I feel strongly about this. I either try to walk as much as I can. The thing that irritates me a lot is the high levels of pollution you are exposed to. Coming from a 3rd world country You bet our elites probably don’t know how hard it is to breath in most any part of metro manila. Its sad because they are mostly living in a bubble. They live in posh villages with well manicured lawns and beautiful trees. They ride in air conditioned limos and hardly ever really experience the air pollution. I have a feeling they’d be more concerned with the environment if they only joined me for a walk!
from the NYT:
I wouldn’t think that sidewalks are a top priority in developing countries. The last priority. Because the priority is to make highways and roads. We are designing cities for cars, cars, cars, cars, cars. Not for people. Cars are a very recent invention. The 20th century was a horrible detour in the evolution of the human habitat. We were building much more for cars’ mobility than children’s happiness.Even in countries where most people can’t afford to own cars? The upper-income people in developing countries never walk. They see the city as a threatening space, and they can go for months without walking one block.
Living Long and Living Well
It seems that living long correlates well with living a worthwhile life.
This is very comforting,.
from ted here:
What can people do right now to help extend their lives? There is no pill, as of yet. Diet, exercise and purpose are the three sure ways.
I Know You
This resonates with me because I am faced with a city where great service in anything is a once in a week event, sometimes sadly once in a month.
This is the reason I tend to eat shop and go to the same places, Its hard to find a place/restaurant/bookstore/ etc that has great service, even just very good service, when I find one I try to patronize them for the sake my quixotic quest of trying to leave this world a better place, or in a more personal tone, try to leave anything just a bit better!
from Seth Godin’s blog:
Recognition
Just wondering–do you deserve to be recognized by the businesses you patronize, the charities you support and the place you work? Would it feel good to have the barrista remember you? Or the sushi chef at that place you spend so much time and money? (Thanks to Fredd for the link).
Even better, do you think it would be motivating (or even satisfying) to have your boss recognize you for the hard work you did over Memorial Day weekend? Honest recognition, not just a mumbled thanks…
Last question: do you think your customers and co-workers feel the same way?
Dreaming Big, Lusting for the Moon
I love seeing people who dream, and what’s more important, doing everything to make their dreams a reality!
Thank You Cringley, you just made my day!
from here:
Nolo Contendere
Readers have been asking — demanding even — an update on Team Cringely, my plan to win the Google Lunar X Prize and give my kids an inheritance worth fighting over. So this week I have to announce that, alas, Team Cringely is no longer in competition for the Google Prize. But we’re still going to the Moon.
Huh?
The idea behind the Google Lunar X Prize was irresistible to me from the start. It was so audacious to think that private citizens could do what few governments had been able to do before — to fly to the Moon, land there, launch a rover, drive around, and send pictures, video, and other data back to Earth. Yet the closer I looked the more feasible it seemed to be, especially with the impetus of that $20 million first prize. It would be the ultimate expression of Moore’s Law as my team applied miniaturization to the task of lunar exploration.
So I boldly announced my intention to form a team, win the prize, and — here’s the kicker — actually make a profit on the deal. Readers and their friends flocked to my cause and, almost before I knew it, I had the nucleus of exactly the sort of lean-and-mean organization I felt would be required to win the prize at a profit. Understand here that of the 15 announced teams, only two have said they can win the $20 million while spending less than $20 million, with the average team budget more on the order of $50-$75 million.
Then reality began to set in. This reality had nothing to do with the actual engineering exercise of going to the Moon: that was contained and calculable. This reality had to do with politics and economics. Economic reality said that all 15 teams were looking for a total of up to $1 billion — a LOT of money. Even more sobering, most teams were approaching for support exactly the same potential investors, who probably wouldn’t choose to invest in multiple teams. Charles Simonyi from Microsoft is a typical example, having been approached by at least three teams almost immediately because, of course, he had spent $20 million to visit the International Space Station, thus qualifying as both a Space Nut and a Space Nut with Money. But Charles, to my knowledge, hasn’t yet invested in ANY Google Lunar X Prize team, nor have many other Space Nuts with Money.
With government funding limited by the rules to no more than 10 percent of any budget, I concluded that it is very doubtful that many teams will come anywhere near their funding goals. This means most of the 15 announced teams will never fly. Some will disappear while many will merge, but every merger brings with it inefficiencies as duplicated services that have already been paid for are jettisoned, technologies abandoned, team members scattered. It is going to get ugly.
These money issues had little effect on Team Cringely, however, simply because our $5 million budget was so low. I could find a couple investors, a couple corporate sponsors, and then — as a TV guy — cut a media deal or two and put together the $5 million budget with little or no pain to any participating parties. No children would have to miss their prom so Team Cringely could reach the Moon.
But I hadn’t counted on the X Prize Foundation, which has done an extremely effective job of administering the contest to make it harder and harder to win.
This baffles me and, frankly, baffles everyone I have spoken to about it. It is hard enough to land on the Moon and drive around without someone setting additional administrative obstacles in the way. The X Prize Foundation should WANT a winner for this prize, but they don’t act that way.
Here are a few examples of the obstacles. For one, while the X Prize Foundation released early on preliminary rules for the competition, they said the final rules wouldn’t be cast in stone for another 20 months. For Team Cringely, with our very aggressive development schedule, this meant that we’d be landing on the Moon before the rules were finalized. We could win the contest only to find out that we were disqualified from receiving the prize. That’s a hard one to explain to potential investors or sponsors. It still isn’t clear why the X Prize Foundation feels the need to wait so long to finalize the rules, but they seem firm on this issue, which negates completely one of the strategic advantages of Team Cringely, which is essentially time to market.
The X Prize Foundation also required that rovers carry an “instrument package” weighing no more than 500 grams. We at Team Cringely came to call this the “bowling trophy,” which we’d need to super glue to our one-kilogram rover. A pound of bowling trophy might mean very little to Carnegie Mellon University with its 500 lb. rover (and $100 million budget), but to Team Cringely it was a deal killer. More recently the rules have softened a bit to require that the bowling trophy be no more than a certain percentage of the vehicle weight, but we could never figure out why it was required at all. Couldn’t we just paint X Prize logos on our rovers and be done with it? No explanation.
But the biggest obstacle of all for Team Cringely was the X Prize Foundation’s insistence that only it could come to agreement for commercial media coverage of the contest. Team Cringely couldn’t cut its own TV deal, nor could it even make its own TV show if that was intended to be done for substantial revenue. That would be handled by the X Prize Foundation on behalf of all teams with coverage and revenue equally shared. While that position sounds egalitarian, it isn’t. The X Prize Foundation has no significant experience in media licensing — certainly they have less than we have at Team Cringely where we’ve sold TV shows over many years to more than 50 countries. And by treating all teams equally it means the easiest (and only sure way) to make money from the Google Lunar X Prize is to pay the $10,000 registration fee then do nothing more, just waiting for that check to arrive for an equal share of the media dollars.
As the first team to launch, Team Cringely believed that we would provide most of the media coverage for the first two years of the five-year contest. Sharing that equally with teams that never got beyond fund-raising seemed terribly unfair.
We had some back and forth with the X Prize Foundation over these issues. When the preliminary rules were released 48 questions were submitted, 36 of those coming from Team Cringely. If a foundation could have an ass I’m sure the X Prize Foundation would have considered Team Cringely to be a pain in theirs. But we felt passionately about these issues and hoped for a positive resolution.
We even reached out to Google, which appeared to be aware of the issues and uncomfortable with the performance of the X Prize Foundation, but friendships were involved and Google is not a fast-moving organization anyway, so we got no help there.
To this point Team Cringely was still an unregistered entrant in the contest. We hadn’t signed the entry form and hadn’t paid our $10,000 entry fee simply because doing so would have tied us into these very rules that we found both intolerable and unnecessary.
Then earlier this month the Google Lunar X Prize teams met for two days in Strasbourg, France. And where we hoped the situation would improve, it hadn’t. Here is the new X Prize Foundation position on media rights, for example:
“The X PRIZE Foundation is in the best position to generate, aggregate and distribute Competition content. The X PRIZE Foundation will produce television, digital media, et cetera that covers the context, issues and all the Teams efforts in their race to the Moon. …The Foundation will also have considerable costs to stage ramp up events to stimulate and sustain interest, develop and distribute educational programs and materials, and package the content into meaningful programs and platforms to reach the public. The Foundation’s planned mix of promotion, publicity, television programming, and online content is essential to the competition…
“Although some may feel that this takes some potential revenue streams away from teams, that is not the intention of the PRIZE. Allowing each Team to separately package their own programming and mission coverage is not practical or beneficial to the overall competition. Imagine if Olympic teams each went out and tried to make their own television deals: it would not result in the best telling of the entire story, and there would be chaos in the marketplace…
“The X PRIZE Foundation is hiring a major international agency to represent its competitions in the packaging and sale of television and other media rights…. Rather than allowing each Team to negotiate deals separately… the responsibility will be borne by our world-class representative, with long time experience in selling media packages. …”
Sounds pretty defensive, eh?
The problem with the Olympics analogy is that it doesn’t hold up. There isn’t one media deal for the Olympics, there is one media deal PER COMPETING COUNTRY — PER TEAM. NBC doesn’t buy the rights to broadcast the Olympics in Japan. And NBC’s coverage is biased toward its own market, which means mainly covering the U.S. team, just as a Japanese broadcaster would have its own Olympic contract and would bias its coverage toward the Japanese team.
And the X Prize Foundation bureaucracy, which made so little sense in the first place, seems only to have increased. Here are typical comments I gleaned from a public forum after the Strasbourg meeting:
“The Team Summit’s Guidelines workshop showed that the more bureaucratic part of the mission has begun,” wrote a poster from one team. “While on a personal level, I liked each of the leaders there from XPF, and enjoyed interacting with them, I was puzzled at the somewhat cavalier way they seemed to dismiss some of the teams’ concerns. For example, we were very proud of the fact that our team had managed to get some surplus company fuel tanks; when I asked about it, without much thought I was told ‘you’ll have to get a ruling on that.’ Also, when I asked something about our camera design (a design we had worked very hard on), I was told that the way we were doing it would not be allowed. HUH? Do they know how hard we have worked on this?”
Here’s another: “I inwardly cringed at their responses to some of the other team’s concerns. … They all had concerns regarding the media aspects of the rules that I did not feel were adequately addressed, and maybe even more important — even adequately appreciated. The cumulative effect coming from the XPF leadership was one of discouragement, rather than encouragement.”
So what’s a poor team leader to do? The answer came to me a couple weeks ago during an engineering colloquium I gave at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington, DC. This was my second such colloquium at Goddard, the first being 14 years earlier. “Why yes, Virginia, I AM a rocket scientist.”
I was embarrassed to tell the engineers and scientists at Goddard that Team Cringely, being a pirate operation, really had no scientific basis for its mission. Other than simply proving that it was possible to send a small rover (or in our case 24 small rovers) to the Moon for $5 million, we weren’t inventing anything or answering any scientific questions. But with the help of the very friendly NASA folks that day I came up with a scientific purpose for our mission — a purpose I’ll detail in some later column. Suddenly it was about more than making money and I was much happier as a result.
But what about the X Prize Foundation, the crazy rules, micromanagement, the absence as adult supervision from Google, and the continuing media rights problem?
I said, “Screw it.”
So Team Cringely is no longer intending to compete for the Google Lunar X Prize. Nor will we make ANY further comment about the contest, any participants, or the X Prize Foundation. We wish them all well, but life is too short for bickering, so we’re moving on to the next stage of Team Cringely’s existence.
Which still involves going to the Moon. The idea was too good to let die. We are moving forward aggressively on our new scientific mission, which I hope will be conducted jointly with Goddard, though with little or no NASA money involved. We’ll still send our 24 little rovers to the Moon and we’ll still do it on an aggressive schedule because I get bored too easily. We just won’t be expecting that big payday at the end. What we WILL get, however, are some scientific answers of great value, control over our own technology, and hopefully a very fine little media deal to pay some of the bills.
To the Moon!
Huh?
The idea behind the Google Lunar X Prize was irresistible to me from the start. It was so audacious to think that private citizens could do what few governments had been able to do before — to fly to the Moon, land there, launch a rover, drive around, and send pictures, video, and other data back to Earth. Yet the closer I looked the more feasible it seemed to be, especially with the impetus of that $20 million first prize. It would be the ultimate expression of Moore’s Law as my team applied miniaturization to the task of lunar exploration.
So I boldly announced my intention to form a team, win the prize, and — here’s the kicker — actually make a profit on the deal. Readers and their friends flocked to my cause and, almost before I knew it, I had the nucleus of exactly the sort of lean-and-mean organization I felt would be required to win the prize at a profit. Understand here that of the 15 announced teams, only two have said they can win the $20 million while spending less than $20 million, with the average team budget more on the order of $50-$75 million.
Then reality began to set in. This reality had nothing to do with the actual engineering exercise of going to the Moon: that was contained and calculable. This reality had to do with politics and economics. Economic reality said that all 15 teams were looking for a total of up to $1 billion — a LOT of money. Even more sobering, most teams were approaching for support exactly the same potential investors, who probably wouldn’t choose to invest in multiple teams. Charles Simonyi from Microsoft is a typical example, having been approached by at least three teams almost immediately because, of course, he had spent $20 million to visit the International Space Station, thus qualifying as both a Space Nut and a Space Nut with Money. But Charles, to my knowledge, hasn’t yet invested in ANY Google Lunar X Prize team, nor have many other Space Nuts with Money.
With government funding limited by the rules to no more than 10 percent of any budget, I concluded that it is very doubtful that many teams will come anywhere near their funding goals. This means most of the 15 announced teams will never fly. Some will disappear while many will merge, but every merger brings with it inefficiencies as duplicated services that have already been paid for are jettisoned, technologies abandoned, team members scattered. It is going to get ugly.
These money issues had little effect on Team Cringely, however, simply because our $5 million budget was so low. I could find a couple investors, a couple corporate sponsors, and then — as a TV guy — cut a media deal or two and put together the $5 million budget with little or no pain to any participating parties. No children would have to miss their prom so Team Cringely could reach the Moon.
But I hadn’t counted on the X Prize Foundation, which has done an extremely effective job of administering the contest to make it harder and harder to win.
This baffles me and, frankly, baffles everyone I have spoken to about it. It is hard enough to land on the Moon and drive around without someone setting additional administrative obstacles in the way. The X Prize Foundation should WANT a winner for this prize, but they don’t act that way.
Here are a few examples of the obstacles. For one, while the X Prize Foundation released early on preliminary rules for the competition, they said the final rules wouldn’t be cast in stone for another 20 months. For Team Cringely, with our very aggressive development schedule, this meant that we’d be landing on the Moon before the rules were finalized. We could win the contest only to find out that we were disqualified from receiving the prize. That’s a hard one to explain to potential investors or sponsors. It still isn’t clear why the X Prize Foundation feels the need to wait so long to finalize the rules, but they seem firm on this issue, which negates completely one of the strategic advantages of Team Cringely, which is essentially time to market.
The X Prize Foundation also required that rovers carry an “instrument package” weighing no more than 500 grams. We at Team Cringely came to call this the “bowling trophy,” which we’d need to super glue to our one-kilogram rover. A pound of bowling trophy might mean very little to Carnegie Mellon University with its 500 lb. rover (and $100 million budget), but to Team Cringely it was a deal killer. More recently the rules have softened a bit to require that the bowling trophy be no more than a certain percentage of the vehicle weight, but we could never figure out why it was required at all. Couldn’t we just paint X Prize logos on our rovers and be done with it? No explanation.
But the biggest obstacle of all for Team Cringely was the X Prize Foundation’s insistence that only it could come to agreement for commercial media coverage of the contest. Team Cringely couldn’t cut its own TV deal, nor could it even make its own TV show if that was intended to be done for substantial revenue. That would be handled by the X Prize Foundation on behalf of all teams with coverage and revenue equally shared. While that position sounds egalitarian, it isn’t. The X Prize Foundation has no significant experience in media licensing — certainly they have less than we have at Team Cringely where we’ve sold TV shows over many years to more than 50 countries. And by treating all teams equally it means the easiest (and only sure way) to make money from the Google Lunar X Prize is to pay the $10,000 registration fee then do nothing more, just waiting for that check to arrive for an equal share of the media dollars.
As the first team to launch, Team Cringely believed that we would provide most of the media coverage for the first two years of the five-year contest. Sharing that equally with teams that never got beyond fund-raising seemed terribly unfair.
We had some back and forth with the X Prize Foundation over these issues. When the preliminary rules were released 48 questions were submitted, 36 of those coming from Team Cringely. If a foundation could have an ass I’m sure the X Prize Foundation would have considered Team Cringely to be a pain in theirs. But we felt passionately about these issues and hoped for a positive resolution.
We even reached out to Google, which appeared to be aware of the issues and uncomfortable with the performance of the X Prize Foundation, but friendships were involved and Google is not a fast-moving organization anyway, so we got no help there.
To this point Team Cringely was still an unregistered entrant in the contest. We hadn’t signed the entry form and hadn’t paid our $10,000 entry fee simply because doing so would have tied us into these very rules that we found both intolerable and unnecessary.
Then earlier this month the Google Lunar X Prize teams met for two days in Strasbourg, France. And where we hoped the situation would improve, it hadn’t. Here is the new X Prize Foundation position on media rights, for example:
“The X PRIZE Foundation is in the best position to generate, aggregate and distribute Competition content. The X PRIZE Foundation will produce television, digital media, et cetera that covers the context, issues and all the Teams efforts in their race to the Moon. …The Foundation will also have considerable costs to stage ramp up events to stimulate and sustain interest, develop and distribute educational programs and materials, and package the content into meaningful programs and platforms to reach the public. The Foundation’s planned mix of promotion, publicity, television programming, and online content is essential to the competition…
“Although some may feel that this takes some potential revenue streams away from teams, that is not the intention of the PRIZE. Allowing each Team to separately package their own programming and mission coverage is not practical or beneficial to the overall competition. Imagine if Olympic teams each went out and tried to make their own television deals: it would not result in the best telling of the entire story, and there would be chaos in the marketplace…
“The X PRIZE Foundation is hiring a major international agency to represent its competitions in the packaging and sale of television and other media rights…. Rather than allowing each Team to negotiate deals separately… the responsibility will be borne by our world-class representative, with long time experience in selling media packages. …”
Sounds pretty defensive, eh?
The problem with the Olympics analogy is that it doesn’t hold up. There isn’t one media deal for the Olympics, there is one media deal PER COMPETING COUNTRY — PER TEAM. NBC doesn’t buy the rights to broadcast the Olympics in Japan. And NBC’s coverage is biased toward its own market, which means mainly covering the U.S. team, just as a Japanese broadcaster would have its own Olympic contract and would bias its coverage toward the Japanese team.
And the X Prize Foundation bureaucracy, which made so little sense in the first place, seems only to have increased. Here are typical comments I gleaned from a public forum after the Strasbourg meeting:
“The Team Summit’s Guidelines workshop showed that the more bureaucratic part of the mission has begun,” wrote a poster from one team. “While on a personal level, I liked each of the leaders there from XPF, and enjoyed interacting with them, I was puzzled at the somewhat cavalier way they seemed to dismiss some of the teams’ concerns. For example, we were very proud of the fact that our team had managed to get some surplus company fuel tanks; when I asked about it, without much thought I was told ‘you’ll have to get a ruling on that.’ Also, when I asked something about our camera design (a design we had worked very hard on), I was told that the way we were doing it would not be allowed. HUH? Do they know how hard we have worked on this?”
Here’s another: “I inwardly cringed at their responses to some of the other team’s concerns. … They all had concerns regarding the media aspects of the rules that I did not feel were adequately addressed, and maybe even more important — even adequately appreciated. The cumulative effect coming from the XPF leadership was one of discouragement, rather than encouragement.”
So what’s a poor team leader to do? The answer came to me a couple weeks ago during an engineering colloquium I gave at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington, DC. This was my second such colloquium at Goddard, the first being 14 years earlier. “Why yes, Virginia, I AM a rocket scientist.”
I was embarrassed to tell the engineers and scientists at Goddard that Team Cringely, being a pirate operation, really had no scientific basis for its mission. Other than simply proving that it was possible to send a small rover (or in our case 24 small rovers) to the Moon for $5 million, we weren’t inventing anything or answering any scientific questions. But with the help of the very friendly NASA folks that day I came up with a scientific purpose for our mission — a purpose I’ll detail in some later column. Suddenly it was about more than making money and I was much happier as a result.
But what about the X Prize Foundation, the crazy rules, micromanagement, the absence as adult supervision from Google, and the continuing media rights problem?
I said, “Screw it.”
So Team Cringely is no longer intending to compete for the Google Lunar X Prize. Nor will we make ANY further comment about the contest, any participants, or the X Prize Foundation. We wish them all well, but life is too short for bickering, so we’re moving on to the next stage of Team Cringely’s existence.
Which still involves going to the Moon. The idea was too good to let die. We are moving forward aggressively on our new scientific mission, which I hope will be conducted jointly with Goddard, though with little or no NASA money involved. We’ll still send our 24 little rovers to the Moon and we’ll still do it on an aggressive schedule because I get bored too easily. We just won’t be expecting that big payday at the end. What we WILL get, however, are some scientific answers of great value, control over our own technology, and hopefully a very fine little media deal to pay some of the bills.
To the Moon!
Sustainable Development
It took me a long time to learn this. You can’t automate the connection, mostly emotional, probably nostalgic in essence because these are the things that keep us caring, keep us active in everything.
from here:
For example: if a school installs light sensors in a classroom so that the lights go off when students leave, they should think hard about what exactly that action is teaching. If the students don’t have to turn off the lights themselves, it may be further disconnecting them from ecology and natural resources. Education for sustainability looks to integrate children with the natural world not disintegrate their relationship with it.
HT: j
Working Environment!
If you don’t have a great working environment quit, quit now!
from NYT:
In addition to being brilliant, Dr. Gray was an iconoclast. Speaker after speaker fondly told stories that reflected his disdain for bureaucracy and his independence. Shankar Sastry, dean of the college of engineering at UC Berkeley, noted that when organizers were planning the Saturday tribute, they felt the attire should be business casual; Dr. Gray, however, rarely wore anything but jeans and was once thrown out of the I.B.M. Scientific Center in Los Angeles for failing to meet the company’s dress code.
While working at I.B.M.’s Thomas J. Watson Jr. Research Laboratory in New York, Mr. Gray asked his boss if he could relocate to an I.B.M. laboratory in San Jose. When he was told that he couldn’t, he said, “All right, then, I quit.”
He then got in his Volkswagen, drove across the country and was rehired by an I.B.M. laboratory in California.
“We had a research group in San Francisco because Jim lived in San Francisco, and if he’d wanted to move to Monaco, we’d have a research center in Monaco,” said Rick Rashid, senior vice president for research at Microsoft.
What The Deaf Can Teach Us About Listening
I wish more people practice this. I’ve been trying to influence my friends to listen (not multitask) when conversing but, I did It by example and one of the things I suspect about how people are right now is that the inaudibles, the visuals , and other non auditory form of communication are largely ignored. How the F*ck can you activate your Social Brain (google Arthur Goleman google talk) without the non visuals.
Thanks to Doc Searls for the pointer.
from here:
Lessons of Silence
by Bruno Kahne
5/22/08
What the deaf can teach us about listening — and making ourselves heard.
1. Look people in the eye.
2. Don’t interrupt.
3. Say what you mean, as simply as possible.
4. When you don’t understand something, ask.
5. Stay focused.
Shooting Stars
This made me reminisce the time I went to a beach somewhere in Quezon province. I vividly remember my friends being amazed at how many shooting stars we were seeing each minute it was around 1-5 shooting stars per minute. I told them that in the province it was normal to see that many shooting stars. Someone countered that he was also from the province but he never noticed. I countered back with , because you never looked, and he realized I was right. Most people just don’t notice, some people don’t spend the time looking out to the stars or even smelling the flowers and all the other cliches. It is said that cliches are
from Jason Kottke here:
Enlightened
posted May 23, 2008 at 10:56 am
At the very moment that humans discovered the scale of the universe and found that their most unconstrained fancies were in fact dwarfed by the true dimensions of even the Milky Way Galaxy, they took steps that ensured that their descendants would be unable to see the stars at all. For a million years humans had grown up with a personal daily knowledge of the vault of heaven. In the last few thousand years they began building and emigrating to the cities. In the last few decades, a major fraction of the human population had abandoned a rustic way of life. As technology developed and the cities were polluted, the nights became starless. New generations grew to maturity wholly ignorant of the sky that had transfixed their ancestors and had stimulated the modern age of science and technology. Without even noticing, just as astronomy entered a golden age most people cut themselves off from the sky, a cosmic isolationism that only ended with the dawn of space exploration.
That’s Carl Sagan in Contact from 1985. The effects of light pollution were documented in the New Yorker last August.
I Dont Have The Time! part 1
I used to watch hours upon hour of television, back in college I used to record the shows I wouldn’t be able to catch using my now wrecked but still loved and remembered VCR that allowed me to watch the telenovelas shown during class hours and to watch ABS-CBN (Pangako Sa Iyo, etc) whilst I recorded the GMA7 shows(mostly Kung Mawawala Ka). The VCR allowed me to compress 5 hours of television into roughly a little below 3 hours (damn those commercials). I wasted a lot of time then. So the article below hits home hard. do read the whole article.
Excellent read on Cognitive Surplus.
by Clay Shirky from here:
If I had to pick the critical technology for the 20th century, the bit of social lubricant without which the wheels would’ve come off the whole enterprise, I’d say it was the sitcom. Starting with the Second World War a whole series of things happened–rising GDP per capita, rising educational attainment, rising life expectancy and, critically, a rising number of people who were working five-day work weeks. For the first time, society forced onto an enormous number of its citizens the requirement to manage something they had never had to manage before–free time.
And what did we do with that free time? Well, mostly we spent it watching TV.
We did that for decades. We watched I Love Lucy. We watched Gilligan’s Island. We watch Malcolm in the Middle. We watch Desperate Housewives. Desperate Housewives essentially functioned as a kind of cognitive heat sink, dissipating thinking that might otherwise have built up and caused society to overheat.
And it’s only now, as we’re waking up from that collective bender, that we’re starting to see the cognitive surplus as an asset rather than as a crisis. We’re seeing things being designed to take advantage of that surplus, to deploy it in ways more engaging than just having a TV in everybody’s basement.
………
So how big is that surplus? So if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project–every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in–that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought. I worked this out with Martin Wattenberg at IBM; it’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it’s the right order of magnitude, about 100 million hours of thought.
And television watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that’s 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads. This is a pretty big surplus. People asking, “Where do they find the time?” when they’re looking at things like Wikipedia don’t understand how tiny that entire project is, as a carve-out of this asset that’s finally being dragged into what Tim calls an architecture of participation.
Now, the interesting thing about a surplus like that is that society doesn’t know what to do with it at first–hence the gin, hence the sitcoms. Because if people knew what to do with a surplus with reference to the existing social institutions, then it wouldn’t be a surplus, would it? It’s precisely when no one has any idea how to deploy something that people have to start experimenting with it, in order for the surplus to get integrated, and the course of that integration can transform society.
Delusions and Inaction
Often times we want something to be true, we want our world view to be the truth when it would be infinitely better for us if we accept and to just try to change the world we know. It is of little use to keep on pretending about something when it limits our actions on making our aim to be reality!
from Eugene Wallingford’s blog Knowing and Doing
But my favorite passage came near the end, in response to the question, “Do you believe in magic?”
Hopefully I’m a nice guy, but I’m a really grumpy scientist, and in the end, I’m a reductionist. So if you can show me, [I’ll believe it]. As a scientist, I have to be grumpy about everything and be able to be willing to believe anything. … If you care what you believe, you should never be in the investigative fields — ever. You can’t care what you believe; you just have to care what’s out there. And when you do that, your bandwidth is as wide as that sounds, and the rigor … has to be as narrow as as the biggest bigot you’ve ever seen. Both are resident in a scientist’s mind at the same time.