Saturday, October 31, 2009
October 29th News-Record Column: How the internet empowers the people:
Click here to read the article: http://bit.ly/2ORXJI
Monday, October 26, 2009
More Information on Column
Please watch Michael Wesch's Talk "The Machine is (changing) Us here.
More links about this subject:
Media Ecology on Wikipedia
Media Ecology Association
Some further comments:
Although there is no way to answer the question of how exactly we are changing media and how in turn, our media is changing us, it is important to ask and to explore. Just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we should not ask the question. We can learn a lot about ourselves and the way we communicate just by asking questions about media ecology and culture. I hope to cover this topic more both in my blog and in my column, so definitely keep an eye out for what I hope to be more and continued question asking about how we interact with eachother.
More links about this subject:
Media Ecology on Wikipedia
Media Ecology Association
Some further comments:
Although there is no way to answer the question of how exactly we are changing media and how in turn, our media is changing us, it is important to ask and to explore. Just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we should not ask the question. We can learn a lot about ourselves and the way we communicate just by asking questions about media ecology and culture. I hope to cover this topic more both in my blog and in my column, so definitely keep an eye out for what I hope to be more and continued question asking about how we interact with eachother.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
WhiteHouse.gov Goes Open Source
On October 24th, the White House switched their website (whitehouse.gov) to Drupal, an open-source content management system. This will be hosted on Linux Red Hat servers.
Clearly this a big win for open source proponents as the White House has taken a large step in opening the door for more government departments on all levels to consider using open-source technology. In working towards better government transparency, the Obama Administration has made several large steps towards that goal, and this latest development in that field. There is a lot of opportunity for Government 2.0 deployments, and it is great to see Obama Administration so clearly on board with enhancing government transparency.
Read More:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/whitehouse-switch-drupal-opensource.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091024/us-obama-web-site/
Clearly this a big win for open source proponents as the White House has taken a large step in opening the door for more government departments on all levels to consider using open-source technology. In working towards better government transparency, the Obama Administration has made several large steps towards that goal, and this latest development in that field. There is a lot of opportunity for Government 2.0 deployments, and it is great to see Obama Administration so clearly on board with enhancing government transparency.
Read More:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/whitehouse-switch-drupal-opensource.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091024/us-obama-web-site/
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Flu Vaccine
I just finished reading John M. Barry's Book: The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History (for my Emergency Planning & Response class at John Jay) where Barry eloquently traces the history and every detail about how around 50 million people died in the 1918 influenza pandemic. I used to to say "Why are people making such a big deal over Swine Flu?" Then I read that the flu pandemic in 1918 which was, by far, the worst pandemic in the history of the world, is the same strain of flu, H1N1, that is our so-called Swine Flu.
The issue of mandatory vaccines is a complicated one, much more complicated than either side of the debate gives it credit for. Are we facing the same possibility of a severe epidemic? Or is this possible threat being elevated by American media in love with creating fear when there need not be?
To really answer the question of whether mandatory vaccines are ethical we much first have a better understanding of the threat that we are facing and at that point we can make a thoughtful, rational and expeditious decision as to how best to balance ensuring personal liberty while protecting public safety.
The issue of mandatory vaccines is a complicated one, much more complicated than either side of the debate gives it credit for. Are we facing the same possibility of a severe epidemic? Or is this possible threat being elevated by American media in love with creating fear when there need not be?
To really answer the question of whether mandatory vaccines are ethical we much first have a better understanding of the threat that we are facing and at that point we can make a thoughtful, rational and expeditious decision as to how best to balance ensuring personal liberty while protecting public safety.
Friday, October 9, 2009
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Internet media especially is in a frenzy today as everyone looks to get in their word edgewise on Obama's, what turned out to be controversial, winning of a Nobel Peace Prize. The award came at a time when Obama is facing crucial decisions regarding troop levels in Afghanistan.
Many Obama supporters hail this as a landmark occasion where the international community has finally recognized Obama's ideas and vision for a more peaceful and diplomatic world where working with other nations and cultures is seen as a priority rather than a drag on international relations.
Conservatives, and a fair amount of Obama supporters, on the other hand, feel that this award was issued far too early, at best, and cannot possibly be based off of his record because nominations were due for the award almost immediately after he took office.
Others even may say this award comes at an awkward time, as a NASA rocket was just launched into the moon. (Though for peaceful purposes. For now. You're on watch Moon.)
Although both sides have a good point, it seems to have brought to light two very important points:
First, Obama has not yet delivered on his campaign promises of bringing peace, withdrawing troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Granted, he has not been in office a very long time, and to make such large changes considering the past eight years requires a lot of political capital that he may not have yet. But unless he can constructively shape this healthcare debate, he may have trouble gaining that much-needed capital.
Second, conservatives and the Republican Party seem that they would rather see Obama fail than see our country succeed. That definitely doesn't apply to everyone who considers themselves right of center, but 'mainstream' American conservatism has definitely picked out Obama as a target, for whatever reasons, and celebrate his failures, like when Chicago lost out for the Olympic bid. What happened to the standing beside your President in tough times, a mantra oft-repeated during the Bush years?
My take on it? Regardless of whether or not he should have been awarded the prize now, I am confident that by the time Obama leaves office he will have demonstrated that he does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Many Obama supporters hail this as a landmark occasion where the international community has finally recognized Obama's ideas and vision for a more peaceful and diplomatic world where working with other nations and cultures is seen as a priority rather than a drag on international relations.
Conservatives, and a fair amount of Obama supporters, on the other hand, feel that this award was issued far too early, at best, and cannot possibly be based off of his record because nominations were due for the award almost immediately after he took office.
Others even may say this award comes at an awkward time, as a NASA rocket was just launched into the moon. (Though for peaceful purposes. For now. You're on watch Moon.)
Although both sides have a good point, it seems to have brought to light two very important points:
First, Obama has not yet delivered on his campaign promises of bringing peace, withdrawing troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Granted, he has not been in office a very long time, and to make such large changes considering the past eight years requires a lot of political capital that he may not have yet. But unless he can constructively shape this healthcare debate, he may have trouble gaining that much-needed capital.
Second, conservatives and the Republican Party seem that they would rather see Obama fail than see our country succeed. That definitely doesn't apply to everyone who considers themselves right of center, but 'mainstream' American conservatism has definitely picked out Obama as a target, for whatever reasons, and celebrate his failures, like when Chicago lost out for the Olympic bid. What happened to the standing beside your President in tough times, a mantra oft-repeated during the Bush years?
My take on it? Regardless of whether or not he should have been awarded the prize now, I am confident that by the time Obama leaves office he will have demonstrated that he does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
How relative is relativity?
Before I begin, I’d like to first ask you all to look at the images to the right and note what you see:
Almost everyone immediately perceives the darker circle on the left as being bigger than the one on the right. But is it really? It turns out the two circles are identical, yet just by surrounding that size shape with similar shapes of different sizes, we can immensely impact how the darker circle is perceived. The word perception is important because although the shapes are indeed identical, they are generally perceived to be different. This is this problem with relativity - it is fairly easy to manipulate how one sees something simply by changing the environment around it. Over the next few weeks, we will examine the impact of these theories on our spending. This week: How much is distance worth?
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman explored this idea in their paper “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Imagine you are in an office supply store, about to purchase a $25 pen. Aomeone whispers to you that a store 15 minutes away is selling that same pen for $18, a $7 savings. Would you take the drive to save money on the pen? The majority of people would. Next scenario: you are in a clothing store shopping for a $455 coat. Another customer informs you that the same coat is on sale for $448 at a store 15 minutes away. Would you drive the 15 minutes to save the $7 on a $455 coat? The majority of people would not.
One would expect that you would perform a quick cost/benefit analysis, basically: How much you would save minus how much it would cost to drive there (perhaps gas plus cost of time). However, if that were the case, then it wouldn’t matter if the $7 savings was on a $10 item, or a $10,000 item. But clearly that is not the case. Would you make any effort, say even go five minutes down the street to save $7 on a $20,000 car purchase? Not many people would put in that effort. But why? Shouldn’t saving money be worth it regardless of the price of the product you are saving it from?
It turns out that people do not generally base this decision off of a fixed or objective amount, but rather think about it relatively, in terms of a percentage. In the first scenario, the percentage savings were substantial, about 28%. However, in the second scenario, the percentage savings were seemingly insignificant, less than 2%. For some reason, people think about these savings on a relative basis, avoiding such facts such as actual savings in dollars. Nobody balances their checkbook with every withdrawal notated as a percentage of total savings, and products don’t cost a percentage of something - they just have a fixed cost that is deducted from our fixed savings.
Next time you are considering take the drive, or brushing off the worthlessness of taking a drive to save some money, calculate your decision based on actual cost, not percentages. You would be surprised how much money you could save if you think critically about all costs when purchasing something expensive. It’s easy to add options onto a car, leave a negotiation for a house without putting in a full effort or otherwise say something along the lines of “Well I’m already spending so much, what does this extra little bit matter?” If it is worth saving $7 on a pen, it is worth saving $7 on a coat. $7 is $7 no matter how must the product costs.
Over the next few weeks, I hope to bring to light some interesting problems with the way we think about finances in an effort to provide some non-intuitive advise and insight on how to save money in tough economic times. Next week: Spotting the decoy in product marketing.
Further Reading:Almost everyone immediately perceives the darker circle on the left as being bigger than the one on the right. But is it really? It turns out the two circles are identical, yet just by surrounding that size shape with similar shapes of different sizes, we can immensely impact how the darker circle is perceived. The word perception is important because although the shapes are indeed identical, they are generally perceived to be different. This is this problem with relativity - it is fairly easy to manipulate how one sees something simply by changing the environment around it. Over the next few weeks, we will examine the impact of these theories on our spending. This week: How much is distance worth?
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman explored this idea in their paper “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Imagine you are in an office supply store, about to purchase a $25 pen. Aomeone whispers to you that a store 15 minutes away is selling that same pen for $18, a $7 savings. Would you take the drive to save money on the pen? The majority of people would. Next scenario: you are in a clothing store shopping for a $455 coat. Another customer informs you that the same coat is on sale for $448 at a store 15 minutes away. Would you drive the 15 minutes to save the $7 on a $455 coat? The majority of people would not.
One would expect that you would perform a quick cost/benefit analysis, basically: How much you would save minus how much it would cost to drive there (perhaps gas plus cost of time). However, if that were the case, then it wouldn’t matter if the $7 savings was on a $10 item, or a $10,000 item. But clearly that is not the case. Would you make any effort, say even go five minutes down the street to save $7 on a $20,000 car purchase? Not many people would put in that effort. But why? Shouldn’t saving money be worth it regardless of the price of the product you are saving it from?
It turns out that people do not generally base this decision off of a fixed or objective amount, but rather think about it relatively, in terms of a percentage. In the first scenario, the percentage savings were substantial, about 28%. However, in the second scenario, the percentage savings were seemingly insignificant, less than 2%. For some reason, people think about these savings on a relative basis, avoiding such facts such as actual savings in dollars. Nobody balances their checkbook with every withdrawal notated as a percentage of total savings, and products don’t cost a percentage of something - they just have a fixed cost that is deducted from our fixed savings.
Next time you are considering take the drive, or brushing off the worthlessness of taking a drive to save some money, calculate your decision based on actual cost, not percentages. You would be surprised how much money you could save if you think critically about all costs when purchasing something expensive. It’s easy to add options onto a car, leave a negotiation for a house without putting in a full effort or otherwise say something along the lines of “Well I’m already spending so much, what does this extra little bit matter?” If it is worth saving $7 on a pen, it is worth saving $7 on a coat. $7 is $7 no matter how must the product costs.
Over the next few weeks, I hope to bring to light some interesting problems with the way we think about finances in an effort to provide some non-intuitive advise and insight on how to save money in tough economic times. Next week: Spotting the decoy in product marketing.
- Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice by A Tversky and D Kahneman
Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph T. Hallinan
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Embracing Technology for Open Government
Open Government has become quite a campaign buzzword over the past few years as technology and computer/online software are beginning the show the limitless potential available to us to create accessible and transparent government.
There are two primary distinctions when looking at the utilization of technology in government. The first is how government appears, or is accessible, to people. The second is government works internally.
The first has been adopted quite widely in campaign settings. Campaign websites often offer social-networking connections, mobile updates, smartphone apps, and other interactive features that help people stay connected. This transparency and engagement as not been widely adopted in the actual governance process, however. Although indeed rare, there are a few excellent examples. The best one may be the Federal IT Dashboard, a website that traces and explains all federal IT spending. Check out the website at: http://it.usaspending.gov/. You can find all of the investments, contracts, people in charge of projects, timelines and more. This site should be a tool not only to research federal spending but as an example of how open government can look and work.
The second is government technology for internal processes. One of the often quoted reasons for some failings in national security in the past is that defense and intelligence agencies, up until the past year or two, were using outlandishly outdated software that didn't allow collaboration or communication between different operatives in the field. Now many agencies have adopted Wikipedia-like software in top-secret platforms to encourage collaboration and sharing of information among various agents and agencies. This type of software, though of course critical in high-risk national security situations, can also be applied to save government money through increased efficiency while improving the services that are offered to people. The private sector has been pushing into increased collaboration and connectivity between various people working on projects, and that same technology could be applied to government to vastly improve upon the technology that exists and is used now.
Every once in a while, I will update this blog with interesting software or platforms which I encourage people to read further about:
Federal IT Dashboard: http://it.usaspending.gov/
NY Senate Website: http://www.nysenate.gov/
There are two primary distinctions when looking at the utilization of technology in government. The first is how government appears, or is accessible, to people. The second is government works internally.
The first has been adopted quite widely in campaign settings. Campaign websites often offer social-networking connections, mobile updates, smartphone apps, and other interactive features that help people stay connected. This transparency and engagement as not been widely adopted in the actual governance process, however. Although indeed rare, there are a few excellent examples. The best one may be the Federal IT Dashboard, a website that traces and explains all federal IT spending. Check out the website at: http://it.usaspending.gov/. You can find all of the investments, contracts, people in charge of projects, timelines and more. This site should be a tool not only to research federal spending but as an example of how open government can look and work.
The second is government technology for internal processes. One of the often quoted reasons for some failings in national security in the past is that defense and intelligence agencies, up until the past year or two, were using outlandishly outdated software that didn't allow collaboration or communication between different operatives in the field. Now many agencies have adopted Wikipedia-like software in top-secret platforms to encourage collaboration and sharing of information among various agents and agencies. This type of software, though of course critical in high-risk national security situations, can also be applied to save government money through increased efficiency while improving the services that are offered to people. The private sector has been pushing into increased collaboration and connectivity between various people working on projects, and that same technology could be applied to government to vastly improve upon the technology that exists and is used now.
Every once in a while, I will update this blog with interesting software or platforms which I encourage people to read further about:
Federal IT Dashboard: http://it.usaspending.gov/
NY Senate Website: http://www.nysenate.gov/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)