I saw this quote in the "Good Morning Silicon Valley" newsletter and I found it interesting in light of the events that have occurred over the last eight years and the lasting impact that those events will have on the future. The quote is by security expert Bruce Schneier:
"We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often ... that most of us don't even question the fundamental dichotomy. But it's a false one. Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. ...
Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.
By the same token, many of the anti-privacy 'security' measures we're seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."
In this political season, his perspective is certainly food for thought.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
What's Next? Take Two: The Future and You
During the course of a week, I read numerous articles, numerous blogs, and listen to numerous podcasts on a great variety of subjects ranging from iPhones to general technology, to renewable energy, to science fiction and the future. While any one of these subjects is interesting, it is when they are juxtaposed that interesting concepts develop. Some of these portend the future.
For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.
Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.
Your thoughts?
For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.
Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
What's Next? Take One
The end of every year brings 1) a retrospective of accomplishments and failures in the current year; and 2) a look ahead to expected developments in the coming year and the longer-term future. Herewith is my review of the past year and prognostication for the coming year.
The movement against global warming reached critical mass:
Going back to the early 1970s, issues of ecology have been discussed, debated, and slowly evolving. Anyone remember Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962)? How about The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968)? These books had a profound impact on me, but concern about the environment has been slow to develop. Indeed, the current administration discounts much of the concern even today. However, over the last year, it would appear that a critical mass has been reached where individuals, institutions, and governments now understand the dire consequences and have taken steps to remediate the damage already done. Whether it will be too little, too late remains to be seen. However, from Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize to the accords signed in Bali, action appears to be gaining strength.
Central to the environmental discussion is carbon emissions. Combustion, whether coal in a power plant, gasoline in an automobile engine, or propane gas in our bar-b-que grills, they all generate carbon emissions into the atmosphere. When released, they combine with the free oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide (CO2). It's great for dry ice, but bad for global warming. The reason is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates a barrier much like the glass in a greenhouse. The result is the same as a greenhouse, increased warming. Therefore, global warming is all about CO2.
Today, the passions around reducing carbon emissions take many forms. First is a movement to make it no worse than it is today. These are the people pushing "carbon credits." Since countries are in the process of committing to limiting carbon emissions, their approach is to continue doing what they have always done, but trade their "excess" carbon emissions to a country that emits carbon at a rate less than they are allowed by treaty. These are usually underdeveloped nations where there are high levels of agriculture and free forests. The deal is that developed, carbon spewing countries will pay money to underdeveloped countries in exchange for their excess carbon credits. The approach is doomed over the long-term as underdeveloped countries become developed and need their carbon credits for themselves. The rich countries keep spewing carbon, only the they feel better about it because they can point to the offsets they have bought at the expense of some underdeveloped country. Unfortunately, this seems to be the U.S.'s approach.
A second approach is to recapture the CO2--remove it from the atmosphere. On paper, this sounds good. The problems are 1) how do you recapture it; and 2) what do you do with it? Recapturing CO2 takes energy. Most likely, that energy consumption emits carbon. Recapturing CO2 is like creating an infinite block of dry ice. It takes up room. Therefore, one solution is to bury it. Evidently, there is plenty of room for excess CO2 dry ice blocks underneath the numerous trash landfills, but above the buried spent nuclear fuel that is also being buried. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
A third approach is being investigated at Sandia National Laboratories. This one is to break down CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. In turn, the CO could be reprocessed into burnable fuels, thus emitting the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion is it mentioned how much energy will be needed to break down the CO2, but something tells me that it will involve more CO2 than will be reprocessed.
The fourth approach is evidently the least attractive--decrease CO2 emissions. This one does not require more energy. This one does not require reprocessing CO2. This one does not take the lazy path of buying off poor countries in exchange for their carbon credits. All that is required is simply don't emit CO2 in the first place. So committed are we to petroleum, internal combustion engines, coal-fired power plants, and industrial-age manufacturing processes, the U.S. evidently sees this as the least attractive option. Who knows, if we play our cards right, all our manufacturing will move overseas and we will once again become an agrarian economy. The only problem is no one will need our excess carbon credits.
The movement against global warming reached critical mass:
Going back to the early 1970s, issues of ecology have been discussed, debated, and slowly evolving. Anyone remember Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962)? How about The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968)? These books had a profound impact on me, but concern about the environment has been slow to develop. Indeed, the current administration discounts much of the concern even today. However, over the last year, it would appear that a critical mass has been reached where individuals, institutions, and governments now understand the dire consequences and have taken steps to remediate the damage already done. Whether it will be too little, too late remains to be seen. However, from Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize to the accords signed in Bali, action appears to be gaining strength.
Central to the environmental discussion is carbon emissions. Combustion, whether coal in a power plant, gasoline in an automobile engine, or propane gas in our bar-b-que grills, they all generate carbon emissions into the atmosphere. When released, they combine with the free oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide (CO2). It's great for dry ice, but bad for global warming. The reason is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates a barrier much like the glass in a greenhouse. The result is the same as a greenhouse, increased warming. Therefore, global warming is all about CO2.
Today, the passions around reducing carbon emissions take many forms. First is a movement to make it no worse than it is today. These are the people pushing "carbon credits." Since countries are in the process of committing to limiting carbon emissions, their approach is to continue doing what they have always done, but trade their "excess" carbon emissions to a country that emits carbon at a rate less than they are allowed by treaty. These are usually underdeveloped nations where there are high levels of agriculture and free forests. The deal is that developed, carbon spewing countries will pay money to underdeveloped countries in exchange for their excess carbon credits. The approach is doomed over the long-term as underdeveloped countries become developed and need their carbon credits for themselves. The rich countries keep spewing carbon, only the they feel better about it because they can point to the offsets they have bought at the expense of some underdeveloped country. Unfortunately, this seems to be the U.S.'s approach.
A second approach is to recapture the CO2--remove it from the atmosphere. On paper, this sounds good. The problems are 1) how do you recapture it; and 2) what do you do with it? Recapturing CO2 takes energy. Most likely, that energy consumption emits carbon. Recapturing CO2 is like creating an infinite block of dry ice. It takes up room. Therefore, one solution is to bury it. Evidently, there is plenty of room for excess CO2 dry ice blocks underneath the numerous trash landfills, but above the buried spent nuclear fuel that is also being buried. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
A third approach is being investigated at Sandia National Laboratories. This one is to break down CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. In turn, the CO could be reprocessed into burnable fuels, thus emitting the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion is it mentioned how much energy will be needed to break down the CO2, but something tells me that it will involve more CO2 than will be reprocessed.
The fourth approach is evidently the least attractive--decrease CO2 emissions. This one does not require more energy. This one does not require reprocessing CO2. This one does not take the lazy path of buying off poor countries in exchange for their carbon credits. All that is required is simply don't emit CO2 in the first place. So committed are we to petroleum, internal combustion engines, coal-fired power plants, and industrial-age manufacturing processes, the U.S. evidently sees this as the least attractive option. Who knows, if we play our cards right, all our manufacturing will move overseas and we will once again become an agrarian economy. The only problem is no one will need our excess carbon credits.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Peak Oil versus Peak Demand
I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show (NPR) this morning and there was a discussion about whether the energy industry has reached "peak oil,"--the point at which oil production peaks, subsequently leveling off, and then declining. While I did not have the time to listen to the whole discussion, the debate seemed to revolve around when oil production would peak. The years mentioned ranged from 2012 to 2030. However, I would propose that the argument is misguided. Debating when peak oil production will occur is a little like being in a leaky boat and debating when the volume of water coming into the boat will peak. It becomes irrelevant when one considers that the boat is adding people into the boat faster than water is being bailed from the boat; at some point the boat is going to sink, regardless of whether the boat has reached peak water intake. If people are coming on board faster than water is being bailed, the boat is going to sink. Indeed, if the water leak is fixed and people keep coming on board, the boat is going to sink.
In the same way, whether the oil industry has reached peak oil production is irrelevant: The "peak" point that is important to understand is when demand exceeds production. Once that point is reached (for world oil production, it has already been reached), what is important to understand is the "oil gap."
The oil gap is the difference between oil production and oil demand. As the gap increases, oil prices increase (price is determined by supply and demand). At some point, the price reaches a point were substitute energy sources become price competitive. This is the environment we are in today.
Therefore, the question becomes not when oil production peaks, nor when oil demand exceeds oil production. Rather the important question is when demand drives oil prices to the "tipping point" where alternative energy sources become cost competitive. At that point, those organizations developing alternative energy sources, particularly renewable or sustainable energy sources, become competitively advantaged in the market. Therefore, the debate should not be when oil production will peak, but when alternative sources become advantaged. At that point, those organizations that have been investing in alternative energy sources will be the hot stocks for the near-term future. The next Googles are out there ready to take off.
In the same way, whether the oil industry has reached peak oil production is irrelevant: The "peak" point that is important to understand is when demand exceeds production. Once that point is reached (for world oil production, it has already been reached), what is important to understand is the "oil gap."
The oil gap is the difference between oil production and oil demand. As the gap increases, oil prices increase (price is determined by supply and demand). At some point, the price reaches a point were substitute energy sources become price competitive. This is the environment we are in today.
Therefore, the question becomes not when oil production peaks, nor when oil demand exceeds oil production. Rather the important question is when demand drives oil prices to the "tipping point" where alternative energy sources become cost competitive. At that point, those organizations developing alternative energy sources, particularly renewable or sustainable energy sources, become competitively advantaged in the market. Therefore, the debate should not be when oil production will peak, but when alternative sources become advantaged. At that point, those organizations that have been investing in alternative energy sources will be the hot stocks for the near-term future. The next Googles are out there ready to take off.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Closer to the Edge
Edge computing is all about moving computing capability to a variety of devices enabling users to perform a variety of activities when and where they need it. Most often, edge computing is interpreted to mean mobile devices, but it could just as easily be your refrigerator, your television, your entertainment system, your mobile phone, or the various systems in your automobile.
Much of edge computing is already in place, it is just not obvious. For example, the Tivo used to track, schedule, record, and playback television programming is nothing more than a media center computer that has been programmed to record broadcast programming. In this context, the AppleTV is nothing more than an alternative programming computer tied to the television. The Slingbox is another programming device that captures video and streams that video to a variety of devices--from your TV to your computer, to your mobile phone. In these examples, the device is a server providing services to edge devices.
Another is the OnStar system in your automobile. Through this system, your car's performance can be tracked, your doors unlocked, or automatic alerts can be sent to a centralized monitoring center. X10 and similar technology provides monitoring of your house, enabling you to remotely turn on and off lights, set alarms, and control edge devices such as a television or appliance. In these example, the device is a monitoring and control unit providing manipulation and control over remote devices.
All of this edge technology is available now. Add to this the ability to view television programming on mobile phones (VCast, SprintTV, MobiTV, YouTube, and the increasing number of streaming videos available on Web sites); the ability to listen to audio programming through tools such as iRadio and streaming sites on broadcast Web sites; and the increasing number of sites that enable word processing, spreadsheet manipulation, and presentation development (Google Apps is a primary example). All of these are providing expanded access to computing by any device that can access those sites and capabilities.
As a result, computing is no longer limited to the desktop or the laptop computer. Today, browsing the Web can be accomplished on your phone and your game console. Word processing can be accomplished on any device that accesses the Web. Is the computer dead? Not by a long shot. However, its central importance in information management is being reduced as processing is delivered through the Web and access and control devices become more incorporated into edge devices. We are moving closer to the edge.
Much of edge computing is already in place, it is just not obvious. For example, the Tivo used to track, schedule, record, and playback television programming is nothing more than a media center computer that has been programmed to record broadcast programming. In this context, the AppleTV is nothing more than an alternative programming computer tied to the television. The Slingbox is another programming device that captures video and streams that video to a variety of devices--from your TV to your computer, to your mobile phone. In these examples, the device is a server providing services to edge devices.
Another is the OnStar system in your automobile. Through this system, your car's performance can be tracked, your doors unlocked, or automatic alerts can be sent to a centralized monitoring center. X10 and similar technology provides monitoring of your house, enabling you to remotely turn on and off lights, set alarms, and control edge devices such as a television or appliance. In these example, the device is a monitoring and control unit providing manipulation and control over remote devices.
All of this edge technology is available now. Add to this the ability to view television programming on mobile phones (VCast, SprintTV, MobiTV, YouTube, and the increasing number of streaming videos available on Web sites); the ability to listen to audio programming through tools such as iRadio and streaming sites on broadcast Web sites; and the increasing number of sites that enable word processing, spreadsheet manipulation, and presentation development (Google Apps is a primary example). All of these are providing expanded access to computing by any device that can access those sites and capabilities.
As a result, computing is no longer limited to the desktop or the laptop computer. Today, browsing the Web can be accomplished on your phone and your game console. Word processing can be accomplished on any device that accesses the Web. Is the computer dead? Not by a long shot. However, its central importance in information management is being reduced as processing is delivered through the Web and access and control devices become more incorporated into edge devices. We are moving closer to the edge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
