ScottShares.com

ScottShares.com

Scott Travis  //  Serving up content from around the web on business, social media and higher education, with the occasional unrelated post to keep you on your toes. As a 2006 Hope College grad and director of alumni & parent relations, I enjoy communicating with Hope alumni and parents for a living. Learn more about my professional life at www.linkedin.com/in/satravis.

Feb 18 / 9:46pm

The olympics deserve better. An interesting read on NBC's mediocre coverage.

olympics_question

NBC won't win any medals for its coverage of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver this year. Its strategy of withholding online coverage to encourage people to watch on television during prime time appears to be working, though, at least when the Americans win lots of medals. The company is taking a walloping from viewers who object to the network's tape delay of the games, undertaken to sell more expensive ads during at night.

In these hyper-connected times, people are finding out who won a medal before they have a chance to watch, and the immediacy that makes live sports programming so compelling is lost, to an extent. Worse, NBC expects to lose hundreds of millions of dollars televising the Olympics despite this ploy. Before the games got underway, NBC said it expects to lose a quarter of a billion dollars on broadcasting the event, because a weak ad market will fail to offset a whopping $820 million in licensing and production costs.

As for watching the games online, NBCOlympics.com offers a relatively scant selection of live events, about 400 hours according to various estimates. It showed 2,200 hours of live events online from Bejing two years ago. And even if you want to watch what they're showing online, you can only do so if your ISP paid the required licensing fee.

There's no way for you to watch for free if your ISP didn't pay, and we were not able to log in to NBCOlympics.com using our Time Warner password, so in at least one case, a subscriber to an ISP that paid up is not able to watch.

Meanwhile, NBCOlympics.com itself post the results live, well in advance of the taped broadcasts, adding another potential spoiler to an already heady mix. And while you can follow the athletes on Twitter through NBC's website, skier Jake Zamansky used this forum to post "Can't wait to see how bad NBC covers the ski racing today" as noted by Deadspin.

 The value of a sports broadcast declines precipitously over time, which is why sports leagues don't have to worry about file sharing networks eroding their businesses the way other video producers do. And that's why so many people are mystified and frustrated by NBC's tape-delay strategy. A quick Twitter search reveals countless viewer complaints and articles about those complaints.

Nonetheless, NBC is sticking to its guns, with vice president of sports communications Chris McCloskey telling the Boston Globe, "You can't please everybody, but we try to serve the greater good."

NBC's attempt to cover the exorbitant cost of broadcasting the Olympics by forcing people to watch during prime time, or not at all, might upset millions of viewers, but it appears to be having the desired effect of boosting ratings when the Americans win.

According to Media Week's Marc Berman, news of Lindsey Vonn's downhill victory spread online in advance of its taped broadcast last night, which is why so many people watched.

Indeed, on Wednesday night, 30.1 million Americans tuned in to watch their countrymen capture six medals, while only 18.4 million watched American Idol during the same hour, according to Nielsen (AP). On Tuesday night, when Americans took home three, American Idol bested the Olympics by 4 million viewers.

See Also:

 

Are you tired of finding out who won online from other sources, and then having to wait to watch? What network could do it better and how?

Filed under  //  business   sports   wired.com  
Feb 1 / 9:06am

Can videogames make you a better athlete?

For years, the sophisticated play of professional teams trickled down to their college and high school counterparts. Recently, that flow has been reversed.

For years, the sophisticated play of professional teams trickled down to their college and high school counterparts. Recently, that flow has been reversed.

The situation was desperate for the Denver Broncos. On the first Sunday of the National Football League’s 2009 season, with only 28 seconds left in the game, they trailed the Cincinnati Bengals 7-6. The ball was on the 13-yard line — their own 13-yard line. On second down, Broncos quarterback Kyle Orton heaved the ball downfield, only to see a Bengals defender deflect the pass away from the receiver. And then something remarkable, close to miraculous, happened. Instead of falling to the ground, the ball popped into the air and landed in the outstretched arms of Broncos wide receiver Brandon Stokley, who started racing down the field. All across America, in living rooms and basements and sports bars, people broke into cries of wonderment and delight, heartbreak and disbelief.

Then they witnessed something even more startling.

Just before he reached the end zone, with 17 seconds remaining, Stokley cut right at 90 degrees and ran across the field. Six seconds drained off the clock before, at last, he meandered across the goal line to score the winning touchdown. For certain football fans, the excitement of a last-minute comeback now commingled with the shock of the familiar: It’s hard to think of a better example of a professional athlete doing something so obviously inspired by the tactics of videogame football. When I caught up with Stokley by telephone a few weeks later, I asked him point-blank: “Is that something out of a videogame?” “It definitely is,” Stokley said. “I think everybody who’s played those games has done that” — run around the field for a while at the end of the game to shave a few precious seconds off the clock. Stokley said he had performed that maneuver in a videogame “probably hundreds of times” before doing it in a real NFL game. “I don’t know if subconsciously it made me do it or not,” he said.

Brandon Stokley's time-killing run along the goal line was a tactic straight out of videogames.

Today’s football players have an edge that no athletes before them have possessed: They’ve played more football than any cohort in history. Even with the rise of year-round training, full-contact practice time on the field hasn’t increased — in fact, it has actually gone down, as coaches have tried to limit the physical punishment that the game exacts. But videogames, especially the ubiquitous Madden NFL, now allow athletes of all ages to extend their training beyond their bodies.

If you’re, say, an All-American quarterback at a top college program, odds are that you’ve been training on a very sophisticated, off-the-shelf simulator — a cross between a football tutorial and a real-time documentary, drizzled with addictive Skinnerian action-reward mechanics — for as long as you can remember. The many hundreds — even thousands — of hours that athletes put into videogame football give them more game experience (and, as Stokley demonstrated, sometimes more game awareness) than Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, or Joe Montana were able to log in previous eras. And there’s the possibility, too, that all this electronic play is changing the structure of their brains, at least in some ways, for the better.

For more than 30 years, sports videogames have been focused on simulating real-life athletics more and more perfectly. But over the past decade, games have moved beyond just imitating the action on the field. Now they’re changing it.

This revolution has sneaked up on many athletes, coaches, and fans. Sports and videogames — a combination that was one of the first diplomatic efforts in the emerging worldwide jock-geek armistice — have been interconnected since October 1958, when William Higinbotham, a nuclear physicist at Long Island’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, hooked up Tennis for Two, an electronic game of virtual tennis that is widely regarded as the first videogame. The first home videogame console, Magnavox’s Odyssey, included a digital version of table tennis, and then there was Atari’s Pong. The genre quickly expanded to baseball, basketball, football, auto racing, track and field, boxing, soccer, martial arts — if two or more people competed in something in the flesh, pretty soon they could compete in a digital version.

From the beginning, publishers and game designers were locked in an arms race of realism. George Plimpton mocked Atari 2600 owners for their underwhelming baseball game (Home Run) in a 1981 commercial for Mattel’s Intellivision console. (”Here’s an easy question for you,” Plimpton said. “Which of these games is the closest thing to the real thing?”) A couple of years later, a new wrinkle emerged when Electronic Arts signed Julius Erving and Larry Bird to the first-ever licenses to use athletes’ names and images in a sports game, 1983’s One-on-One. Soon there were releases like Tecmo Bowl and R.B.I. Baseball, which featured rosters of professional athletes playing for their real professional sports teams. It was a mind-blowing development for sports fans — and young athletes — who had previously been able to imagine themselves as their favorite players only during backyard pickup games.

Of all these games, John Madden Footballfirst published by Electronic Arts for the Apple II in 1989 and for the Sega Genesis console in 1990 — was perhaps the most committed to simulating its sport in all its complexity, including, for the first time, 11 players on each side. (”Most of my friends would tell you I started EA as an excuse to make a football game,” company founder Trip Hawkins says. “And there’s probably a fair amount of truth to that.”) Madden and its sequels became the most commercially successful sports videogame ever produced. (That success was cemented in 2004 by an exclusive license with the NFL that eliminated direct competitors.) In 2008, Madden NFL sold more copies than any other title except Wii Play, according to the research firm NPD Group, making EA an estimated $263 million. While John Madden’s career as an excitable TV commentator and analyst made him famous, the Madden videogame franchise — the Gospel of Coach John, available everywhere for $60 — has exerted a larger influence on football, from Pop Warner to the pros.

 

Read More

This is an amazing phenomenon. It offers a contrast to the thought that in all cases video games are evil. What it may suggest is that both the positive and negative aspects of video games can transfer to reality more easily than you may think.

In 2005 I ran a football camp for middle school kids. On one rainy day we hooked up an x-box and in a large meeting room, had the group mimic the formations and strategy played out on the game. The kids loved it and it was a memorable moment for them at the camp.

The run by Stokley is online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT5gTM2Qf-M&feature=player_embedded

Filed under  //  ncaa   wired.com  
Jan 25 / 3:20pm

Is your online social network too big?

Illustration: Helen Yentus and Jason Booher

Illustration: Helen Yentus and Jason Booher

When it comes to your social network, bigger is better. Or so we’re told. The more followers and friends you have, the more awesome and important you are. That’s why you see so much oohing and aahing over people with a million Twitter followers. But lately I’ve been thinking about the downside of having a huge online audience. When you go from having a few hundred Twitter followers to ten thousand, something unexpected happens: Social networking starts to break down.

Consider the case of Maureen Evans. A grad student and poet, Evans got into Twitter at the very beginning — back in 2006 — and soon built up almost 100 followers. Like many users, she enjoyed the conversational nature of the medium. A follower would respond to one of her posts, other followers would chime in, and she’d respond back.

Then, in 2007, she began a nifty project: tweeting recipes, each condensed to 140 characters. She soon amassed 3,000 followers, but her online life still felt like a small town: Among the regulars, people knew each other and enjoyed conversing. But as her audience grew and grew, eventually cracking 13,000, the sense of community evaporated. People stopped talking to one another or even talking to her. “It became dead silence,” she marvels.

Why? Because socializing doesn’t scale. Once a group reaches a certain size, each participant starts to feel anonymous again, and the person they’re following — who once seemed proximal, like a friend — now seems larger than life and remote. “They feel they can’t possibly be the person who’s going to make the useful contribution,” Evans says. So the conversation stops. Evans isn’t alone. I’ve heard this story again and again from those who’ve risen into the lower ranks of microfame. At a few hundred or a few thousand followers, they’re having fun — but any bigger and it falls apart. Social media stops being social. It’s no longer a bantering process of thinking and living out loud. It becomes old-fashioned broadcasting.

The lesson? There’s value in obscurity.

After all, the world’s bravest and most important ideas are often forged away from the spotlight — in small, obscure groups of people who are passionately interested in a subject and like arguing about it. They’re willing to experiment with risky or dumb concepts because they’re among intimates. (It was, after all, small groups of marginal weirdos that brought us the computer, democracy, and the novel.)

Technically speaking, online social-networking tools ought to be great at fostering these sorts of clusters. Blogs and Twitter and Facebook are, as Internet guru John Battelle puts it, “conversational media.” But when the conversation gets big enough, it shuts down. Not only do audiences feel estranged, the participants also start self-censoring. People who suddenly find themselves with really huge audiences often start writing more cautiously, like politicians.

When it comes to microfame, the worst place to be is in the middle of the pack. If someone’s got 1.5 million followers on Twitter, they’re one of the rare and straightforwardly famous folks online. Like a digital Oprah, they enjoy a massive audience that might even generate revenue. There’s no pretense of intimacy with their audience, so there’s no conversation to spoil. Meanwhile, if you have a hundred followers, you’re clearly just chatting with pals. It’s the middle ground — when someone amasses, say, tens of thousands of followers — where the social contract of social media becomes murky.

Maybe we should be designing tools that reward obscurity — that encourage us to remain in the shadows. Or what if they warned us when our social circles became unsustainably large? Sure, we’d be connected with fewer people, but we’d be communicating with them, and not just talking at them.

 

In our search for more and more followers and friends, this article presents an interesting viewpoint. I especially like the illustration.

Filed under  //  social networks   society   wired.com  
Dec 27 / 8:07am

A solution to the energy problem? Thorium, the New Green Nuke

By Richard Martin  |  December 21, 2009  | Wired Jan 2010

Photo: Thomas Hannich

Photo: Thomas Hannich

The thick hardbound volume was sitting on a shelf in a colleague’s office when Kirk Sorensen spotted it. A rookie NASA engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Sorensen was researching nuclear-powered propulsion, and the book’s title — Fluid Fuel Reactors — jumped out at him. He picked it up and thumbed through it. Hours later, he was still reading, enchanted by the ideas but struggling with the arcane writing. “I took it home that night, but I didn’t understand all the nuclear terminology,” Sorensen says. He pored over it in the coming months, ultimately deciding that he held in his hands the key to the world’s energy future.

Published in 1958 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission as part of its Atoms for Peace program, Fluid Fuel Reactors is a book only an engineer could love: a dense, 978-page account of research conducted at Oak Ridge National Lab, most of it under former director Alvin Weinberg. What caught Sorensen’s eye was the description of Weinberg’s experiments producing nuclear power with an element called thorium.

At the time, in 2000, Sorensen was just 25, engaged to be married and thrilled to be employed at his first serious job as a real aerospace engineer. A devout Mormon with a linebacker’s build and a marine’s crew cut, Sorensen made an unlikely iconoclast. But the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry’s most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.

Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.

Today, however, Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he’s not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master’s in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site’s forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques.

And the online upstarts aren’t alone. Industry players are looking into thorium, and governments from Dubai to Beijing are funding research. India is betting heavily on the element.

The concept of nuclear power without waste or proliferation has obvious political appeal in the US, as well. The threat of climate change has created an urgent demand for carbon-free electricity, and the 52,000 tons of spent, toxic material that has piled up around the country makes traditional nuclear power less attractive. President Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have expressed general support for a nuclear renaissance. Utilities are investigating several next-gen alternatives, including scaled-down conventional plants and “pebble bed” reactors, in which the nuclear fuel is inserted into small graphite balls in a way that reduces the risk of meltdown.

Those technologies are still based on uranium, however, and will be beset by the same problems that have dogged the nuclear industry since the 1960s. It is only thorium, Sorensen and his band of revolutionaries argue, that can move the country toward a new era of safe, clean, affordable energy.

Named for the Norse god of thunder, thorium is a lustrous silvery-white metal. It’s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm. On the periodic table of elements, it’s found in the bottom row, along with other dense, radioactive substances — including uranium and plutonium — known as actinides.

Actinides are dense because their nuclei contain large numbers of neutrons and protons. But it’s the strange behavior of those nuclei that has long made actinides the stuff of wonder. At intervals that can vary from every millisecond to every hundred thousand years, actinides spin off particles and decay into more stable elements. And if you pack together enough of certain actinide atoms, their nuclei will erupt in a powerful release of energy.

To understand the magic and terror of those two processes working in concert, think of a game of pool played in 3-D. The nucleus of the atom is a group of balls, or particles, racked at the center. Shoot the cue ball — a stray neutron — and the cluster breaks apart, or fissions. Now imagine the same game played with trillions of racked nuclei. Balls propelled by the first collision crash into nearby clusters, which fly apart, their stray neutrons colliding with yet more clusters. Voilè0: a nuclear chain reaction.

Actinides are the only materials that split apart this way, and if the collisions are uncontrolled, you unleash hell: a nuclear explosion. But if you can control the conditions in which these reactions happen — by both controlling the number of stray neutrons and regulating the temperature, as is done in the core of a nuclear reactor — you get useful energy. Racks of these nuclei crash together, creating a hot glowing pile of radioactive material. If you pump water past the material, the water turns to steam, which can spin a turbine to make electricity.

Uranium is currently the actinide of choice for the industry, used (sometimes with a little plutonium) in 100 percent of the world’s commercial reactors. But it’s a problematic fuel. In most reactors, sustaining a chain reaction requires extremely rare uranium-235, which must be purified, or enriched, from far more common U-238. The reactors also leave behind plutonium-239, itself radioactive (and useful to technologically sophisticated organizations bent on making bombs). And conventional uranium-fueled reactors require lots of engineering, including neutron-absorbing control rods to damp the reaction and gargantuan pressurized vessels to move water through the reactor core. If something goes kerflooey, the surrounding countryside gets blanketed with radioactivity (think Chernobyl). Even if things go well, toxic waste is left over.

When he took over as head of Oak Ridge in 1955, Alvin Weinberg realized that thorium by itself could start to solve these problems. It’s abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn’t require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.

Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.

In 1965, Weinberg and his team built a working reactor, one that suspended the byproducts of thorium in a molten salt bath, and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.

That proved to be “the most pivotal year in energy history,” according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day. The same year, the US nuclear industry signed contracts to build a record 41 nuke plants, all of which used uranium. And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside.

Full Page

from wired.com


I thought this was a very interesting and well written article.  I was suprised to learn that this technology wasn't adopted earlier due to the fact that the waste was not able to be used in weapons. Go figure.

Filed under  //  national security   wired.com  
Dec 19 / 7:39pm

This is crazy! An 18-gigapixel panorama of an entire city.

praguepanoramicphoto

Exploring a new city is always fun. But if you can’t get there, a gorgeous, zoomable 360-degree view photo can be an acceptable substitute.

360 Cities, a Dutch company, has created a stunning panoramic photo of Prague in the Czech Republic.

“The creation of this image represents my previous five years’ obsession with all things panoramic,” says Jeffrey Martin, founder and CEO of 360 Cities. “If you’re stuck at home over Christmas, feeling humbuggy and don’t feel like hanging out with your family, you can explore Prague instead.”

What makes this panoramic photo interesting to viewers is that you can zoom in and out, move up or down or change your view–much like with Google Street View maps.

The photo has been assembled from 600 shots clicked by a 21-megapixel Canon 5D Mark II camera and a 70-200mm lens, set to 200mm. The camera was mounted on a special robotic device that turned it tiny increments every few hours. The resulting data from the camera was about 40-gigabytes.

The finished Photoshop file is 120 GB. Loading the raw files into a computer and stitching the photo took about a week. Martin used a four year-old Windows PC with two single-core 3 GHz Xeon processors and 8 GB of RAM. He also bought a solid state drive to speed up some tasks.

“The final image exists as a 120 Gigabyte Photoshop large (PSB) file,” says Martin on his blog. It cannot exist as a TIFF or JPEG file because of their size constraints.”

The photo measures 192,000 x 96,000 pixels, or 18.4 billion pixels altogether.

So start exploring Prague. If you zoom in enough, you can even see laundry hanging out to dry in some of the buildings.

Photo: 360 Cities

Filed under  //  wired.com  
Nov 18 / 7:30am

Read A Story To Your Kids, Even If They’re In Toledo And You’re In Timbuktu

story

Books have an incredible hold on us. As kids, they are our first exposure to many strange and different places and unusual, fun (and sometimes scary) creatures. Reading sparks our imaginations and charges our emotions like nothing else. Just witness the incredible draw that the recent film adaptation of “Where the Wild Things Are” had on adults and children alike and we can see that reading creates incredibly powerful memories during our childhoods.

Plus, whether it’s reading box scores from last night’s game out loud to your infant or sharing a classic like “Goodnight Moon” to your toddler, the simple act of reading aloud is a crucial responsibility of good parenting. It’s no secret that reading to your child is one of the most vital things you can do to help your son or daughter develop his or her brain, language and emotional responses.

But once in a while, we don’t have time for this highly important task. Jobs force us out of town, late meetings keep us away from home and books are left unread, despite the best of intentions. Fortunately, there’s a solution for those times when you can’t be at home to read a bedtime story. A Story Before Bed is a new Web site that allows parents (or grandparents living out of town) to use their Webcams to record personalized readings of bedtime stories, so they can be played back to their children at any time.

The concept is pretty simple: Go to the site and register. Next browse the available books and pick one you think your child will like. Then click the link that says “Record this book”, follow three simple setup steps and then click “record” and start turning pages and reading. It’s as easy as that. You can add your own comments to your narration, like pointing out something funny in an illustration or simply saying “I love you, good night” at the end of the story. When you’re done recording, click stop and the book is saved with no obligation — you have 24 hours to purchase your recording. You can watch your effort and - if you don’t like it - simply start over. To see a demo of a completed recording, click here.

Since the site is new, there’s an introductory price of $6.99 per recording. But if you are serving in the Armed Forces and have a “.mil” address, you can get a coupon for a free recording. However, since the good folks at A Story Before Bed are longtime GeekDad readers, they want to offer other GeekDads an opportunity to try A Story Before Bed for free, too. Before December 15, make a recording and enter this code at the checkout for a recording at no cost: DD4W-DY6L-XG6W

A Story Before Bed is a great concept and a wonderful solution for the times when I cant read to my kids. My only complaint is that the choice of books is a little limited, but since I started tracking the site, they’ve added quite a few titles and have plans for adding a lot more. Check out the site and don’t forget to read to your kids every day!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am soon to be a dad, but I thought this was a pretty cool site. The military discount they offer is a great idea too.

It will be interesting to see how children today interact with family and each other as mobile devices, webcams, and sites like this become part of their everyday life.

Filed under  //  children   social media   society   wired.com  
Nov 14 / 7:02pm

Roadtrip anyone? Netherlands to tax by the mile with government planted GPS systems.

dutch-traffic-jam

The Dutch government wants to abolish ownership and sales taxes on automobiles and instead levy a fee on every kilometer driven. The Transport Ministry says the move will cut congestion in half and curb carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent.

Motorists driving a typical sedan would pay 3 Euro cents per kilometer, or about 7 U.S. cents per mile, under the law, which if passed would take effect in 2012. The tax would climb to 6.7 Euro cents (16 U.S. cents) in 2018.

“Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill,” the ministry said in a statement, according to AFP.

The tax would vary by the type and weight of automobile. Buses, taxis, vehicles owned by the disabled and motorcycles would be exempted.

The Dutch cabinet approved the legislation Friday; it must be passed by Parliament before becoming law. Finance Minister Wouter Bos calls the proposal financially irresponsible. According to Radio Netherlands / Expatia, he fears that national budget could take a big hit because people might be less inclined to drive.

Advocates of the tax say nearly six in 10 drivers will benefit because the tax burden will be shifted to people who drive the most and at peak times. The price of a new car also would decrease significantly, because taxes comprise about 25 percent of the sticker price.

Photo of a traffic jam in Amsterdam: Flickr / dechnology work.

Yikes, talk about big brother. Americans would revolt if someone here thought this was a good idea. I'm all for reducing emissions, but this crosses the line in my book.

Filed under  //  society   wired.com  
Oct 29 / 9:21am

Are you reading this while driving? It may soon be illegal.

textingwhiledriving_slutsky

The senate, the Department of Transportation and the FCC want you to stop texting while driving, and on Wednesday, they all but declared a war on texting, promising education campaigns and laws to convince you to put your phone down — at least while you are piloting a two-ton SUV going 70 mph.

In a Senate hearing Wednesday, using a mobile phone while driving was said to be more dangerous than drunk driving, the cause of 16 percent of fatal accidents in the United States and a “perfect storm” of distraction.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood concluded his testimony by calling texting while driving a “menace to society,” saying the department’s research showed that 6,000 people a year died because it distracted drivers of all kinds.

At issue is the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009 (.pdf) that Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) introduced Wednesday that seeks to ban texting while driving, a category that includes using a PDA, checking e-mail on a BlackBerry or manipulating a GPS unit with your hand. The bill (S. 1938) also targets drivers who make calls without using a headset. Texting or calling while pulled over on the side of the road is fine, but not while at a red light.

The federal government doesn’t actually have the power to ban the activities nationwide, so the bill attempts to bribe states into passing strong anti-texting laws by offering them money if they do. Earlier this month, President Obama issued an executive order banning federal employees from texting while driving while using a government car or mobile device, which goes into effect at the beginning of the year.

FCC head Julius Genachowski tried to temper the discussion a bit, pointing out in his testimony that the mobile phone industry has led to huge boosts in productivity and poured billions of dollars a year in infrastructure investment. The FCC, he said, was already working on a public education campaign, while the carriers have their own and the FCC could help approve innovative technologies that might cut down on the distraction.

“One necessary step is to develop a cultural norm that driving while texting is not acceptable,” Genachowski said. “New ideas and entrepreneurial thinking can help.”

But such nuances seemed lost on Rockefeller, who sees texting madness all around him.

“When President Obama was giving his State of the Union address, half the Congress was texting,” Rockefeller said. “I doubt there is much value in texting.

“Nowadays, you have to text or you are not with it — you are not educated. But it’s lethal behavior when you get in a car.”

The transportation department’s LaHood tried to assuage the senator, arguing that the feds have successfully campaigned to get people to wear their seat belts and not to drink and drive.

“Whoever thought we could get drunk driving off the road?” LaHood asked. “‘Click It or Ticket’ is something people understand. We have to get into driver’s education programs that when you get in the car, you put your seat belt on and your cellphone in the glove box. We have to break very bad habits.”

But Rockefeller wasn’t buying it, saying texters would hide their phones in their lap as they drove.

“The state police don’t know how to stop it because they can’t see it,” Rockefeller said. “How do you make people feel like they are being watched?”

His solution? Some sort of phone-blocking device installed in cars, presumably one that knows the difference between a driver’s phone and passengers’ phones.

“As soon as you enter a car your mobile phone and texting equipment is just disabled by some electronic pulse,” Rockefeller suggested.

Rockefeller seemed to recognize that perhaps the only thing more dangerous than texting while driving is trying to take the media spotlight from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), and so let him testify at the hearing on the Rockefeller-Lautenberg bill because Schumer had introduced the Alert Drivers Act earlier this year.

“The roads have gotten more dangerous,” Schumer said. “The technology is a blessing and a curse. When used improperly by a driver behind the wheel it creates a big risk.”

Schumer described the Rockefeller bill as the “carrot” approach since it gives grants to states that pass such bills, half for anti-texting education campaigns and the other half for general transportation funding.

By contrast Schumer’s bill would withhold 25 percent of federal transportation funding from states that don’t implement strong anti-texting while driving rules, a tactic Congress has used in the past to force states to lower their speed limits and raise the drinking age to 21.

A bill, possibly a combination of the two, is likely to pass eventually, given that President Obama just unilaterally banned federal employees from texting while driving federal vehicles (starting in 2010) and even mobile carriers like Sprint support the idea.

The biggest objections to the legislation is likely to come from states rights proponents, such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas).

She argues that states know better than the feds what the dangers are in their state — meaning that the risks are different in Montana than they are in New York, and so the states should be able to craft their own rules.

That argument might have carried the day under the Bush Administration, but is not likely to in 2009, with the Obama administration in control and seeing texting while driving as a “menace to society.”

Regardless, the issue clearly has become a political wave and you can expect to begin hearing anti-texting-while-driving messages from all corners — from schoolteachers, government agencies and your cellphone company alike.

“All of us politicians know that if you say something often enough people start to believe it,” said the LaHood. “Even if it’s not true.”

As for the message, senior Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) came up with a slogan in the the middle of the hearing.

“If you text it, you’ll wreck it,” Klobuchar offered, adding “that’s cheaper than an ad agency.”

Plus, it’s short enough to send as a text message from a passenger to a driver.

Photo: Irina Slutsky-Steve Garfield/Flickr

See Also:

I for one am guilty but think it is a great idea to put into law. Any thoughts?

Filed under  //  social media   society   wired.com  
Oct 22 / 1:01pm

Real Social Networks: Do your friends make you sick? Literally.

A revolution in the science of social networks began with a stash of old papers found in a storeroom in Framingham, Massachusetts. They were the personal records of 5,124 male and female subjects from the Framingham Heart Study. Started in 1948, the ongoing project has revealed many of the risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, including smoking and hypertension.

In 2003, Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and internist at Harvard, and James Fowler, a political scientist at UC San Diego, began searching through the Framingham data. But they didn't care about LDL cholesterol or enlarged left ventricles. Rather, they were drawn to a clerical quirk: The original Framingham researchers noted each participant's close friends, colleagues, and family members.

"They asked for follow-up purposes," Christakis says. "If someone moved away, the researchers would call their friends and try to track them down."

Christakis and Fowler realized that this obsolete list of references could be transformed into a detailed map of human relationships. Because two-thirds of all Framingham adults participated in the first phase of the study, and their children and children's children in subsequent phases, almost the entire social network of the community was chronicled on these handwritten sheets. It took almost five years to extract the data—the handwriting was often illegible—but the scientists eventually constructed a detailed atlas of associations in which every connection was quantified.

The two researchers thought the Framingham social network might demonstrate how relationships directly influence behavior and thus health and happiness. Since the study had tracked its subjects' weight for decades, Christakis and Fowler first analyzed obesity. Clicking through the years, they watched the condition spread to nearly 40 percent of the population. Fowler shows me an animation of their study—30 years of data reduced to 108 seconds of shifting circles and lines. Each circle represents an individual. Size is proportional to body mass index; yellow indicates obesity. "This woman is about to get big," Fowler says. "And look at this cluster. They all gain weight at about the same time."

Obesity: Fat By Association

In 1948, fewer than 10 percent of Framingham residents were obese. By 1985, 18 percent were, and today about 40 percent are. What changed? Social norms of diet and physical appearance. "A bunch of people discovered fast food at the same time," social scientist Christakis says. "Then the network took over."

Obese person*

Nonobese person*

Friendship/marital connection

Familial connection

Unlike a flu epidemic, which starts with one infection, the scattered cases of obesity on early network maps indicated a multicentric contagion.
Obesity radiated outward from clusters of overweight people.
The condition's virulent infection rate led to dramatic clumping as weight classes self-segregated.
Having an obese spouse raised the risk of becoming obese by 37 percent. If a friend became obese, the risk skyrocketed by 171 percent.
Lean individuals surrounded by obesity were rare.

*Circle size corresponds to body mass index

Images based on graphics created by James Fowler and Nicholas Christakis

How do the people you hang out with influence you?

Filed under  //  health   social networks   society   wired.com  
Oct 19 / 4:29pm

Wired.com Exclusive: U.S. Spies Buy Stake in Firm That Monitors Blogs, Tweets

cia_floor_seal

America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon.

In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ”open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the flood of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports generated every day.

Visible crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. (It doesn’t touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.) Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what’s being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords.

“That’s kind of the basic step — get in and monitor,” says company senior vice president Blake Cahill.

Then Visible “scores” each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. (”Trying to determine who really matters,” as Cahill puts it.) Finally, Visible gives users a chance to tag posts, forward them to colleagues and allow them to response through a web interface.

In-Q-Tel says it wants Visible to keep track of foreign social media, and give spooks “early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally,” spokesperson Donald Tighe tells Danger Room.

Of course, such a tool can also be pointed inward, at domestic bloggers or tweeters. Visible already keeps tabs on web 2.0 sites for Dell, AT&T and Verizon. For Microsoft, the company is monitoring the buzz on its Windows 7 rollout. For Spam-maker Hormel, Visible is tracking animal-right activists’ online campaigns against the company.

“Anything that is out in the open is fair game for collection,” says Steven Aftergood, who tracks intelligence issues at the Federation of American Scientists. But “even if information is openly gathered by intelligence agencies it would still be problematic if it were used for unauthorized domestic investigations or operations. Intelligence agencies or employees might be tempted to use the tools at their disposal to compile information on political figures, critics, journalists or others, and to exploit such information for political advantage. That is not permissible even if all of the information in question is technically ‘open source.’”

truvoice-dashboard_overview1

Visible chief executive officer Dan Vetras says the CIA is now an “end customer,” thanks to the In-Q-Tel investment. And more government clients are now on the horizon. “We just got awarded another one in the last few days,” Vetras adds.

Tighe disputes this — sort of. “This contract, this deal, this investment has nothing to do with any agency of government and this company,” he says. But Tighe quickly notes that In-Q-Tel does have “an interested end customer” in the intelligence community for Visibile. And if all goes well, the company’s software will be used in pilot programs at that agency. “In pilots, we use real data. And during the adoption phase, we use it real missions.”

Neither party would disclose the size of In-Q-Tel’s investment in Visible, a 90-person company with expected revenues of about $20 million in 2010. But a source familiar with the deal says the In-Q-Tel cash will be used to boost Visible’s foreign languages capabilities, which already include Arabic, French, Spanish and nine other languages.

trupulse2

Visible has been trying for nearly a year to break into the government field. In late 2008, the company teamed up with the Washington, DC, consulting firm Concepts & Strategies, which has handled media monitoring and translation services for U.S. Strategic Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others. On its website, Concepts & Strategies is recruiting “social media engagement specialists” with Defense Department experience and a high proficiency in Arabic, Farsi, French, Urdu or Russian. The company is also looking for an “information system security engineer” who already has a “Top Secret SCI [Sensitive Compartmentalized Information] with NSA Full Scope Polygraph” security clearance.

The intelligence community has been interested in social media for years. In-Q-Tel has sunk money into companies like Attensity, which recently announced its own web 2.0-monitoring service. The agencies have their own, password-protected blogs and wikis — even a MySpace for spooks. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence maintains an Open Source Center, which combs publicly available information, including web 2.0 sites. Doug Naquin, the Center’s Director, told an audience of intelligence professionals in October 2007 that “we’re looking now at YouTube, which carries some unique and honest-to-goodness intelligence…. We have groups looking at what they call ‘citizens media’: people taking pictures with their cell phones and posting them on the internet. Then there’s social media, phenomena like MySpace and blogs.”

But, “the CIA specifically needs the help of innovative tech firms to keep up with the pace of innovation in social media. Experienced IC [intelligence community] analysts may not be the best at detecting the incessant shift in popularity of social-networking sites. They need help in following young international internet user-herds as they move their allegiance from one site to another,” Lewis Shepherd, the former senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, says in an e-mail. “Facebook says that more than 70 percent of its users are outside the U.S., in more than 180 countries. There are more than 200 non-U.S., non-English-language microblogging Twitter-clone sites today. If the intelligence community ignored that tsunami of real-time information, we’d call them incompetent.”

ALSO:

Employers are using it while vetting new hires, why not the CIA?

Filed under  //  national security   social media   wired.com