There's a book in play about "extreme parenting", which is apparently a Chinese thing (Koreans would disagree). It's gotten a lot of attention.
It's silly. Extreme parenting requires special needs children. Parenting bright kids without disability is recreational parenting.
From the Jan 2011 MN North Star Ski Club newsletter (emphases mine) ...
“Ted Wirth’s hiking club is on its last legs” This was a Star & Trib article on October 26, 2010 describing the decline and demise of a 90-year old Minneapolis Municipal Hiking Club. It peaked at about 500 members and apparently had a full program of 88 hikes in 1928, for example. One member described her first hike in 1934 as starting at West 54th Street and Penn Avenue South (where Settergrin’s Hardware has been for 100 years), going into the “countryside” and ending at Lake Calhoun.
Currently, the average age of its Board is 84. The article summarizes that the club is victim of aging membership and changing exercise habits. Is this pertinent to our North Star’s with our aging membership and gradually declining numbers? Along with the two previous NS Presidents, I wonder what we can do about this?
The "Ted Wirth" referenced in the Strib article lent his name to one of the best of many excellent MSP parks. Ninety years is an impressive record; most of the recreational clubs I've known had lifespans in the 10-30 year range.
I wonder what they the MMHC did right. Google didn't turn up any tips on what makes for a long-lived club. A lot of people would like to know the answer, not least the evidently shrinking North Star (nordic) Ski Club.
Maybe The Atlantic or The New Yorker will assign someone to survey long lived clubs and ask them how they both recruit new members and retain the faithful core (excluding university associated organizations of course. It's easy for them!). I'd buy that issue ...
Loughner a "textbook" case paranoid schizophrenic - Jared Loughner - Salon.comThis is not a hard diagnosis. This is like diagnosing rain by looking at the splashing drops. In any sane society, Loughner would not be considered responsible for his actions. He is not the "face of evil" dammit, he is a victim of one of the most terrible diseases in the vast array of terrible diseases.
All cultures punish "cheaters". That's unsurprising.
What's surprising is that most cultures punish the atypically generous ...
... the U.S, Australia and the U.K. subjects were much less likely to punish players who HAD cooperated by contributing to the group project. In other societies, ‘[m]any subjects engaged in anti-social punishment; that is, they paid to reduce the earnings of ‘overly’ cooperative individuals (those who contributed more than the punisher did).’ ...
Looking at the graph some cultures punish atypical generosity even more than "free riders". On visual inspection I see three grades of anti-social punishment (emphases mine) ...
I suspect Canada would fall between Germany and Denmark, at the high end of low punishment. I grew up in Canada, where we understood it was rude to be exceptionally good in any way. I wonder if what's measured here is really a general response to being exceptional (talented, witty, generous, etc) rather than to a specific response to "excessive" generosity. It may also be that in some cultures there is a strong duty to reciprocate generosity (Japan?), so the generous act can be a bit of an unwanted gift.
I think these responses are important to understand -- particularly for those whose programming favors generosity. Even in the US the naturally generous will work with people from cultures that may resent or feel burdened by an unsolicited gift. It is often wise to balance gifts with requests, providing an opportunity for the recipient to balance the scales. Most of all it may be wise to do deed invisibly, so nobody will feel burdened and the Samaritan will go unpunished.
Charlie Stross says emergent corporate entities control America. Krugman says wealth alone is sufficient explanation, emergent entities are an unnecessary complication.
John Gordon says control (the bouncing yellow ball) of America is a dynamic balance between the emergent corporate entity (ECE) powerful (wealthy) individuals, and the voting masses [1]:
Of course I'm right, but it would be nice to have evidence.
Fortunately, there's a natural experiment coming up. The GOP is threatening to destroy the American, and world, economy. This is in the interests of neither powerful individuals nor ECEs. So if it happens, then Stross, Krugman and I are all wrong. The Voters have power after all, and it's just too bad so many Americans are detached from reality.
I bet, however, that the Tea Party GOP caves, and the GOP that serves the powerful and the corporate wins.
That doesn't tell us whether Stross, Krugman, or me has the best story though. We need a different falsifiable prediction.
It's tough to come up with that test because this is a triangle of frenemies, not enemies. Often the interests of (hypothetical) ECEs align with those of powerful people and/or Voters (who are both consumers and employees). We need test where the voters are neutral, but the interests of corporate entities and powerful individuals are opposed.
The only test I've come up with so far would be to examine the pattern of legislation over the past 30 years. My hypothesis is that we'd find that legislation and accounting regulations have furthered the development of ECEs even as they've reduced the rate of return to Powerful individuals -- perhaps shrinking that pool [2] and even reducing overall economic growth.
Can anyone think of another falsifiable test?
[1] Similar picture here, but there the third point was "the weak". Also true, but different point.
[2] So we end up with fewer "players", even though they may be individually wealthier.
See also:
I get emails when a reader (infrequently) comments. The author deleted this comment, so I'll keep it anonymous ...
Say, is it not odd that you don't have a bunch of readers reading your blog? You have been writing this since 2003 and nobody comments or reads it? Is this even real?
Oh and I figured out how I reached your blog. I was looking for "nobody reads your blog" on google and a comment from your blog showed up on the 47th page.
Its sad and funny at the same time...
I wasn't able to replicate his search results, but unless we're post AI this was a bio post, not a bot post.
It's a good question [4], but there are a lot of blogs that go unread. So mine is not that unusual. What's unusual is that it's been persistently unread for 7 years. So the real question is - "why would anyone write 5,494 posts that nobody reads?" (@9,000 if you add Gordon's Tech) [1]
The short answer is that I read both of Gordon's Blogs. As I wrote back in 2007 ...
... my own very low readership blogs are written for these audiences in this order:
1. Myself. It’s how I learn and think.
2. The GoogleMind: building inferential links for search and reflection.
3. Tech blog: Future readers who find my posts useful to solve a problem they have that I've solved for myself.
4. Gordon's Notes: My grandchildren, so I can say I didn't remain silent -- and my tiny audience of regular readers, not least my wife (hey, we don't get that much time to talk!) ...
Later, when I integrated Google Custom Search, my history of posts began to inform my Google searches. My blogs extend my memory into the wider net.
So that explains why there are 9,000 "John Gordon" posts.
As to why their aren't many comments/readers, I can imagine several reasons ...
That covers the bases I think. Except ...
Except, it's not quite so simple. It turns out I do have a few readers -- I'm guessing about 100 or so [3], not counting a larger number who come via Google [2], but certainly counting Google itself. Some of my readers are bloggers with substantial readership, and sometimes they respond to what I write.
So I do have an audience after all, it's just very quiet.
See also:
-- fn --
[1] Why do I share thousands of items via Google Reader? Because that's a searchable repository of things I find interesting. Another memory extender.
[2] I don't have a stellar Google ranking, but it's not bad
[3] About 80 via Google Reader alone, where I share these posts. There's also Emily, who comments over breakfast. A lot of my posts come out of our discussions.
[4] It wasn't clear when I first posted this that I like the question. I think it's a good question and I think it was meant well. Sorry for not making that clear. I've added this footnote.
Update 1/6/11: Based on comment response I probably have more regular readers than I imagined.
Despite all of their security issues, I've never thought credit cards would go away. I figured one day banks would become liable for identity theft, and credit card companies would fix their broken-by-design security models.
I never thought credit cards would just go away -- until today. Today I went to pay my American Express Blue cash back statement. I do this monthly, it's usually a minor nuisance. Today, however, I found a newish web site. It feels Flash based. It features obnoxious, flickering ads. It made me do a security reset. The "feedback" button didn't render correctly in Safari, it wasn't the only rendering problem (just the most ironic one). To add injury to injury, the new site told me AMEX was making some incomprehensible change to its cash back program next March. I don't think that change is meant to please me.
I've seen this kind of service regression before. It doesn't end well.
It's a sign that the smart people at AMEX have abandoned ship. That fits with news coverage of the woes of the credit card business. Credit card margins are being squeezed, their prime victims, people who paid interest, have gone bankrupt.
We've all heard stories for years about a replacement for the credit card. It hasn't happened, but maybe this year will be different.
Reading about the fall of Detroit, the ranting of the GOP's Tea Party House, ubiquitous fraud and corruption, and the emergence of the corporate person, it's easy to imagine that we're going where no nation has gone before -- testing the limits of both democracy and capitalism.
But has any nation been here before? How long did Athenian democracy last? Not all that long actually ....
Athenian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the central city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 508 BC. ..
... The greatest and longest lasting democratic leader was Pericles; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponnesian War ... It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides; the most detailed accounts are of this fourth-century modification rather than the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the Macedonians in 322 BC ...
The Peloponnesian war lasted from 431 BC to 404 BC. So Athenian democracy might have lasted as little as 100 years. If you count periods of restoration you might get to 160 years. American "Democracy" [1] is about 235 years old.
Going where no nation has gone before ...
See also
[1] Assuming one starts with white male landowner voters.
When I'm looking for a product, I first imagine how it would work. Then I search for it.
Often I find exactly what I imagined. Sometimes, however, it doesn't exist.
Today, in the third coming [1] of the Minnesota ice dam, I went looking for a replacement for our old attic stairs.
I imagine an integrated stair/insulation system. This would be a metal frame that would sit into our attic floor. It would hold traditional folding/sliding stairs. In addition it would have a "lid" atop the frame with a latch and a door lifter.
To enter the attic one would go up the stairs and then open the latch. The lid, sealed by high quality rubber seals, would open up with a slight push. The door lifters would keep it open. A string would be used to shut it.
A simple idea, but this crude system is the best I could find - Attic Stair Insulation Insulsure Attic Tent AT-2 Model. So we'll have to have something custom made for us.
If you're a bored manufacturer, you should be able to put this together in a few months and sell it next year. Please send me a link and I'll update this post.
[1] Third in my residence here. Prior bad years were 1997 and 2004, but 2010-2011 may be the worst of all.
The Observer is highlighting Detroit in ruins, a series of photographs by Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre.
Think of it as a slow motion but more devastating version of Hurricaine Katrina.
The most stunning image, for me, was the picture of the east side public library:
They abandoned a building full of books.
Others pictures show unsalvaged Art Deco chandeliers, classrooms with anatomic models, and piles of documents in an abandoned police station. Some of them are doubtless staged (this is art, not documentary), but did they really stage the library?
Can we organize a team of crack commandos to liberate the old books?
At this point, maybe we should treat Detroit like a wrecked ship open for salvage. Ten percent of revenue on recovered goods goes to the city, the rest to the winner.
See also:
I'm good with resolutions. Mostly because I know how to pick 'em. I make 'em doable.
Consider sleep. I like to exercise, but in my life sleep is more important. So I've resolved to sleep at least 52 hours a week [1]. I think I can do that if I track the numbers and identify where I fall short.
That's one for 2011. The other resolution is about managing technological complexity.
I've been on a complexity reduction kick for a few years , but this year my focus is on technological complexity. I'm starting with the plausible assumption that we all have a personal "complexity budget". Some of us can manage more complexity, others less, but we all have memory and processor limits -- even the AIs among us.
We can spend our complexity capacity figuring out how to adjust product development to available capacity, or we can spend it figuring out what parts of SharePoint are worth using [2]. Both tasks will be equally draining.
At some points in my life I had complexity capacity to spare - perhaps because I wasn't using it wisely. That's not true now. Gains from improved productivity techniques [3] and growth of mind [4] are offset by entropic neurons. Most of all though, my life overflows. I'm not complaining -- it's an overflow of good stuff. It means though, that I need to use my complexity capacity wisely. I can't be spending limited firepower figuring out which of my 15 Google identities is running a feedburner bot linked to a pseudonymous twitter account.
It's not easy to reduce technological complexity. It often means making do with less; giving up tools and solutions I really like. Often it means declining new incrementally better improvements -- because a 10% gain isn't worth the learning curve and failure risk. Sometimes it means giving up on old tools that still work but are increasingly unsupported. Yes, it's a lot like software portfolio management.
Looking at how technological complexity grows in my life I can identify four broad causes....
I've gotten better at the first one, but the next three all need work. The 3rd and 4th are particularly tricky. My heavy use of Google's multi-calendar sync solutions is clearly premature [5], but it's been very valuable and relatively bug free. On the other hand, I think my jury-rigged Contact integration solution may be a bridge too far. On the other hand, I stuck with Outlook's Notes feature long after it was clearly dead.
Cleaning up is the least interesting measure, but one of most important. There are 1,575 entries in my credentials database, extending back to August 1995. Sure, most of those sites are long gone, but I still have too many active identities and credentials. I need to gradually cull a few hundred.
This project should keep me busy for a while. It will, of course, suck processors in the short term, but I expect near term returns and long term gains. Feels like a good resolution target.
-- fn --
[1] It helps that recent research suggests that amyloid clearance occurs primarily during sleep, and I'm speculating that a 10-20% decline in amyloid clearance translates to 10 extra years of dementia.
[2] The wiki and, in the absence of alternatives, the document store. Don't touch the rest, even the stuff that seems to work is poison.
[3] At my stage "GTD" is child's play. I use a mongrel of Agile development planning methodology, GTD/Franklin, and a pocketful of tricks including calendar integration across family and work.
[4] For quite some time mind can grow even as brain more or less sucks wind. Not forever, but for a time.
[5] The UI for configuration multiple calendars has been bizarrely obscure for about two years. This is not mainstream.
[6] It's predator-prey stuff. Software evolution was much more leisurely before human-on-human predation took off with hacks, frauds, identity theft, malware and the like. Now old bucks have to keep moving, or we become wolf chow. Software cycles are faster, products die quickly, and we have to keep buying whizzier hardware. If not for malware, the curated world of iOS would still be years away.
See also:
For a non-expert, I do a fair bit of ruminating about the relationships between identities, credentials, and avatars/facets. Today a bug related to Google's (covert) Identity Integration initiatives, a recent flurry of stories on the endtimes of password based security, and the earth's orbit have got me chewing again.
I'll deal with the earth's orbit by making my solitary 2011 tech prediction. 2011 will be the year of two factor authentication and the gradual realization that management of digital identities is too important to be left to Google, Amazon and especially Citicorp, Facebook, and AT&T/Verizon.
So if we can't rely on Google (or Facebook) or Citicorp to manage our digital identity, including claim resolution and identity control, who can we rely on? What are the other alternatives, assuming that almost none of us will run an identity service out of our homes?
Obviously, government is an option. The (US) Federal government, for example, makes a robust claim on my identity. That claim, however, is so robust I would prefer to separate my obligatory IRS identities from all other identity related services. In any event direct US government identity management is a political non-starter. The right wing will start ranting about beastly numbers and rationalists will fret about the day Bush/Cheney II takes power.
That leaves business entities with strong governmental relationships, extensive regulation, and a pre-existing legal framework support that could be extended to support identity management.
An entity like, for example, the United States Postal Service (USPS).
You laugh. Ok, but consider the advantages:
I admit, it sounds crazy.
Except ... I'm far from the first person to think of this. It was proposed by (cough, choke, gag) Michael Chertoff ...
... former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff ... mused that the USPS was ideally situated to take part in the evolution of the government’s role in validating identity. He points out that the Post office is already the primary issuer of passports – an extremely important piece of personal identity. In the speech he expands on that model as follows: “one of the things I hope to see is, as the Post Office re-engineers itself over the next, you know, few years, they increasingly look at whether they can be in the business of servicing identity management. They can – because every town has a post office.”.... DHS: Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff at University of Southern California National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events
I can't believe I find myself agreeing with Chertoff, but there you go. What a way to start 2011.
See also (Gordon's notes unless otherwise noted);
[1] Incidentally, now that my kateva.org Google Apps users have Blogger privileges, and since Blogger is supposedly an OpenID provider, I'm thinking of implementing this using Blogger/Google Apps/Kateva.org
Update 1/8/11: A few days after I wrote this news emerged of a federal identity and certificate management initiative. Maybe I'm psychic.
