I Learned to Type on a Manual Underwood August 28, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Publishing, Technology and Culture.
Tags: IBM, Underwood
add a comment
I realize I’m seriously dating myself, but there is a point to this story. At a time when typing was a part of the high school “business track” pursued largely by aspiring secretaries, I was convinced by a friend to use my only open period in my second semester senior year (when I should have been coasting to graduation) to take a course in personal typing. It turned out that I did reasonably well (around 40 words per minute, touch-typing).
I had a typewriter through college, that one an inexpensive electric. In my offices in the 1980s, I had ready access to the ubiquitous IBM Selectric models that made typing easy (as long as you had Wite-Out). I got my first computer (yes, an original Apple Macintosh, which I still own and still boots) in the mid-1980s, and didn’t need Wite-Out any more.
Of course, fast forward ten years or so, and personal computers are emerging as a force in business, and traditional secretaries have largely disappeared. And if you didn’t know how to touch type, or at least use all fingers (except the left thumb, as my high school typing teacher told us), you were largely left behind in this emerging world. Some learned in mid-career, but most never became that proficient. Today, if you don’t type reasonably fast, there are far fewer paths to becoming a professional.
The main point is that you never know what skills you need to move through life. I have certainly written millions of words for work and for pleasure, and the vast majority of those have been written on typewriter or computer. Without the fundamental skills I acquired in an otherwise nondescript existence at Hopewell High School in the mid-1970s, this thing I joking refer to as my career would have stymied long ago.
What is the skill needed by upcoming generations? In general, I don’t think it’s the ability to navigate social networks. But if I can draw upon my own past (which may not be a good vision of the future), typing is a very exacting skill; you either get it right or you don’t. I suspect that it will be more of the same concept in the future. Getting the right answer, or getting the process exactly right, will predominate the skills needed as young workers attempt to enter and advance in the workforce.
The other point is a minor but telling one. When typing using a fixed-space font (such as the IBM Elite), the rule was that every sentence ended with a <period-space-space>. Today, I am given to understand that with proportional fonts such as Times New Roman, the separation between sentences is only a single space.
Yet I can’t bring myself to do that. I tell myself that I need the double space in order to gather my thoughts before beginning the next sentence, but the fact of the matter is that it seems to be ingrained into my psyche. For those I have inflicted with my <period-space-space> mentality, I’m sorry, but it will not change.
Next time, let me tell you about Xywrite.
Do We Hate Silicon Valley? August 9, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.
Tags: Silicon Valley
add a comment
The short answer is probably not. Despite perceived failings (many of which are real and serious), most people admire the entrepreneurial spirit and dedication of those who toil in pursuit of innovation and well, yes, riches.
Disclosure: I am a 30-year card-carrying member of the tech community in general, but not in Silicon Valley, except for occasional travel.
Is it true that startup companies in Silicon Valley lack diversity? Sure. Are they sexist? Almost certainly. Do they have juvenile cultures? Do they shun older workers? Some of them. Do they like it that way? Probably. Do they even realize any of these things? In most cases, no.
Is any of this a problem? Probably, in the aggregate. Silicon Valley startups are doing themselves no favors by supporting the status quo. All too often, the search for a ‘cultural fit’ means that they want someone just like everyone else at the company. Many of them are smart people, but that just isn’t very smart.
Is this a problem as an individual job seeker? I will offer that it is a minimal annoyance; do you really want to work for a company that is so shortsighted and well, stupid? They don’t want you, and you should not want them. Whether or not their attitudes go against both fairness and legality, it will likely be a marriage made in Hell.
My biggest problem with Silicon Valley today, oddly enough, stems from my perceived *lack* of innovation. There are simply too many startups with similar business models (social networks, anyone?), or with trivial business models (Yo!) that venture capitalists seem determined to fund, not out of any desire to advance the state of the art, but for largely unknown reasons. Could the VCs be playing with our minds?
I’ve recently concluded a job search. My search has included a number of Silicon Valley companies (I’ve often worked remotely). I am a white male, though certainly an older worker. With clearly younger interviewers, I’ve rarely gotten past the screening stage. My best successes have come with small companies with a healthy dose of older and more experienced workers. They do exist, and on the surface appear to be more open-minded.
To be fair, no large and established technology company (IBM, HP, etc.) will hire me either. This probably has more to do with my diverse background than any personal characteristic; I simply have no qualifications to fill a predefined and rigid slot in a corporate maze.
Is this bias? Sure, but in my mind it speaks more to fit than to qualifications. Virtually all employers are biased in their hiring practices in some way; it’s only against the law if the recipient is protected in some way. And even if a company violates those protections, intentionally or unintentionally, it’s not hate-worthy. But who would want to work there?
A Drone At Last August 6, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.
Tags: drone, FAA, RPV, Simulia, UAV
add a comment
Drones, or Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs), or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have been around for a long time. Arguably, any remote controlled aircraft is a drone, even if it is a hobbyist device.
But the last few years have brought increasing attention and interest to drones. They became popular in military applications, where unmanned surveillance and tactical attack vehicles have largely replaced their manned counterparts. From a practical standpoint, this has improved time on station without sacrificing the goals of the mission. And the cost savings are enormous. Rather than a tactical fighter that can cost a hundred million dollars to build and support, the equivalent cost of the drone is likely no more than a few million (and usually less).
Just as important, the military drone “pilots” are usually senior enlisted personnel on the ground rather than highly trained officers in the cockpit, monitoring a preprogrammed flight path and using joysticks distant from the actual craft, in many cases from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. Others are controlled regionally, but still usually hundreds of miles from the actual craft.
More recently, we’ve seen drones applied to civilian uses, first for police purposes in finding fugitives. Other agencies and private companies are attempting to enlist drones for traffic spotting, finding lost hikers, tracking livestock, and a myriad of other purposes. I was at the Simulia user conference earlier this year, where a team of young engineers demonstrated an unmanned “quadcopter” built largely on a 3D printer, designed to deliver emergency medical supplies to remote locations.
At the same time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has largely prohibited the civilian use of drones, based on its mandate to manage US airspace use. There is good rationale for this prohibition, as inexperienced drone operators may let their craft wander into the flight paths of manned aircraft, with predictably disastrous results.
Yet it won’t hold water in the long run (or perhaps even in the shorter run, given the intransience of the bureaucracy in developing guidelines). Whether or not Amazon actually follows through on its vision of delivering packages via drone, there are simply too many compelling reasons to use drones under many circumstances. At least one US Federal Court has ruled that small commercial drones are not under the regulatory purview of the FAA.
Right now, the FAA has identified the dividing line between a model aircraft and a small drone as more one of intent, rather than of technology. If it is used for commercial purposes, it’s a drone. If it’s used purely for recreational purposes, it’s a model aircraft.
That’s stupid, but that’s a bureaucracy for you. The drone revolution will happen, and it is likely that the FAA will be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.
Can Radio Shack Be Saved? August 6, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Education, Software platforms, Technology and Culture.
Tags: Radio Shack, Raspberry Pi
add a comment
Nothing that I can say or do will be the magic potion that rescues Radio Shack from oblivion. I certainly hold no influence over its financial or strategic direction, and of course any solution I might suggest could well be recognized by anyone else as pure hokey.
But I am sad to see the demise of an institution that represented its own brand of counterculture in my youth. That counterculture was embodied in the likes of Popular Science and other periodicals of the day that told us that the sky was the limit on our technological achievements. Radio Shack followed up that exhortation by telling us we could build it ourselves, and in many cases showing us how to do so.
If you walk into a Radio Shack today, you are bombarded with cell phones and subscriber plans that you can get in a dozen different stores within walking distance. The rest is a hodgepodge of electronic components, gadgets, and leftovers from a bygone era. My last purchase at a Radio Shack was a USB turntable, for which I had grandiose notions of using to convert my ancient LP trove into MP3s (the sound quality is terrible).
I wonder if it would be possible for Radio Shack to go back to its roots? What brings that to mind is my recent foray into Raspberry Pi, the small and inexpensive computer board that was developed and sold with the idea of promoting the teaching of computer science in schools. It’s probably marginally profitable (the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a non-profit), but for thought leadership it is pure gold.
But what if a small and focused engineering team at Radio Shack had developed something like this instead? And it was a headline promotion in every store? At one time there were people in Radio Shack who understood the technology sold by the company (Heath Kits, anyone?). Even the clerks were more nerds than sales people.
Granted, what I’m describing isn’t the enormous retail network that Radio Shack had become at its height. It’s not even clear that this could be a for-profit entity, at least in and of itself. But Radio Shack would once again stand for something, at least to get people in the door. It would certainly be no worse than anything else tried by the company over the last twenty years.
And products like this have the potential to excite the imagination of all people. We could build things with our own hands and understand how they work, rather than just take the technological complexity of our daily lives for granted. It may seem like a small thing, but people tend to better control that which they understand. And a little of that could benefit every one of us.
Fitbit and the Value of Quantitative Feedback July 31, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.
1 comment so far
Since the beginning of 2014, I have mostly neglected my modest workout regimen. I had job issues and then health issues, and simply lost the motivation to exercise on a regular basis. I was mostly at home, and fairly immobile.
Then I got a Fitbit. For those of you not aware, Fitbit is a family of activity tracker devices. I didn’t know a lot about it before getting it, but it was inexpensive and I thought might provide an interesting way of monitoring what I did on a day to day basis.
My particular model is the Fitbit One, a memory stick-sized device that uses a rubber sheath to clip to your belt or other surface. The clip is a friction one-size-fits-all device, and I soon discovered that my belt was too thick for it to retain a firm hold. Instead, I usually clip it to a belt loop. You can also get the Fitbit Flex, which you wear like a watch on your wrist.
The Fitbit comes with no instructions for use, other than to plug in the wireless USB dongle. The dongle is tiny (similar to a wireless mouse dongle), and provides a Bluetooth connection to the computer, and from there to your account on the Fitbit website. Without any further instructions, I assumed that the wire attaching the Fitbit to a USB port was the dongle, and fumbled around for a few minutes in setting it up.
All of this sounds slightly discouraging, but it wasn’t difficult to work through, and soon I had a Fitbit account on the website (free, although the company also offers a premium service), and the device attached to my person. I didn’t do anything different for the first several hours, but later in the afternoon I synced the device with the website and looked at my results.
Well, wow. It showed that I had taken several thousand steps, burned off more than a thousand calories (an estimate based on my height and weight), and climbed 14 flights of stairs. It measured my progress based on preset goals that can easily be changed.
That real time feedback encouraged me to become more aggressive in my activity routine. Today, four days later, I’m averaging over an hour of “intense activity” (a brisk walk, soon to be supplemented with a jog), 13-15K steps, 50+ flights of stairs, and 2700 burned calories. Without other obligations, I can easily see myself increasing my activity indefinitely.
Certainly there is a self-competitive nature within me that is enabling this activity. And it remains to be seen if I can keep this up over time. But the immediate and quantitative feedback on my activity is turning me into a demon.
I Need a Hero, Or Do I? July 13, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Strategy, Technology and Culture.
Tags: Silicon Valley, Zuckerberg
add a comment
I am hardly a paragon of virtue. Still, this article nicely summarizes the various misdeeds and lapses of the multimillionaire entrepreneurial set that comprises the Silicon Valley elite, as they attempt to deal with other people and with society at large.
I think there are a couple of issues here. First, startups such as Uber and AirBNB are attempting to build businesses that fly in the face of established regulations concerning the type of business activity they are attempting to change. That may in fact be a good thing in general. The regulations exist for a certain public good, but they also exist to protect the status quo from change (Disclosure: I use neither service and remain wary of their value). I would venture to say that any attempt to change regulatory processes should have been attempted before, rather than after, the execution of the business. At best, the founders of these types of companies are tone-deaf to the world in which they live, though long term success may turn them into something more than they are today.
But there are also larger issues. To publicly practice sexism, ageism, intolerance, and active encouraging of frat boy behaviors is juvenile, quite possibly illegal, and at the very least stupid and insensitive. These are not stupid people, so I must believe that there is an overarching reason for acting in this manner. I can’t possibly help but think of Shanley Kane; despite her extreme and uncompromising stands, she directly lives much of the darker side that we too often gloss over, or in some cases even embrace.
The question is both broad and deep. Should we have any expectation that the leaders of technology should be leaders of character, or even be good people in general? Are we demanding they take on a role that they never asked for, and are not fit for?
On the other hand, does wealth and success convey the right to pursue ideas and policies that may fly in the face of reason? “Privacy is no longer a social norm,” says Zuckerberg, almost certainly because that position benefits him financially. I don’t recall him being appointed to define our privacy norms, but this represents more than an opinion, informed or not; it is also an expression of Facebook’s business strategy.
I think what annoys me most is his power to make that simple statement a reality, without a public debate on the matter. It’s not your call, Zuckerberg, and I can’t help but think that you believe it is. I would have thought that the likes of Eric Schmidt served as adult supervision to the baser instincts of Silicon Valley, until he meekly went along with the crowd.
To be fair, I don’t think these questions are new ones. In the 1800s, media moguls single-mindedly pursued extreme political agendas under the guise of freedom of the press. “Robber barons” single-mindedly pursued profits at the expense of respect and even lives.
Still, the Rockefellers and Carnegies ago attempted, with perhaps limited success, to atone for their baser instincts during their lives. I grew up in a town with a Carnegie Free Library, after all. Perhaps this is like what a more mature Bill Gates is doing today. We can hope that Zuckerberg matures, although I am not holding my breath. I think that boat has long since sailed on Schmidt.
But it’s difficult to say that this era is all that much different than the latter 1800s. We as a society like to think we’ve grown, but that’s probably not true. But this cycle will end, and at its close, we will be able to see more clearly just what our tech leaders are made of.
Just What is Silicon Valley Up To These Days? July 9, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Software platforms, Technology and Culture.
Tags: innovation, Silicon Valley
add a comment
I think a lot of us, both in and out of that geographical location and state of mind, wonder just the same thing. When we see fledging companies getting a million dollars or more to develop an app that lets you grab a parking space, or pay for an already-made restaurant reservation, something is clearly wrong.
The question is where is the innovation? The press seems to congregate around those startups that exploit an imaginative though trivial niche. And, to be fair, so do the venture capitalists.
Slate (I still don’t know why we pay any attention to these folks) claims that innovation is being done by established companies these days, rather than by the startups.
I seriously question large companies trying to encourage and fund true innovation. Google does moon shots; Intel throws billions of dollars at a next generation set of chips that may or may not succeed, true. But that’s what established companies do.
But there is little room for true, market-breaking innovation in Google, Intel, HP (especially!), and the rest. Established companies simply have too much invested in their existing products to enable an innovation that threatens a billion-dollar business. These companies did their innovation, and now they are just trying to hang on.
But the Slate article is completely wrong on several accounts. For example:
>> true startup companies like Apple and Microsoft, which lacked those ties to academia and government, innovated only in the consumer sector.
Um, no. That’s not how Apple and Microsoft succeeded. Both desperately pursued the business market, Apple with the LaserPrinter, and Microsoft with Office. Microsoft ultimately succeeded more, but at the expense of longer-term viability.
Academia has been irrelevant as an innovator for a long time. Those that see Xerox PARC as a part of academia are seriously mistaken; it was very much industry, without a way to commercialize. Same with AT&T (not the same AT&T today, you should be aware) Bell Labs.
I do believe that innovation occurs in waves. The fact that we see so many “me too” social interaction companies today says that we are in a period of consolidation, not innovation. Still, innovation will happen again, but the companies of today, even the leaders (are you listening, Facebook?) will not be the true innovators ten years from now.
Tags: Facebook, psychology
By now most of us are familiar with the study done by Facebook in 2012 in which about 700,000 users were unwittingly subject to more emotionally negative content in order to determine if that content had any influence on their moods (based on the published results, the answer seems to be “no”). This became public when Facebook published an academic paper on the topic, and the principal researcher expressed misgivings in a blog post.
One of the more notorious psychological experiments was conducted by Stanley Milgram, circa 1963. Milgram described it as a learning experiment in which purported subjects (actually confederates) were given fake electrical shocks by the actual subjects as punishment for incorrect answers. Under the urging of the experimenter, many of those administering the electric shock applied the maximum amount of voltage.
I would like to think I know something of psychology, with a couple of university degrees in the subject and my own (very modest) human experiments during that time. Many psychology studies use deception in order to measure aspects of behavior that the subject isn’t cognizant of. If subjects were aware of the true purpose of an experiment, that knowledge would almost certainly influence their behaviors, rendering any results useless.
This means that at any time you are on Facebook, you are subject to being, well, a subject. Will that change how you interact with Facebook or other social media site? Well, maybe, and that could once again render any results useless.
Universities have ethics committees that evaluate prospective studies and determine whether or not they meet published ethics guidelines. While I won’t say that such committees make appropriate decisions in all cases, these processes are relatively transparent and well understood. It’s difficult to make the same case for any ethics decisions made by Facebook (my snark causes me to add “if any”).
Moreover, I have to ask what the purpose of such a study was. In academia (I was also a tenure-track academic for five years), researchers conduct experiments to generally advance the human body of knowledge (yes, and to get published, and obtain tenure, etc.). At Facebook, these studies must out of necessity be viewed with much more of a profit motive. Now there is truly an arresting thought.
Just what the heck is Facebook up to?