11/25/08: The only post still worth reading here is the last one. Some will say that it is "subversive".
This page was copied from the defunct server for blogs.law.harvard.edu. The automatically generated links have gone bad and I apologize for not copying the replies.
Mostly About Politics, Information Technology, Transportation and Family
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 1/17/06; 8:03:19 AM - Edit
Jimbo,
For me, it is about fairness. The patent system is neither particularly fair nor efficient in bringing about innovation. Yet the basic premise of granting a limited monopoly on an invention is sound. Where it has gotten all out of whack is in the duration of the monopoly (and consequent valuation of invention). We can do a lot to fix these problems by creating an equitable compensation system inside a new software company, one that gets the job done and then largely gets out of the way. A virtual, flexible organization should immensely aid in preventing the company from overreaching in the usual ways in order to perpetuate itself and meet commitments for things like commercial office leases and the salaries of long-term employees. Having you as a principal client would also help to guarantee the company does not become an unmitigated monopoly.
My goal is not to emulate Gates and massively disproportionate wealth accumulation to founders but to lead in the development of equitable organizations that can self-organize. This is the only way to be consistent with the purpose of our products. It should entail the generation of some personal wealth, to be sure. But that ought to be in the millions, not billions. People are not created equal but they are not created that unequal either.
Concurrently with these systems for a more socially equitable distribution of wealth, there must be better mechanisms for deciding where to apply surplus. Concentration in wealth gives time and energy to focus and commit. A more equitable world cannot afford to dissipate its surpluses as happens so often when committees meet and resolve differences simply by compromise and throwing a bone to each member regardless of the merit of their request. Discussion Systems' goal is to create "radically interactive" media that stand out not just because of a high degree of participation but also a strong propensity to converge.
I've copied Christopher and Brian because I think that they can add to this discussion and I will also post this letter to blogs.law.harvard.edu to encourage wider commentary. Since you are in contact with Lessig and Stallman, it would be kind of you to reply on my blog and also ask them also to participate in that open forum.
Best regards,
Bruce
_________________________
Bruce A. McHenry
www.discussit.org
m. +1 202 460 1492
o. +1 617 500 7005
IM: bruce_mchenry on Skype & Hotmail
12/9/04: Jimbo replied quickly by email but did not post here because he likes to write more carefully for public consumption. I wish most bloggers would do the same...
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 11/15/04; 4:54:27 PM - Edit
The following is excerpted from an email to David M. Abshire. He prevented the Voice of America from being defunding in the 70's and is now concerned with US broadcast media in the Middle East. This is essentially a call for a high level meeting to devote a fraction of that budget to customizing communications for populations with low literacy and Internet connectivity. While it might be conceived as a DoD initiative, the applications could be more generally beneficial.
Originally titled, "Developing a Fax for the Liberation of the Arab (& American) Mind", because President Reagan said that the fax machine was key to the downfall of the USSR.
(Dear Dave,)
The greatest strength of this country since its founding has been a relatively open and diverse public discussion. Though the nature of the content depends on this openness, the content itself is mostly transient and subordinate to the principles of freedom of speech and press.
The progress of such liberal democratic values in the Middle East is hampered not so much by distribution of Dallas as by the lack of an ethical foundation for a political and judicial system that is not based on the Koran and the frequently Medieval interpretations of leading mullahs. The inexorable if uneven process by which the Arab peoples will ratchet their systems of government up towards greater openness and fairness depends much less on whether they can get an Arabic Sesame Street than having the means to subject darker laws and rulers to the bleaching effects of strong illumination. This requires detailed case based processes that depend on input from mostly local actors. Their steady progress depends on having the means for multi-sided communication and negotiation.
Lack of faith in this process, which appears to progress towards democracy almost regardless of the starting conditions, seems to be a defining characteristic of leadership that has sought to impose a more developed and pro-American government by force. The maturation of nations appears to follow a path that has autonomy as a prerequisite. This was as true in Vietnam as it now appears to be in Iraq. Outsiders' attempts to impose progress interfere with the imperative of self-determination exemplified by the patriot Patrick Henry when he said, "Give me freedom or give me death." Inability to hear this first cry of oppressed peoples has put the recipients of our good intentions at the receiving end of a weapon held by a young American rather than at a keyboard or microphone connected to a wise one.
If such deafness is the first stride towards an overreaching imperialism and a corrupt if not collapsed state, then it is imperative to restore hearing not only at the level at the executive but in public discourse. Technology provides the means to span and time and space in order to make connections to wiser minds. Bi-directionality is an essential characteristic since "wiser" is a relative term and the raising of consciousness occurs not in one great leap but by many, many small steps.
The main reason why Arabs are angry and act out violently is because they literally have not had the means to be heard. Fax was key technology in the downfall of the Soviet system in the 1980's and, over the last few years, Internet blogs have been the central resource for Iranians in the opposition who are denied the right to publish in the press or speak in the mosque. With the minimal Internet connectivity and even the low literacy in some parts of the Middle East (e.g. the older generation in Saudi Arabia), we ought to be asking, "What are the best means and technologies to adapt the vital communication processes to local conditions?"
The US has committed substantial resources to communicate its message to the Arab world. But when replacing one organ of remote policy makers with another, the fundamental message to the people remains unchanged, "You are powerless to influence this broadcast". Changing this system is not just a matter of improving the "quality" of the programming; it is a question of changing the nature of the communication system.
Of course, no such approach will be accepted without recognition of the desirability of raising up opposing voices, and of being open to negotiation if they turn out to also have the force of logic and popular will. This is the neglected half of "public diplomacy" when directed by narcissism and narrow private interests as by the current administration. US policy is understood well enough by the Arabs; what drives suicide bombers are the so-called perceptions that US actions are hypocritical. Without a channel back to the American people and government, we proceed blithely. For example, how often do we hear of American casualties in Iraq and how much less do we notice the much larger number or Iraqis dead and wounded? How often is 9/11 invoked as an act of aggression without pause for consideration of the indirect US support for the severe and often arbitrary oppression in the perpetrators' homeland?
Interactive circuits that promote public discourse about the issues in contention would be surely be more important to resolving the present conflicts than quality children's programming or science programs! The available communication media – phone, radio, TV and computer mediated – are highly adaptable. Many configurations may be considered that would enhance two-way exchange and I will not take on the task of enumerating upon them here. (If interested, read especially the link about a speech system at http://discussIT.org/knowledge.) May I suggest a State Department level conference of policy makers, media professionals, technologists and potential users who, like the Iranian bloggers, seek to inform the debate? Such a conference would focus on the architecture of the communication system rather than the message. Because, as McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." This is true in some most unfortunate ways of most of the past efforts of the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House. Should we not seek to remediate that?
As far as I can tell from your testimony to Congress and my follow-up on the references therein, the idea of creating a new technology to accelerate the development of an informed electorate has not received consideration from the State Department, the BBG, Radio Sawa, Layalina Productions or even the new Foundation for International Understanding. Approaches using the spoken word that combine the broadcast media such as radio with the telephone and a new technologies like recognition of spoken commands may well have the potential to become a fax for the liberation of Arab minds who do not read blogs directly off the Internet. They may do even more to educate and inform the vast swaths of the American electorate that does not really read.
In summary, we should not worry about American values being "crowded out" by low quality American media exports. Rather, we should ensure that there are meaningful choices not dictated either by the mullahs or officials oiled by baksheesh, the sine qua non of valuable contracts in the Arab countries. O pening up conversations with Americans and particularly the military forces is immediately essential but the real key will be the internal discussions that, through the powerful forces of logic and human will, must necessarily advance liberal democracy as they have throughout the world.
The Voice of America's best broadcasts into the Soviet block used their dissidents to promote a dialog about internal conditions. The same approach will suggest itself again, but new technologies can be harnessed to give people greater hope of solving their own problems. If we wish to win in the battle for the perception that America stands for freedom and openness, then investments in such technologies should not only have many times the return of those in the armies but, in the perception of many Americans, reverse the sign from a negative to postive. The great delight of the Arabs could be to see such a potential investment in defense technology come back to the US and serve a similar function in educating and democratizing America. It will do this by being more compelling than Survivor, Dallas or, for that matter, most of the fare on the PBS, Discovery and History channels. It may become the means by which informative programming like Talk of the Nation, 60 Minutes, Frontline and even more popular programs are assembled. It woudl not be hard for me to develop a bid or a proposal. What's lacking is an informed and imaginative ear.
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 6/23/04; 8:41:06 PM - Edit
I submitted this abstract for ISTTT16, a convocation of the "high priests" of traffic systems theory. The odds of getting it accepted are not good, but I thought it was worth a shot.
Predicting the Evolution of Traffic 2010 - 2050
Over the past 120 years, US passenger travel per capita per day by all modes has increased at a fairly steady rate of 2.7% per annum. Trains started this period of steady gains while vehicles based on the internal combustion engine (ICE) began to account for more travel by 1920 and dominated all other modes by an order of magnitude after about 1930 in the US. These tremendous gains were obviously due to technological discontinuities – first the steam engine and railway tracks then the ICE and paved roads. However, the automobile now faces limits caused principally by congestion today and perhaps also fuel costs tomorrow. If these barriers to mobility are to be breached and the trend to continue much longer, it is most likely that another technological discontinuity will need to occur.
Several entrepreneurs propose electrified guideways as a technology for the 21st century. But such visions are not well supported by rigorous analysis. In fact, there is a huge gap. This paper will not attempt to bridge the bridge the gap so much as show how large it is and suggest areas for analytical and experimental research.
Several staged innovations will be proposed to address fundamental traffic problems: 1) 100% adoption of transponders in individual vehicles, 2) use of tight formation platooning, and 3) development of a widespread network of electrified guideways. These innovations are expected in stages because the final implementation of e-guideways is facilitated by the higher throughput afforded by stage 2 (roadway platooning); similarly, the viability of stage 2 depends on greatly diminished rates of intersection collision, the major achievement of stage 1.
The initial stage, which might be known as Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS for cars), will depend on the ability to report position and velocity. While the satellite based Global Positioning System (GPS) provides this ability, additional roadside beacons will be needed to provide adequate resolution and reliability in urban settings with multiple lanes of traffic and high buildings. The beacons could also provide local information about roadway configuration and exchange information about hazards. In addition to providing warnings of critical situations to drivers - or overriding interventions - to prevent collisions, TCAS for cars may also facilitate traffic management. Driver intent would be communicated through the turn signals and vehicle trajectories pre-computed to optimize throughput and fuel economy with resulting advisories for speed and possibly also acceleration and lane. In order to be highly effective, the transponder and advisory system will need to be installed on all vehicles. Due to the low and decreasing cost of the microelectronic components, TCAS for cars may be affordable both as a retrofit for legacy vehicles and as standard equipment on new ones. The cost/benefit will likely exceed that of air bags which would justify an aggressive and mandatory adoption schedule. The greatly improved rates of intersection collisions will be a prerequisite for the next stage.
Very precise control of following distances (i.e. 30 cm up to 55 kph) should be attainable with electronic inter-vehicle communication of control inputs and self-calibrating actuators -- providing that braking does not exceed normal traction demands ( e.g. icing imposes special conditions). This suggests that the second major stage in the evolution of traffic will be one in which new vehicles are equipped with an advanced form of cruise control that permits vehicles to form tight formations known as platoons or pods. These will maximize throughput on designated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/pod lanes, especially at critically congested junctions and roads where demand exceeds capacity. In addition, with assistance from the traffic flow management afforded at the earlier stage, high throughput street platooning will afford other possible benefits such as: 1) lowering speed limits to be more compatible with pedestrians and Human Powered Vehicles (HPVs) without compromising overall speed or throughput, 2) reducing the number of ramps needed in downtown areas to distribute the high volume of traffic carried by the guideways of the next stage.
Finally, electrified guideways are proposed as the new backbone of surface transportation. Beginning as metropolitan systems, e-guideways are expected to parallel major avenues and highways. They may support both captive and dualmode vehicles. The latter would also be able to travel on the roads in order to complete door-to-door trips. Elevated e-Guideways will combine extremely high throughput (up to 500 vehicles/minute/direction theoretically) with relatively small footprints. For the majority of trips which are within or between metropolitan areas, electrified guideways will enable vehicles to be all-electric with short range batteries that are recharged on the guideway. Electrically driven, aerodynamically streamlined platoons of relatively lightweight mid-size vehicles (500 kg) using relatively smooth, hard wheels on steel guideways can achieve excellent energy efficiency. 2 liters equivalent per 100 km at 160 kph should be readily attainable. The high guideway construction costs (on the order of $1 trillion in the US for 80,000 miles) will be justified by 1) reductions in costs for accident liability, energy and vehicle maintenance, 2) value added by increased speed and range as well as convenience of automated guideway travel, 3) value created by automating mid-size freight vehicles that are able to travel direct to destination without transshipment delays and expenses thus offering a higher level of service at a lower cost.
The paper will discuss the engineering feasibility of each of these stages and suggest areas in need of further work. Furthermore, there will be a review of the applications of traffic and transportation theory to these approaches and finally a request for assistance to fill in the voids.
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 6/23/04; 8:16:59 PM - Edit
Please click the title to see a table providing a description of major steps in the evolution of traffic and systems for surface transportation over the period 2010-2050. Like all documents at www.discussit.org, this table is subject to challenge and continuous revision. This blog entry is provided to receive comments.
Articles providing a broader context can be found here.
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 5/3/04; 2:36:46 PM - Edit
Blog (or Knowledge Management or Course Management or ...) developers must address economic needs. Almost everyone from journalists to stock analysts to programmers to executives need to be able to make a living from their good work and it is almost impossible to earn a red cent in blogs.
Blogging still exhibits the shortcomings of deep roots in paper publishing. Gutenberg's printing press created economies of scale at the cost of having to fix the content beforehand. This resulted in relatively rigid author/editor centered publishing hierarchies that still control the printed word. The Internet - unlike Gutenberg's printing press - makes it possible to have continuously updated reference works on just about anything; we just don't have the software yet. Or the mindset.
If
you are interested as a developer or marketeer, you can look at a business plan
draft at
www.discussIT.org/knowledge/ds. We
need marketing people with experience in highly valued knowledge areas like
investment banking. While
you can use
anything you find here or at
www.discussIT.org,
you must reference it if you create any derivative work. In addition, you
should also post a pointer to your derived works in a response to this post.
Make this effort as efficient, open and fair as possible or else pfaff off and
fail. If you go to the business plan and learn something valuable but then
cheat on the terms, you will be contravening the very principle of accurate
attribution and fair compensation which is what Discussion Systems intends to
help realize in publishing, media and software.
Edited: 26 Sept 05, 27 Oct 05
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 12/18/03; 10:28:43 PM - Edit
What is the likelihood that something like this conversation took place, circa 1992?
Westernized Saudi Prince: It is really too bad that Saddam was not removed during the Gulf War. The Middle East desperately needs to advance beyond religious and tribal mores towards more open and stable government for the long term. Our subjects are so illiterate and poorly educated that clerics could turn our F-15's against Israel's. I have no desire for such a fight and great respect for the industriousness and intelligence of the Jews. They are after all our elder brothers - yours and mine.
Bush I: I would not wish to see such a fight and I think we will agree on the need for responsible democracy throughout your region. Iraq is one of the most advanced countries and a good place to start. But the Gulf War coalition created no mandate for regieme change in Baghdad and Congress would balk at the cost especially of the subsequent occupation. The potential expenses rankle my Yankee conservatism too. But we may have to finish the job eventually. Our softness let Hitler go much too far and the nuclear material coming out of the former Soviet Union is truly frightening.
Westernized Saudi Prince: Well at least we are no longer threatened by Saddam and we owe you great thanks for that.
Bush I: We will do our best to honor Rooseveldt's promise to your grandfather.
Westernized Saudi Prince: But you would need another Pearl Harbor to finish the job in Iraq?
Bush I: That's true.
Westernized Saudi Prince: Hmmmm.
Bush I: You know it won't be long before an individual can engineer race specific pathogens...
Westernized Saudi Prince: Yes.
Bush I: And that we'll need not only responsible regiemes throughout the world but also close surveillance to head off that threat?
Westernized Saudi Prince: That sounds reasonable. Unless of course one believes your religious fundamentalists and ours. If their prophecy is destiny, the end of our world is nigh.
Bush I: Well, I say that we should choose destiny for ourselves.
Westernized Saudi Prince: Amen to that.
Edited several times including on 9/26/2005.
# Posted by Bruce McHenry on 11/6/03; 1:11:42 PM - Edit