"The New New Economy: More Startups, Fewer Giants, Infinite Opportunity," is the title of the 22 May article in Wired. It's the latest re-visit of socio-economic theory based on "the new paradigm." In other words, "Gee whiz, it's a new world and we told you so first." A bit like "The End of History."
You can read the article faster and easier than I can summarize it, so let's move on to analysis. Frankly, it reminds me of many prior attempts at insight that failed even the simplest reality tests. They usually had more in common with wishful thinking than insight. A few from my own experience:
In about 1964, I had a college professor who was, more than likely, a closet socialist. He was a scientist, but not involved with computers, so I was a little surprised to hear him say that computers would be the salvation of Communism. Computers would make it possible to effectively manage state-controlled enterprises. In other words, the obvious failures of Communism would be overcome by electronic brute force. I didn't argue the point, or even comment, as I recall. It said more about the man than the idea.
About 1989, I was a consultant to a company in Europe that was in the data business. They collected it and sold it. For a fee, they would also analyze it. Their problem was that their half-million-dollar computer was no longer big enough or fast enough to handle the volumes involved. Their computer guru had recommended that these new gadgets called personal computers were so cheap that the problem could be solved using several dozen PCs instead of stepping up to a million-dollar mainframe. Management was skeptical and I basically agreed with management; it was too early to make that leap.
These two examples, and the Wired article, have a lot in common. Brilliant insight is a long way from analytical proof. And time has an amazing way of defeating even the most exhaustive analyses.
Which is not to say that there will not be More Startups, Fewer, or at least Different Giants, and Infinite Opportunity. But that's the way it has always been in our society.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Does Eczema Lead To Asthma?
Eczema and Asthma are have in common that they are diseases of the developed nations. Researchers think that's no accident; they have found some evidence that eczema causes asthma.
A report in the Public Library of Science Biology, as documented in The Economist, suggests that skin cells damaged by eczema secrete thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) which, in turn, elicits a strong immune response from the body to fight off invaders. Eczema-induced TSLP enters the bloodstream and, when it arrives at the lungs, sensitizes them so that they react to allergens that would not previously have bothered them. In other words, they become asthmatic.
Nobody really knows what causes eczema. One theory is that cleanliness is the culprit. Detergents, by degreasing the skin, might lead to infection, inflammation, and immune responses with severe side effects like asthma. If so, the "old wives" missed a chance to tell a tale. Maybe little Johnny is not sickly despite how well his mommy takes cares of him, but because his mommy takes such good care of him.
A report in the Public Library of Science Biology, as documented in The Economist, suggests that skin cells damaged by eczema secrete thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) which, in turn, elicits a strong immune response from the body to fight off invaders. Eczema-induced TSLP enters the bloodstream and, when it arrives at the lungs, sensitizes them so that they react to allergens that would not previously have bothered them. In other words, they become asthmatic.
Nobody really knows what causes eczema. One theory is that cleanliness is the culprit. Detergents, by degreasing the skin, might lead to infection, inflammation, and immune responses with severe side effects like asthma. If so, the "old wives" missed a chance to tell a tale. Maybe little Johnny is not sickly despite how well his mommy takes cares of him, but because his mommy takes such good care of him.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New CAFE Targets. Do They Compute?
The White House made a big announcement this week that auto manufacturers have agreed to new fuel-efficiency standards to be implemented by 2016. This is a federal standard and supercedes the fragmented state standards that were previously in effect. So far, so good.
The core of the presentation can be summed up by the quote on Bloomberg.com. "The five percent annual increase in fuel mileage over five years would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, according to the administration. That is the equivalent of taking 177 million vehicles off the road."
Well, there's a slight correction there - the 177 million vehicle reduction is over five years, not the one year mentioned by Obama in the press conference. But is it even accurate? What would it take to reduce consumption by 1.8 billion barrels total between now and 2016?
I created a spreadsheet to test the figures. Obviously I have made a mistake! Take a look.
It's fairly self-explanatory except for the column Avg MPG. That was calculated from the other columns with the formula =+((B6*C6)+(D6*F6)-(E6*(C6-3)))/A7. That is, current # of vehicles times avg MPG + new vehicles sold times their avg MPG minus old vehicles scrapped times their avg MPG (divided by total vehicles in use). What is the avg MPG of the scrapped vehicles? I guessed it was three MPG less that the average vehicle in use. But even if I had used eight MPG lower mileage, the result doesn't change more than 40%. In fact, assuming the scrapped vehicles MPG was 20% of the average car on the road, the savings is still under one billion barrels.
In short, I don't get a savings of 1.8 billion barrels. I get about 500 million barrels. No number of poor-mileage vehicles scrapped can explain the discrepancy. 500 million barrels savings over 5 years is equivalent to removing about 3.5% of the 1.4 billion passenger vehicles on the road over that same five years. The math cuts both ways; if you insist on using savings over five years in order to make the numbers look bigger, the percentages don't change.
Anybody care to find my error? I thought I was being conservative by assuming all the MPG increase did not occur in 2015/1016. And shouldn't the administration publish their calculations so we can see what assumptions they made?
*********************************************************************
I've recalculated the difference using a simpler formula and come up with different figures. Unfortunately, these figures are even lower. What's wrong with this calculation... ?
(Vehicles retired*12,000 mpy)/avg MPG yields gallons not used (where the average of retired vehicles is 3 MPG less that the overall average.) Subtract from that the consumption of the new vehicles sold. The difference is net millions of gallons saved for that year. I'm getting a total savings of 300 million gallons over five years; that's less than the 500 million I got using the more complex and probably less precise method.
The core of the presentation can be summed up by the quote on Bloomberg.com. "The five percent annual increase in fuel mileage over five years would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, according to the administration. That is the equivalent of taking 177 million vehicles off the road."
Well, there's a slight correction there - the 177 million vehicle reduction is over five years, not the one year mentioned by Obama in the press conference. But is it even accurate? What would it take to reduce consumption by 1.8 billion barrels total between now and 2016?
I created a spreadsheet to test the figures. Obviously I have made a mistake! Take a look.
It's fairly self-explanatory except for the column Avg MPG. That was calculated from the other columns with the formula =+((B6*C6)+(D6*F6)-(E6*(C6-3)))/A7. That is, current # of vehicles times avg MPG + new vehicles sold times their avg MPG minus old vehicles scrapped times their avg MPG (divided by total vehicles in use). What is the avg MPG of the scrapped vehicles? I guessed it was three MPG less that the average vehicle in use. But even if I had used eight MPG lower mileage, the result doesn't change more than 40%. In fact, assuming the scrapped vehicles MPG was 20% of the average car on the road, the savings is still under one billion barrels.
In short, I don't get a savings of 1.8 billion barrels. I get about 500 million barrels. No number of poor-mileage vehicles scrapped can explain the discrepancy. 500 million barrels savings over 5 years is equivalent to removing about 3.5% of the 1.4 billion passenger vehicles on the road over that same five years. The math cuts both ways; if you insist on using savings over five years in order to make the numbers look bigger, the percentages don't change.
Anybody care to find my error? I thought I was being conservative by assuming all the MPG increase did not occur in 2015/1016. And shouldn't the administration publish their calculations so we can see what assumptions they made?
*********************************************************************
I've recalculated the difference using a simpler formula and come up with different figures. Unfortunately, these figures are even lower. What's wrong with this calculation... ?
(Vehicles retired*12,000 mpy)/avg MPG yields gallons not used (where the average of retired vehicles is 3 MPG less that the overall average.) Subtract from that the consumption of the new vehicles sold. The difference is net millions of gallons saved for that year. I'm getting a total savings of 300 million gallons over five years; that's less than the 500 million I got using the more complex and probably less precise method.
Nitrous Oxide and Global Warming
Scientists at Cornell have been looking at the net effect of growing various biofuels on climate change and found that some crops, especially shallow-rooted corn, produce large amounts of nitrous oxide when fertilized heavily. Nitrous oxide, by weight, has 300 times the ability to warm the planet as that of an equivalent mass of CO2. They are saying, without grinning, that nitrous oxide is no laughing matter. From a geochemical standpoint, not only do we not understand the carbon cycle well enough to guide public policy, we don't understand the nitrogen cycle. As for the oceans, good luck modelling them in a computer.
The Economist reviewed the Cornell work recently. The reader comments are all over the block, most of them simply advocating one point of view or another, but one struck me as worth repeating:
"It is apparent that we do not understand how climate works, and thus don't know either what problems we have, or what the results of our actions will be. I suggest that those who trust computer models of climate consider the results of having trusted computer models in finance."
But politicians are determined to take action, even though they don't know what action(s) will work, if any. Nor have they looked at the potential for unintended consequences.
Cap and Trade is doomed to failure - except for the lucky recipients of government largesse.
The Economist reviewed the Cornell work recently. The reader comments are all over the block, most of them simply advocating one point of view or another, but one struck me as worth repeating:
"It is apparent that we do not understand how climate works, and thus don't know either what problems we have, or what the results of our actions will be. I suggest that those who trust computer models of climate consider the results of having trusted computer models in finance."
But politicians are determined to take action, even though they don't know what action(s) will work, if any. Nor have they looked at the potential for unintended consequences.
Cap and Trade is doomed to failure - except for the lucky recipients of government largesse.
Monday, May 18, 2009
New Gardening Blog
Rather than clutter up this blog with my gardening hobby, I've started a separate blog for that purpose. See http://dcc-gardening.blogspot.com/ if you are interested.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The "Science" Behind Cap and Trade
The EPA's recent ruling that CO2 is a pollutant and harmful to humans (via anthrophmorphic climate change) has at last been getting some scrutiny. Several things crossed my screen this morning.
1. An amalgamation of government agency comments sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA earlier this year is in stark contrast to the official position presented by President Barack Obama and his Cabinet officials.Among other warnings (see below), the memo says the basis for the EPA's statement that greenhouse gases "overwhelmingly" endanger public health and welfare because they contribute to global warming was "especially weak." The report says that predictions of devastating climate change are "accompanied by uncertainties so large that they potentially overwhelm the magnitude of the harm." Here are some more points from those memos as posted on the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works web site yesterday.
OMB Memo: Serious Economic Impact Likely From EPA CO2 Rules
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)
U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide "is likely to have serious economic consequences" for businesses small and large across the economy, a White House memo warned the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.
The nine-page document also undermines the EPA's reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a trigger for new rules.
...
Cabinet officials, including the president's climate-change czar, Carol Browner, have said the administration would prefer Congress create greenhouse-gas regulations through legislation, and not through the EPA's Clean Air Act authority.
But the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act, a move deemed by some analysts as political leverage to push Congress to act because of the bluntness of the tool.
According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPA's April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a key trigger for regulation of the gases emitted from cars, power plants, and potentially any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and hospitals.
While business groups have warned about the potential for a cascade of regulation and litigation, the EPA has said that greenhouse-gas rules would only be for large emitters.
The memo - marked as "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege" - doesn't have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed it was prepared by Obama administration staff as part of the inter-agency review process of the proposed endangerment finding.
"It's a conglomeration of counsel we've received from various agencies...and it's not indicative of an OMB or administration-wide position," an OMB official said.
OMB spokesman Tom Gavin said, "It's up to the EPA now to consider the various suggestions that were part of the interagency review and make some decisions on which direction they want to move."
The position outlined in the memo is at odds with other White House documents on the proposed endangerment rule, which appear to affirm the EPA's decision to move ahead with the endangerment finding.
"Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the OMB document reads.
"The finding should also acknowledge the EPA has not undertaken a systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis," it reads.
The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's environment and regulatory affairs, William Kovacs, said the memo "confirms almost everything we've been saying on the spillover effects of regulating greenhouse gases." He said the OMB legal brief exposes the administration and the EPA to litigation if it finalizes the endangerment finding and begins to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, particularly because it was drafted during the deliberation process.
Although an official within the EPA's Climate Change Division said the agency "considers everything we receive," an EPA spokeswoman couldn't immediately comment on the extent to which memo influenced the drafting of the proposed rule.
Earlier this year, EPA chief Lisa Jackson dismissed concerns raised by groups such as the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers, saying, "It is a myth...[that] EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin' Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawn mower and baby bottles."
The White House legal brief starts by questioning the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary. Jackson said in the endangerment summary that "scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified..."
"The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty," the memo reads.
For example, the memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are "not well determined" and "not well understood."
The OMB memo questions with concern the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is "no demonstrated direct health effects," and the scientific data on which the agency relies are "almost exclusively from non-EPA sources."
Based on the "dramatically expanded precautionary principle," the EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other alleged "pollutants," including electro-magnetic fields, noise, and salts called percholorates.
The memo also warns that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.
The administration last week avoided requiring permitting reviews that would need to consider the impact of greenhouse gases when it decided not to revoke a Bush administration rule on polar bears. Although the Interior Secretary said greenhouse gases were the primary cause of the bear's loss of sea-ice habitat, the animal's listing as a threatened species couldn't be used to prevent oil refineries and coal-power plants from being built.
The White House, in a tortously written rebuttal, at first appears to be denying the report exists. On closer reading, they seem to be saying "So what? OMB is just reporting that other people have other opinions!" Never fear, the White House knows all and is infallible.
Meanwhile, apparently seeing the writing on the wall, the Obama administration announced that they would prefer a solution through legislation. What a coincidence; the House Democratic leaders said this evening they had reached agreement within their caucus on climate-change legislation that sets easier targets for emissions reductions and renewable-energy requirements than originally proposed. Mr. Waxman told reporters late Tuesday that he has agreed to amend the legislation so that it requires a cut in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, rather than a 20% cut in that time frame and to give, rather than sell, a certain percentage of the carbon emission "permits" to various industries.
The madness continues. The Obama administration is next in line to compete on "Dancing With The Stars."
2. A computer programmer/modeler named Dan Hughes has submitted comments to the EPA (see EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508) throwing doubt on the validity of the climate simulations and the science behind them.
1. An amalgamation of government agency comments sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA earlier this year is in stark contrast to the official position presented by President Barack Obama and his Cabinet officials.Among other warnings (see below), the memo says the basis for the EPA's statement that greenhouse gases "overwhelmingly" endanger public health and welfare because they contribute to global warming was "especially weak." The report says that predictions of devastating climate change are "accompanied by uncertainties so large that they potentially overwhelm the magnitude of the harm." Here are some more points from those memos as posted on the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works web site yesterday.
OMB Memo: Serious Economic Impact Likely From EPA CO2 Rules
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)
U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide "is likely to have serious economic consequences" for businesses small and large across the economy, a White House memo warned the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.
The nine-page document also undermines the EPA's reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a trigger for new rules.
...
Cabinet officials, including the president's climate-change czar, Carol Browner, have said the administration would prefer Congress create greenhouse-gas regulations through legislation, and not through the EPA's Clean Air Act authority.
But the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act, a move deemed by some analysts as political leverage to push Congress to act because of the bluntness of the tool.
According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPA's April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a key trigger for regulation of the gases emitted from cars, power plants, and potentially any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and hospitals.
While business groups have warned about the potential for a cascade of regulation and litigation, the EPA has said that greenhouse-gas rules would only be for large emitters.
The memo - marked as "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege" - doesn't have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed it was prepared by Obama administration staff as part of the inter-agency review process of the proposed endangerment finding.
"It's a conglomeration of counsel we've received from various agencies...and it's not indicative of an OMB or administration-wide position," an OMB official said.
OMB spokesman Tom Gavin said, "It's up to the EPA now to consider the various suggestions that were part of the interagency review and make some decisions on which direction they want to move."
The position outlined in the memo is at odds with other White House documents on the proposed endangerment rule, which appear to affirm the EPA's decision to move ahead with the endangerment finding.
"Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the OMB document reads.
"The finding should also acknowledge the EPA has not undertaken a systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis," it reads.
The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's environment and regulatory affairs, William Kovacs, said the memo "confirms almost everything we've been saying on the spillover effects of regulating greenhouse gases." He said the OMB legal brief exposes the administration and the EPA to litigation if it finalizes the endangerment finding and begins to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, particularly because it was drafted during the deliberation process.
Although an official within the EPA's Climate Change Division said the agency "considers everything we receive," an EPA spokeswoman couldn't immediately comment on the extent to which memo influenced the drafting of the proposed rule.
Earlier this year, EPA chief Lisa Jackson dismissed concerns raised by groups such as the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers, saying, "It is a myth...[that] EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin' Donuts, Pizza Huts, your lawn mower and baby bottles."
The White House legal brief starts by questioning the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary. Jackson said in the endangerment summary that "scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified..."
"The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty," the memo reads.
For example, the memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are "not well determined" and "not well understood."
The OMB memo questions with concern the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is "no demonstrated direct health effects," and the scientific data on which the agency relies are "almost exclusively from non-EPA sources."
Based on the "dramatically expanded precautionary principle," the EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other alleged "pollutants," including electro-magnetic fields, noise, and salts called percholorates.
The memo also warns that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.
The administration last week avoided requiring permitting reviews that would need to consider the impact of greenhouse gases when it decided not to revoke a Bush administration rule on polar bears. Although the Interior Secretary said greenhouse gases were the primary cause of the bear's loss of sea-ice habitat, the animal's listing as a threatened species couldn't be used to prevent oil refineries and coal-power plants from being built.
The White House, in a tortously written rebuttal, at first appears to be denying the report exists. On closer reading, they seem to be saying "So what? OMB is just reporting that other people have other opinions!" Never fear, the White House knows all and is infallible.
Meanwhile, apparently seeing the writing on the wall, the Obama administration announced that they would prefer a solution through legislation. What a coincidence; the House Democratic leaders said this evening they had reached agreement within their caucus on climate-change legislation that sets easier targets for emissions reductions and renewable-energy requirements than originally proposed. Mr. Waxman told reporters late Tuesday that he has agreed to amend the legislation so that it requires a cut in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, rather than a 20% cut in that time frame and to give, rather than sell, a certain percentage of the carbon emission "permits" to various industries.
The madness continues. The Obama administration is next in line to compete on "Dancing With The Stars."
2. A computer programmer/modeler named Dan Hughes has submitted comments to the EPA (see EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508) throwing doubt on the validity of the climate simulations and the science behind them.
"One crucial and necessary first step is that application of Verification procedures have shown that the numbers produced by the software accurately reflect both (1) the original intent of the continuous equations for the models, and (2) the numerical solution methods applied to the discrete approximations to the continuous equations. That is, Verification shows that the equations have been solved correctly. Verification procedures are designed to answer the question, Do the calculated numbers actually satisfy the coded discrete equations and do the solutions of the discrete equations converge to solution of the continuous equations. Neither of these extremely critical properties has been demonstrated for any GCM. None of the GCM codes, and very likely none of any of the enormous number of other computer codes, used in the IPCC processes have been Verified to be correct. Equally important, none of the Journals in which the papers reviewed by the IPCC process are published have editorial policies that require that the software on which papers are based to be Verified.
"All software can be Verified. Objective technical criteria and associated success metrics can be developed and applied in a manner that provides assurances about the correctness of the coding of the equations and their numerical solutions. Lack of Verification leaves open the potential that the numbers from the software are simply results of “bugs” in the coding."
Fatal? Maybe not. But it's one more in a string of evidences that the "science" behind "global warming" is sloppy. Step two, if it turns out that the models can be verified, is to determine if they would have accurately predicted what has happened in the past. From everything I have seen, they do not.Thursday, May 7, 2009
Can The Kindle DX Save Publishing?
Amazon this week announced the Kindle DX, a larger version of the original. The Kindle DX at $489 weighs 18.9 ounces compared to the earlier Kindle $359 at 10.2 ounces. It is touted for reading textbooks, newspapers, magazines and PDFs at potentially huge cost savings over printing and distributing paper-based products.
The Kindle DX, about 1/3" thick, has a 9.7" screen with 16 shades of gray, about 2.5 time the size of the earlier B/W model (known as the Kindle 2,) making it easier to represent 8.5" x 11" sheets as well as newspaper pages, including advertising and photos. It has 3.3 GB of storage, enough to hold about 3,500 books and can download additional material from Amazon via 3G cellular towers in about 60 seconds. There are no wireless fees or contracts.
Kindle DX can also read text out loud to you, provided the copyright holder allows it. It also can host an eight GB SD card for copying from internal memory or importing external data and music files.
Everyone has an opinion on where this technology is going and Amazon is not without competition. Their biggest advantage of Amazon's Kindle seems to be their legal arrangements for content.
The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post plan pilot programs offering the new Kindle at a discount to some readers who sign up for subscriptions to read the news on the device. However, the Times/Globe in their usual short-sighted way, won't offer Kindle subscriptions in areas where their print edition is available.
Three textbook publishers (Pearson PLC, Cengage Learning and John Wiley & Sons Inc.) have agreed to sell books on the device. Collectively, they publish 60 percent of all higher-education textbooks, according to Amazon.
About six universities have agreed to run Kindle pilots in the fall, including Pace, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University, Princeton University, Reed College and the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia.
But Kindle and some other e-book readers have lots of drawbacks. No color and little or no interactivity. For example, only a few readers allow making "notes in the margins." And people used to the wonders of HTML and the web will find huge shortcomings in e-book readers. Even the iPhone is superior in that sense.
For all those reasons, the future of electronic books is very uncertain. The potential cost advantage is the only convincing element in the mix. But it also has to be an acceptable medium to the end user.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Are Newspapers Obsolete?
The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, chaired by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, is holding hearings on what laws, if any, need to be written or changed to assist the nation's newspapers. The conclusion seems to be that nothing seems likely to help. There was a suggestion that media cross-ownership restrictions might be softened (lift the ban on common ownership of broadcast and print media in the same market.) There was even a suggestion that print media be allowed to operate as non-profit organizations, but, judging by Kerry's comments, nothing is likely to be done.
"As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet," Kerry's pre-hearing statement said. He also said the emerging media industry "is going to require a new economic model, one that everyone is still trying to figure out." Almost as an afterthought, Kerry pledged to work with Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer to ensure online journalists receive proper credentialing from the Senate's Standing Committee on Correspondents.
Early this week, the New York Times filed the required 60-day notice that it intends to close the Boston Globe, leaving much of New England without a premium newspaper. However, intensive bargaining sessions with Globe unions apparently produced about 25% of the cost savings needed to keep the paper alive and the filing has been avoided. Advertising revenue is the culprit; it has dropped dramatically nationwide and already the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have ceased publishing a print edition. The latter is still published on-line. The Times itself is in danger of folding. It recently mortgaged its Manhattan headquarters and borrowed $250 million at 14% interest after a layoff of 100 newsroom staff and a 5% salary cut for the remainder. Some, but not all of the revenue decrease can be attributed to the recession. However, newspaper subscribers have been dropping their subscriptions and that means lower advertising and lower subscription revenues.
The Internet, of course, is the culprit. For the moment, it provides a better sampling of the same news more conveniently and at no cost. Nor is the TV news immune from falling ad revenues. Of course, if all the news gathering organizations fold, that leaves the Internet with nothing to report, so Kerry's comment about a "new economic model" is no help at all.
One possibility, advanced by Jim Moroney of the Dallas Morning News, is to provide temporary antitrust protection for publishers to let them band together and demand a bigger share of revenues collected by Google, AOL, Yahoo and other online news aggregators. Google, for example, paid publishers over $5 billion last year, and is developing new tools to help everyone earn more. Publishers say $5 billion was not enough.
The NewspaperDeathWatch web site keeps close track of papers that have failed since March, 2007, and those about to fail. It also references the more thoughtful articles that provide potential solutions, like Jason Pontin's blog in MIT's Technology Review titled How to Save Media and The World Editor's Forum article titled Keep Internet News Open With An Online Payment System.
The only thing that's clear is that information collection, i.e. journalism, costs money. Some means must be found to assure the flow of credible information about what's happening in the world.
"As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet," Kerry's pre-hearing statement said. He also said the emerging media industry "is going to require a new economic model, one that everyone is still trying to figure out." Almost as an afterthought, Kerry pledged to work with Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer to ensure online journalists receive proper credentialing from the Senate's Standing Committee on Correspondents.
Early this week, the New York Times filed the required 60-day notice that it intends to close the Boston Globe, leaving much of New England without a premium newspaper. However, intensive bargaining sessions with Globe unions apparently produced about 25% of the cost savings needed to keep the paper alive and the filing has been avoided. Advertising revenue is the culprit; it has dropped dramatically nationwide and already the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have ceased publishing a print edition. The latter is still published on-line. The Times itself is in danger of folding. It recently mortgaged its Manhattan headquarters and borrowed $250 million at 14% interest after a layoff of 100 newsroom staff and a 5% salary cut for the remainder. Some, but not all of the revenue decrease can be attributed to the recession. However, newspaper subscribers have been dropping their subscriptions and that means lower advertising and lower subscription revenues.
The Internet, of course, is the culprit. For the moment, it provides a better sampling of the same news more conveniently and at no cost. Nor is the TV news immune from falling ad revenues. Of course, if all the news gathering organizations fold, that leaves the Internet with nothing to report, so Kerry's comment about a "new economic model" is no help at all.
One possibility, advanced by Jim Moroney of the Dallas Morning News, is to provide temporary antitrust protection for publishers to let them band together and demand a bigger share of revenues collected by Google, AOL, Yahoo and other online news aggregators. Google, for example, paid publishers over $5 billion last year, and is developing new tools to help everyone earn more. Publishers say $5 billion was not enough.
The NewspaperDeathWatch web site keeps close track of papers that have failed since March, 2007, and those about to fail. It also references the more thoughtful articles that provide potential solutions, like Jason Pontin's blog in MIT's Technology Review titled How to Save Media and The World Editor's Forum article titled Keep Internet News Open With An Online Payment System.
The only thing that's clear is that information collection, i.e. journalism, costs money. Some means must be found to assure the flow of credible information about what's happening in the world.
Monday, May 4, 2009
If You're Stupid, the Law Doesn't Apply
The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that if you are so stupid that you can't understand the law, then you can't be prosecuted for breaking it. At least that's the essense of it.
Undocumented workers who use a fake ID cannot be prosecuted for identity theft unless they "knowingly and unlawfully" use another person's identity. The plaintiff, a Mexican citizen, initially used a fake ID and fake Social Security number (which did not belong to anyone) to get a job. Apparently, that was OK and broke no laws. Six years later he "came clean" and offered his real name and forged Social Security and alien registration cards — documents that bore numbers that happened to be assigned to other people. He was prosecuted for identity theft.
He pled guilty to a number of offenses, but contested the identity theft charge because he had no way of knowing those numbers belonged to someone else. Duh! And the Supreme Court agreed! Not guilty.
"As for the immigrants rounded up in Iowa a year ago, an interpreter assigned to their hearings testified that most of the immigrants did not know that the numbers they used belonged to other people. Indeed, the immigrants generally did not know what a Social Security card was."
It really pays to be stupid if you are a crook and have a slick lawyer! It's time that our stupid Congressmen started writing laws that work. And while they are at it, they can re-authorize E-Verify so employers can catch phoney Social Security numbers in the first place.
This country is deteriorating rapidly.
Undocumented workers who use a fake ID cannot be prosecuted for identity theft unless they "knowingly and unlawfully" use another person's identity. The plaintiff, a Mexican citizen, initially used a fake ID and fake Social Security number (which did not belong to anyone) to get a job. Apparently, that was OK and broke no laws. Six years later he "came clean" and offered his real name and forged Social Security and alien registration cards — documents that bore numbers that happened to be assigned to other people. He was prosecuted for identity theft.
He pled guilty to a number of offenses, but contested the identity theft charge because he had no way of knowing those numbers belonged to someone else. Duh! And the Supreme Court agreed! Not guilty.
"As for the immigrants rounded up in Iowa a year ago, an interpreter assigned to their hearings testified that most of the immigrants did not know that the numbers they used belonged to other people. Indeed, the immigrants generally did not know what a Social Security card was."
It really pays to be stupid if you are a crook and have a slick lawyer! It's time that our stupid Congressmen started writing laws that work. And while they are at it, they can re-authorize E-Verify so employers can catch phoney Social Security numbers in the first place.
This country is deteriorating rapidly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
