laughter) (Applause) —there are always people worrying about these thingsand the planet somehow seems to keep spinning.
And so, the way I'm thinking of texting these days isthat what we're seeing is a whole new way of writingthat young people are developing,which they're using alongside their ordinary writing skills,and that means that they're able to do two things.Increasing evidence is that being bilingualis cognitively beneficial.That's also true of being bidialectal.That's certainly true of being bidialectal in terms of your writing.And so texting actually is evidence of a balancing actthat young people are using today, not consciously, of course,but it's an expansion of their linguistic repertoire.It's very simple.If somebody from 1973 looked atwhat was on a dormitory message board in 1993,the slang would have changed a little bitsince the era of "Love Story,"but they would understand what was on that message board.Take that person from 1993 -- not that long ago,this is "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" -- those people.Take those people and they reada very typical text written by a 20-year-old today.Often they would have no idea what half of it meantbecause a whole new language has developedamong our young people doing something as mundaneas what it looks like to us when they're batting aroundon their little devices.
So in closing, if I could go into the future,if I could go into 2033,the first thing I would ask is whether David Simonhad done a sequel to "The Wire." I would want to know.And — I really would ask that —and then I'd want to know actually what was going on on "Downton Abbey."That'd be the second thing.And then the third thing would be,please show me a sheaf of textswritten by 16-year-old girls,because I would want to know where this languagehad developed since our times,and ideally I would then send them back to you and me nowso we could examine this linguistic miraclehappening right under our noses.Thank you very much.
(Applause)Thank you. (Applause)
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Salud/Mal de Chagas-Tratarán el Mal de Chagas con un medicamento hecho en el país
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Tratarán el mal de chagas con un medicamento hecho en el país
Podrán consumirlo todos los habitantes de América; el medicamento se produce en el país desde 2012
La vinchuca es la causante del mal de Chagas.
Los pacientes que sufren de mal de Chagas en América podrán tratarse con un medicamento hecho por primera vez en la Argentina. Esta posibilidad tiene lugar luego de que la Organización Panamericana de la Salud aprobara su inclusión en el fondo rotatorio por el cual los gobiernos de todo el continente hacen compras de tratamientos a menor precio, según publica en su edición de hoy el diario Clarín.
De acuerdo con las precisiones que brinda el artículo, la enfermedad es propia de América, pero con las migraciones ya se encuentran personas afectadas en otras regiones del mundo, como Europa y Oceanía: hay 8 millones de infectados, según estimó la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El problema es que menos del 1% de los infectados se trata con el medicamento benznidazol, según comentó Sonia Tarragona, directora ejecutiva de la Fundación Mundo Sano.
El medicamento en cuestión es el benznidazol, que debe ser dado cuanto antes, una vez diagnosticada la enfermedad. Ocurre que había sido discontinuado por problemas en la producción masiva a cargo de un laboratorio en Brasil. Recién en 2012, l a producción se inició en la Argentina mediante una alianza público-privada, que incluye al Ministerio de Salud de la Nación, la Fundación Mundo Sano y las empresas Maprimed y el laboratorio farmacéutico ELEA. De esta manera, la Argentina se convirtió en el único proveedor del medicamento para Chagas en el mundo.
Sobre esta novedad, Sergio Sosa Estani, director del Instituto Nacional de Parasitología Dr. Fatala Chabén dependiente del Ministerio de Salud, sostuvo que "la disponibilidad de este medicamento es clave para que los programas nacionales puedan avanzar en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de los pacientes"..
Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar
Tratarán el mal de chagas con un medicamento hecho en el país
Podrán consumirlo todos los habitantes de América; el medicamento se produce en el país desde 2012
La vinchuca es la causante del mal de Chagas.
Los pacientes que sufren de mal de Chagas en América podrán tratarse con un medicamento hecho por primera vez en la Argentina. Esta posibilidad tiene lugar luego de que la Organización Panamericana de la Salud aprobara su inclusión en el fondo rotatorio por el cual los gobiernos de todo el continente hacen compras de tratamientos a menor precio, según publica en su edición de hoy el diario Clarín.
De acuerdo con las precisiones que brinda el artículo, la enfermedad es propia de América, pero con las migraciones ya se encuentran personas afectadas en otras regiones del mundo, como Europa y Oceanía: hay 8 millones de infectados, según estimó la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El problema es que menos del 1% de los infectados se trata con el medicamento benznidazol, según comentó Sonia Tarragona, directora ejecutiva de la Fundación Mundo Sano.
El medicamento en cuestión es el benznidazol, que debe ser dado cuanto antes, una vez diagnosticada la enfermedad. Ocurre que había sido discontinuado por problemas en la producción masiva a cargo de un laboratorio en Brasil. Recién en 2012, l a producción se inició en la Argentina mediante una alianza público-privada, que incluye al Ministerio de Salud de la Nación, la Fundación Mundo Sano y las empresas Maprimed y el laboratorio farmacéutico ELEA. De esta manera, la Argentina se convirtió en el único proveedor del medicamento para Chagas en el mundo.
Sobre esta novedad, Sergio Sosa Estani, director del Instituto Nacional de Parasitología Dr. Fatala Chabén dependiente del Ministerio de Salud, sostuvo que "la disponibilidad de este medicamento es clave para que los programas nacionales puedan avanzar en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de los pacientes"..
Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar
Life/GralInt-TED Talks-Joshua Prager:In search of the man who broke my neck
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Transcript:
One year ago, I rented a car in Jerusalemto go find a man I'd never metbut who had changed my life.I didn't have a phone number to call to say I was coming.I didn't have an exact address,but I knew his name, Abed,I knew that he lived in a town of 15,000, Kfar Kara,and I knew that, 21 years before, just outside this holy city,he broke my neck.And so, on an overcast morning in January, I headed northoff in a silver Chevy to find a man and some peace.
The road dropped and I exited Jerusalem.I then rounded the very bend where his blue truck,heavy with four tons of floor tiles,had borne down with great speed onto the back left cornerof the minibus where I sat.I was then 19 years old.I'd grown five inches and done some 20,000 pushupsin eight months, and the night before the crash,I delighted in my new body,playing basketball with friendsinto the wee hours of a May morning.I palmed the ball in my large right hand,and when that hand reached the rim, I felt invincible.I was off in the bus to get the pizza I'd won on the court.
I didn't see Abed coming.From my seat, I was looking up at a stone townon a hilltop, bright in the noontime sun,when from behind there was a great bang,as loud and violent as a bomb.My head snapped back over my red seat.My eardrum blew. My shoes flew off.I flew too, my head bobbing on broken bones,and when I landed, I was a quadriplegic.Over the coming months, I learned to breathe on my own,then to sit and to stand and to walk,but my body was now divided vertically.I was a hemiplegic, and back home in New York,I used a wheelchair for four years, all through college.
College ended and I returned to Jerusalem for a year.There I rose from my chair for good,I leaned on my cane, and I looked back,finding all from my fellow passengers in the busto photographs of the crash,and when I saw this photograph,I didn't see a bloody and unmoving body.I saw the healthy bulk of a left deltoid,and I mourned that it was lost,mourned all I had not yet done,but was now impossible.
It was then I read the testimony that Abed gavethe morning after the crash,of driving down the right lane of a highway toward Jerusalem.Reading his words, I welled with anger.It was the first time I'd felt anger toward this man,and it came from magical thinking.On this xeroxed piece of paper,the crash had not yet happened.Abed could still turn his wheel leftso that I would see him whoosh by out my windowand I would remain whole."Be careful, Abed, look out. Slow down."But Abed did not slow,and on that xeroxed piece of paper, my neck again broke,and again, I was left without anger.
I decided to find Abed,and when I finally did,he responded to my Hebrew hello which such nonchalance,it seemed he'd been awaiting my phone call.And maybe he had.I didn't mention to Abed his prior driving record --27 violations by the age of 25,the last, his not shifting his truck into a low gear on that May day —and I didn't mention my prior record --the quadriplegia and the catheters,the insecurity and the loss —and when Abed went on about how hurt he was in the crash,I didn't say that I knew from the police reportthat he'd escaped serious injury.I said I wanted to meet.Abed said that I should call back in a few weeks,and when I did, and a recording told methat his number was disconnected,I let Abed and the crash go.
Many years passed.I walked with my cane and my ankle brace and a backpackon trips in six continents.I pitched overhand in a weekly softball gamethat I started in Central Park,and home in New York, I became a journalist and an author,typing hundreds of thousands of words with one finger.A friend pointed out to me that all of my big storiesmirrored my own, each centering on a lifethat had changed in an instant,owing, if not to a crash, then to an inheritance,a swing of the bat, a click of the shutter, an arrest.Each of us had a before and an after.I'd been working through my lot after all.
Still, Abed was far from my mind, when last year,I returned to Israel to write of the crash,and the book I then wrote, "Half-Life,"was nearly complete when I recognizedthat I still wanted to meet Abed,and finally I understood why:to hear this man say two words: "I'm sorry."People apologize for less.And so I got a cop to confirm that Abed still livedsomewhere in his same town,and I was now driving to it with a potted yellow rose in the back seat,when suddenly flowers seemed a ridiculous offering.But what to get the man who broke your fucking neck?(Laughter)I pulled into the town of Abu Ghosh,and bought a brick of Turkish delight:pistachios glued in rosewater. Better.
Back on Highway 1, I envisioned what awaited.Abed would hug me. Abed would spit at me.Abed would say, "I'm sorry."I then began to wonder, as I had many times before,how my life would have been differenthad this man not injured me,had my genes been fed a different helping of experience.Who was I?Was I who I had been before the crash,before this road divided my life like the spine of an open book?Was I what had been done to me?Were all of us the results of things done to us, done for us,the infidelity of a parent or spouse,money inherited?Were we instead our bodies, their inborn endowments and deficits?It seemed that we could be nothing more than genes and experience,but how to tease out the one from the other?As Yeats put that same universal question,"O body swayed to music, o brightening glance,how can we know the dancer from the dance?"I'd been driving for an hourwhen I looked in my rearview mirror and saw my own brightening glance.The light my eyes had carried for as long as they had been blue.The predispositions and impulses that had propelled meas a toddler to try and slip over a boat into a Chicago lake,that had propelled me as a teento jump into wild Cape Cod Bay after a hurricane.But I also saw in my reflectionthat, had Abed not injured me,I would now, in all likelihood, be a doctorand a husband and a father.I would be less mindful of time and of death,and, oh, I would not be disabled,would not suffer the thousand slings and arrows of my fortune.The frequent furl of five fingers, the chips in my teethcome from biting at all the many thingsa solitary hand cannot open.The dancer and the dance were hopelessly entwined.
It was approaching 11 when I exited righttoward Afula, and passed a large quarryand was soon in Kfar Kara.I felt a pang of nerves.But Chopin was on the radio, seven beautiful mazurkas,and I pulled into a lot by a gas stationto listen and to calm.
I'd been told that in an Arab town,one need only mention the name of a localand it will be recognized.And I was mentioning Abed and myself,noting deliberately that I was here in peace,to the people in this town,when I met Mohamed outside a post office at noon.He listened to me.
You know, it was most often when speaking to peoplethat I wondered where I ended and my disability began,for many people told me what they told no one else.Many cried.And one day, after a woman I met on the street did the sameand I later asked her why,she told me that, best she could tell, her tearshad had something to do with my being happy and strong,but vulnerable too.I listened to her words. I suppose they were true.I was me,but I was now me despite a limp,and that, I suppose, was what now made me, me.
Anyway, Mohamed told mewhat perhaps he would not have told another stranger.He led me to a house of cream stucco, then drove off.And as I sat contemplating what to say,a woman approached in a black shawl and black robe.I stepped from my car and said "Shalom,"and identified myself,and she told me that her husband Abedwould be home from work in four hours.Her Hebrew was not good, and she later confessedthat she thought that I had come to install the Internet.(Laughter)
I drove off and returned at 4:30,thankful to the minaret up the roadthat helped me find my way back.And as I approached the front door,Abed saw me, my jeans and flannel and cane,and I saw Abed, an average-looking man of average size.He wore black and white: slippers over socks,pilling sweatpants, a piebald sweater,a striped ski cap pulled down to his forehead.He'd been expecting me. Mohamed had phoned.And so at once, we shook hands, and smiled,and I gave him my gift,and he told me I was a guest in his home,and we sat beside one another on a fabric couch.
It was then that Abed resumed at oncethe tale of woe he had begun over the phone16 years before.He'd just had surgery on his eyes, he said.He had problems with his side and his legs too,and, oh, he'd lost his teeth in the crash.Did I wish to see him remove them?Abed then rose and turned on the TVso that I wouldn't be alone when he left the room,and returned with polaroids of the crashand his old driver's license.
"I was handsome," he said.
We looked down at his laminated mug.Abed had been less handsome than substantial,with thick black hair and a full face and a wide neck.It was this youth who on May 16, 1990,had broken two necks including mine,and bruised one brain and taken one life.Twenty-one years later, he was now thinner than his wife,his skin slack on his face,and looking at Abed looking at his young self,I remembered looking at that photograph of my young selfafter the crash, and recognized his longing.
"The crash changed both of our lives," I said.
Abed then showed me a picture of his mashed truck,and said that the crash was the fault of a bus driverin the left lane who did not let him pass.I did not want to recap the crash with Abed.I'd hoped for something simpler:to exchange a Turkish dessert for two words and be on my way.And so I didn't point out that in his own testimonythe morning after the crash,Abed did not even mention the bus driver.No, I was quiet. I was quiet because I had not come for truth.I had come for remorse.And so I now went looking for remorseand threw truth under the bus.
"I understand," I said, "that the crash was not your fault,but does it make you sad that others suffered?"
Abed spoke three quick words."Yes, I suffered."
Abed then told me why he'd suffered.He'd lived an unholy life before the crash,and so God had ordained the crash,but now, he said, he was religious, and God was pleased.
It was then that God intervened:news on the TV of a car wreck that hours beforehad killed three people up north.We looked up at the wreckage.
"Strange," I said.
"Strange," he agreed.
I had the thought that there, on Route 804,there were perpetrators and victims,dyads bound by a crash.Some, as had Abed, would forget the date.Some, as had I, would remember.The report finished and Abed spoke.
"It is a pity," he said, "that the policein this country are not tough enough on bad drivers."
I was baffled.Abed had said something remarkable.Did it point up the degree to which he'd absolved himself of the crash?Was it evidence of guilt, an assertionthat he should have been put away longer?He'd served six months in prison, lost his truck license for a decade.I forgot my discretion.
"Um, Abed," I said,"I thought you had a few driving issues before the crash."
"Well," he said, "I once went 60 in a 40."And so 27 violations --driving through a red light, driving at excessive speed,driving on the wrong side of a barrier,and finally, riding his brakes down that hill --reduced to one.
And it was then I understood that no matter how stark the reality,the human being fits it into a narrative that is palatable.The goat becomes the hero. The perpetrator becomes the victim.It was then I understood that Abed would never apologize.
Abed and I sat with our coffee.We'd spent 90 minutes together,and he was now known to me.He was not a particularly bad manor a particularly good man.He was a limited manwho'd found it within himself to be kind to me.With a nod to Jewish custom,he told me that I should live to be 120 years old.But it was hard for me to relate to one who hadso completely washed his hands of his own calamitous doing,to one whose life was so unexamined that he saidhe thought two people had died in the crash.
There was much I wished to say to Abed.I wished to tell him that, were he to acknowledge my disability,it would be okay,for people are wrong to marvelat those like me who smile as we limp.People don't know that they have lived through worse,that problems of the heart hit with a force greater than a runaway truck,that problems of the mind are greater still,more injurious, than a hundred broken necks.I wished to tell him that what makes most of us who we aremost of allis not our minds and not our bodiesand not what happens to us,but how we respond to what happens to us."This," wrote the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl,"is the last of the human freedoms:to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances."I wished to tell him that not only paralyzersand paralyzees must evolve, reconcile to reality,but we all must --the aging and the anxious and the divorced and the baldingand the bankrupt and everyone.I wished to tell him that one does not have to saythat a bad thing is good,that a crash is from God and so a crash is good,a broken neck is good.One can say that a bad thing sucks,but that this natural world still has many glories.I wished to tell him that, in the end, our mandate is clear:We have to rise above bad fortune.We have to be in the good and enjoy the good,study and work and adventure and friendship -- oh, friendship --and community and love.
But most of all, I wished to tell himwhat Herman Melville wrote,that "truly to enjoy bodily warmth,some small part of you must be cold,for there is no quality in this worldthat is not what it is merely by contrast."Yes, contrast.If you are mindful of what you do not have,you may be truly mindful of what you do have,and if the gods are kind, you may truly enjoy what you have.That is the one singular gift you may receiveif you suffer in any existential way.You know death, and so may wake each morningpulsing with ready life.Some part of you is cold,and so another part may truly enjoy what it is to be warm,or even to be cold.When one morning, years after the crash,I stepped onto stone and the underside of my left footfelt the flash of cold, nerves at last awake,it was exhilarating, a gust of snow.
But I didn't say these things to Abed.I told him only that he had killed one man, not two.I told him the name of that man.And then I said, "Goodbye."
Thank you.
(Applause)Thanks a lot.(Applause)
Transcript:
One year ago, I rented a car in Jerusalemto go find a man I'd never metbut who had changed my life.I didn't have a phone number to call to say I was coming.I didn't have an exact address,but I knew his name, Abed,I knew that he lived in a town of 15,000, Kfar Kara,and I knew that, 21 years before, just outside this holy city,he broke my neck.And so, on an overcast morning in January, I headed northoff in a silver Chevy to find a man and some peace.
The road dropped and I exited Jerusalem.I then rounded the very bend where his blue truck,heavy with four tons of floor tiles,had borne down with great speed onto the back left cornerof the minibus where I sat.I was then 19 years old.I'd grown five inches and done some 20,000 pushupsin eight months, and the night before the crash,I delighted in my new body,playing basketball with friendsinto the wee hours of a May morning.I palmed the ball in my large right hand,and when that hand reached the rim, I felt invincible.I was off in the bus to get the pizza I'd won on the court.
I didn't see Abed coming.From my seat, I was looking up at a stone townon a hilltop, bright in the noontime sun,when from behind there was a great bang,as loud and violent as a bomb.My head snapped back over my red seat.My eardrum blew. My shoes flew off.I flew too, my head bobbing on broken bones,and when I landed, I was a quadriplegic.Over the coming months, I learned to breathe on my own,then to sit and to stand and to walk,but my body was now divided vertically.I was a hemiplegic, and back home in New York,I used a wheelchair for four years, all through college.
College ended and I returned to Jerusalem for a year.There I rose from my chair for good,I leaned on my cane, and I looked back,finding all from my fellow passengers in the busto photographs of the crash,and when I saw this photograph,I didn't see a bloody and unmoving body.I saw the healthy bulk of a left deltoid,and I mourned that it was lost,mourned all I had not yet done,but was now impossible.
It was then I read the testimony that Abed gavethe morning after the crash,of driving down the right lane of a highway toward Jerusalem.Reading his words, I welled with anger.It was the first time I'd felt anger toward this man,and it came from magical thinking.On this xeroxed piece of paper,the crash had not yet happened.Abed could still turn his wheel leftso that I would see him whoosh by out my windowand I would remain whole."Be careful, Abed, look out. Slow down."But Abed did not slow,and on that xeroxed piece of paper, my neck again broke,and again, I was left without anger.
I decided to find Abed,and when I finally did,he responded to my Hebrew hello which such nonchalance,it seemed he'd been awaiting my phone call.And maybe he had.I didn't mention to Abed his prior driving record --27 violations by the age of 25,the last, his not shifting his truck into a low gear on that May day —and I didn't mention my prior record --the quadriplegia and the catheters,the insecurity and the loss —and when Abed went on about how hurt he was in the crash,I didn't say that I knew from the police reportthat he'd escaped serious injury.I said I wanted to meet.Abed said that I should call back in a few weeks,and when I did, and a recording told methat his number was disconnected,I let Abed and the crash go.
Many years passed.I walked with my cane and my ankle brace and a backpackon trips in six continents.I pitched overhand in a weekly softball gamethat I started in Central Park,and home in New York, I became a journalist and an author,typing hundreds of thousands of words with one finger.A friend pointed out to me that all of my big storiesmirrored my own, each centering on a lifethat had changed in an instant,owing, if not to a crash, then to an inheritance,a swing of the bat, a click of the shutter, an arrest.Each of us had a before and an after.I'd been working through my lot after all.
Still, Abed was far from my mind, when last year,I returned to Israel to write of the crash,and the book I then wrote, "Half-Life,"was nearly complete when I recognizedthat I still wanted to meet Abed,and finally I understood why:to hear this man say two words: "I'm sorry."People apologize for less.And so I got a cop to confirm that Abed still livedsomewhere in his same town,and I was now driving to it with a potted yellow rose in the back seat,when suddenly flowers seemed a ridiculous offering.But what to get the man who broke your fucking neck?(Laughter)I pulled into the town of Abu Ghosh,and bought a brick of Turkish delight:pistachios glued in rosewater. Better.
Back on Highway 1, I envisioned what awaited.Abed would hug me. Abed would spit at me.Abed would say, "I'm sorry."I then began to wonder, as I had many times before,how my life would have been differenthad this man not injured me,had my genes been fed a different helping of experience.Who was I?Was I who I had been before the crash,before this road divided my life like the spine of an open book?Was I what had been done to me?Were all of us the results of things done to us, done for us,the infidelity of a parent or spouse,money inherited?Were we instead our bodies, their inborn endowments and deficits?It seemed that we could be nothing more than genes and experience,but how to tease out the one from the other?As Yeats put that same universal question,"O body swayed to music, o brightening glance,how can we know the dancer from the dance?"I'd been driving for an hourwhen I looked in my rearview mirror and saw my own brightening glance.The light my eyes had carried for as long as they had been blue.The predispositions and impulses that had propelled meas a toddler to try and slip over a boat into a Chicago lake,that had propelled me as a teento jump into wild Cape Cod Bay after a hurricane.But I also saw in my reflectionthat, had Abed not injured me,I would now, in all likelihood, be a doctorand a husband and a father.I would be less mindful of time and of death,and, oh, I would not be disabled,would not suffer the thousand slings and arrows of my fortune.The frequent furl of five fingers, the chips in my teethcome from biting at all the many thingsa solitary hand cannot open.The dancer and the dance were hopelessly entwined.
It was approaching 11 when I exited righttoward Afula, and passed a large quarryand was soon in Kfar Kara.I felt a pang of nerves.But Chopin was on the radio, seven beautiful mazurkas,and I pulled into a lot by a gas stationto listen and to calm.
I'd been told that in an Arab town,one need only mention the name of a localand it will be recognized.And I was mentioning Abed and myself,noting deliberately that I was here in peace,to the people in this town,when I met Mohamed outside a post office at noon.He listened to me.
You know, it was most often when speaking to peoplethat I wondered where I ended and my disability began,for many people told me what they told no one else.Many cried.And one day, after a woman I met on the street did the sameand I later asked her why,she told me that, best she could tell, her tearshad had something to do with my being happy and strong,but vulnerable too.I listened to her words. I suppose they were true.I was me,but I was now me despite a limp,and that, I suppose, was what now made me, me.
Anyway, Mohamed told mewhat perhaps he would not have told another stranger.He led me to a house of cream stucco, then drove off.And as I sat contemplating what to say,a woman approached in a black shawl and black robe.I stepped from my car and said "Shalom,"and identified myself,and she told me that her husband Abedwould be home from work in four hours.Her Hebrew was not good, and she later confessedthat she thought that I had come to install the Internet.(Laughter)
I drove off and returned at 4:30,thankful to the minaret up the roadthat helped me find my way back.And as I approached the front door,Abed saw me, my jeans and flannel and cane,and I saw Abed, an average-looking man of average size.He wore black and white: slippers over socks,pilling sweatpants, a piebald sweater,a striped ski cap pulled down to his forehead.He'd been expecting me. Mohamed had phoned.And so at once, we shook hands, and smiled,and I gave him my gift,and he told me I was a guest in his home,and we sat beside one another on a fabric couch.
It was then that Abed resumed at oncethe tale of woe he had begun over the phone16 years before.He'd just had surgery on his eyes, he said.He had problems with his side and his legs too,and, oh, he'd lost his teeth in the crash.Did I wish to see him remove them?Abed then rose and turned on the TVso that I wouldn't be alone when he left the room,and returned with polaroids of the crashand his old driver's license.
"I was handsome," he said.
We looked down at his laminated mug.Abed had been less handsome than substantial,with thick black hair and a full face and a wide neck.It was this youth who on May 16, 1990,had broken two necks including mine,and bruised one brain and taken one life.Twenty-one years later, he was now thinner than his wife,his skin slack on his face,and looking at Abed looking at his young self,I remembered looking at that photograph of my young selfafter the crash, and recognized his longing.
"The crash changed both of our lives," I said.
Abed then showed me a picture of his mashed truck,and said that the crash was the fault of a bus driverin the left lane who did not let him pass.I did not want to recap the crash with Abed.I'd hoped for something simpler:to exchange a Turkish dessert for two words and be on my way.And so I didn't point out that in his own testimonythe morning after the crash,Abed did not even mention the bus driver.No, I was quiet. I was quiet because I had not come for truth.I had come for remorse.And so I now went looking for remorseand threw truth under the bus.
"I understand," I said, "that the crash was not your fault,but does it make you sad that others suffered?"
Abed spoke three quick words."Yes, I suffered."
Abed then told me why he'd suffered.He'd lived an unholy life before the crash,and so God had ordained the crash,but now, he said, he was religious, and God was pleased.
It was then that God intervened:news on the TV of a car wreck that hours beforehad killed three people up north.We looked up at the wreckage.
"Strange," I said.
"Strange," he agreed.
I had the thought that there, on Route 804,there were perpetrators and victims,dyads bound by a crash.Some, as had Abed, would forget the date.Some, as had I, would remember.The report finished and Abed spoke.
"It is a pity," he said, "that the policein this country are not tough enough on bad drivers."
I was baffled.Abed had said something remarkable.Did it point up the degree to which he'd absolved himself of the crash?Was it evidence of guilt, an assertionthat he should have been put away longer?He'd served six months in prison, lost his truck license for a decade.I forgot my discretion.
"Um, Abed," I said,"I thought you had a few driving issues before the crash."
"Well," he said, "I once went 60 in a 40."And so 27 violations --driving through a red light, driving at excessive speed,driving on the wrong side of a barrier,and finally, riding his brakes down that hill --reduced to one.
And it was then I understood that no matter how stark the reality,the human being fits it into a narrative that is palatable.The goat becomes the hero. The perpetrator becomes the victim.It was then I understood that Abed would never apologize.
Abed and I sat with our coffee.We'd spent 90 minutes together,and he was now known to me.He was not a particularly bad manor a particularly good man.He was a limited manwho'd found it within himself to be kind to me.With a nod to Jewish custom,he told me that I should live to be 120 years old.But it was hard for me to relate to one who hadso completely washed his hands of his own calamitous doing,to one whose life was so unexamined that he saidhe thought two people had died in the crash.
There was much I wished to say to Abed.I wished to tell him that, were he to acknowledge my disability,it would be okay,for people are wrong to marvelat those like me who smile as we limp.People don't know that they have lived through worse,that problems of the heart hit with a force greater than a runaway truck,that problems of the mind are greater still,more injurious, than a hundred broken necks.I wished to tell him that what makes most of us who we aremost of allis not our minds and not our bodiesand not what happens to us,but how we respond to what happens to us."This," wrote the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl,"is the last of the human freedoms:to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances."I wished to tell him that not only paralyzersand paralyzees must evolve, reconcile to reality,but we all must --the aging and the anxious and the divorced and the baldingand the bankrupt and everyone.I wished to tell him that one does not have to saythat a bad thing is good,that a crash is from God and so a crash is good,a broken neck is good.One can say that a bad thing sucks,but that this natural world still has many glories.I wished to tell him that, in the end, our mandate is clear:We have to rise above bad fortune.We have to be in the good and enjoy the good,study and work and adventure and friendship -- oh, friendship --and community and love.
But most of all, I wished to tell himwhat Herman Melville wrote,that "truly to enjoy bodily warmth,some small part of you must be cold,for there is no quality in this worldthat is not what it is merely by contrast."Yes, contrast.If you are mindful of what you do not have,you may be truly mindful of what you do have,and if the gods are kind, you may truly enjoy what you have.That is the one singular gift you may receiveif you suffer in any existential way.You know death, and so may wake each morningpulsing with ready life.Some part of you is cold,and so another part may truly enjoy what it is to be warm,or even to be cold.When one morning, years after the crash,I stepped onto stone and the underside of my left footfelt the flash of cold, nerves at last awake,it was exhilarating, a gust of snow.
But I didn't say these things to Abed.I told him only that he had killed one man, not two.I told him the name of that man.And then I said, "Goodbye."
Thank you.
(Applause)Thanks a lot.(Applause)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)