Sunday, August 30, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

As Internet turns 40, barriers threaten its growth Top
NEW YORK — Goofy videos weren't on the minds of Len Kleinrock and his team at UCLA when they began tests 40 years ago on what would become the Internet. Neither was social networking, for that matter, nor were most of the other easy-to-use applications that have drawn more than a billion people online. Instead the researchers sought to create an open network for freely exchanging information, an openness that ultimately spurred the innovation that would later spawn the likes of YouTube, Facebook and the World Wide Web. There's still plenty of room for innovation today, yet the openness fostering it may be eroding. While the Internet is more widely available and faster than ever, artificial barriers threaten to constrict its growth. Call it a mid-life crisis. A variety of factors are to blame. Spam and hacking attacks force network operators to erect security firewalls. Authoritarian regimes block access to many sites and services within their borders. And commercial considerations spur policies that can thwart rivals, particularly on mobile devices like the iPhone. "There is more freedom for the typical Internet user to play, to communicate, to shop – more opportunities than ever before," said Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor and co-founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "On the worrisome side, there are some longer-term trends that are making it much more possible (for information) to be controlled." Few were paying attention back on Sept. 2, 1969, when about 20 people gathered in Kleinrock's lab at the University of California, Los Angeles, to watch as two bulky computers passed meaningless test data through a 15-foot gray cable. That was the beginning of the fledgling Arpanet network. Stanford Research Institute joined a month later, and UC Santa Barbara and the University of Utah did by year's end. The 1970s brought e-mail and the TCP/IP communications protocols, which allowed multiple networks to connect – and formed the Internet. The '80s gave birth to an addressing system with suffixes like ".com" and ".org" in widespread use today. The Internet didn't become a household word until the '90s, though, after a British physicist, Tim Berners-Lee, invented the Web, a subset of the Internet that makes it easier to link resources across disparate locations. Meanwhile, service providers like America Online connected millions of people for the first time. That early obscurity helped the Internet blossom, free from regulatory and commercial constraints that might discourage or even prohibit experimentation. "For most of the Internet's history, no one had heard of it," Zittrain said. "That gave it time to prove itself functionally and to kind of take root." Even the U.S. government, which funded much of the Internet's early development as a military project, largely left it alone, allowing its engineers to promote their ideal of an open network. When Berners-Lee, working at a European physics lab, invented the Web in 1990, he could release it to the world without having to seek permission or contend with security firewalls that today treat unknown types of Internet traffic as suspect. Even the free flow of pornography led to innovations in Internet credit card payments, online video and other technologies used in the mainstream today. "Allow that open access, and a thousand flowers bloom," said Kleinrock, a UCLA professor since 1963. "One thing about the Internet you can predict is you will be surprised by applications you did not expect." That idealism is eroding. An ongoing dispute between Google Inc. and Apple Inc. underscores one such barrier. Like some other mobile devices that connect to the Internet, the iPhone restricts the software that can run on it. Only applications Apple has vetted are allowed. Apple recently blocked the Google Voice communications application, saying it overrides the iPhone's built-in interface. Skeptics, however, suggest the move thwarts Google's potentially competing phone services. On desktop computers, some Internet access providers have erected barriers to curb bandwidth-gobbling file-sharing services used by their subscribers. Comcast Corp. got rebuked by Federal Communications Commission last year for blocking or delaying some forms of file-sharing; Comcast ultimately agreed to stop that. The episode galvanized calls for the government to require "net neutrality," which essentially means that a service provider could not favor certain forms of data traffic over others. But that wouldn't be a new rule as much as a return to the principles that drove the network Kleinrock and his colleagues began building 40 years ago. Even if service providers don't actively interfere with traffic, they can discourage consumers' unfettered use of the Internet with caps on monthly data usage. Some access providers are testing drastically lower limits that could mean extra charges for watching just a few DVD-quality movies online. "You are less likely to try things out," said Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist and one of the Internet's founding fathers. "No one wants a surprise bill at the end of the month." Dave Farber, a former chief technologist at the Federal Communications Commission, said systems are far more powerful when software developers and consumers alike can simply try things out. Farber has unlocked an older iPhone using a warrantee-voiding technique known as jail-breaking, allowing the phone to run software that Apple hasn't approved. By doing that, he could watch video before Apple supported it in the most recent version of the iPhone, and he changed the screen display when the phone is idle to give him a summary of appointments and e-mails. While Apple insists its reviews are necessary to protect children and consumer privacy and to avoid degrading phone performance, other phone developers are trying to preserve the type of openness found on desktop computers. Google's Android system, for instance, allows anyone to write and distribute software without permission. Yet even on the desktop, other barriers get in the way. Steve Crocker, an Internet pioneer who now heads the startup Shinkuro Inc., said his company has had a tough time building technology that helps people in different companies collaborate because of security firewalls that are ubiquitous on the Internet. Simply put, firewalls are designed to block incoming connections, making direct interactions between users challenging, if not impossible. No one's suggesting the removal of all barriers, of course. Security firewalls and spam filters became crucial as the Internet grew and attracted malicious behavior, much as traffic lights eventually had to be erected as cars flooded the roads. Removing those barriers could create larger problems. And many barriers throughout history eventually fell away – often under pressure. Early on, AOL was notorious for discouraging users from venturing from its gated community onto the broader Web. The company gradually opened the doors as its subscribers complained or fled. Today, the company is rebuilding its business around that open Internet. What the Internet's leading engineers are trying to avoid are barriers that are so burdensome that they squash emerging ideas before they can take hold. Already, there is evidence of controls at workplaces and service providers slowing the uptake of file-sharing and collaboration tools. Video could be next if consumers shun higher-quality and longer clips for fear of incurring extra bandwidth fees. Likewise, startups may never get a chance to reach users if mobile gatekeepers won't allow them. If such barriers keep innovations from the hands of consumers, we may never know what else we may be missing along the way. ___ Anick Jesdanun, deputy technology editor at The Associated Press, has been writing about the Internet since its 30th anniversary in 1999. He can be reached at njesdanun(at)ap.org. More on Computers
 
Michael B. Laskoff: The Balls, Brains and Humility to Be Healthy Top
It's August, almost Labor Day. For a week, we've read little except about the death and pageantry surrounding the mourning for and burial of Ted Kennedy. You'll note that not even the right wing is going along with this. Why? Because they are all on vacation, just like their brethren on the left. So, too, are the Senators and House members who spent the first part of the recess getting a dose of democracy that will enliven more than a few nightmares. Like everyone else, they are taking refuge in the warm embrace of family and other -- less official -- loved ones. Here, at the end of August, it's almost easy to forget that health care reform remains an urgent, national necessity. Whether the current effort has life in it or not is irrelevant: change must come. Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats should not confuse their impressive ability to mobilize their shrunken base in ways both shrill and frightening. True, they whipped fear and doubt into the occluded heart of fearful and reactionary voters, but preserving the status quo is no victory. It simply means that people will live shorter, less healthy lives. This sort of political victory literally makes us all sicker. The Democrats, of course, bear plenty of blame. Quite simply, they provided us with 1,200 page bills, not rallying cries. They reminded us that the business of governing is often chaotic but did so without the a clear leader or message to make sense of it all. Maybe had Kennedy been healthy or Obama not so distracted with trying to save the economy and our collective asses, things would have been different. But Kennedy is dead and the president spent too much time staying away or playing defense to sell a nonspecific concept. Throw in the unwillingness to upset pharma or the insurance industry too much, and what should have been a difficult victory has turned into a quiet dissipation of opportunity. Health care reform is still necessary to save the economy. Moreover, it's morally virtuous and patriotic and completely justifiable on purely selfish grounds. Currently, in more than 30 other countries everyone has access to health care and everyone lives longer, on average, than Americans. (That includes people who have already reached the age of sixty.) So the only question is do we change now or when things are much worse. Now would be better. To get things done, I suggest that we simplify this debate. First, let's be clear: the goal is universal health care -- no ifs, ands or buts. Second, let's avoid the dread form of socialism by following in the footsteps of Germany, France and Japan. They all have universal health but no one could call their system's socialist. Three, let's have the balls, brains and humility to learn how these countries went from the concept of universal health care to functioning systems that cost half of what the status quo does in America. And finally, let's remember that exceptions don't prove rules. No system can prevent every tragedy, but that's hardly a reason to retain a system that will, for certain, lead to a lower standard of living. (In other words, the Canadians and British are still healthier than we are.) The need is real. The way forward is clear. The message should be obvious: universal care benefits us all. Let's get on with it. More on Health Care
 
Cutler, McDaniels Reunite At Invesco Tonight: No Love To Be Lost Top
DENVER(AP) - Jay Cutler and Josh McDaniels aren't exactly eager to see each other Sunday night when the Chicago Bears visit the Denver Broncos in the summer's most anticipated pre-season game. Or is it a grudge match? Both men have gone out of their way to declare that the business at hand - getting ready for the regular season - is infinitely more important than revisiting the discord that led to Cutler being sent to the Bears for Kyle Orton in a blockbuster trade. "There are not two people out there playing on Sunday night," McDaniels said. A cage match, however, might not get any better ratings or higher interest than this otherwise meaningless game, where all eyes will be on the Pro Bowl passer and the rookie head coach who couldn't get along. Don't expect hugs and handshakes. "I'm not going to seek him out," Cutler declared. Would McDaniels have anything to say to him anyway? "I doubt it," McDaniels said. Here's something both men agree on: this game isn't about them. Although, they'll have a hard time convincing the sold-out stadium or the national television audience. "It's another great opportunity for us to fix things that we haven't done well," McDaniels insisted. "I think if you make too much of the game or an opponent in the pre-season, you're kind of missing the point." "It's a pre-season game," Cutler concurred. "We've got to keep that in perspective." OK, this game is about starters getting their final tuneup for their respective openers and about players on the bubble making one last case to win a job. But the intriguing subplot is the reluctant reunion between two hardheaded men whose paths barely crossed in Denver before a messy divorce handed the Bears their first franchise quarterback since Sid Luckman 60 years ago and gave the Broncos a fresh start and a handful of high draft picks. Despite his acrimonious departure from Denver, Cutler, who felt the circle of trust was broken when McDaniels talked about trading him for Matt Cassel, said he feels both sides are happier now that they're apart. And, for good measure, he said he thinks McDaniels will be a successful coach in the NFL. "Just the brief amount of time I was able to spend with him, he's impressive," Cutler said. "He knows a lot about offences, he knows a lot about getting guys open and scoring points, as everyone's seen when he was in New England, so I think they're going to be fine." Cutler said he expects a rude reception from Broncos fans, and he might get less than a warm welcome from some of his former teammates, as well. "In practice, you never really got to hit him," defensive end Kenny Peterson said. "But now you've actually got a chance, if you can get to him, to lay your body on him a little bit." Or a lot. "It definitely would be nice to get Jay on the ground, give the fans something to cheer about and something to look forward to," Broncos linebacker Mario Haggan said. Cutler certainly expects lots of pressure from his old peers. "Yeah, I mean, it's the third pre-season game, so offences and defences are adding a little bit more and a little bit more and some different wrinkles out there," Cutler said. "So, we're just going to be on our toes and be prepared for anything." One former teammate Cutler won't see across the field is receiver Brandon Marshall, another Pro Bowl superstar who isn't getting along with the new 33-year-old coach who replaced Mike Shanahan. Marshall also wants a trade, but he was suspended over detrimental conduct, the last straw a churlish display of unprofessional behaviour at practice Wednesday, when he batted down a pass thrown to him and punted a ball after a warmup drill instead of handing it to the ball boy, among other acts of defiance. When video of Marshall's behaviour went viral, the receiver went on ESPN for a mea culpa Thursday night. But McDaniels informed him Friday morning he was done with his act for the rest of the pre-season. "Hopefully this hits home with him and when he comes back in two weeks he'll be ready to play and help us win some games," teammate Brandon Stokley said. While Cutler's return to Denver is grabbing the headlines, he won't be the only quarterback facing his former team. In a subplot to the subplot, Orton makes his home debut at Invesco Field, where he was booed by a small but vocal crowd over his poor performance in a scrimmage three weeks ago. This is a town, after all, where Hall of Famer John Elway still casts a long shadow and the standards for quarterbacks are a mile high. "It's tough. I feel bad for Kyle," Cutler said. "I think he's going to pull through in the long run. Offensively, they've got a lot of good players. They've got a great offensive line. They've got good receivers. And Josh McDaniels is a good offensive mind." But Cutler has moved on, and for one night he returns to Denver in a stark reminder of what was and what could have been.
 
Byron Williams: Facts Left the Health Care Debate Long Ago, Emotion Is the Driver Now! Top
As a nation, do we like to be played for fools? Conservative talk radio has framed the creation of national health care as the end of America as we've come to know it. What exactly does that mean? The level of conversation is so debase people are now comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. I recall several years ago taking issue with those who made similar comparison to George W. Bush, much to the chagrin of those on the left who also wanted to cling to cheap and inaccurate historical analogies. Anyone making linkages to the current president and the Fuhrer is not only historically ignorant and culturally insensitive, but have yet to compose a coherent thought as to why they are truly opposed to any impending health care legislation so they desperately resort to saying: "He's Hitler!" It's been a while since facts drove this debate. Emotion and fear are dominating the conversation and communism is now the derogatory term du jour . We bought in to the nonsense of the Iraq War, yet we seem abhorrent to the common sense of health care, fearing that we might soon be dressed alike, required to read Obama's "Little Red Book" during our state-sanctioned lunch breaks. Accusations of communism or socialism are simply a shorter way to say: "We don't have an intellectual leg to stand on in this debate." Throwing out the term communism has all the demagoguery of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and recalls a dark chapter in American history. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Southern politicians and the FBI labeled civil rights activists as communists in an effort to divert attention away from the central issue of the systematic application of second-class citizenship toward the many of the country's Negro citizens. By effectively labeling activists as communist, defenders of the status quo could easily stifle the organizing efforts of any group or individual. South Carolina moved to have the NAACP labeled as a Communist organization. In 1956, legislation was drafted forbidding anyone who was a member of the NAACP to be employed by state or local government. Southern politicians, along with organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Council worked hard to suggest the civil rights movement in general, Martin Luther King in particular, was inspired and financed by communists seeking to overthrow capitalism and democracy in America. The irony of the fear-laden propaganda was the King-led movement was based on the deeply held values embedded in Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But the fear was effective. Before President John F. Kennedy would endorse a civil-rights bill in 1963, he demanded that King fire Jack O'Dell as the director of voter registration for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference because of past communist ties. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover labeled O'Dell and fellow SCLC member Stanley Levison, as dangerous communist operatives within the movement. Neither Levison nor O'Dell made their affiliation with the Communist Party in the 1950s a secret; and they were hardly dangerous as Hoover alleged. With O'Dell's affiliation, the civil rights legislation could be viewed by opponents as a communist bill, though it was simply guaranteeing the rights that every American was supposed to have at birth. O'Dell resigned and Kennedy endorsed civil rights legislation on June 11, 1963. This illustration indicates the power of fear as a political tactic. Fear robs us of any critical thinking. For as much as communism or socialism has been bantered about vis a vis the impending health care legislation, no one has argued for the dismantling of Social Security or Medicare. Wouldn't that be the logical next step? Are those programs not based on socialist principles? Many of the inflammatory rumors have been debunked from death panels to government takeover of the health care industry, largely to no avail. But the accuracy of facts is not what the current health care conversation is about. The current conversation has more to do with whose emotion is the strongest. If the emotion of health care proponents carries the day, the question that members of Congress will ask: "Will my vote put the country on the road to universal coverage?" If it's the detractors whose voice, saturated with fear, emotion and misinformation is what they hear, the question they will ask: "Will this vote cost me re-election in 2010?" Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his Web site: byronspeaks.com More on Civil Rights
 
The Mediocre Multitasker: Study Shows Persistent Multitaskers Perform Badly In A Variety Of Tasks Top
Read it and gloat. Last week, researchers at Stanford University published a study showing that the most persistent multitaskers perform badly in a variety of tasks. They don't focus as well as non-multitaskers. They're more distractible. They're weaker at shifting from one task to another and at organizing information. They are, as a matter of fact, worse at multitasking than people who don't ordinarily multitask.
 
"Today Show" Hires Jenna Bush Top
NEW YORK — NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent – former first daughter Jenna Hager. The daughter of former President George W. Bush will contribute stories about once a month on issues like education to television's top-rated morning news show, said Jim Bell, its executive producer. Hager, a 27-year-old teacher in Baltimore, said she has always wanted to be a teacher and a writer, and has already authored two books. But she was intrigued by the idea of getting into television when Bell contacted her. "It wasn't something I'd always dreamed to do," she said. "But I think one of the most important things in life is to be open-minded and to be open-minded for change." She'll essentially work two part-time jobs as a correspondent and in her school, where she will be a reading coordinator this year. Bell said he got the idea after seeing Hager in two "Today" appearances. She was on the program two years ago to promote her book about an HIV-infected single mother, "Ana's Story: A Journey of Hope," and it went so well that a short interview was stretched to nearly a half hour. She and her mother, Laura Bush, also co-hosted an hour of "Today" around the time their picture book came out. She "just sort of popped to us as a natural presence, comfortable" on the air, Bell said. Hager will work out of NBC's Washington bureau. "I think she can handle it," he said. "I think she knows something about pressure and being under some scrutiny. When she came here for a handful of appearances, she knocked it out of the park." He expects her first story, most likely concerning education, to be on sometime next month. A first television job on "Today" is, in her father's world, sort of like a run for president as a first attempt at elective office. Hager said that people on the show "have always made me, whenever I've been there, feel very comfortable." Bell said Hager won't be covering politics. He said he didn't consider the job as a down payment for a future interview with her father, who has been living quietly in Texas since leaving office earlier this year. Attacks on NBC News by conservatives for the liberal bent of MSNBC also had nothing to do with it, he said. "I hope to focus on what I'm passionate about because I think I'd do them best job on them – education, urban education, women and children's issues and literacy," said Hager. Married to Henry Hager in May 2008 at her family's ranch in Texas, she doesn't plan to do is talk about her experiences as the daughter of a president. "I don't think it's that interesting," she said. "I'm pretty normal." More on NBC
 
Jim Jaffe: Obama, Public Differ on Diagnosis Top
Because politicians are sensitive to how quickly the window of opportunity can slam shut, they try to seize the moment and move quickly when they can. One cost of this strategy involves attempting to impose a remedy before the patient really understands the diagnosis. That's one explanation for the problems President Obama's health reform initiative is now confronting. The president accepts bipartisan expert analysis that our system is costly and inefficient because there's an enormous amount of waste -- perhaps as much as 30 percent -- when patients are provided with services that are less than optimal -- and sometimes seem totally inappropriate -- to deal with their problems. Getting rid of that waste means eliminating many tests, procedures and even visits with specialist physicians. A provocative, but less than helpful, word to describe efforts to reduce such waste is rationing. Many members of the public are fearful of this strategy because they view the problem differently. They believe the system needs to be fixed because people are being denied services they need that could allow them to lead healthier lives. Let's quickly stipulate here that this happens. But data suggests those not getting what they need is a significantly smaller group than those receiving excessive care. The contrasting perceptions have been repeatedly documented . Bridging them is an ongoing problem. Suffice to say that the experts, who spend ample time talking with one another, have done an inadequate job of educating the public. The media, which understandably finds stories of the uninsured denied needed care more compelling -- and easier to get to -- than those of the insured who are overserved, hasn't always helped. Our president, who is nothing if not a deft communicator, attempts to avoid confronting these competing visions by carefully choosing his language, regularly reassuring voters that they'll receive the care they need (which he carefully does not italicize) while carefully avoiding any promise that they'll receive all the care they or their doctors want. This was reasonably easy to do during the campaign when cost (to the government) was less of an issue, allowing a focus on making care more accessible to individuals. Recall the debate about whether the Obama or Clinton proposal more quickly approved universal coverage. But governing requires greater specificity than politicking and record deficits inhibit generosity for new spending. Another way of papering over the challenge is to carefully define waste. There's general agreement bloated administrative costs imposed by insurance and alleged big profits for insurers and drug firms should be slimmed. Reducing paperwork and duplication is a universal worthy goal, but that's a far different thing than construing an extra x-ray, pill or surgical procedure that doctor and patient want as unneeded. This quest to limit profits and administrative costs lends support to a government-run plan like Medicare, which has low administrative costs, or a similar new public plan. The resulting debate generates a lot of heat, but ignores the fact that Medicare is on the brink of bankruptcy, already imposes limits on tests and procedures that are available (just as private insurers do) and is every bit as tolerant of inappropriate and expensive care as other coverage is. The debate seems more partisan than it actually is. In reality there's a split within each party on the over-consumption issue. Experts within the Republican Party think that backing away from employer-provided coverage would force individuals to make more prudent economic decisions that would reduce over-consumption. Among Democrats, few believe that market forces can do the job in this area where supply basically creates its own demand. Those with less expertise in both parties prefer to argue that everyone can get anything they want if only forces of evil (viewed as capitalistic insurers and drug makers by one group and malpractice lawyers by the other) can be tamed. In the past, reformers have opted for the ever-popular dessert plan which provides more coverage in the short run and balances it with a promise to somehow make the system more efficient (by providing less care) in the long run. The long-running debate about reducing Medicare's physician reimbursement suggests, were any added proof required, that the long run never quite arrives. Today's debate seems to be the latest chapter in the contest between progressives who want to delegate the big decisions (like what tests and drugs are worth paying for) to disinterested experts and the populists who demand that the voters be provided with what they want at a price they can afford by lowering the boom on the big, powerful and profitable institutions who set prices. In past decades, they logic they now would apply to drug and insurance companies was directed toward railroads and banks. Until now, the American people haven't found either approach totally satisfactory and their continued ambivalence will probably require yet another compromise that papers over the difference. That's what the centrists on Capitol Hill are groping toward. (This case is made in greater detail at Centeredpolitics.com, where this piece was initially posted.)
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)