“When you’re low down and dirty, from walkin’ the street
With your old hurdy gurdy, no one to meet
Said love ain’t the same on the south side of town
You could look but you ain’t gonna find it around”
For those of you who have been faithful readers, my frustration with social networking and the twin issues of applicability and TMI (too much information) might be getting tiresome. But as I pointed out in a previous post, social media is reaching a tipping point where the critical mass will either relegate it to the commonplace or catapult it into the stratosphere. While some people ordered prime rib, I’m expecting meatloaf.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term Web 2.0, you might think that it was the new-and-improved version of the original Internet. Even for the technically savvy, the term was originally mistaken for IPv6 which is the next generation of internet protocol (IP). It has the ring of newness in the same way that… In reality, the novelty is more akin to Compassionate Conservatism or Van Halen III. In reality, some marketing genius came up with the term to sell the services to more users. They adopted the time-tested method of incrementing a number to indicate change and sent their minions of pseudo-journalists out into the fray to trumpet the new savior of the Internet. It’s kind of like saying Bush II was an improvement over Bush I!
Now I’m not going to sit here and pretend that changes aren’t fast and furious in cyberspace. New products and services are continually released and there are some incredibly fascinating offerings out there. What I am going to tell you is that Web 2.0 is a sham, a farce, and Three-card Monte game all rolled into one. And, the beneficiaries of the scam are the makers of portable devices and software developers looking for new frontiers to offer their wares. There are some terrific services out there and Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook are prime examples. They provide some incredible functionality but they aren’t quantum leaps.
I mention this not to denigrate the offerings but rather as a warning. For everyone who thinks that social media is the cure-all that will bring the world closer and facilitate a flat-world view, you need to wake up. Web 2.0 is not a magic wand that you can wave and instantly make all the children play nice together. This still requires good old-fashioned organization work at the lowest levels with a lot of sweat. Social media is a great tool but, as the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like nails. If you pin all your hopes in organizing people or disseminating a message on it, you’re doomed to failure. However, if you add it to your arsenal of communications tools, it can be an invaluable asset.
So That's Life? 
Brain Damage
05/26/2009If you stop for a minute and think about all the fancy gadgets that we take for granted each day, the array is truly astounding. We’ve got cel phones with wireless headsets that can connect us to virtually any corner of the world with a voice command. Many of these phones contain microprocessors more powerful than the original computers of the 1960’s. As for computers themselves, there are now ultra-portable netbooks that pack a tremendous amount of computing power into a highly-portable chassis with a long-lasting battery. We have hybrid cars, caller ID, and GPS.
What do all these have in common? Not a single one was “imagined” 50 years ago. No science fiction book or movie ever thought that a portable/personal communication device would be commonplace. Sure, they had flying cars, fancy walkie-talkies, and stain-resistant clothes, but something that we take for granted just never made it into their vision of the future. Maybe it would have killed the plotline of an adventure if the protagonist could whip out a phone and call for help or find a vital piece of data through Google! Then again, it’s more likely that nobody ever realized how vital a personal communication device would be. When it comes right down to it, predicting the future of technology is hugely unreliable. Too bad our government officials aren’t this realistic.
Although it isn’t official, Hawaii’s attempt at predicting the future of high tech (Act 221) has just about seen its last days. For supporters, it’s the death knell for tech in Hawaii. For opponents, it treats a bleeding ulcer that has deprived the state of needed tax revenue. Unfortunately, neither side understands that both economically and practically, using the government to promote this industry was probably a bad idea in the first place. From an economics standpoint, promotion of a single industry over others is both an ineffective and dangerous gamble. This kind of tax credit has not proven to be an effective stimulus and the idea that anyone can pick a winning industry is as ludicrous as thinking that brokers can pick winner stocks.
I’m thinking that we need to be more forward looking. We need to address multiple issues with far-reaching ideas that will meaningfully impact our lives. We don’t need out-of-the-box thinking, we need a new box. What should we do? Invest in transporter technology!
OK, for those of you who didn’t grow up watching Star Trek reruns, the transporter takes an item or person, breaks it up into the component molecules, sends it across a distance, and reassembles it. We would solve commuting, transportation, and even search and rescue problems in a single stroke. We’d make the world smaller and bring new goods to market much faster than was ever imagined. OK, we run the risk of cross-mutation ala “The Fly” and split personalities (see Star Trek TOS ), but imagine the possibilities.
Sure, this is far fetched and it has been demonstrated that the technology is pretty much out of our reach. However, the research that would have to go into developing this technology would certainly spawn many other new and unforeseen benefits. Research, not chips and websites, are the products that a good stimulus effort need to encourage. Every municipality is trying to recreate the Silicon Valley success of the 90’s without realizing that it succeeded because there was a critical mass of smart people in close proximity with Stanford. These people were crammed into a fairly small area and interacted with each other on a regular basis. They shopped in the same stores, ate in the same restaurants, and drank in the same bars. The synergy this created was where the spark for innovation came from. Can this be recreated in Hawaii? I think that it could if we just stop looking for a miracle and start thinking about how new ideas really are generated.
Posted in commentary, tech | 2 Comments »