Why Kids Matter

Kids matter, even if for no other reason than that they'll be adults one day. Among the teenagers and young adults exists a President of the United States, a speaker of the house, thousands of CEOs, best-selling authors, movie stars and a whole lot of other people that are going to shape the world in 40 years.  And it is the teenage years that these future leaders develop there personalities.  This means that when parents, teachers and other adults interact with adults, they have the power to shape the future of the world.  But to say that these adults have complete control over who these kids will become is ludacris.  The average kid devotes over 7 hours to some form of media consumption every day.  That's not including how much video games they play, or how much time they spend on the phone, that is 7 hours of TV and internet most. Dad's on average spend about the same amount of time with their kids per week!  So it is likely that the factors of these kids developments go much far past their parents, and the question is, who will these kids become?

Will they become technology reliant assholes?  Some might say so.  Or will we become strengthened by technology, becoming more productive workers?  Or maybe we will even grow more connected through technology; Facebook does have the effect of keeping people in touch.  Either way, it is becoming evident that technology will play a huge role in the development of Generation Y.

So if you care about the future you need to look at kids now. And what will we see when we look at kids now? We will see a group of self-publishers who are used to writing about themselves on twitter and other social medias.  We will see a group of kids that are going to compete with the rest of the world for jobs. A group of kids that will be even more connected to technology than we are now, and will be comfortable even to make payments digitally.  We will see a group of kids who are consuming more politically correct material than ever. So what does that work out to?  I have no idea.

It is impossible to look at kids now and predict the future.  Almost every generation looks down on the next generation with scorn and disgust.  This has been going on since 1700 B.C.. The truth is kids aren't developed yet.  We have seen 9-11 and that has affected our political views, we have seen the Iraq war and that has affected our views even more.  There are still many historical events yet to witness, there are still many technological developments yet to come out.  There are still many authors yet to write influential books.  Kids have not yet developed and we don't exactly know what will be the influences on them in the next years.  For now I can say this, our future will not be drastically different than the present.  How we get from place to place may change, how we send a message to one another may change, but we won't be much different from our parents or their parents or the their parents before them.  People are people and although people's ideas change, in the macro view, every generation has not been so different.

Pebble Makes Ripples in the Smart Phone Industry

Google's Project Glass

I love technology.  What can I say, I'm a millennial.  I believe that through advances in technology and improved human-computer interactions, productivity can be increased by the tenfold.  I am the kind of guy who wants to wear a computer on my body in a Google Glass type of way.  Sometimes when I express my willingness to accept technology though, I feel like I am distinguishing myself from the norm.

Technology is moving fast.  How fast? Exponentially!  The law of accelerating returns is a way of explaining that the returns of technology (productivity) has been increasing at a continually faster rate every year.

Rate of Data Transmission over years

To put that in perspective, look at the graph to the left.  This shows the speed of data transmission as it has increased since the use of Morse Code in 1940.  Not only is data being transmitted faster than ever before, but also the speed at which it is transmitted is increasing faster than ever before, therefore we have never lived in a time where we have been witnessing this much technological change.

For the people who can keep up with this change, this is great.  Most of my friends are easily able to keep up with their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat accounts and a good number also keep up with Pinterest, Vine.  The kids that I am talking about walk around everywhere with a smartphone in their pocket and keeping up with different sites and apps is really not so difficult.   I get an alert when I get a snap, I leave my Facebook page up in the background to my homework, I look at Twitter when I'm bored; it's very natural.  But for my parents, not so much, and they are the ones with the real money.

So, is technological development going to be restricted to items that are cheap or free for their users?  None of those social media sites I mentioned cost me a dime.  A product like Google Glasses however would cost me, and I would likely not be able to afford it. I, and others, am starting to see my smartphone as a necessity however another device to connect to my smartphone would just be an accessory and no matter how cool or useful it is, I wouldn't be able to dish out the extra 200 dollars to buy an extra device I don't need.   My parents would be able to dish out that kind of money, but they probably aren't going to buy into a wearable device like the heads-up-display that Google is working on(because they don't want to look like the Borgs from Star Trek).

So my question is, what happens now?  Do we have to just wait for 7 years or so while my generation gets a little older and a little richer?  Well there is one company who has another idea in mind.  A company called Pebble Technology is currently cloud-funding a digital watch called Pebble.  The watch, which currently can only be pre-ordered, costs $150.00 and contains an accelerometer, a vibrating motor, three buttons and an E-paper display that shows texts, caller ID, email, and current running apps.

Pebble's Kickstarter page

Pebble Technology, a company based out of Palo Alto, CA is funding through a crowd-funding website called kickstarter.  The idea is that product developers put there product on the website with a video explaining what it is.  Other people then give money to back the product (usually the backers receive a pre-order of whatever it is that they are backing in return).  The Pebble watch is number one on the list of the most successful Kickstarter projects ever.  Pebble Technology set a goal of $100,000 in 31 days.  The 31 days are up and they are at $10,266,845.00!  That is a lot of excitement over a product that hasn't even been market tested yet.

So why is this watch so successful?  I think part of the reason is that because they are going after the right audience.  Pebble doesn't specify it's intended customer but it looks to me like the product is made with people adults in mind.  There are a few reasons why I am saying this.  One is that its a watch.  According to a survey from British research company Mintel, one in seven people consider watches completely unnecessary and that number increases significantly for people under 26.  I hardly ever see people wear watches in the halls of my high school (our phones tell us what time it is).  So that old-fashioned idea of wearing a watch is more comfortable to adults than kids.

The other reason that I think Pebble is made for adults is the types of apps that have been developed for it so far.  They haven't had the chance to write all the software necessary for the watch but among the dozen apps Pebble technology has already made is an app to support cycling, a golf range meter, and a step counter.  I actually love golf and find that to be a useful app but that's the first app you make? To me that looks like an attempted sell to the businessmen, the people with enough money to afford to golf on the weekends. and also enough money to spend on a watch to improve their game.

I am ecstatic about the success of Pebble.  Like I said, I can't afford to buy a Pebble, but I love the fact that people will start to wear them because it is the start of a new market that could bring huge advances in human-computer interaction.  There are also a lot of rumors circulating about an iWatch; it's really the same idea as the Pebble, except Apple hasn't actually said anything about it existing or not. I think many of us will be watching closely to see how this plays out and what it means for the smart phone industry.  The idea of carrying a mini computer with us at all times will certainly remain, but how we use those computers could change drastically in the next few years. Whose excited?

Should We Burn Babar? Yes

The other day I read the essay "Should we burn Babar" by Herbert Kohl.  If you have read this essay, skip this paragraph and the next, if not, I will give you a short summary of the book. The essay focused on the story book Babar an elephant who's mother is killed by a hunter and then runs off into the civilized world and is taken in by a "very rich lady" who dresses Babar like a human and gives him everything.  Babar never goes against the lady, instead blindly accepting all of the clothes and stuff that she gives him.  Eventually Babar misses his home and he goes home to the other elephants.  Donned with fancy clothes, the other naked elephants make Babar their King and Babar decided that he will take his cousin as his fiancee and the book ends with them leaving in a yellow balloon.

Kids who read this book enjoy it thoroughly and feel so much connection with the story.  Kohl admits to also  "crying when Babar's mother was killed, being delighted that the Rich Lady was willing to take Babar in and civilize him, feeling happy for Babar when he returned home and was made King, and wishing him the most wonderful time when he and Celeste got married and flew off in an air balloon to have adventures" (3).  This is most kids reaction to the book however when looking back upon it, as Kohl points out, the book seems to subtly support ideas of colonialism, sexism and racism.  When he is taken in and is "civilized" by the Rich Lady he is considered to have gained power and ability to rule over the uncivilized, naked elephants.  This part of it is not up for discussion in the book, he is just given the throne because he has lived with the humans.  Also, there is no proposal to Celeste, Babar simply announces that he will only take the throne under the condition that his fiancee Celeste can be the queen.  This supports the patriarchal idea that the best thing for a women is to be chosen by a good man.

Whether or not Babar and other stories that make assumptions about race, sex, and class is an important question.  On one side, kids love the story and it is always good for kids to hear more stories, on another side, it is possible that kids will be influenced by the assumptions made in the book and they will start to make those assumptions themselves, they might for example, assume that rich ladies should never be questioned in real life because Babar never did and he got all the clothes he wanted because of it.  This is one assumption that I never would want my future kids to have; I want my kids to question authority, so I wouldn't have them read a story about an elephant that gets what he wants from being super obedient.

Kids are impressionable, this itself is a statement that is argued often but to some extent, I think everyone must admit it is true.  Young children (I am referring to the age where they are first able to comprehend TV shows and story books), learn about life through stories.  They only have the chance to see one male-female relationship (their parents's marriage, or non-marriage), and all other ideas of relationships derives from the stories they read. If every story they read portrays the male as dominant, that's all they'll know.  It is important then that kids get a good mix of stories.  Babar could not be very harmful if it was surrounded by stories that were opposed to the ideas that it supports.  And I would prefer to share these stories for my kids than others.   Where do these stories come from? They come from modern publishers.

People always have funny stories about their Grandparents nonchalantly passing racist comments.  This is because in their time, these racist ideas were just considered assumptions.  Every generation is more enlightened.  Babar, however, was written in 1931, so all the assumptions made in the book are that of thethe original author Jean de Brunhoff.  It is odd to me that we still use such old books.  these books are considered "classics" and are prized for that reasons, however I don't want stories that teach kids the assumptions of 1931 as if they were the same assumptions of today.  Old books are often better than new ones because they have stood the test of time.  I however would prefer to read my kids new books that are made to help kids understand how an enlightened thinker of the 21st century would see things.  I might still show kids Babar, but I would point out the flaws i.e. why isn't Babar mad at the hunter, why is he considered a better option for King than the other Elephants?  

There will always be talk about the negative influence of Music, TV and Story Books on kids, however there are ways around these negative influences.  One way is to point out the negative influences to the kids.  Another way is to share a variety of stories with the kids so they can decide for themselves what makes sense.  I know that's what I will do with my kids.

Open-source, Proprietary, Proletariat, Bourgeoisie

Since the beginning of computers, and probably far before then as well in just a different form, this question has existed: should technology (and specifically software) be free?  Free software is considered opensource.  Open Source Initiative, a non-profit aiming to "educate and advocate the benefits of open source software, defines open source software with a ten point definition that basically says that 1. no part of the software can be bought or sold, 2. the source code must be provided, and 3. everyone must be allowed access to the software.  

There are many advocates of open source software, there are, however also many who advocate a proprietary approach to software design. The difference is that when a company creates proprietary or closed source software, they are likely going to sell that software and not allow people to see how the program was written.  

There are some areas where very little debate exists about which approach to software design is better.  For example, when creating video games, almost everyone would agree that Proprietary software is better.  Although I do love me some QWOP and some Dolphin Olympics, the fact is that open source games are inherently going to be low budget games that will not be able to compete with the Call of Dutys and Halos of the world.  Proprietary games sell for profit and profit is incentive to spend the money needed to make a good game. There are however markets where a more open source approach is much better.

There is of course the DIY small market where just about everything is open source.  Take a look at the Hack-a-Day blog and you will find thousands of open source projects.  Among these are of course things like remote controlled kites that generate power, and self-driving cars, but there are also a lot of 3D printing projects, home automation and professional lighting designs.  Professionals are able to rely on the developments of open source and crowd source projects to stay innovative in the work force.

The Open Source Initiative would not be satisfied with the amount of open source software that exists.  They would rather have more people using Linux (a completely open source operating system), and more companies providing source code for their programs.  To me this feels like a different debate made many years ago for political reasons and not technological.

Marx thought that capitalism would bring some people up and push all others down.  He though that the Proletariat class would eventually decide that they are not willing to be pushed down and they would revolt against the higher class and bring everyone together at a single class.  I wonder, can a Marxist lens be used to view the debate in technology of open vs proprietary software.

One one side we have the big companies like Apple and Nintendo that purposefully make their products difficult to use with any other products besides Apple or Nintendo approved products.  And then on the other side, there is a whole group of people who spend a lot of time figuring out how to use Apple products in ways that Apple hasn't approved of (check out this article on Jailbreaking and Cydia).  These "hackers" would like to see apple give their entire IOS source code away so that they could more easily make the changes that they want.  They don't have the luxury however and many of the iPhone jailbreak developers (iPhone hackers) are highly creative in their methods.  It seems that there is a constant battle between Apple and these hackers as every new update makes the old way of jailbreaking phones no longer work.

So is there a future where big companies do not have to fight to keep their software protected?  Where they allow all of there software to be shared freely? And if so, is this a world we would want to live in?  Imagine if you could easily customize the entire look and feel of your iPhone with ease?  If you could run android on your iPhone or even run Windows.  If you could play all of your favorite shows (a different argument but not too different).

There is one big problem with this world, no one makes any money.  Yes, there already is plenty of amazing innovation happening for solely open source projects, projects where the makers will not make any money.  But think about some guy who makes great progress in 3D printing and makes all of his work open source.  Could he really have done it without the prospect of money with technology?  Would he have gone to school for the purpose of learning engineering if there was no money to be made in that field? For that matter, would the school even provide strong engineering courses if engineer grads weren't going to make money and give back to the school in the future and add to the rep of the school?

Money makes the world go around.  Karl Marx cannot be directly compared to the Open Source Initiative but the proprietary software developers can be directly compared to the capitalist world that Marx describes.  A Marxist would likely claim that the rise of the Proletariat class has not yet come (because the Proletariat do not feel oppressed enough yet) but I feel that it is simply impossible to occur in the world of technology.  Software developers need the prospect of money.  The prospect of money will not necessarily make them more innovative, great innovation can come from croud sourcing, it can however open up more resources.  These resources may be great designers, or suits that track human motion, or  powerful computers to program on.  Without the prospect of money, even the most innovative software would only be so powerful.

The Future; Are We There Yet?

I love reading old science fiction books and watching old science fiction movies.  Part of the reason why I love these stories is because if they have survived the test of time they contain themes that still resonate today.  Themes like empathy for your enemy from Ender's Game, or the danger of creating machines that we don't understand from 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the morals of war from Catch-22, or the way George Orwell explores freedom in 1984.  There is a whole other reason that I enjoy these stories though; I love to asses whether the technologies that excited readers when these books and movies were made, are the same technologies that we are living with today. We may not be quite there yet, but we sure are getting close.

In Star Trek, La Forge is often seen on what essentially is an iPad.  Some Trekkies might point out La Forge's Visor as a more impressive feat of technology (born blind, he can see using the Visor) and we are not quite there yet, however scientists have already found a chemical that has proven to cure blindness in mice.

Our military technology is at a technological high point. We do not yet however have the handheld laser guns that we see in Star Wars or the nuclear blasters from The Foundation.  The US Navy is planning to integrate "Direct Energy Weapons"(essentially laser guns) into their ships in the next two years.

George Orwell impresses his readers with a device that turns speaking into writing.  Two words: Dragon Dictation.  And if it is more impressive for the computer to understand and speak back and perform commands, I don't need to look any farther than Siri which I carry with me everywhere I go.  Orwell also speaks about a strip in every house that monitors video and sound and sends it back to some central viewing station where people can be tracked.  Thankfully we don't have this but if we wanted to, it would not be even considered technologically impressive to do so.  And as far as monitoring these videos, we would not need large amounts of humans (it is not actually clear in the book how these videos are monitored), we have technology that can monitor objects in a video and could for example assess by how much movement is happening or the vicinity of two faces (which would have been helpful to accomplish its goal in that book)

We can communicate with people on the other side of the world instantly.  We have access to video footage of the whole world through satellite imagery.  Having access to a 3D printer, I could go on Google Sketchup for free and print out any physical object I want, limited only by my imagination and digital design skills. I feel that we must be living in the technological world that so many writers have imagined.  Even that theme of 2001: A Space Odyssey is becoming more and more relevant; think about how reliant so many people become on GPS.

There is one technology however that we have not invented, and until we get there, there are many stories that will never reach the level of possibility: we don't have space ships that can navigate space easily and go into warp speed.  Until we have this, we will not have humans involved in the type of galactic warfare imagined in Star Wars, and we will not have Hari Seldon counteracting the break up of the Galactic Empire like we see in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, and there will be no Enterprise to "boldly go where no man has ever gone before."  Fortunately there is still hope for the arrival of some alien ship to earth so that the great adventures of Arthur Dent could indeed materialize.

The Walking Dead, but we're not walking away.

Sometime I think I think about how ironic it is; I watch 3 one hour episodes of The Walking Dead in a row and I realize that minus the flesh eating tendencies, I’m not too different from those zombies.

I love this show, but like the hypocritical chain smoker, I am going to suggest that you do not take it up because it is almost as addicting as those cigarettes.  Fortunately, there is an end to my problem.  I am currently half-way through the second season of The Walking Dead and pretty soon, like wildfire burning out, I will be forced to stop because there won’t be any more episodes for me to watch.  As empty as it will feel to not get my daily dose of Rick, Karl and Lori, I look forward to this moment because I know that I will have a lot more free time.

A true Walking Dead fan at this point would probably say, ‘no worries, Chris, the next season starts in just a couple weeks.’  But I can say with confidence that I will not watch those new episodes; I don’t watch cable TV.  ‘But Chris, you just said you watched 3 hours of TV in a row’ I hear you say.  No, I watched 3 hours and (approximately 18 minutes) of TV shows.  I stream all of my TV from Netflix and I haven’t watched regular TV for anything besides sports or news in a very long time.

This switched to streamed television is not only happening to me. A study done by Nielson Company showed that younger generations are watching less traditional television and more time shifted or Internet streamed television than in the past.  The study does not specify the devices being used but I know from experience that many are streaming these episodes from there computers from websites like hulu.com.  I at least have standards; I will only watch episodes that I can stream through Netflix on my actual TV.

Currently, people still watch much more traditional Television than streamed television, but there clearly is a change coming.  I am curious, how the world would be different if all TV were streamed instead of broadcasted.  Would there still be commercials? If not would it cost more from the people to keep shows of the same quality? Currently, TV viewers pay for shows by sitting and watching commercials. If we stop doing that, advertisers stop paying and what then?  Obviously broadcasted TV will never go away completely but I can imagine a TV network that integrates broadcasted TV and streamable content with more emphasis put on the latter. 

I am not going to say that TV is bad; a lot of people before me have already proven that, and I am not particularly concerned for the effects of traditional television watching.  I am more interested in this change from traditional linear TV to streamed, hand-picked TV watching.

In some ways I think this trend in streaming TV is better than traditional TV watching.  I am in more control of what I watch than I ever was with regular TV and I don’t have to watch nay commercials.  This is kind of huge.  Instead of just sitting on the couch and settling for anything that I can find, I watch only what I want to watch.  And although it is bad that I watch episode after episode, I get to know characters over a long distance of time and instead of just looking for the short humor of a youtube video, I am watching the stories of deeply seeded characters as they go about their adventures over a long distance of time.  These are not just one hour episodes, and they aren't even a three hour movie.  This is one 20 hour (currently) story.  Within this long period of time we see characters change and develop in complex ways. 

I however am only talking about the show that I am currently hooked on and that last paragraph doesn’t apply to other shows like How I Met Your Mother and Seinfeld where characters don’t change much and every episode is just a new stream of funny events.  These shows are also frequently streamed and these shows to me seem no better than the short momentary bit of pleasure derived from surfing the internet which has been shown to have a negative effect on our brains.

We will not switch to totally streamed TV but if me closer to that point, I don’t see any big problems with it.