Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and IPCC


Congratulations – sort of – to Al Gore and the IPCC for the Nobel Peace Prize.   I’m somewhat confused because it seems to me their efforts would not fall under the general category of promoting “Peace”.    AP story about Al Gore and IPCC Peace Prize is here.  More importantly people should be concerned that our new global focus on very expensive and problematic climate change science will distract us from more pressing problems.   Here’s what I just wrote to the Nobel Prize Committee – their website even promises I’ll get a response. 

As much as I respect Al Gore and the IPCC I worry that our new global focus on Climate Change will distract us from the more pressing problems of poverty, health, and violent conflict.   Was this possibility considered by the awards committee?

Climate change is the best current example of how humans process information, problems, and solutions in irrational ways.    Generally people note that global warming is happening (true) and that warming is likely the result of human activity (probably true – IPCC concludes over 90% likely).    It’s also reasonable to assume that warming will lead to mostly undesirable changes.   HOWEVER, it does not follow from these truths that we should make Global Warming the top priority.  In fact due to the expense and difficulties involved a clear mind will conclude that we should implement cheap changes but forego the expensive changes in favor of devoting those resources to *current* catastrophic global conditions – generally these relate to poverty and health conditions in the developing world, but would also probably include work to alleviate the appalling conditions found in many American and European big city neighborhoods.

Below is a link to a video of Bjorn Lomborg at TED Conference on Global Solution Priorities.   In my opinion he’s the clearest thinker out there – a contrast to people who are so poisoned by “political thinking” and “advocacy thinking” that they can’t see the facts from their causes.    I think a good test of whether you are clear thinking about a topic is to make the opposition case effectively enough that people can’t tell your bias.    Most topics have complex sets of facts and no easy answers – everybody should keep that in mind.   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

Hey – Al Gore’s office looks a lot like mine, but with bigger monitors.    I like him, but don’t agree with him that GW is the big problem facing us.

There’s a LOT MORE about this over at Max’s blog.

Madonna Rocks the Music


Madonna’s $120,000,000 deal ( Wall Street Journal story) with Live Nation signals a powerful shift in the music industry that hopefully will lead to a cutting out of the middlemen in favor of the best for the artists and for the music consumer.  I don’t follow this industry all that closely but my take on the coming trend is different than most of what I’ve been reading.  It seems to me that over the coming decades we will see music thankfully shifting to a less sensational and more “niche genre” focus.   We’ll see more emphasis on quality music, and perhaps on quality concerts because the human to human aspect of music will not go away anytime soon, and may even be enhanced as artists move to online communities where they can interact with thousands effectively and somewhat intimately.    We’ll see more independent artists who can make an “OK” living thanks to an online global fan base, and this will thankfully come at the expense of the Britney Spears and Madonnas who have been rather spectacular beneficiaries of the giant music marketing empires that made all stars what they are today.  

The idea that individuals are the key component in these things is absurd.  They matter in the big profit and entertainment equations but the key component is generally the huge support system that starts as a small gathering behind promising talent and then blossoms to a cast of hundreds as the promoters step in to “discover” the new talent. 

American Idol’s brilliant model created a huge fan base for the participants as the weeks went on, and many of the top 10 American Idol singers are now doing quite well as actors or singers.   This “social networking” approach will become increasingly important in a music world ruled by the fans and not the big players.

Information Sharecroppers of the World, Unite ! ?


Update:  I think Nick (and I) may owe Newsvine an apology, because Newsvine does not really practice sharecropping.   The members own their own content and this means a lot more control than otherwise.    Obviously the landscape is complex with any social media but I don’t think I can object to Newsvine’s model.    My concern is where the site takes ownership of the member content.

—-

Nick Carr  has a good post today noting how the Newsvine aquisition, and other deals like this, can lead to some information “sharecropper” dissent.     As I pointed out yesterday social media is a great thing, but it seems to be dramatically failing to fund the very forces that make it a great thing – the hardest working content providers that often form the backbone of these entities.     Kevin Rose is worth tens of millions because tens of millions of diggers work for him – for free.   Sure, he’s smarter than most of his minions and he pulled it all together which means he should get a big digg payday some day, but should he, the founders, and the VC funders get *all* of the money when even they’d all agree that digg is valuable primarily because of all the people that do the digging.

Newsvine was a superb project that was beautifully implemented, but like Nick I wonder how long those who helped make Newsvine such a great site will keep working for nothing.     Is  Web 2.0 simply a new twist on feudal economics?

File sharing fines go mainstream


Many see as harsh the recent $220,000 fine levied  on a Minnesota housewife for online music sharing, but it’s more appropriate to view this action as a significant milestone in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) strategy to crack down on illegal music and try to push people to legal file downloading.   The coverage on this file sharing case is overwhelming and it will be very interesting to see how the online community will absorb this verdict.

CNET’s Declan has a good summary of key points in this RIAA case here, although in one sense it should be easy to understand the verdict because pretty much everybody knows file sharing is illegal!    Common use does not make file sharing “fair use”. 

Now, one can make a reasonable case that the illegality of file sharing is a trivial offense – something like driving going 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.  One can hammer home this point noting that simply making a mix tape for friends is also technically illegal but never enforced by RIAA, and that gray areas about in the law surrounding intellectual property.    But only foolish people (ie a lot of people) seem to argue that file sharing is a perfectly legal activity.

So, what is the solution here?   RIAA would say it is for everybody to stop illegal downloads and sign up for paid services.   Yet RIAA must be spending far more than 220k on this case, and won’t ever get that much from her anyway.  Given the difficulties of prosecution and the prevalence of the behavior I think the laws should to be modified to reflect widespread accepted social standards while still protecting copyright holders.  However this may just open up a new hornet’s nest of legal complications.    

Britney Spears Loses Kids today. Oh, and some 27,000 children will lose their LIVES. Today


OK, so it’s beneath me as a web guy, technology “writer” and pseudo journalist to write about Britney Spears latest headline sweeping news.     But wait, sadness for her children aside it’s another SEO experiment!

It’s true by the way.  A court just ordered Britney to give up her children to ex-husband Kevin Federline.  Frankly, I’m surprised that with all her wealth she could not have bought her way out of this, probably an excellent decision by the judge.   Poor Britney is a mess – a victim of our overwhelming entertainment and star obsession.  Now her kids are victims too.

But, this isn’t really news and all of us should be completely ashamed of ourselves for the attention we and the networks and our world give to this garbage.  Sure it’s titillating, but it’s not news.  News is big.  News matters.  News is that about 27,000 children die each *day* from preventable causes that, if prevented would likely reduce our own economic and military burdens. 

Poor Britney Spears, poor Britney!  Oh, yes, and poor 27,000 children.

O.J. Simpson Charged


O. J. Simpson has just been charged with armed kidnapping after an incident at a Las Vegas Hotel  called the Palace Station.

No, I don’t usually blog about such stuff but this is another optimizing test.   This is only a test.  Do not be alarmed or fear that O.J. Simpson will come to your Las Vegas Hotel room.   For the next sixty seconds please ignore this test.

One of those with O. J. taped the fracas and it seemed clear from the tape that there were guns and the threat of violence.    O. J. Simpson appears to be  claiming he’s totally innocent of these charges and that it was all a misunderstanding between O.J. and the memoribilia dealer who had the Palace Station Hotel room.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled blogishness.

The New York Times Online goes “all in” effective Tuesday Midnight


The New York Times has come to understood that traffic, and therefore increased ad revenues, is a better way to go than paid content and tomorrow they’ll not only stop charging for subscriptions, they are going to put archives online without any paywall.

This is a win win for everybody. NYT has some of the best coverage in the world and it’s going to be easier and cheaper to get at that content soon.  That’ll bring millions more to the site, so NYT will also win big in this deal. Their quality content will drive millions of new visitors and tens of millions of new pageviews to the site monthly and increase their advertising revenue by (I’m guessing wildly here) approximately $600,000 per month (this is based on 40,000,000 new page views and the $15 CPM I think NYT can easily command from their huge stable of old and new advertisers) .

People have such a funny, contradictory, and largely misunderstood relationship to advertising. Like it or not, advertising in various forms drives not only much of the content we work with online, view on TV, hear on radio, and read in print. I’d argue that print is the least distorted by the relationship of the media to advertising though I’m not sure why that is. Online varies quite a bit from sites with very pristine content and no ads to those who monetize content with very relevant ads to “made for adsense” sites where the only reason for existence is PPC monetization. TV is probably the most distorted by advertising. Not so much because advertisers can dictate content, but because unprofitable networks or shows will fail, so the evolution of news has been to celebrity gossip and superficial garbage rather than the more important stuff that does not attract our prurient superficial primate interest in sex, drugs, rock and roll, and Britney Spears.

Singularity Institute


Given my recent almost obsessive interest in the coming Artificial Intelligence revolution I don’t know how I missed hearing about the recent Singularity Conference in Palo Alto, let alone missed hearing about the Singularity Institute.

Thankfully they’ve recorded all the talks so I’ll participate virtually when those go online.

I’ve been wondering why there has been so little fuss about the implications of a robust AI entity, since it seems fairly obvious to me that it will quickly dwarf our feeble human intellectual capacity and therefore usher in a new and very promising era of efficiency, hindered only by the human tendency to be skeptical of key innovations.   My working assumption based on talking with (mostly highly educated) folks is that AI “detractors” fall into two basic groups – the first is by far the largest and composed of those that are basically ignorant about how technology has affected human development over the past few thousand years.    They simply have not spent much time reflecting on how technology has been the key driver of humanity, especially over the past century as the industrial revolution and globalization have been the dominant forces shaping our economic, political, and societal landscapes.    The second group are those that are more familiar than I with programming and technology, are generally very accepting of how technology is revolutionizing the world, yet remain skeptical of the implications of the coming conscious computing and robust AI revolution.     I’m still puzzling over this but think it may be related to a failure to understand the limitations of human biology and neuroscience.   Even a brilliant computer programmer can be a prisoner to the notion that the human brain and human intellect  somehow remain “outside” of normal mechanistic explanations.  Programmers, especially those with religious leanings, may find it hard to accept the insignificance of our human intellects until the machines are already making this abundantly, and sometimes painfully, obvious.

The good news is that unlike previous sea change technologies a massively smart AI will be able to lobby for and explain why the innovations it will bring to the table are in the best interests of humanity, and presumably will quickly gain the wisdom needed to “outwit” those who will immediately and irrationally argue against human interaction with machine intelligences.

FOX Sucks


So I’m watching the ‘Teen Awards’ with my 11 year old daughter. Hilary Duff, Hannah Montana, and, WTF!!?? (pls forgive the modern parlance) here comes Snoop Dog and then the “Party like a Rock Star” finale.

Here are the lyrics from FOX’s awards show targeting kids of all ages:

i’m on a money makin mission
but I party like a rockstar
flyin’ down 20 lookin’ good in my hot car
you know them hoes be at my show
worried bout where my chain go
I uh rubba in ma pants
but these hoes won’t let my thang go

I uwa like I uwa
cuz you know them hoes be tryin us
hoe don’t you know I fuck wit fine dimonds
that look like Pa-me-la
they fine and they hot bra
when i’m in the spot bra……
I PARTY LIKE UH ROCKSTAAARRR!!!!!
!

Let me just say on behalf of a lot of parents that I’m so totally sick of the BS that passes as family fare. This is not prudish, it is a recognition that the extensive commercializing of kid-focused media is leading to a complete distortion of what should be considered appropriate family content.

Almost all sane people favor media censorship in some forms. For example most favor restrictions on child pornography and consider it a parental obligation to keep kids away from extreme violence and adult content. But FOX and other network “family shows” that use adult themes masquerading as “Family Fare” make it almost impossible to do what parents are obligated to do – restrict adult themes. This is especially outrageous because critics of censorship typically argue that parents are simply avoiding their obligations when they rant against the media’s sexual assault on children. “just turn off the TV” squeak the idiots who generally don’t have kids, have a huge monetary stake in continuing the media’s sexual assault on children, and rarely provide a thoughtful solution to the growing challenges facing a modern, open minded parent. Do you advocates for unrestricted modern media have *NO* shame? NO creative solutions to this? Or are you just too drugged out, drunk, or morally bankrupt to care at all?

Mary is Meeker than yesterday on revenue estimates?


I’m still digesting this amazing story by Henry Blodgett  about how Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker’s seems to have 1) inadvertently miscalculated YouTube revenue potentials by a factor of *1000* and then,  adding insult to injured fuzzy math, seems to have reworked the calculation to “back into” a new number that is closer to the original than the one you’d get from the original assumptions.

I need to read her side of this but Blodget is no stranger to the perils of fuzzy math and I remain amazed at how few in the media question how the big players estimate this stuff.  This certainly indicates that for many years big players have used bogus valuations, fueled by the casino-like buying behavior of clients.     Without more critical review this will keep on trucking for some time.