Wrecking America

If you’re wondering what motivates the Republicans in Congress who have opposed the Obama stimulus plan tooth and nail, then you aren’t alone. Mark Anderson is not only baffled; he’s furious.

The first inkling that, having literally destroyed America’s domestic and international well-being, the remaining GOP crowd were going to get even worse, came with the stimulus vote. It seems to have started with Rush Limbaugh, an embarrassing dinosaur on AM radio who seems now to be running the party, in lieu of anyone else raising their hand. “I hope he fails!” he shouted to his listeners the day of Obama’s inaguration.

Let’s look at that for a moment. Since then, Rush, a convicted drug addict and no sane person’s idea of a role model, has tried to back off of his statement, whining away that it was a defensive comment after all those bad things other people said about his boy, George Bush. Another lie, in a long series of lies. Why does he even bother? He said it, and he should be a man: stand by your word.

Today’s headline in the WSJ:

GOP Attacks Climate Plan as Too Costly

Let me say this clearly: since Reagan, by uniting the Christian Coalition with old-line Eisenhower Republicans in order to win the election, laid the seeds for the destruction of his own party, nothing really has changed. Bush Jr. forced the Christians to shut up during his opening convention, in return for getting lots of power later, and they went along: the convention did not mention abortion, there was no rancor on the floor, and the nation was split along abortion lines from then on.

Thanks, George.

What do Republicans stand for today? Well, in truth, they don’t have a clue. But some evil mind in their ranks is telling them that, in the midst of the greatest crisis perhaps ever faced by the nation, they should simply oppose whatever Obama and his party suggests.

Really?

Is that all you’ve got?

If that is all you’ve got, then what you are doing should be deemed illegal. You aren’t even trying to offer us a new path; you are just doing what you did for the last eight years: wrecking America.

Google is subsidising print publications!

From today’s NYTimes.

As part of the class-action settlement, Google will pay $125 million to create a system under which customers will be charged for reading a copyrighted book, with the copyright holder and Google both taking percentages; copyright holders will also receive a flat fee for the initial scanning, and can opt out of the whole system if they wish.

But first they must be found.

Since the copyright holders can be anywhere and not necessarily online — given how many books are old or out of print — it became obvious that what was needed was a huge push in that relic of the pre-Internet age: print.

So while there is a large direct-mail effort, a dedicated Web site about the settlement in 36 languages (googlebooksettlement.com/r/home) and an online strategy of the kind you would expect from Google, the bulk of the legal notice spending — about $7 million of a total of $8 million — is going to newspapers, magazines, even poetry journals, with at least one ad in each country. These efforts make this among the largest print legal-notice campaigns in history.

Why TV Lost

To nobody’s surprise except its own, ITV is in deep, deep trouble. Paul Graham has been musing about how broadcast TV lost the war. “About twenty years ago”, he writes, “people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they’d produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers. It’s clear now that even by using the word ‘convergence’ we were giving TV too much credit. This won’t be convergence so much as replacement. People may still watch things they call “TV shows”, but they’ll watch them mostly on computers.”

Graham identifies four factors which cooked broadcast’s goose.

1. The Internet as an open platform. “Anyone can build whatever they want on it, and the market picks the winners. So innovation happens at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds.”

2. Moore’s Law, “which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth”.

3. Piracy. “Users prefer it not just because it’s free, but because it’s more convenient. Bittorrent and YouTube have already trained a new generation of viewers that the place to watch shows is on a computer screen.”

4. Social applications. “The average teenage kid has a pretty much infinite capacity for talking to their friends. But they can’t physically be with them all the time. When I was in high school the solution was the telephone. Now it’s social networks, multiplayer games, and various messaging applications. The way you reach them all is through a computer. Which means every teenage kid (a) wants a computer with an Internet connection, (b) has an incentive to figure out how to use it, and (c) spends countless hours in front of it.”

This last, Graham argues, “was the most powerful force of all. This was what made everyone want computers. Nerds got computers because they liked them. Then gamers got them to play games on. But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that’s what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers.”

“After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience”, TV people thought they’d be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another.

So, in a nutshell, “Facebook killed TV. That is wildly oversimplified, of course, but probably as close to the truth as you can get in three words.”

Networked science

Caroline Wagner has published an interesting book entitled The New Invisible College: Science for Development.

According to the blurb it

offers new tools for governing science in the twenty-first century. Based on exciting advances in complexity and network theories, this book reveals the dynamics and structure of knowledge creation in science. Dr. Wagner urges policymakers to move beyond national policy models and towards networked models of science. This will expand opportunities to translate science into useful technology and social welfare, especially for poor countries.

The coming thing: Google-subsidised Linuxbooks

From The Register.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has hinted that his company – or at least its partners – will one day subsidize the purchase of extra-low-cost Linux netbooks in an effort to promote the use of its myriad cloud online services.

“What’s particularly interesting about netbooks is the price point,” Google’s Willy Wonka told a room full of financial types this afternoon at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference in downtown San Francisco. “Eventually, it will make sense for operators and so forth to subsidize the use of netbooks so they can make services revenue and advertising revenue on the consumption. That’s another new model that’s coming.”

Schmidt called netbooks the “next generation” of the low-cost machines produced by Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative. “Products today are not completely done. Things are missing. It’s perfectly possible that operating systems that are Linux-based will become a significant player in that space, whereas they have historically not been a significant player in the PC space.”

In other words, Schmidt believes the US is going back to the future. The subsidized-PC model famously failed in the late 90s and early aughts, with outfits like PeoplePC and emachines. In the UK, mobile operators are already offering free laptops with wireless contracts.

It’s obvious, really. The only thing that current Netbooks lack is inbuilt 3G. Retrofitting them with dongles is, in my experience, a pain.

UPDATE: I should have known — Vodafone is already offering such a product. Thanks to Keren for alerting me.

Venture Capital: optional, not essential

I love Paul Graham’s essays. Just been reading one in which he’s pondering what the impact of the recession will be on venture capital. He thinks that it will probably dry up somewhat during the present downturn, like it usually does in bad times. But this time, he says, the result may be different. This time the number of new startups may not decrease. And that, he thinks, could be dangerous for VCs.

When VC funding dried up after the Internet Bubble, startups dried up too. There were not a lot of new startups being founded in 2003. But startups aren’t tied to VC the way they were 10 years ago. It’s now possible for VCs and startups to diverge. And if they do, they may not reconverge once the economy gets better.

The reason startups no longer depend so much on VCs is one that everyone in the startup business knows by now: it has gotten much cheaper to start a startup. There are four main reasons: Moore’s law has made hardware cheap; open source has made software free; the web has made marketing and distribution free; and more powerful programming languages mean development teams can be smaller. These changes have pushed the cost of starting a startup down into the noise. In a lot of startups — probaby most startups funded by Y Combinator [Graham’s incubator] — the biggest expense is simply the founders’ living expenses. We’ve had startups that were profitable on revenues of $3000 a month.

$3000 is insignificant as revenues go. Why should anyone care about a startup making $3000 a month? Because, although insignificant as revenue, this amount of money can change a startup’s funding situation completely.

Someone running a startup is always calculating in the back of their mind how much ‘runway’ they have—how long they have till the money in the bank runs out and they either have to be profitable, raise more money, or go out of business. Once you cross the threshold of profitability, however low, your runway becomes infinite. It’s a qualitative change, like the stars turning into lines and disappearing when the Enterprise accelerates to warp speed. Once you’re profitable you don’t need investors’ money. And because Internet startups have become so cheap to run, the threshold of profitability can be trivially low. Which means many Internet startups don’t need VC-scale investments anymore. For many startups, VC funding has, in the language of VCs, gone from a must-have to a nice-to-have.

That rings a lot of bells for me at the moment.

Asus shows off dual-screen laptop

According to IT PRO,

Asus has unveiled a new dual-screen computer prototype, which can be used as a laptop, multimedia machine or an e-book reader.

Similar in design to OLPC’s second generation XO, the concept design dispenses with a hardware keyboard to offer two touchscreens, either of which can be used to display a software keyboard, or even trackpad for those who prefer using the mouse icon over a touch interface.

Both of these would be adjustable, with the keyboard capable of being stretched across both screens should you need extra space. Obviously, users would also be able to manipulate the device through hand gestures, handwriting recognition and multi-touch…

No hint of when this might come to market. Funny how the commercial manufacturers continually copy the XO designers…

More interesting is a new device called The Touch Book, which has the features of a netbook: 10 to 15 hour battery life, low cost and small size, but the interface of a slate computer with a completely detachable keyboard. The Touch Book starts at $299 for slate only configurations or $399 for slate plus keyboard and is poised to dramatically change our view of netbooks. More info here.

Thanks to Jack Schofield for the links.

It’s getting worse

We’re in uncharted waters — see for example this NYT report.

“It’s pretty despondent everywhere,” said Dwyfor Evans, a strategist at State Street Global Markets in Hong Kong. “O.K., there are signs that some of the leading indicators have stabilized to some extent, but it’s at a very, very low level, and we’re not seeing corporate investment picking up, or consumers starting to spend again — in other words, the traditional mechanisms by which economies come out of a recession are absent at this time.”

Hopes that the American economy, which led the world into recession, might lead it back out this year have been fading.

Last weekend, Warren E. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, wrote in his company’s annual report that “the economy will be in shambles, throughout 2009, and, for that matter, probably well beyond.”

As if to emphasize the problems, the Institute for Supply Management reported that companies in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States said business was getting much worse, especially in terms of jobs.

Paul Dales, an economist with Capital Economics, pointed to the survey in forecasting that the February employment report will show a decline of 785,000 jobs when it is released on Friday. If so, it would be the largest one-month decline in employment in nearly 60 years.

Last week, the United States revised its estimate of fourth quarter gross domestic product to show a decline at an annual rate of 6.2 percent, the worst in more than a quarter century. On Monday in reporting that construction activity fell sharply in January, the government also revised the December figure lower.

On this day…

… in 1991, black motorist Rodney King was savagely beaten by LAPD officers. The beating was captured on amateur video and later provoked a national outcry. You might call it the beginning of citizen journalism.

Liberty on the march

Yesterday saw one of the most hopeful developments in years — the first nationwide meetings of the Convention on Modern Liberty. One of its driving spirits is my Observer colleague Henry Porter. In today’s paper he reflects on the experience and on why he’s putting himself through it.

More than once, I asked myself – why the hell are we doing this? Putting on a convention with more than 150 speakers in eight different cities across the United Kingdom at the same time as maintaining an alliance of about 50 organisations, not all of whom loved one another – or us – with the weaving, ducking and diving that entails can be demanding.

You begin to glimpse the morbid addictions that fill the life of the seasoned political campaigner. You find yourself developing skills of appearing to agree when you don’t, of smiling when irritated, of asking for money without the slightest shame, of reading and sending more emails than is recommended in a lifetime. Your language deteriorates and by degrees you morph into a version of Alastair Campbell, preoccupied by slights, losing friends fast and living off chocolate biscuits.

The best reason for doing it is — as Henry observes — Jack Straw, the most slippery authoritarian in modern British history. He’s currently Secretary of State for Justice, which just goes to show that satire isn’t dead. His most recent coup is the Coroners and Justice Bill, which contains measures that introduce secret inquests and would lift the ban on data sharing between ministries in the Data Protection Act.

Before the Convention (and the death of his son) David Cameron said that:

“When academics look back on Labour’s time in power the erosion of our historic liberties will surely be one of its most defining, and damning, aspects. Things we have long thought were part of the fabric of liberty in this country – such as trial by jury, habeas corpus with strict limits on the time that people can be held without charge, the protection of parliament against intrusion by the executive – have been whittled away.”

Cameron’s right. It’s difficult — as Andrew Marr said on TV this morning — to see the Tories as defenders of civil liberties, but if Cameron commits the party to a comprehensive rolling back of New Labour’s surveillance state then I’ll vote Tory.

En passant: Here’s an interesting web project for the next election. Create a website which asks every single parliamentary candidate whether s/he supports the plan for a National ID Card. Yes or No. And then post the answer on the site.