Category Archives: General

PEW data on wireless users

Posted on by

The Pew Internet and American Life Project has released findings of a new survey of Internet users who connect wirelessly to the network.

Headlines:

Some 34% of internet users have logged onto the internet using a wireless connection either around the house, at their workplace, or some place else. In other words, one-third of internet users, either with a laptop computer, a handheld personal digital assistant (PDA), or cell phone, have surfed the internet or checked email using means such as WiFi broadband or cell phone networks.

Facts about wireless use (among internet users)

  • Those who have logged on wirelessly from a place other than home or work: 27%
  • Those who have wireless networks in their homes: 19%
  • Those with personal digital assistants that are able to connect to the internet wirelessly: 13%

    Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project December 2006
    Survey, n=798 for internet users.

    • The quantum theory of trust

    Posted on by

    I’ve been listening to an intriguing talk in the invaluable IT Conversations series. It’s given by Karen Stephenson, an academic and consultant who has created a way of doing social network analysis in organisations. The nub of her approach is summarised in this pdf. Basically, she seems to look for several kinds of network in any organisational culture she studies:

  • The Work network. With whom do you exchange information as part of your daily work routines?
  • The Social network. With whom do you “check in” inside and outside the office?
  • The Innovation network. With whom do you collaborate or kick around new ideas?
  • The Expert Knowledge network. To whom do you turn for expertise or advice?
  • The Career Guidance or Strategic network. To whom do you go for advice about the future?
  • The Learning network. With whom do you work to improve existing processes or methods?

    Having worked in a large organisation for a long time, and been a consultant in many others, this analysis makes a lot of sense.

    Stephenson has a company which does social network analysis using an explicit methodology and some proprietary software for analysing social interactions (it probably includes monitoring and mapping email conversations). She’s also published a book, The Quantum Theory of Trust.

    • Wikipedia, you are the strongest link

    Posted on by

    That’s the headline some clever Observer sub-editor put on this morning’s column…

    There are two kinds of people in the world – those who think Wikipedia is amazing, wonderful, or inspiring; and those who simply cannot understand how a reference work compiled by thousands of ‘amateurs’ (and capable of being edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry) should be taken seriously. Brisk, vigorous and enjoyable arguments rage between these two camps, and provide useful diversion on long winter evenings.

    What’s more interesting is the way Wikipedia entries have risen in Google’s page-ranking system so that the results of many searches now include a Wikipedia page in the first few hits…

    Unsustainable energy

    Posted on by

    This morning I went to a sobering symposium on “Sustainable Energy” at the Cavendish Lab in Cambridge. First speaker was Daniel Nocera of MIT who set the scene in a witty and clever presentation. The world is currently using 12.8 trillion watts (TW). If you take the projected growth in population and multiply it by average energy use, you get a global demand for energy in 2050 that will be somewhere in the region 28 – 35 TW. He then went on to show that, in his phrase, “there’s no simple answer and no silver bullet” that can generate the energy will will need (and that’s entirely outside considerations of climate change). It’s an illusion to think that we can close the gap by conservation. Where else might we look? Biomass? Well, according to Nocera, the most we’ll get from that is 7 – 10 TW.

    As we grapple with the challenge of meeting our future energy demands sustainably, it becomes clear that a diverse mix of energy sources will be necessary. In exploring alternatives, solar power emerges as a compelling option that deserves serious consideration. The abundant sunlight in many regions, including Dallas, presents an opportunity for homeowners to contribute to the energy transition by harnessing solar energy for their households. By engaging with reputable Dallas solar panel installers, individuals can explore the feasibility of installing solar panels on their homes, not only reducing their carbon footprint but also potentially generating a portion of their energy needs locally. While the scale of solar power generation may not single-handedly bridge the projected energy gap, its decentralized nature and potential for widespread adoption make it an important piece of the puzzle in our quest for a sustainable energy future.

    What about nuclear? He thinks we could get 8TW if we built 8,000 new nuclear plants. Just think about that for a moment. There are 44 years to go before we hit 2050. That means we’d need to build and commission 182 nuclear plants every year from now on to get to that figure of 8,000. That’s roughly one new plant every two days. It ain’t gonna happen. Nocera’s talk left me with a number of thoughts:
    * Solar energy is by far the best bet. He says that “more solar energy hits the earth’s surface in one day than all the energy we use in a year”.
    * We will have to invent our way out of this. Science and engineering are the only hopes we’ve got.
    * Our societies won’t be worth living in if we don’t have energy sources on which we can rely. Next up was Nick Butler, who’s Group Vice-President for Strategy and Policy Development at BP, the oil giant. If anything, his talk was even scarier. Some points:
    * The world’s population is currently growing at the rate of 250,000 a day. (Query: is this net growth?)
    * The current high level of oil prices is not due to physical scarcity of the stuff, but to fears about the security of our supply.
    * These fears are well founded. Consider these facts:
    There are four main importers of oil and gas — the US, Europe, Japan and (increasingly) China
    Supplies of oil and gas come overwhelmingly from three sources — West Africa, Russia and five countries in the Persian Gulf, of which the most important in volume terms is Saudi Arabia.
    * The transport infrastructure for getting oil and gas from producer regions to consumer regions is terrifyingly fragile, vulnerable and insecure. His conclusion: “the current position doesn’t feel sustainable”. And he’s a Vice President of one of the world’s biggest oil companies! He could see only two things that would act as drivers for radical change — a dramatic escalation of political fears about security, and the price of alternative sources of energy. I was reminded of my musings the other day about the intimate connection (never discussed in public by UK politicians) between energy supplies and national security. Britain, for example, is now almost totally dependent on Russia for supplies of gas.

    The problem with programming

    Posted on by

    Interesting Technology Review interview with Bjarne Stroustrup, the guy who dreamed up C++. Excerpt:

    Technology Review: Why is most software so bad?
    Bjarne Stroustrup: Some software is actually pretty good by any standards. Think of the Mars Rovers, Google, and the Human Genome Project. That’s quality software! Fifteen years ago, most people, and especially most experts, would have said each of those examples was impossible. Our technological civilization depends on software, so if software had been as bad as its worst reputation, most of us would have been dead by now.

    On the other hand, looking at “average” pieces of code can make me cry. The structure is appalling, and the programmers clearly didn’t think deeply about correctness, algorithms, data structures, or maintainability. Most people don’t actually read code; they just see Internet Explorer or Windows “freeze,” have their cell phone drop a call, read the latest newspaper story about viruses, and they shudder.

    I think the real problem is that “we” (that is, we software developers) are in a permanent state of emergency, grasping at straws to get our work done. We perform many minor miracles through trial and error, excessive use of brute force, and lots and lots of testing, but–so often–it’s not enough.

    Software developers have become adept at the difficult art of building reasonably reliable systems out of unreliable parts. The snag is that often we do not know exactly how we did it: a system just “sort of evolved” into something minimally acceptable. Personally, I prefer to know when a system will work, and why it will.

    TR: How can we fix the mess we are in?
    BS: In theory, the answer is simple: educate our software developers better, use more-appropriate design methods, and design for flexibility and for the long haul. Reward correct, solid, and safe systems. Punish sloppiness.

    In reality, that’s impossible. People reward developers who deliver software that is cheap, buggy, and first. That’s because people want fancy new gadgets now. They don’t want inconvenience, don’t want to learn new ways of interacting with their computers, don’t want delays in delivery, and don’t want to pay extra for quality (unless it’s obvious up front–and often not even then). And without real changes in user behavior, software suppliers are unlikely to change.

    We can’t just stop the world for a decade while we reprogram everything from our coffee machines to our financial systems. On the other hand, just muddling along is expensive, dangerous, and depressing. Significant improvements are needed, and they can only come gradually. They must come on a broad front; no single change is sufficient…

    It’s a good interview, worth reading in full. There’s a lovely exchange towards the end:

    TR: How do you account for the fact that C++ is both widely criticized and resented by many programmers but at the same time very broadly used? Why is it so successful?
    BS: The glib answer is, There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.

    Most ISPs don’t like you sharing your connection

    Posted on by

    Just as I thought. From The Register…

    A router designed to share broadband internet connections with third parties appears to break the terms and conditions of seven of the top 10 UK internet service providers.

    Fon.com offers Wi-Fi routers for as little as €5 and encourages connection sharing in a bid to build a Wi-Fi community, but its policies could put users at odds with their providers.

    OUT-LAW has examined the terms and conditions of the 10 biggest UK ISPs as rated by research firm Point Topic. Only two of the ISPs, Blueyonder from Telewest and Orange Broadband, do not ban the sharing of a connection with third parties.

    Seven of the ISPs, including BT, NTL and Tiscali, ban connection sharing explicitly. One ISP, AOL, bans sharing but only if the access is sold. Fon does encourage users to charge for access.

    The Fon system is designed to create an informal network of users. If you buy a Fon router you receive a username and password. If you have a Wi-Fi-enabled laptop and come into range of another Fon router you can sign on with your Fon username and password and use that internet access. If you share your Wi-Fi for free at your own home then you can use any Fon connection for free. If you don’t share your own access you can use any other Fon point for €3 per day, according to Fon. If you decline the right to have free roaming access you can share 50 per cent of the revenue generated by charging that €3 a day for your access….

    En passant… Out-law is a useful website maintained by the London law firm of Pinsent Masons with tons of stuff about legal aspects of cyberspace. It’s even got an RSS feed.

    Net Neutrality: Rules vs. Principles

    Posted on by

    I found this post from Tim O’Reilly very helpful in thinking about the Net Neutrality debate.

    Tim focusses on a helpful distinction made by Chris Savage — between rules and principles. The gist is:

    A lot of confusion in the Net Neutrality debate has do with the hoary distinction in jurisprudence between “rules” and “principles.”

    A first approximation for the non-lawyers here: the tax code is full of RULES: Take this number, divide it by that number, place the result on line 17 if it’s greater than $57,206 and on line 19 if it’s less. Etc. RULES are intended to direct or forbid very specific behaviors.

    PRINCIPLES, on the other hand, are more general. When driving you are required to use “reasonable care.” If you don’t, then you are negligent and can be held liable, in a tort case, for the damages you cause. And though there are plenty of rules about driving, tort liability is based on the PRINCIPLE of reasonable care, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

    “Net Neutrality” is a principle, not a rule…

    It seems to me that this distinction is useful in all kinds of areas. For example, in relation to IP legislation, an important principle is that monopolies are at best a necessary evil and should be avoided or limited wherever possible. This means that any proposal to extend an IP right (which is, remember, a legislative grant of monopoly rights) should always be viewed with extreme scepticism.

    Conditions for creating Silicon Valleys

    Posted on by

    Marvellous summary by Tom Coates of Paul Graham’s talk, “How American are start-ups?”, to XTech.

  • Silicon Valley is about an accumulation of people, not geography – get the right 10,000 people and you could recreate it
  • To create an environment which is conducive to start-ups you need two groups of people – rich people who are prepared to invest and lots of nerds
  • Government is not a good replacement for rich people / angel investors as they’re slow, invest inappropriately and don’t have the contacts or experience to support the right activity
  • For rich people and nerds to mix you need a location where lots of rich people who care about technology and lots of nerds want to be – New York has lots of rich people but no nerds, other places lots of nerds but no rich people
  • Places that attract nerds and rich people tend to be cosmopolitan, liberal, happy places like San Francisco where people walk around looking happy and with high levels of students going to high-class universities
  • Other features of good places potentially conducive to this kind of activity are: personality, good transport hubs and connections to the existing Silicon Valley, quietness, good weather, not about excitement.

    • The economics of cultural change

    Posted on by

    One of the most interesting Blogs on the Web is the Becker-Posner Blog, in which two of the smartest intellectuals in the US argue in public about important issues. Gary Becker is a Nobel laureate in economics; Richard Posner is a polymathic judge who has written provocatively (and intelligently) about a wide range of subjects.

    Recently, the two have been debating the question of why French society is proving so resistant to measures needed to make it economically successful. Posner argued that there are two major reasons, habit and coordination costs, why cultures, including those of nations and companies, often change very slowly.

    In his response, Becker argued that “major economic and technological changes frequently trump culture in the sense that they induce enormous changes not only in behavior but also in beliefs” — and then used my homeland to illustrate the point:

    Ireland is an excellent example since not long ago Irish family patterns were the object of study by demographers only because they were so different. These patterns involved late ages at marriage, high birth rates, no divorce, and married women who spent their time mainly caring for children and their husbands. Enshrined in the Irish Constitution of the 1930’s is the hope that married women would not work but instead they would be home taking care of their families.

    All aspects of Irish family behavior changed radically during the past two decades: the typical family now has only about two children, divorce was legalized and is growing rapidly despite the Catholic Church’s opposition, and the labor force participation of married women is becoming like that in other parts of Western Europe. The rapid economic growth Ireland experienced during the past couple of decades had a revolutionary impact on the incentives of parents to have many children, on attitudes about whether married women should work, and on whether married couples were obligated to remain together throughout their lives. What is fascinating about the Irish example is that these and other changes in family patterns of behavior occurred while Ireland remained a highly devout nation, with the highest rates of church attendance and other measures of religious belief in the Western world…