Thoughts While Waiting

Made In Germany

2010-07-02T08:27:00.000-04:00

This week's project is tiling a wall in the bath. Not by choice - the tiles showed clear signs that they wanted to fall off the wall. I had been hoping that this could be delayed until we were ready to install an all new kitchen and bath. Oh well.

As usual, opening the wall revealed some mighty sketchy work by the previous owner. No wonder the tiles wanted to decamp: the only thing holding them up was the pressure of one against the other. No adhesive, no grout. Beside leaving no room for grout, the supporting wall was "floppy". Tiles (being brittle ceramic) want to have a nice rigid support. So I set off for the home center to purchase some 2 x 4's to reinforce the structure.

In the course of happily cutting the timber to size, I noticed that the 2 x 4's are labelled "Made In Germany"

Imagine that.
Here we are in the United States, with scads of timber lands, with forestry workers out of work, and we are buying 2 x 4's from Germany. Germany that is a high wage country, where there is universal health care, pensions, and so on. We're not talking about Malaysia or China or Vietnam or Africa. Honestly, we cannot effectively compete for lumber with Germany?

Something is seriously wrong here.

---

The Great West

2010-06-21T10:14:00.000-04:00

Today Kevin Hillstrom notes that Crutchfield Electronics released a new catalog with a "3D" cover - unique imaginative and eye catching. And, in the same post, he references a new iPad application: iBreviary. This includes the entire Missal, the content of the Catholic Mass for each and every day, in a convenient iPad form. Perhaps you recall the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, wherein King Arthur deployed "the holy hand grenade..." Cast Mr. Jobs of Apple as King Arthur.

Apple, of course, is in California, about as far west as you can travel in the lower 48 states. But that is not the Great West I have in mind.

One school holiday my daughter and I made a small expedition to Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio to see the aircraft museum there. On our way we drove west across New York State, Pennsylvania into Ohio. As we were driving through the farmland I remarked that in the early to mid-nineteenth century, when people spoke of "The West" they were talking about the area near the Great Lakes. That the association with the Great Plains past the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Coast developed later.

The Erie Canal made communication possible between New York, the Eastern Seaboard and the "West," much as the internet, iPads and smartphones unleashed new kinds of communication more recently.

My daughter took this all in thoughtfully as the farmland flowed past. Finally she said:

"Yes, I see."

---

DIY

2010-06-04T10:21:00.000-04:00

Lately I have noticed a little increase in talk about "DIY" (do-it-yourself). In particular in the context of what has been called "hardware hacking". DIY is fairly self explanatory. Hardware hacking, on the other hand, may need an explanation. The "hacking" part is a reference to the eponymous software hackers (presumably the good kind - curious helpful experimenters that helped power our computer revolutions). The "hardware" part too initially referred to computer builders who assembled and customized their own PC's. This has been expanded.

The hardware hacker is now someone who is not content to accept what professional designers and manufacturers produce for us. Particularly, they resist the "closed" model - sealing the inner workings of the product so completely that it is extremely difficult for the user to "look inside" let alone to modify or extend something that they already have paid for and own. In effect: "I bought it and paid for it. It is mine, so why can I not use it, inside and out, as I see fit?" Very libertarian, but not at all unreasonable.

In part it is a reaction to the world being reduced to a digital form: books, movies, music and culture. All placed in the hands of people and institutions who, presumably, have your best interests at heart. And theirs too of course. This new crop of hardware hackers are enabled by a range of tools and services. You can buy a laser cutter (way expensive) or send a design to Ponoko who will cut it for you. You can buy a 3D printer kit for less that $1000 or you can send a design to Shapeways who will print it, in 3D, for you. You can download free design software (SketchUp or Blender). And there are a plethora of electronics and robotics web sites, like AdaFruit Industries to help you understand the mysteries of our electro-digital world.

It is interesting that the description of these people has become "DIY'ers." An indication perhaps of how malleable language is. DIY is nothing new. It used to be called self-sufficiency, and it was not an option. You and your neighbors had to have tools at the farm and know how to use them. Or things would not get done.

In my thinking though, there are three "making-modifying" archetypes.

First is the professional. Relatively speaking, I think the professional is a new-comer. Back in the day, go back before the 19th century, everyone did what they needed themselves. Using a professional was an exception, rather than a rule for ordinary folks. Kings and nobles of course always used professionals: the trained designers, craftspeople and manufacturers. But for the lesser classes? Do it yourself.

Then there are hobbyist and amateurs. In early days this depended on a certain level of wealth. You explore the mysteries of art and science for the joy of it - that makes you an amateur, a hobbyist. But you must have the means to do so, or a benefactor. Nowadays many people can pursue their interests. The "hardware hackers" are, to my way of thinking, in this category.

They are capable of making significant strides and discoveries that will be adopted more widely in the "professional" setting. At first, as usual, the professionals will attempt to protect their turf and insist that amateur work is polluting the fine work that has taken years to develop. So be it.

Which brings me back to DIY.

The hardware hacker, the amateur, the hobbyist are not DIY'ers. They do what they do for the love of it and habitually.

DIY acts more out of absolute self sufficiency (as in the rural farm) or voluntary self sufficiency (as in take care of one's own for the satisfaction of doing so) or out of economy (as in doing it better at lower cost). DIY is done out of needfulness, often the need of the moment. The toilet is cracked and so must be replaced now. It may be done frequently, or sporadically. One may prefer to DIY but that does not make it a hobby.

A professional plies his trade for money profit.

A hobbyist/amateur follows his inclination for satisfaction.

A DIY'er satisfies a need of the moment.

---

A little knowledge

2010-06-03T10:43:00.000-04:00

Last night's lecture, along with component vectors, included a short diversion on why we study strength of materials. The importance of properly judging the requirements of a structure, the loads placed on it and the forces in place on each component part.

"You might," the Professor said, "be required to specify an eye-bolt for a playground swing. Perhaps these eye-bolts will be installed in thousands of playgrounds throughout the city. Parents and children will depend on your judgement to insure that, no matter how many kids and parents jump on that swing, the eye-bolt will hold."

Then he had a slightly far-away look as he went on: "One day we went to the park with my kids and they jumped on a tire swing and I watched as the supporting beam twisted and deflected. And I wondered if the engineer who designed this structure took all the forces into account."

A little knowledge raises all sorts of questions that you would not have previously considered.

---

Buggy Whip Businesses

2010-04-23T11:04:00.000-04:00

I just can't resist this wonderful quote:

"This is a business that is in inexorable secular decline...companies [in that industry] are doing their best to find synergies to preserve the economics of their business."

- Craig Moffett of Bernstein Research to The New York Times (4/23/2010 p.B3)

I call them buggy whip businesses.

At one time buggy whips and all the appurtenances of horse drawn transportation were big business. Really big. Then came the car.

Washboards were a significant business. Then came the washing machine.

Steam locomotives, streetcars, telegraph, vacuum tubes, punch cards, and of course Mr. Moffett's subject: telephone companies. And, one could expand this list considerably, not even including industries that "move" to outsource regions.

None of these are "fashion" or "fad" industries. No hula hoops or pet rocks or whale bone corset stays. They are real, significant industries. Some simply disappear entirely, others evolve, some decline to a tiny size, serving the remaining customers in that industry until they too close down or adopt different methods.

Look around and observe, if you can, which industries, companies and organizations are out-of-step or obsolete.

Can you see a "buggy whip" business?

Are you part of one?

---

Little Corner Specialty Store

2010-04-12T08:56:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the sole proprietor is ready for a comeback: the tiny business or store that has a very, very narrow specialty. The issue:

"... we're seeing the slow, steady, inevitable erosion of a mass audience that could be reached via mass marketing tools... customers are dispersing into an infinite combination of preferences, and as a result, cannot be targeted in an efficient manner using traditional techniques. - Kevin Hillstrom's MineThatData Blog

If the customers are condensing into discrete drops of interest, then companies serving them will either be small and focused or will learn to spawn small enthusiastically focused autonomous departments.

Soon we will all be working at home in our little trades, just like we did many decades ago, except then we were farmers, shoemakers, candlemakers and tailors. And, for the most part people people back then were not as well off or as healthy as we are today.

Interesting implications.

---

The Latest Hackerspaces

2010-04-11T10:38:00.000-04:00

Exciting! This Sunday (April 11, 2010) New York Times profiled "TechShop", a business in Menlo Park, California, that provides classes, equipment and workspace to aspiring inventors and tinkerers. TechShop started four years ago, in 2006, and plans shops in Durham, NC and San Francisco, CA, each equipped with Laser Cutters, Lathes, Milling Machines, and a range of workspaces and gear that one might not readily have about the house. The pictures in the article dramatically portray the owners amidst a spray of sparks and steel, and a member who has developed a new method of making synthetic diamonds.

TechShop is not the first such space, nor the only. There are many "hacker-spaces" (here is a worldwide list) created on the enthusiasm of a few key people in a community (we geeky ones) around which other like minded tinkerers gather. Many are supported by monthly club dues that finance the rent and buy the equipment. Like most organizations they rise and fall on the support of their members and sometimes on the energy of one or two of those key people. On occasion, they get space or support from sympathetic organizations like schools, museums, companies etc.

TechShop is a great idea. But I am worried. The times article reports that TechShop's main location in Menlo Park has 600 members and needs 1,000 members or more to turn a profit. Oh boy. After being in business for four years they are not terribly close to having enough business to turn a profit. This is worrisome because I have seen this scenario before (which doesn't mean they will repeat it, I must hasten to point out).

In the 1970's and 1980's this kind of thing started up as well. Spaces for doing a variety of crafts were established, often in old low rent industrial areas. My most direct experience was woodworking shops. The craft of woodworking experienced a big surge and spaces were established along much the same lines. Classes, bench space, materials and tools for sale, access to equipment you couldn't have at home.

I visited quite a few in my role as a salesman of tools and machinery. The owners or leaders were always really enthusiastic. The members were totally gung-ho. It seemed great, but there were never enough members to sustain the organization. Raising dues would cut the membership further but lower dues did not bring in more members (as was told to me). Inevitably costs would rise and the group would disband (too bad) or reorganize (much better).

There seem to be four types of "crafter-inventor-tinkerer",

The serious one who is devoted,
The one who likes it as a hobby,
The one that fills an immediate need,
The one who is a "trier"

Only the first will be a long standing member. The hobbyist will frequently be "away" from the hobby in deference to other activities (work, family). And the last two are "one-shot" users.

So there is your problem. The hacker-space must either have outside support (as a school or museum does) or be able to keep costs really low, at the level such that the serious members dues alone will support the costs. Dues of the other groups will fluctuate wildly, and though some small portion of them should become "serious" members, the costs of serving them may exceed what they contribute.

Now up on my soapbox:

The thing we need to do is to get high schools and universities to re-introduce shop and crafts as a mandatory part of the curriculum. This at least exposes more people to the possibilities of creativity and "how it is done". And that will be your source of designers, engineers and "hackers". Then TechShop will have plenty of people to fill their shop too.

Hobbies are good, but hobbies reflect the trends and fads in society and are just as changeable. Where there used to be hobby and model shops there are now video game shops. Where there used to be electronic shops selling radio parts, there are now mobile phone stores (think Radio Shack). You might be surprised to know that Radio Shack started out as a store for leather-crafting tools and supplies. Try finding a store for that in your local shopping mall today.

---

Air Sandwiches

2010-03-31T09:30:00.000-04:00

This is my favorite phrase of the week : "Air Sandwich"

You might say it was two pieces of bread with nothing in the middle.

But my favorite definition is by Nilofer Merhcant in Business Week:

An Air Sandwich is what happens when the leadership within an organization issues orders from 80,000 feet and lobs them down to the folks at 20,000 feet. Without the benefit of feedback, questions, or even a reality check from below, this strategy isn't destined for blazing success.

You walk into a meeting and the "the on-high" announces a new plan, and the first words that pop into you head are "yes, but." Then you know they are serving air sandwiches.

I Will Print A New Part For You

2010-03-17T10:49:00.000-04:00

At the University of Bath (UK) Dr Adrian Bowyer has been working on the Rep Rap project for some time. The goals are simple to state: to build a machine that can reproduce itself, and to make the plans for that machine readily and freely accessible to anyone interested.

A short (10 min.) video of Dr. Bowyer gives a good overview. And the RepRap Project site has more details for those looking for more detail.

The machine itself is a 3D printer, which of course must be connected to a computer to work. In principle, I suppose, the project might eventually build its own computer, but that seems a bit of a stretch at present. Still, the control for the 3D printer head is basically using instruction called "G-Code", a method, for positioning and controlling machine tools, that has been in use for many decades before small computers were available. It is entirely feasible to control the RepRap machine using a punched tape (though that seems somewhat archaic).

Is this just an interesting intellectual exercise? Well, no it isn't. It has important practical implications. Certainly there is the science fiction idea of a 3D printer ( a "replicator" in sci-fi parlance) on everyone's desktop. Perhaps, perhaps not. Not everyone is a designer, but anyone could "print" a model that was sent as a computer file in an email.

That is the real first implication of this concept. Everyone can recall when a repair technician came to your home or office only to leave for a few days because they had to "wait for a part to come in". Imagine instead if the technician said:

"I'll be back in a moment, I have to go down to the truck and I will print a new part for you."

But Mr. Will

2010-03-09T08:37:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday (March 7, 2010) This Week on ABC featured a round table on Health Care Reform. Among the participants: George Will and Robert Reich. Mr. Will support competition which, in general, I consider a good tool but not the only one in the tool box.

In the course of the discussion Mr. Reich agreed that competition was fine provided there is reasonable regulation to prevent a "race to the bottom" in low quality coverage at low cost. Mr Will countered that it is clear to everyone that insurance can be sold nationwide (e.g. Geico and Allstate), and that we are all not so dumb that we cannot make good decisions without being overprotected by government.

This is a vast oversimplification. Health Insurance is not at all comparable to car or home insurance. Your insurer does not maintain, repair or clean your car or home unless something has truly happened to it. In that sense Health Insurance is a misnomer. We are really talking about Health Service Contracts.

In that case we have two issues:
First, how can such contracts be presented with sufficient clarity and transparency to permit a consumer, an average consumer, to make a reasonable decision?

Second, if the insurance company is not providing the services (drugs, surgery, tests, etc.) but instead are only financial service companies. they are not in a position to control costs. In fact, a health insurer is in the position where high costs are advantageous. To the insurer, higher costs mean a large amount to be "financed" and the opportunity to earn a profit on a larger sum.

It will be difficult to control health insurance costs because they are "downstream" from the real costs. And, this adds another "layer" of distribution between the consumer (us) and the doctors and clinics that provide service.

This leads one to the hypothesis that the way to reduce health care costs is to remove the health insurance companies altogether (including public ones). In that case consumer will have to purchase medical care direct from providers. This eliminates the profit and overheads of insurance companies. However, there is an issue of quality assurance and a public health need to be sure that people don't elect for too little care.

---

First Greenspan, Now Ravitch

2010-03-03T09:12:00.000-05:00

On October 23, 2008, Alan Greenspan testified before congress, as reported in the The NY Times article "Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation". This gist of it: His view of the world, and the forces that shape and regulate it, was flawed. Seriously flawed. And in viewing the testimony one could see that this revelation shook him severely.

One might suppose that the left leaning liberals would have felt smug and the conservative right would search for reasons why the free market still "works". Pragmatists, however, would most likely hold that indeed the free market "works" it just doesn't work perfectly. This is the real world, not an academic experiment.

Today's NY Times reports on Dr. Diane Ravitch:
"Once outspoken about the power of standardized testing, charter schools and free markets to improve schools, Dr. Ravitch is now caustically critical. She underwent an intellectual crisis, she says, discovering that these strategies, which she now calls faddish trends, were undermining public education. She resigned last year from the boards of two conservative research groups."

From the report it seems that Dr. Ravitch is not as shaken by her revision as Mr. Greenspan was. It is notable, however, that two influential people have significantly reevaluated their point of view based on new information. It may well be that these two folks, operating in different spheres, are not, at present, in a position to directly influence policy. And indeed, others who have a pecuniary interest in the previous philosophy may impeded change (as usual).

Still, I am hopeful. Progress is achieved when we try different things and observe the results, changing our actions (or not) based on what we have learned. The key point: let facts and results inform our decisions and experiment from that point.

From the film Duck Soup (1933):
Mrs. Teasdale: Your Excellency, I thought you'd left!
Chicolini: Oh no, I no leave.
Mrs. Teasdale: But I saw you with my own eyes!
Chicolini: Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

---

Stove Burner Madness

2010-02-25T08:03:00.000-05:00

Recently one of my friends told me that one's kitchen ought to be renovated about every 10 years. Apparently this keeps up the value of your home. Nice if you have the dough, I suppose. We've been here for 15 years with the same kitchen and I reckon it was last "done" 25 years before that, more or less. When we moved in we bought a new dishwasher, that's been about it. No question our kitchen is a little tumble-down. I'd rather have money in the bank.

On our arrival the stove was barely functioning. Accurate Appliance came by, tuned it up and replaced one of the cook top burners. The stove and ovens have worked well for years. Lately I see that the burners are looking pretty sad, with flames creeping out from underneath the heads. It just doesn't seem safe or efficient. An Internet search turned up what seemed like the right part. I ordered one to make sure it fit and functioned right. After a few days it arrived.

Just like the old ones and all shiny, silver and new, great! But when I went to install it - oh no! The igniter holes were in the wrong place. It had been assembled wrong and, as it was permanently crimped together, I could not rework it. A call to customer service confirmed that I had the correct part. It seemed that I was simply today's lucky winner (I would have preferred to win something more substantial). They said they would send another and, no, they did not need details on what was wrong - the customer rep had no real connection to the warehouse.

A couple of days later the replacement arrived. It was just right, what a relief. So I ordered the next three. That shipment: one good two faulty. But they are still very nice, and are sending two more. At this rate I suppose only two more shipments will get it all right.

So that is why you renovate your kitchen every ten years.
It's just too hard to get replacement burner heads.

Its Not What We Do Here

2010-02-18T10:20:00.002-05:00

"It's not what we do here."
I have always been astonished to the extent that people just "go along" with the status quo. Whatever has been done in the past, that is what shall be done in the future, no matter how foolish or misguided. In the case of low level clerks and shop floor hands, this is understandable. How are they to know? But they do.

Once, as a manager, I discontinued a task that no longer had a valid reason for being done.
The clerks turned to me and said:
"We often asked each other why that task is done, clearly no one needed it."
"So why not say something?" I asked.
The reply:
"Well, we are only clerks, no one asked us, and what do we know about management decisions anyway?"
They knew more than management it seemed.

And so it goes. We have always done it this way:
Always filed the yellow flimsy carbon copy (that nobody ever retrieves).
Always advertised in the newspaper (readership has declined 50%).
Always sent out catalogs.
Always answered the phone with a automated attendant.
Always filled orders in 6-8 weeks.
Always closed for inventory for three days.
Always, Always, Always done it that way.

And now I come to discover that "always done it that way" extends to technical and scientific areas as well. My studies of engineering have led to a greater understanding of the properties of materials. It happens that in a previous job I was involved in product development, acting as liaison with a manufacturer of machinery of which we were a distributor.

The manufacturer decided to expand their offering, to make larger machines than they had before. They proposed to use the manufacturing technology and materials that they knew and simply make larger products. Intuitively, having been a woodworker, I felt that simply scaling up a design could lead to problems. There are frequently other considerations.

I broached my concerns, but the manufacturer's management and marketing team assured me that they had decades of experience and that the plan would work fine. As it turned out, they were wrong. The materials and techniques that they employed with small products simply did not scale up well to larger ones. The new larger machines were simply at the boundary, or a little past the boundary, of what would work using those materials and technology. These problems contributed to the ultimate demise of that company.

Now, having studied the technical aspects, I can see what the problems were from a material science point of view. But what is curious is "why". The engineers at the plant were well trained and experienced, graduates from Swiss and German technical universities. They certainly knew what I have recently discovered, it is not new information. Why did they not raise these points? How did this occur?

It happened because engineers and scientists, doctors and lawyers, clerks and craftspeople are all subject to the pressure of their bosses. Someone in management said "We want to do it like this." Managers, bosses and owners are not used to being questioned, certainly not by the people that work for them. Sales and marketing people are smooth, well spoken, confident and convincing. Those who are charged with doing the work cooperatively work with the parameters given, even if they think the parameters are foolish.

Keep that in mind the next time a doctor, technician, mechanic, or clerk tells you something that seems a little odd.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair

Text Is Much Richer

2010-02-11T08:11:00.000-05:00

A remarkable statement: "Text chat is much richer [that talking]. It’s much easier to be vulnerable in writing, to have thoughtful responses, to ask disarming questions. You have a moment to think, to compose yourself."

That posting, in the blog fenced lot [sic], is nominally about the web service Chat Roulette. That service creates an opportunity for random audio/video/text chats with strangers, much as you might have while waiting at an airport or train station. As interesting as random connections with strangers may be, I am more forcefully impressed with a comment praising the richness of writing.

I have missed the art of the letter, particularly in business communications. Email, text, twitter have tended to shorten response time. Replies have tended to be immediate reactions rather than thoughtful response. Dumb things are said, in text, which are difficult to take back or dissemble. Innocent remarks are misconstrued as willful sleights.

"Text chat is much richer." How can it be ? It is, perhaps, an evolutionary or developmental response. We have become assimilated to the intensive modern flow of information. Between all the devices, services and screens that surround us, we have learned to tune out much of the noise. We selectively hear and see only that which is of personal importance. Much like living next to a freeway. After a while you simply no longer hear the traffic.

In comparison to that incessant barrage of high volume, rapid-fire information, a text chat now seems positively leisurely, a chance to compose one's thoughts.

Micro Audiences

2010-02-04T13:02:00.000-05:00

We are in the era of Micro Markets. As compared to Mass Markets, Micro Markets are a tiny sub-group of an organizations customers, clients or patients. For a clothing store this might be: women between 25 and 30 years old who buy one piece swimsuits over the Internet. For an eye doctor: all patients who are men, nearsighted, wear contact lenses and make appointments in the morning.

It is easy to see, or course, how one might address each group clearly and specifically, much like the coffee guy that remembers how you like your morning cup of java. One begins to think in terms of "what would these people, this person, like best?"

An interesting take on this is a project that has been running at the Brooklyn Museum of Art for the last year called 1stFans. In summary, it is a low cost membership for people who like social networking via the net (twitter, facebook etc.). The Museum posts regular updates on the social networks and members get some perks (behind the scenes visits and so forth).

What caught my eye recently was their recent blog posting describing a survey of members after one year of operation, and the changes they will implement as a result. The survey was answered by just 35 people. That stopped me. Imagine making changes in a program based on the responses of just 35 people. That seemed odd, so I looked at the 1stFans twitter feed to see how many followers they have: 245. In that light 35 is likely a pretty representative sample, I suppose.

But stop and think about that. The 1stFans membership costs $20 per year. If there are 250 members that comes to $5000 per year in museum revenue. What, I wonder, does that cost the museum? Certainly the staff member who prepares the posting and updates can do this as well for 2500 people as for 250. But why after a year are there only 250 followers? What, if any, were the goals or expectations for this project? Granted, it is not a business. Still, the object of a Museum is to provide a setting for people to view objects they would not ordinarily be able to see: if people do not come and engage with the institution it is merely an unused archive.

These 1stFans' shared interest seems primarily in being part of an "inside" group. Would it be interesting for the museum to have several micro-audiences with specific interests that could be addressed directly? Would that create more interest among members and greater attendance and engagement?

If people are now all going to be addressed as members of micro-audiences, based on who they are and their interests, how many "groups" could one staff member be responsible for? Interesting questions.

Pining For The Fjords

2010-01-25T22:13:00.002-05:00

Soon we will dream wistfully for the long ago days of broadcast media. Our favorite entertainment beamed to us free of charge through the airwaves: comedy, drama, music, news. The trade-off? Listen to a minute or two of advertisements every quarter hour. Ah, for those halcyon days.

This evening I learned that the latest stable version of the Google Chrome browser has been released. A key feature: extensions, small helper programs that work with the browser providing additional features. The one I installed first: AdBlock. I use Chrome on my netbook, and Firefox on my more powerful desktop. Firefox has had the capability to install extensions for some time and I use AdBlock on it too. Now I am "ad-free" on either machine. If I wished, I could use Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) for which there is also an Ad blocking add-on.

Between them, those three browsers represent most of the web browsing access here, and probably around the world. Soon many people will learn that they need not see advertisements around every page they visit. No more dancing girls getting you to click on "lower your mortgage", no more flashy video mixed in to the television listings and around the news.

Problem? Yes, problem. Big problem. Billions of dollars depend upon those ads peppered all over the web. Google's existence is fueled by those ads. E-tailers, retailers, publishers, depend on those ads to help drive business to their websites. How will the search-powered results be paid for, if the ads don't get shown (and clicked) along with the results? If search isn't funded, then no search. If there is no search, no "organic results," no contextual ads alongside the results. There's a circle for you.

Options:

Subscription based content and services. If you want the newspaper online, you subscribe. If you want access to search, you subscribe.
The advertisers get even sneakier to outwit the ad blocker. That means ads that will probably be even more intrusive.
Broadcast style: every few minutes your browsing will be interrupted by an ad, just like on TV.
Even more email, twitter and social marketing disguised ads. And maybe more snail mail marketing.

But search has become essential. If the search companies cannot earn the revenue to fund search, will we be in the position of having to operate search, and the Internet, as a publicly funded service? The information superhighway will become more like our regular highways: publicly built and maintained. And not necessarily where we need them.

Oh, for the days when we turned on the radio and waited for the tubes to heat up.
I bet most people have no idea what that even means.

"...that parrot isn't dead, he's probably just pining for the fjords..." - Monty Python's Flying Circus' Parrot Sketch

Postscript:
Google seems to have a little workaround for this, but the only ad I see in my mail account is one for Indian Weddings at the Crystal Golf Resort, Crystal Springs, New Jersey. I wonder what algorithm matches me to an Indian Wedding. And will it feature curry or maize?
- - -

Separation of Risk and State

2010-01-25T13:53:00.000-05:00

Banks Will Be Sorted Out. President Obama, with the advice of Paul Volcker, proposes sorting the banks into two groups: "high risk" and "low risk" institutions. Somehow these companies will also be limited in size so that none are "too big to fail" when they "gamble".

Too Big To Fail is a subtle issue. For many situations size does matter. Up to a point, a larger company may be (emphasis: may be) more efficient that a smaller one, providing lower prices to consumers, better profits, stability and more products. The issue is less in their size and more in their number. If there are to be large companies there better be many, many large companies and many more medium and small ones. A failure, in that scenario, would be permissible in that the other players would pick up the slack. "Big" becomes relative to the size of the economy and the number of other firms in that industry or region. The risk to employees of failure at any one firm is greater when that is the only company in town.

An anthropomorphic view of corporations appears to have take hold somehow. The Supreme Court has just decided that corporations are as entitled to free speech as voting citizens are. Alan Greenspan thought that firms would act in their own best interest. And the current administrations wishes to "...rein in risky behavior at banks..." Corporations are expected to be responsible citizens. This provides nice insulation for managers and stock holders, no person is responsible, it is the corporation. This attitude is more than little unhealthy. Corporations, governments, institutions of any kind are not people. They do not act autonomously. Only people act, only people have moral fiber, for good or bad.

Risk is part of life, as is reward. It is difficult to get people to "connect" with the risk caused by their actions. For many managers personal risk is separate from risk to the organization. For a partnership or a sole proprietor, assets are directly at risk. Good decisions have potential to really enrich the owner. A bad decision can, literally, wipe him out. In the large company the manager (or employee) manages two risks simultaneously: the risk to the firm and the risk to himself. Often he can take considerable risks for the firm with little or no risk to himself: he will either be a hero or else get another high paying job.

Join actual risk and reward to personal actions and we might just have more stable responsible organizations. I can tell you from personal experience that this is difficult to accomplish. For some years I worked on sales and a large part of my income was in commissions. When I (or my staff) made good decisions I did well. When I made bad decisions, I felt it in my paycheck. Much latter I proposed to my fellow stockholders/partners that the pay of the active partners be largely in relation to profits and sales results. The risk was that after bad decisions we would receive only a minimal barely adequate salary, but if results of good decisions proved out our pay could be terrific. The response: no takers.

It is natural to want to be "safe," to have no risk. A large, advanced economy is certainly able to (and should) help organize relatively safe lives for its citizens, a baseline of support for those who venture to take a risk by going to school, starting a business or entering some public service. And, support for those who encounter some misfortune. The people who sweep up are every bit as essential as the top managers and entrepreneur. Society does not work without them. And, those who are willing to take risks, personal as well as financial, should be encouraged.

The Separation of Risk and State has become of critical concern. To what extent should society (a government) take risks? The state should not undertake the risk of normal commerce (as in bailing out the banks). However, some risk, even substantial risk is the proper province of government: the space program, the internet, railroad, canal, and road building are all enterprises that were speculative and risky at one time. But the payout was tremendous. We must actively consider how to better connect people to the risks they undertake, and to those risk we take as a society.
---

Times Skimmer

2010-01-23T09:42:00.000-05:00

This week the New York Times announced the impending change in their web site: You will have to pay to read the Times online. Indeed, most online sites based on content will have to go this route, to one degree or another. And I am okay with that. In the main, I prefer the paper Times. And for those who need it "free" there is always a copy at the public library.

To be truthful, I read more and more online, even the Times. Today I see a feature I had not notice before, called Times Skimmer. It is really a dandy addition to their site, making on-line browsing much more convenient and clear. You choose a section, page through thumbnails of headlines (often with a photo) and click when you see one you want to read.

It occurs to me, however, that there is an unforeseen side effect of the movement to on-line news: the Archives. True enough, the digitized archives of articles is far easier to search and retrieve today than the old card catalogs and microfilm. But microfilm provided something that digital retrieval does not: context.

Quick, go the the library and look at the microfilm of a newspaper from the nineteen fifties or sixties. I say quick, because I bet the microfilm readers will disappear soon. When you view the paper this way you have context: of the stories are arranged on the page, what has prominence, indicates what readers felt was important at the time (at least in the editors' view). The advertisements indicated what people used and bought, how their lives looked.

To contrast, retrieve articles from a newspaper or magazine online, through their website. By and large, you get a single article at a time, with no sense of its importance in the original page layout. The advertisement you see will be contextual in three senses. First, to the content of the article. Second, to your previous interests purchases and browsing history. Third, temporal: the advertisements will be for things you can buy now. There is no indication of what was advertised with that article at the time it was printed.

Beware losing a sense of history and living only in the now.
---

Cars and Shopping

2010-01-23T08:56:00.002-05:00

As most of my friends can attest, "cars and shopping" is on of my signature phrases. Years of world travel, including poorer parts like China and Zimbabwe, have inspired my economic development plan.
To insure peace and prosperity what you need to do is fairly simple:

Choose an area with economic or political problems.
As quick as you can, build and stock shopping centers.
Deliver lots of cars (even if you give them away).
Install cell phone service.

This simple act will quickly build an infrastructure of commerce, people doing business who have a stake in society because they have jobs and business and want to go shopping themselves. Cars create the need for services, accessories, roads and freedom of motion. Shopping centers are destinations for cars. Cell phones increase freedom of communication.

Now my philosophy has been validated by a recent book reviewed in the New York Times under the title "The Shopping Cure." In his review of Vali Nasr's book, Forces of Fortune, Michael Totten writes: "There is an enormous gulf, after all, between practicing Muslims with a stake in society and violent reactionaries at war with the world. The Middle East’s professionals and entrepreneurs need stability..."

Here. Here. People everywhere are the same. We want to raise our families, go to work and enjoy life and retirement. Not so much to ask I think. The review is very positive, I can't wait to read the book.

The Fix Is In

2010-01-22T09:24:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on campaign spending is beyond disappointing. We seem to have entered (or perhaps re-entered) an era in which "the fix is in." Can so many people simultaneously behave in a wrong-headed fashion on some many issues? Yes. There is too much to sort out: Health Care, Retirement, Unemployment, War, Haiti, Terrorism.

Somehow we have lost the unifying message, the theme, to consolidate the issues and act as a guideline for our actions. Sadly the Obama Administration squandered the hopeful theme of "Change" on efforts toward conciliation, bipartisanship and compromise. They should have moved forward assertively and at every objection simply repeated: "You are standing in the path of 'Change'"

But national politics is not the back alleys of Chicago where everyone is impoverished and all the denizens, conservative and liberal alike, and must coalesce somehow to get anything done. National politics is where the amounts of money and resources are vast. And money is numbers, and numbers need math. Goldman Sachs earned $13.4 billion in profit for 2009. And they have set aside - get this - $16.2 billion for bonuses for their employees. This stream of big numbers is just overwhelming to the average person. Millions, billions, trillions are bandied about until the sense of scale is completely lost.

How much is one million dollars? Let's say you invested that much very conservatively, very well diversified, savings account, bonds and what have you. You could probably be safe to expect every year to earn 3% on that investment. That is $30,000 per year in income. What could you do with $30,000 each year? Right now family health insurance costs about $14,000 per year. That is one way you could use that money. You could pay for health insurance. Hold that thought.

How much is one billion dollars? One billion is one thousand millions.
Or look at it like this: 1000 millions.
Or, in dollars:
$1,000,000 = one million dollars
$1,000,000,000 = one billion dollars

The current US population is about 309 million people. In numbers: 309,000,000. Mind you that is not one billion, it is much smaller than one billion.

Consider this: If we had $309 million dollars, and invested it conservatively, the annual return would be enough to pay health insurance premiums for every person in the United States forever. Remember, we figure on a return of 3%. We could even let Goldman Sachs handle the investments, they seem to be good at that.

Instead, however, we have somehow reached the conclusion that corporations are exactly like people and that their resources may be used without limit or control to affect the outcome of elections, legislation and social issues. So says the Supreme Court.

Remember that with just a small fraction of what just Goldman Sachs alone earned in profit (or pays out in bonuses) we could guarantee health insurance for every citizen. The same principle could be used to fund retirement and education. And, what is more, companies would still make great profits.

If we relieve our citizens of the worries of health, of retirement, of unemployment, of paying for education we will unleash an unprecedented flood of creativity. And it can be done at such a reasonable cost.

Following a Thread

2010-01-14T05:19:00.000-05:00

Pull on a thread and something is bound to start unraveling. This thread was a re-Tweet of a Tweet of a blog post about the demise of ID Magazine (For my readers that need an explanation: someone wrote a blog, someone twittered about it, someone that I follow on twitter re-sent the tweet to all his followers and, finally, I picked up on it. That's a convoluted path, isn't it?).Another magazine closure, at this point, is hardly news. We are all sadly resigned to the fact that newspapers and magazines are under a lot of stress, to say the least.

ID Magazine, also known as International Design, was established in 1954, and was originally called Industrial Design, the eponymous journal of the then relatively new profession that shapes the things we use every day. The tail of its demise was told in the blog post: ID Magazine was based in New York for a long time until it was taken over by a publishing company in Cincinnati, in turned owned by a private equity company, where it was subsequently moved. Cincinnati, for all its good points and history as an industrial city, is probably not best known as a hub of activity for top designers and top design editors. Those kinds of people are, in the main, in larger metropolises: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco. Although good design can happen in the hinterland, big cities with masses of companies and people is where there is action.

Deprived of the action and vibe that drove the magazine, readership began to fall. No doubt the drop was aided and abetted by the general decline in magazine readership and the digital distraction that affects industrial designers as much as everyone else, if not more. It's pretty sad. I was an occasional newsstand reader, but I found the last couple of years of ID less than stimulating myself.

But I also happen to know that the publisher of ID is also the publisher of Popular Woodworking, a very good woodworking magazine. I tugged on the thread and discovered that Popular Woodworking and Woodworking Magazine (also acquired by the same publisher) are to be merged but, in their editors blog posting, they claim that there is no economic reason for this. It's only so they can "grow and serve the woodworking community". To which I think: "The lady doth protest too much". If I had two profitable titles I would focus on their differentiation and continue to promote them.

Further pulling on the thread turned up the fact that Woodwork, another fine publication, also ceased publication this past Summer. And the industry leading amateur magazine Fine Woodworking ? Their media kit shows a significant decline in paid subscriptions, as far back as 2003 (though as I recall from a previous life, the decline began even earlier than that).

Woodworking itself, I believe, is in decline and this explains some of the fall in circulation of those magazines. On a commercial basis, much manufacturing has been moved overseas, both of furniture and ready made cabinetry (as would go into all those houses in the recent building boom). On an amateur basis, the fall of manufacturing generally has thinned the ranks of skilled workers whose hobbies run to hand crafts. Further, the schools have cut shop programs (wood, metal and otherwise) out of the curricula and the attention of people, generally, tend to digital pursuits: computers, video games, Facebook and Twitter. If few people are exposed to hand work, they are less likely to turn to it has a hobby, or to read magazines about it.

Within the unraveling of this thread:

Nothing has an indefinite life. Magazines, crafts and entire industries may fall into and out of favor. This is not new, it has always been so, even before the Internet.
Private equity, managing primarily by looking at the "bottom line" may miss a crucial point: in some parts of an enterprise, people and place matter. Managing this can be tricky. Outsourcing is an art.
There are mutual links between what is taught in school and what happens in the real world of designing, making and selling things. This is something that, collectively, we may consider trying to influence.

---

Pundit Godin Drives Me Nuts

2010-01-09T18:55:00.000-05:00

Dear Seth Godin:

However acquired, possession of "the megaphone" carries a certain responsibility. Your tribe is looking up to you, so be very careful when you write things like: "[Libraries] can't survive as community-funded repositories for books that individuals don't want to own (or for reference books we can't afford to own.)" Yes, your short post goes on to suggest what "else" a library could do or be, but the lead-in is what sticks.

Contrary to what you suggest, the net does not "turn things upside down" for the library. The net augments the library. The net is but another information stream being actively integrated into the library. Every library I have visited from Maine to California, urban and rural, is connected to the web, offers internet access (free), and most libraries offer patrons remote access to many databases and in-library access to others.

When you speak of spending money on "leaders, sherpas and teachers who will push everyone from kids to seniors to get very aggressive in finding and using information and in connecting with and leading others", you are describing librarians, and yes, we could use more librarians to help navigate the evermore complex sources of information.

And why is that? Because library use is not declining, it is increasing. Libraries I use have become busier and more crowded each year. (you can check the Census )They are full of citizens and scholars. They are using books, they are using microfilm, they are using the internet: wired and wifi. And yes, they are borrowing music CD's and DVD's too. Many of which are not easily available at your local video/audio emporium, free download or Netflix. What is wrong with providing some forms of culture free to the citizenry? (for that matter, museums should be free as well, but that is another rant)

Mr. Godin, I understand the you are Mr. Digital. Nevertheless the books, reference materials, and physical media that you disparage are important artifacts of our culture. I agree, not everything needs to be represented physically, but there is value in the materials in the collections. My own recent research involved microfilm, viewing newspaper and magazines as they were originally printed. I saw the objects of my research surrounded by other articles and advertisements of interest at that time (a half century ago). This provides a perspective on a past culture that cannot be so easily gleaned from today's web-based presentation of newspapers.

The artifacts and collections of our, and past, civilization must be made freely available to all who wish to study them. In their original forms as well as digitally.

Please take care with your words. When a strong influencer says that a certain institution "can't survive" he may be inadvertently assisting in its demise, however good his true intentions. Words, even digital ones, have power.

End of Rant

---

Open

2010-01-08T09:40:00.000-05:00

Driving north on US 101 along the Pacific Coast at 5 am. A cloud dips down, fingers of fog playing on the road as if on a piano. At times it squeezes out a light cold rain. Not enough to ice the path, just sufficient to chill the bones. I am getting hungry, remembering delicious chowder from a stand in Bodega Bay two days earlier. But now: breakfast.

I am looking for a friendly neon sign: "Open". Any greasy spoon will do, I am not picky about breakfast, somehow eggs and ham have always sat well on the stomach. It must be the hot griddle that sanitizes breakfast so thoroughly. The exits clip by, the small towns and sleepy gas stations maybe awake, maybe not. Looking for that sign. There it is. At last, breakfast.

The symbolic "open," translated:

"I am ready to hear you, to greet you, to interact, to do business. Stop and visit, talk to me."

Are you "open" ?

Can passersby see your sign ?
---

Ergonomics for Interaction

2009-12-09T22:28:00.001-05:00

Who knew. The School of Visual Art (SVA) in New York has a department dedicated to Interaction Design. Yet another specialization, but it makes sense when you consider all the "interactive designs" we deal with every day: the multitude of computer screens, large and small.

This evening (12/09/09) SVA hosted a talk by Rob Tannen, of the Bressler Group. Tannen is a designer specializing in ergonomics. In just an hour he gave a concise overview of what ergonomics is: the study of design or a product (or tool) to best suit a defined task to be performed by a range of specific users, evaluated from a quantitative and qualitative point of view. To oversimplify: "I can do the job, it doesn't hurt, and my boss is happy with the time it took." No joke though, this is a serious discipline.

The typical factors of fit for a physical product concern the person using it: what will his "posture" be, can he "reach or hold" the item, does he have "clearance" room to move, and the "strength" to actuate or carry the item. For an interactive device, Tannen relates these factors, respectively, to "scale and orientation," to "travel-distance between points on the display" to "'white' space between elements" and finally "frequency of touch". This give a different outlook on what we interact with daily.

As interesting as the talk was, the Q&A brought up three points that I found very interesting:

He mentioned that many designs created in designs firms, as a commission from a client, do not get produced, for one reason or another.
Sometimes (I expect frequently else why would be consider it noteworthy) designs are substantially changed during manufacture because they could not be made as designed. In particular he noted this in the context of makers in China, but I think that is probably because of the volume of work done there and the challenges of communication over the time, distance and languages.
Designers and design firms do not usually get to evaluate the work after the final product is in users' hands (other than observing whether or not it continues to be made).

The second point, on changes in manufacture, is very interesting. I have observed that sometimes designers envision a design solution that is difficult or impossible to execute, perhaps because they simply don't have extensive engineering knowledge. On the other hand, I have also observed that many manufacturers do not employ experienced engineers or have the best equipment. What one insists is "impossible" turns out to be perfectly possible when the right company is found.

I think more cross training is in order between design, engineering, and manufacturing people. Here in the USA, I hope.

---

U.S. Manufacturer Hires Customers

2009-12-03T23:04:00.000-05:00

Here is a view of the future, and a very unique way to connect with customers. The folks at MakerBot are very savvy and very connected to their customers. One look at their site telegraphs that message right away. Blogs, wikis, forums, Twitter, Facebook - plenty of social media, and community building. It's not just fluff. They encourage customers to modify and contribute to the product. And recently they hired their customers to make components for them.

That is perhaps a little less outlandish when you understand what they do. MakerBot designs and builds 3D printers (pictured at left) that connects to a personal computer. It's a desktop device that costs around $950 as a kit. It works just like your ordinary printer prints a page, except int their case what comes out is not a piece of paper it's an actual object: a cup, a spoon, or even a machine part "printed" out of plastic. That's where hiring their customers came in. With several hundred people and companies owning these machines, this manufacturer said "here's the part file, print the parts on your MakerBot, send them to us, and we will pay you for them."

Certainly MakerBot did not invent 3D printing. But they figured out how to get it down to a size, and cost, small enough to put it within reach of just about anyone. The implications are just tremendous.

It puts a "factory" literally inside your home or business
Manufacturing can be decentralized and spread across many "makers"

It alters the relationships between:

Designers and manufacturers
Manufacturers and distributors
Distributors and retailers
Retailers and the final consumer
And all the workers at all those firms

I don't think for a minute that all products will be made "where used." At first this technology will be used as 3D printing has been until now: for prototyping by designers and artists. But the breakthrough in size and cost puts this very powerful technology in a lot of people's hands. As we have seen, unexpected things can happen when people have access to powerful technology.

I've seen it, it works. It's not yet the "replicator" you saw on Star Trek, but it's an awfully big step in that direction. Yes, I would like one. Very much.