From the outside in

Friday, April 29, 2011

James Kotecki: Social Media Seniors: Five Reasons Twitter Is Good for Grandp...

via Technology on HuffingtonPost.com by James Kotecki on 4/28/11

"Trying to explain Twitter to my parents and grandparents," I tweeted recently. "Anyone got any tips?"

"Good luck with #hashtags," replied a friend. Another suggested that I show them Senator Chuck Grassley's campaign commercial, in which the septuagenarian explains that Twitter is not an incurable disease.

Meanwhile, back at the dinner table, I was struggling to explain how Twitter works. My parents and my mother's parents have all used Facebook, and they all have Ivy League degrees. But even @ replies seemed to require several additional layers of explanation (it's like a short email that everyone can see but it's really for one person unless you put a period in front of the @...).

I know my folks could learn how to use Twitter if I sat them down at a computer -- it's really no harder than sending an email. But while I slogged through the technical specifics, I was avoiding their real question -- why should we use Twitter at all?

So now, for the benefits of my grandparents and yours, here are five jargon-free reasons for Grandma to get on the tweet train.

1. Relevant Headlines Customized For You

Think of Twitter as a stream of constantly updating headlines and comments about everything that matters to you. You can get updates from your favorite news organizations. Athletic teams. Celebrities. Your local government. Your airline. Your favorite websites. Your colleagues. And of course, your family and friends.

You can digest all of this information quickly because Twitter limits each headline (called a "tweet") to 140 characters. Want to go deeper? Many tweets include links where you can learn more.

Plus, if you write your own tweets, you can to add your voice to the conversation.

2. Non-intrusive, Flexible Conversations With Your Friends

If you send a group email, you're assuming that everyone wants to read it. You're also forcing everyone to read everyone else's replies. On Twitter, anyone who reads your tweets can choose to actively converse with you, or simply read your updates and conversations at their own pace.

Tweeting (yes, it's both a noun and a verb -- sorry) can also yield surprising insight from others who might "overhear" you -- you might pose a question to one person and get insight from a different person you never even thought to ask.

3. Access to Powerful People and Companies

Want to talk to your favorite athlete, movie star, or politician? Want to get rapid customer service from your rental car company, or to ask your favorite potato chip company to make a unique flavor for Groundhog Day? When you talk to famous people and companies on Twitter, they listen -- and there's a decent chance they'll respond. You can't say the same about email.

4. (Almost) No Junk

Email comes to you whether you want it or not. But on Twitter, you have total control over the information you receive. If an account is spamming you with ads, meaningless lunch updates, or just too much information, you simply unfollow them.

5. Twitter is Safe (As Long As You're Smart)

The information you give to Twitter to start your account -- like your email address and password -- is just as secure as it is on other sites you already use like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Gmail. Your tweets, however, are public -- the Library of Congress even keeps an archive.

Fortunately, it's easy to keep your personal information secure on Twitter: if you don't want the world to know something (your bank account, your political views, the blood type of your firstborn), don't tweet it.

Even if you're not comfortable posting any information, that's fine. As Twitter says on its homepage (and as I explained in Reason 1), "[y]ou don't have to tweet to get value from Twitter."

But between you and me, you'll have more fun if you do.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

NASA Nebula cloud spans nine space centers

via The Register on 4/26/11

Open source floats

NASA's Nebula project – an Amazon-like "infrastructure cloud" for use within the federal government – is now being used across nine NASA centers, including the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and its headquarters in Washington.…

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Book Country Brings Writers Of A Feather Closer Together

via TechCrunch by John Biggs on 4/26/11

It’s hard out there for a writer of genre fiction. You rarely get much respect in the “literary” circles and even though some of the greats – Jonathan Lethem, for example – started out writing what would be termed sci-fi and fantasy, we forget this as they bring out massive magna opera about Park Slope and love. Besides, vampire books are huge moneymakers right now and why not ride that train until it derails on a Transylvanian mountain pass?

And so we have Book Country, a site run by Penguin that offers a free way for writers of genre fiction to talk about and share their work. The site is limited to romance, thrillers, fantasy, and sci-fi so this is not the spot to upload your Mythbusters slashfic. However, it is a fairly robust service that attempts to keep things fair for all involved.

It’s all fairly simple: you create an account and you can, if you so wish, upload your work. To have it “read” or “critiqued” by others you must complete a series of steps including reading three other works by other writers. You can, obviously, game the system and just type in gibberish but that’s not very sporting.

Once your book is up (here is a bit of piffle I’m writing for my son) and you complete your required reading, other users can read and comment on your writing. There are forums for discussing various genres and you can build a fan base. You can also follow writers and books as they change on the site.


Interestingly, because this is a nominally Penguin product (it’s not run by Penguin officially, but is a spin-off), I think it will garner a bit of attention in the massively insular world of publishing and, barring that, it lets writers get out of the basement and in front of an audience.

Writers are protected by anti-copy/paste measures although one can only assume this is a plagiarism lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s also a bit mercenary on Penguin’s part as it heads off the burgeoning self-publishing movement on the Kindle and Nook and ensures that they’ll get a first look at any massively popular authors who percolate up through the system. Like a farm team or a the drama group from Waiting For Guffman, you’re basically dealing with a bunch of people in clamoring out to be discovered. How many of them make it out is hard to say.

Molly Barton, director of business development at Penguin “runs” the site but the real power is in the readers’ hands. It’s an interesting concept that should – one hopes – help the literary cream rise to the top and, if it doesn’t, give us a place to enjoy some fresh cyberpunk. Win-win, either way.

Product Page


Posted via email from The New Word Order

Judging People

via Dilbert.com Blog on 4/25/11

I see a lot of judging going around lately. And I notice that people often invent their own standards of right and wrong just before passing sentence. What this world needs is some sort of universal standard so we'd always know for sure who is good and who is bad.

The Ten Commandments was a start. That list covers some of the basics. But it's a bit dated, and it doesn't cover the important questions of our day, such as who is arrogant, who doesn't work hard enough, who should come out of the closet, who is a hypocrite, who is an Internet troll, and so on. Society is inventing new ways of being bad more quickly than we can evolve the rules to cover the new situations. We need some sort of standard that can keep up.

I'm unqualified for the task of creating this new standard of good and bad because I believe free will is an illusion. By my view, we're born, our molecules bump around then we die. No one is good or bad if we're all just bumping around according to physical laws. Any standard for good and bad behavior that I suggest would be inconsistent with my own point of view.

But for some reason I'm going to suggest just such a standard anyway. Apparently I can't help myself. And my standard goes like this: You're a good person if you work hard at something that is useful to society and you try to avoid hurting other people when it's practical.

I'm big on overlooking victimless crime. I'd go further and suggest that anyone who is putting effort into punishing people who commit victimless crimes is bad.

One big problem with my standard is that we live in a world with limited resources. The simple act of getting a job creates a victim if you consider the next best applicant who lost out. If I stand in line to buy something, I make the line longer for the people behind me. Most of what we do has some sort of impact on others. But let's agree that you can display a certain degree of self-interest and still be a good person. Without some degree of selfish behavior, society would fall apart.

I've been thinking about this because a new breed of media has popped up that takes evil to a new level. Today, for example, spewed across the Internet is the report that Rachel Maddow believes some members of the broadcast media who are closeted gays should come out, as she has. Gawker - ironically named after a vigorous form of self-satisfaction - helpfully lists some broadcasters that they believe should come out.

The thin cover for this evil is the notion that when a public figure reveals his or her sexual orientation it is a form of honesty that helps others by example. By Gawker's view, keeping your private life private can't be a legitimate personal decision, and it can't be the sort of image management that every human with a paying job engages in. We humans are always spring-loaded to judge most harshly any form of information concealment, no matter how victimless. How dare our public figures not disclose what sort of genitalia they prefer! Those lying bastards! How can I trust the news about Libya now?!

By my standard, the allegedly gay broadcasters in question presumably work hard and they don't hurt anyone by reporting the news, unless you count dictators and other scoundrels who try to avoid direct questions.

Gawker, on the other hand, is pure evil. The writers are clearly lazy, based on their output and their lack of research, and their clear goal is to profit by hurting other people. In this case, they're preying on real or alleged members of the gay community for personal gain. That's entry level behavior on the Hitler meter.

I should note that when Rachel Maddow states her opinion that broadcasters should come out, she's not naming names, and she's not trying to profit from it. Her view is legitimate even if you disagree. The problem comes from the Nazi wannabes at Gawker who turned her opinion into a witch hunt for profit.

On a related topic, I'd like to give a little shout out to TMZ. When my recent dust-up with Men's Rights advocates and Feminists hit the blog-o-cesspool, only TMZ contacted me to find out the facts. And upon hearing the facts in proper context, apparently they decided there was no legitimate story there. Or at least I didn't notice one via Google Alert. TMZ put in the work and turned down the chance to take a quote out of context and profit by hurting another human being. I can't defend any other choices they might make, but they met my standard of good behavior in this situation. Gawker and a number of other sites, including Yahoo, had the same opportunity and chose evil.

What's your own definition of good and bad? And how does victimless crime fit into your view?

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

West view

Edge of storm front


- Posted using Mobypicture.com

South view

Storm brewing


- Posted using Mobypicture.com

The methane hydrate feedback revisited

via Climate Progress by Joe on 4/25/11

Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle (see “NSIDC bombshell: Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100“).

Methane (CH4) deserves attention it is such a highly potent greenhouse gas — 25-33 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year time-horizon, but as much as 100 time more potent over 20 years, according to the latest research!

Last year I reported on a major study in Science that found the vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores appeared to be destabilizing and venting.  The normally staid National Science Foundation issued a press release warning “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

NSF

Now there is a new Geophysical Research Letters study on a paleoclimate analog that may be relevant to humanity today, “Methane and environmental change during the Paleocene‐Eocene thermal maximum (PETM): Modeling the PETM onset as a two‐stage event.”

Skeptical Science has a great analysis of the study, which I repost below in its entirety:

Wakening the Kraken

Posted on 23 April 2011 by Agnostic & Daniel Bailey

Methane (CH4) is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 20-30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2) on a century timescale.  Fortunately it normally occurs in very low concentration in the atmosphere – about 0.3 to 0.4ppm during glacial periods and 0.6 to 0.7ppm during warmer periods.

In 1750 the concentration was ~0.7ppm.  By 2010 it had reached >1.8ppm, and is now at its highest level in 500,000 years.  This is largely due to human activity, particularly the keeping of large herds of cattle and flocks of chickens and the production of fossil fuels.  Methane has a relatively short life in the atmosphere where it oxidizes into CO2 over a period of 9-15 years.

Large amounts of methane are produced in anaerobic conditions by bacterial activity in the sediments below the seabed as well as by chemical transformation of organic matter at greater burial depths. Methane hydrates are formed by bonding with water to make an ice-like substance in certain temperature/pressure conditions that can be found at shallow water depths in polar regionsIt yields 164 m3 of CH4 per m3 of solid clathrate.

Like Savoir Faire, Clathrates are seemingly everywhere

Clathrate occurs in the Antarctic and particularly in the Arctic where it is abundant in the relatively shallow though very cold seabed of the vast continental shelves which almost encircle the Arctic Ocean.  It also occurs in the sea bed of warmer waters where they are of sufficient depth to enable it to remain stable.

Methane clathrate has accumulated below the seabed over millions of years.  Billions of tons of it lie dormant beneath permafrost, in the pores of sandstones or shrouded in silt.  As long as it remains under pressure or in cold conditions (below 0°C) it is stable and does not release methane.

We know that in the past there have been sudden changes in global warming associated with releases of greenhouse gases.  These rapid, massive releases were characterised by unusual deficiency in carbon isotope 13 (∂13C ) and massive extinction of animals, most recently at the time of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), about 55.8 million years ago.

PETM

The world at the approximate time of the PETM (courtesy Christopher Scotese)

It is believed that the PETM was likely initiated by changes of the orbital parameters of the Earth (eccentricity, obliquity and precession of axis) causing an increase in the intensity and distribution of solar radiation reaching the earth.  This in turn, over many thousands of years, triggered natural climate change, amplified by CH4 releases characterised by a ∂13C deficiency.

A major difference between the PETM (Natural) and present (Anthropogenic) global warming is that the former was likely initiated by increased exposure to solar radiation causing carbon feedbacks and rapid global warming.  The latter, geologically sudden increase is primarily caused by the on-going burning of fossil fuels, which yearly inject a massive bolus of CO2 in the atmosphere, initiating further carbon feedbacks.

Natural global warming is self-rectifying either by slow chemical weathering processes responsible for mineral sequestration of carbon or by gradual return of Earth’s orbital parameters to what they were before the onset of global warming, thereby significantly reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.  The result is cooling oceans able to gradually absorb and lower atmospheric CO2, enabling restoration of albedo at higher latitude/altitude, producing further slow global cooling. This explains why post-maximum temperatures are slow to fall.  The mechanism for reducing anthropogenic global warming, initiated through radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, is to stop emissions and reduce their concentration in the atmosphere to levels which do not stimulate carbon feedbacks.

I know what you’re thinking: Was it one shot or two?

Carozza et al (2011) find that natural global warming occurred in 2 stages:  First, global warming of 3° to 9° C accompanied by a large bolus of organic carbon released to the atmosphere through the burning of terrestrial biomass (Kurtz et al, 2003) over approximately a 50-year period; second,  a catastrophic release of methane hydrate from sediment, followed by the oxidation of a part of this methane gas in the water column and the escape of the remaining CH4 to the atmosphere over a 50-year period.

The description of Stage 2:  Very rapid and massive release of carbon deficient in ∂13C, does put one in mind of the Methane Gun hypothesis. It postulates that methane clathrate at shallow depth begins melting and through the feed-back process accelerate atmospheric and oceanic warming, melting even larger and deeper clathrate deposits.  The result:  A relatively sudden massive venting of methane – the firing of the Methane Gun.  Recent discovery by Davy et al (2010) of kilometer-wide (ten 8-11 kilometer and about 1,000 1-kilometer-wide features) eruption craters on the Chatham Rise seafloor off New Zealand adds further ammunition to the Methane Gun hypothesis.

It has been known for many years that methane is being emitted from Siberian swamplands hitherto covered by permafrost, trapping an estimated 1,000 billion tons of methane.  Permafrost on land is now seasonally melting and with each season melting it at greater depth, ensuring that each year methane venting from this source increases.

Methane clathrate has accumulated over the East Siberian continental shelf where it is covered by sediment and seawater up to 50 meters deep.  An estimated 1,400 billion tons of methane is stored in these deposits.  By comparison, total human greenhouse gas emissions (including CO2) since 1750 amount to some 350 billion tons.

Significant methane release can occur when on-shore permafrost is thawed by a warmer atmosphere (unlikely to occur in significance on less than a century timescale) and undersea clathrate at relatively shallow depths is melted by warming water.  This is now occurring. In both cases, methane gas bubbles to the surface with little or no oxidation, entering the atmosphere as CH4 – a powerful greenhouse gas which increases local, then Arctic atmospheric and ocean temperature, resulting in progressively deeper and larger deposits of clathrate melting.

Methane released from deeper deposits such as those found off Svalbard has to pass through a much higher water column (>300 meters) before reaching the surface.  As it does so, it oxidises to CO2, dissolving in seawater or reaching the atmosphere as CO2 which causes far slower warming, but can nevertheless contribute to ocean acidification.

A significant release of methane due to melting of the vast deposits trapped by permafrost and clathrate in the Arctic would result in massive loss of oxygen, particularly in the Arctic ocean but also in the atmosphere.  Resulting hypoxic conditions would cause large extinctions, especially of water breathing animals, which is what we find at the PETM.

Shakhova et al (2010) reports that the continental shelf of East Central Siberia (ECS), with an area of over 2 million km2, is emitting more methane than all other ocean sources combined.  She calculates that methane venting from the ECS is now in the order of 8 million tons per annum and increasing.  This equates to ~200 million tons/annum of CO2, more than the combined CO2 emissions of Scandinavia and the Benelux countries in 2007.  This methane is likely sourced from non-hydrate methane previously kept in place by thin and now melting permafrost at the sea bed, melting clathrates, or some combination of both.

Release of ECS methane is already contributing to Arctic amplification resulting in temperature increase exceeding twice the global average.  The rate of release from the tundra alone is predicted to reach 1.5 billion tons of carbon per annum before 2030, contributing to accelerated climate change, perhaps resulting in sustained decadal doubling of ice loss causing collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hansen et al, 2011).  This would result in a possible sea level rise of ~5 meters before 2100, according to Hansen et al.

Evidence supports the theory that sudden and massive releases of greenhouse gases, including methane, caused decade-scale climate changes – with consequent species extinctions – culminating in the Holocene Thermal Optimum.

‘Ware the Kraken

In summary, immense quantities of methane clathrate have been identified in the Arctic.  Were a fraction of these to melt, the result would be massive release of carbon, initially as CH4 causing deeper clathrate to melt and oxidise, adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  Were this to occur, it would greatly worsen global warming.

While natural global warming during the ice ages was initiated by increased solar radiation caused by cyclic changes to Earth’s orbital parameters, there is no evident mechanism for correcting Anthropogenic Global Warming over the next several centuries.  The latter has already begun producing methane and CO2 in the Arctic, starting a feedback process which may lead to uncontrollable, very dangerous global warming, akin to that which occurred at the PETM.

This extremis we ignore – to our peril.

– Agnostic & Daniel Bailey

JR:  It is worth noting that no climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra. Indeed the NSIDC/NOAA study I wrote about in February on methane release by the land-based permafrost itself doesn’t even incorporate the carbon released by the permafrost carbon feedback into its warming model!

As I wrote last year, the nations of the world should immediately begin emergency methane monitoring across the entire permafrost region — and, of course, aggressive GHG mitigation.  The risk of abrupt climate change is simply too grave to not treat as the most serious preventable problem now facing the human race as a whole.

Related posts and amplifying feedbacks:

NOTE:  Kraken are “legendary sea monsters of gargantuan size.”   Tennyson wrote a poem called, “The Kraken,” about the undersea monter who sleeps, “Until the latter fire shall heat the deep.”

Posted via email from The New Word Order

The Preferred Pain Theory

via Dilbert.com Blog on 4/24/11

The common sense view of pain and pleasure is that humans seek pleasure and try to avoid pain. Lately I've come to wonder if that's backwards, or at least incomplete. I see too many examples in which people appear to be chasing pain.

My theory is that our biggest motivator is the need to feel alive, and that pleasure isn't a sharp enough feeling to get us there. When you're bored or lonely, you're feeling something closer to death than life. And so you seek out pain to remind yourself that you're alive. By this theory, the quest for pain is the primary motivator of all major life choices.

One test of a theory is that it can predict people's actions. And indeed you can see that people routinely choose activities that deliver pain. Consider a distance runner, for example. The health benefits of running are largely achieved in the first few miles. The rest is a pain that confirms we are alive.

You might argue that runners get a high, and they get great satisfaction from achieving a better time or finishing a marathon. I'm going to argue that the pleasures are side benefits. But first I will add one more condition to my theory: Everyone chooses the pain they like best. For the runner, muscle pain is the drug of choice. For a soldier in a volunteer army, it might be the fear of combat, or the harsh living conditions. For the entrepreneur, it might be the fear of failing. Everyone picks their own brand of pain. Sometimes we call that pain "challenge" to disguise it.

So far, all of the activities I mentioned have identifiable pleasures. The soldier gets the feeling of pride in serving the country, veteran benefits, and sometimes the thrill of combat. The entrepreneur gets the satisfaction of doing things his own way, and with any luck, riches too. These examples are ambiguous because the participants get both pain and pleasure. And if these examples were the only ones we had, I would not have a theory. We also need examples where people clearly choose pain over pleasure. That would be the best evidence for the theory.

Consider sports. Most sports are designed to guarantee failure for the majority of participants. In amateur tennis, if you join a league, and you start winning more than you lose, the computer rankings bump you up to the next level where you will mostly lose. You would think that a system designed to make participants feel like losers most of the time would become extinct, but it thrives.

Golf is an entire game built around making something that is naturally easy - putting a ball into a hole - as difficult as possible, to guarantee plenty of losing. In football you're normally thwarted every few yards. In baseball you strike out more than you hit. If winning were the payoff, sports would be a business where participants paid opponents to intentionally lose.

Perhaps you think losing is necessary to make the winning feel good. But consider small kids. For them, life is so vivid that they need no reminder they are alive. Every second is a miracle. And little kids prefer activities with no losing whatsoever. Only the winning appeals to them. As we get older, and our sensation of living dulls, we seek the pain that confirms our existence. We seek sports to increase our losing.

You might know people who continuously make choices that put them in some sort of danger, economically, socially, or physically. To you, their choices seem unwise. You assume that the people who make those choices get some sort of payoff you can't understand. I think the payoff is the pain itself, and the attendant feeling of being alive.

If sadness is your preferred pain, you watch sad movies. If muscle soreness is your preferred pain, you exercise vigorously. If economic uncertainty is your preferred pain, you pick fights with your boss. If stress is your preferred pain, you make sure you don't leave enough time to do what you need to do.

This theory came to me recently when a number of people asked me, in all seriousness, if I've gone insane. It seems to the reasonable observer that I've intentionally stirred up more trouble for myself in this blog than can be explained by the pursuit of pleasure. Where's my payoff?

If you look at most of my career choices, they have in common an unusually high risk of public criticism. I like the pleasures of success, but I need the pain of criticism. And because mine is a relatively rare form of preferred pain, it looks like insanity to the casual observer. To me, extreme sports look like a form of insanity. To each his own.

Consider your own life choices as an adult. Do you have a preferred pain for feeling alive?

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Life in an Alternative Universe

via Firedoglake by dakine01 on 4/24/11

(photo: Peter Shone)

I am becoming more and more convinced that there are multiple parallel universes occupying life on this one planet we call Earth. It is seemingly the only even remotely rational explanation for the disconnect between the views of most people in the United States (and the World) versus the views of the Beltway Villagers, Media Courtiers, and the excessively affluent.

Friday’s NY Times presented the results of a poll of the “Nation’s Mood”:

Americans are more pessimistic about the nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Amid rising gas prices, stubborn unemployment and a cacophonous debate in Washington over the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations, the poll presents stark evidence that the slow, if unsteady, gains in public confidence earlier this year that a recovery was under way are now all but gone.

Capturing what appears to be an abrupt change in attitude, the survey shows that the number of Americans who think the economy is getting worse has jumped 13 percentage points in just one month. Though there have been encouraging signs of renewed growth since last fall, many economists are having second thoughts, warning that the pace of expansion might not be fast enough to create significant numbers of new jobs.

So what are the Media Courtiers reporting on? The Washington Post had this report on the “Biden deficit task force”:

A congressional task force launched by President Obama last week to help cut the federal deficit is off to a rocky start, with some members complaining that the agenda is destined to provide political theater, not a sweeping rewrite of spending and tax policy.

Set to begin discussions May 5, members already hit a dispute this week, disagreeing over how many people should have seats at the table. Some are asking what’s the point of meeting at all.

“I’m at a loss to understand what the purpose is,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday in an interview. He said Obama had not set a timeline for any decisions, although lawmakers from both parties are calling for some agreement on deficit reduction before the government reaches a limit in the coming months on how much money it can borrow.

We have 14M to 15M unemployed, roughly 25M to 30M un and underemployed combined, millions more who are now “self-employed/independent contractors” or who have just given up and when they become eligible, are taking early Social Security and politicians are arguing over how many people will be “at the table?” [cont'd.]This shit reminds me of nothing so much as the stories of the early negotiations on the Korean War where supposedly they had to vote on the size of the fucking table used for the negotiations before they could actually negotiate an end to the fighting.

Meanwhile the WaPo0 had another story about investors betting against the US dollar and looking for investments with returns in other currencies:

Last month, Warren Buffett went shopping — abroad.

He flew to South Korea for a factory opening and called the country a “hunting ground” for investments. He also pronounced post-earthquake Japan “a buying opportunity,” and then traveled on to India, where he said he was eyeing more acquisitions.

This is Buffett’s way of betting against the U.S. dollar. Armed with about $38 billion of cash at Berkshire Hathaway, he can use dollars now to buy companies that will generate profits in other currencies for years to come. (Buffett is a director on the Washington Post Co. board.)

…snip…

Buffett isn’t alone. Some of the most successful investors in the United States and the biggest money management funds are worried that trade deficits, big budget deficits and the possibility of renewed inflation will make the U.S. dollar a weak currency compared with others around the world. On Thursday, the dollar fell to an 181 / 2-month low against the euro.

Mr Buffett, with your money, are you sure you can’t find some good investment opportunities within the US? Seriously? Maybe if the (lack of) jobs situation were to improve, there could be a bit of growth in US exports as well as more revenues in the government coffers to off set those vile “big budget deficits” everyone is so very worried about.

Reuters is reporting on how businesses are having to show how they will grow overseas:

(Reuters) – Large blue chips, including some consumer-oriented companies, will have to show they can counter sluggish developed economies by leveraging growth in emerging markets and technology — if Wall Street is to maintain earnings momentum next week.

Companies like Microsoft, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola, unloved on Wall Street, could turn out to be good buys if they can show they justify higher valuations than investors are now willing to give them.

…snip…

Growth is now concentrated in industrial, materials and energy stocks that benefit from strong demand in emerging markets, as well as a technology sector boosted by robust demand from businesses.

Fareed Zakaria at Time Magazine seems to think things are looking good for at least the short term though he is concerned about the long term:

In fact, the real problem is that this short-term good news means Washington isn’t really acting as if it faces a crisis, no matter the rhetoric. Democrats are still clinging to entitlement programs with no talk of real cost cutting, though the current system is clearly unaffordable. Republicans pretend the U.S. is on the brink of losing the world’s trust, but they don’t really believe that. If they did, they would not play politics with the vote to raise the country’s debt ceiling; they would also agree to raise taxes or just repeal the Bush-era tax cuts. That one step would stabilize America’s finances for a decade (though the entitlement system would still need fundamental reform for the long run). Other than the Gang of Six in the Senate, people are still pushing their ideologies rather than fixing the problem. The great danger is that once again, the American economy will outperform expectations and relieve politicians from having to make hard choices about entitlements and taxes. But it will only postpone the day of reckoning and make the crash more painful.

Earth to Fareed – a lot of the problems you are seeing could be helped quite a bit by fixing the (lack of) jobs problem in the US. And we wouldn’t have to treat the “Gang of Six” as if they were doing anything more than trying to destroy the Social Safety net for older Americans.

US News & World Report (via Yahoo) isn’t even pretending anymore with this article headlined:

How to Tell if You Are Wealthy

Of course, we don’t need to see articles headlined “How to Tell if You Are Poor.” Most of us just look at our bank accounts and it is quite obvious. I’ve joked for years that I’m “Rich in everything but money” (and yes, the pun is intended). It would just be nice to be able to know that I will be able to survive these next five or ten or twenty years.

There are millions of people in the same reality that I am in and we look in wonder upon the (lack of) reality voiced by the people who purport to represent us. I know which side of the realities I’m betting on as being more realistic but I’m also betting that reality has no ability to penetrate the Beltway cocoons.

And because I can:

Cross posted from Just A Small Town Country Boy

Share This icon 

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Madness: Right-Wingers Are Serious About Trying to Undermine Child Labor Laws

via AlterNet by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on 4/23/11

Yes, they are trying to roll back the 20th century.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Least-efficient search-engine use ever

via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow on 4/23/11

I knew an executive assistant who used to print out her boss's emails and then reply to them on his behalf based on his dictated responses; I thought that was a pretty inefficient way of using the net. According to Nicole Laporte's The Men Who Would Be King (a book about the history of Dreamworks), Jeffery Katzenberg used to get an assistant to run search queries for him and video record the results so that he could review them later.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Rumor: LHC Sees Hint of Higgs Boson

via Wired Top Stories by Lisa Grossman on 4/22/11

A leaked internal memo from physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider reports a whiff of the Higgs boson, the long-sought theoretical particle that could make or break the standard model of particle physics. It may turn out to be nothing, but if it's real, it's not what scientists were expecting.

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Dead Media Beat: “Programmed Visions: Software and Memory” by Wendy Chun

via Beyond The Beyond by Bruce Sterling on 4/22/11

*Hmmm. Interesting notion here… Maybe it’s all software’s fault!

http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2011/04/new-software-studies-book-programmed.html

“New media thrives on cycles of obsolescence and renewal: from celebrations of cyber-everything to Y2K, from the dot-com bust to the next big things–mobile mobs, Web 3.0, cloud computing.

“In Programmed Visions, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun argues that these cycles result in part from the ways in which new media encapsulates a logic of programmability. New media proliferates “programmed visions,” which seek to shape and predict–even embody–a future based on past data. These programmed visions have also made computers, based on metaphor, metaphors for metaphor itself, for a general logic of substitutability.

“Chun approaches the concept of programmability through the surprising materialization of software as a “thing” in its own right, tracing the hardening of programming into software and of memory into storage. She argues that the clarity offered by software as metaphor should make us pause, because software also engenders a profound sense of ignorance: who knows what lurks behind our smiling interfaces, behind the objects we click and manipulate? The less we know, the more we are shown.

“This paradox, Chun argues, does not diminish new media’s power, but rather grounds computing’s appeal. Its combination of what can be seen and not seen, known (knowable) and not known–its separation of interface from algorithm and software from hardware–makes it a powerful metaphor for everything we believe is invisible yet generates visible, logical effects, from genetics to the invisible hand of the market, from ideology to culture.”

Posted via email from The New Word Order

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Mobile users: ready to pay extra for Skype, IM, streaming video?

via Ars Technica by nate@arstechnica.com (Nate Anderson) on 4/22/11

What happens when a major mobile operator gets tired of people ditching voice calls and text messages for cheaper Skype calls and instant messaging? It just blocks those services and charges a monthly fee to access them.

It has long been clear that Internet providers, especially in mobile, would much prefer offering pay TV-style "packages" or services rather than one-price access to an Internet data pipe. "Want access to Facebook? Ah, that's part of our 'premium gold' plan."

Read the rest of this article...

Read the comments on this post

Posted via email from The New Word Order