Triumph of the Nerds

1of3) Triumph of the Nerds: Impressing Their Friends. 1996


(2of3) Triumph of the Nerds: Riding The Bear.


(3of3) Triumph of the Nerds: Great Artists Steal.

Steve Jobs and Xerox PARC

From the Los Angeles Times, "The truth about Steve Jobs and Xerox PARC," on 6 October 2011: One of the foundation myths of Apple was that Steve Jobs and a team of developers working on Apple's Lisa personal computer cadged a visit to Xerox's legendary Palo Alto Research Center and walked away with a a sackful of secret technologies that it marketed before Xerox did. These included the graphical computer display that the original Macintosh made famous, the granddaddy of the animated, multicolored computer displays of today. I included a reference to this famous visit in my piece Thursday about the Jobs legacy, based on the longer version in my book about PARC, "Dealers of Lightning."

The common thread of the multiple and often conflicting versions told me by the participants was that Apple's team paid very close attention to what they were seeing displayed on PARC's pioneering personal computer, the Alto. PARC scientist Larry Tesler, who was working the Alto's keyboard and mouse, recalled that Apple engineer Bill Atkinson leaned so closely over him while staring at the screen that he could feel Atkinson's breath on the back of his neck.

Steve Jobs: 1955-2011

But Apple had already developed its own version of the graphical display before the PARC visit -- it's just that its engineers kept running into problems that PARC had plainly solved. Atkinson later said that he didn't steal PARC's version, but that seeing there was a solution "empowered" him to invent his own solution, which went into the original Mac.

The Jobs visit may not have inaugurated the exodus of technology from PARC, but it did launch the exodus of brainpower -- starting with Tesler, who jumped to Apple a few months later, deeply impressed that Jobs had been appalled Xerox was keeping its great technology under wraps.

"Why hasn't this company brought this to market?" Jobs had exclaimed during the demo. "I don't get it!" That was a testament to Jobs' ability to detect the promise in a novel technology several steps ahead of anyone else. The same idea wasn't lost on PARC's frustrated innovators. Recalled Tesler: Apple "understood what we had a lot better than Xerox did." (source:Los Angeles Times )

How Windows REALLY Became The Market Leader

How Windows REALLY Became The Market Leader (Pt.1)



How Windows REALLY Became The Market Leader (Pt.2)

Apple CEO Steve Jobs Interview - "I hired the wrong guy..."

The Xerox Alto: A Personal Retrospective

The Xerox Alto: A Personal Retrospective

Bloomberg Game Changers: Steve Jobs

R.I.P. Steve Jobs

Rest in Peace Steve Jobs. You were one of America's true geniuses. As an orphan child, you showed the world what America can do when America decides to educate its citizens. The world morns this loss.

I'm a nobody from nowhere, but your foresight has touched my life forever. Thank you for bringing personal computing to the common man.

Diane Ravitch: Why I Changed My Mind About School Reform

Diane Ravitch

From the Wall Street Journal, "Why I Changed My Mind About School Reform: Federal testing has narrowed education and charter schools have failed to live up to their promise," by Diane Ravitch:

I have been a historian of American education since 1975, when I received my doctorate from Columbia. I have written histories, and I've also written extensively about the need to improve students' knowledge of history, literature, geography, science, civics and foreign languages. So in 1991, when Lamar Alexander and David Kearns invited me to become assistant secretary of education in the administration of George H.W. Bush, I jumped at the chance with the hope that I might promote voluntary state and national standards in these subjects.

By the time I left government service in January 1993, I was an advocate not only for standards but for school choice. I had come to believe that standards and choice could co-exist as they do in the private sector. With my friends Chester Finn Jr. and Joseph Viteritti, I wrote and edited books and articles making the case for charter schools and accountability.

I became a founding board member of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and a founding member of the Koret Task Force at the Hoover Institution, both of which are fervent proponents of choice and accountability. The Koret group includes some of the nation's best-known conservative scholars of choice, including John Chubb, Terry Moe, Caroline Hoxby and Paul Peterson.

As No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) accountability regime took over the nation's schools under President George W. Bush and more and more charter schools were launched, I supported these initiatives. But over time, I became disillusioned with the strategies that once seemed so promising. I no longer believe that either approach will produce the quantum improvement in American education that we all hope for.

NCLB received overwhelming bipartisan support when it was signed into law by President Bush in 2002. The law requires that schools test all students every year in grades three through eight, and report their scores separately by race, ethnicity, low-income status, disability status and limited-English proficiency. NCLB mandated that 100% of students would reach proficiency in reading and math by 2014, as measured by tests given in each state.

Although this target was generally recognized as utopian, schools faced draconian penalties—eventually including closure or privatization—if every group in the school did not make adequate yearly progress. By 2008, 35% of the nation's public schools were labeled "failing schools," and that number seems sure to grow each year as the deadline nears.

Since the law permitted every state to define "proficiency" as it chose, many states announced impressive gains. But the states' claims of startling improvement were contradicted by the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Eighth grade students improved not at all on the federal test of reading even though they had been tested annually by their states in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Meanwhile the states responded to NCLB by dumbing down their standards so that they could claim to be making progress. Some states declared that between 80%-90% of their students were proficient, but on the federal test only a third or less were. Because the law demanded progress only in reading and math, schools were incentivized to show gains only on those subjects. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in test-preparation materials. Meanwhile, there was no incentive to teach the arts, science, history, literature, geography, civics, foreign languages or physical education.

In short, accountability turned into a nightmare for American schools, producing graduates who were drilled regularly on the basic skills but were often ignorant about almost everything else. Colleges continued to complain about the poor preparation of entering students, who not only had meager knowledge of the world but still required remediation in basic skills. This was not my vision of good education.

When charter schools started in the early 1990s, their supporters promised that they would unleash a new era of innovation and effectiveness. Now there are some 5,000 charter schools, which serve about 3% of the nation's students, and the Obama administration is pushing for many more.

But the promise has not been fulfilled. Most studies of charter schools acknowledge that they vary widely in quality. The only major national evaluation of charter schools was carried out by Stanford economist Margaret Raymond and funded by pro-charter foundations. Her group found that compared to regular public schools, 17% of charters got higher test scores, 46% had gains that were no different than their public counterparts, and 37% were significantly worse.

Charter evaluations frequently note that as compared to neighboring public schools, charters enroll smaller proportions of students whose English is limited and students with disabilities. The students who are hardest to educate are left to regular public schools, which makes comparisons between the two sectors unfair. The higher graduation rate posted by charters often reflects the fact that they are able to "counsel out" the lowest performing students; many charters have very high attrition rates (in some, 50%-60% of those who start fall away). Those who survive do well, but this is not a model for public education, which must educate all children.

NAEP compared charter schools and regular public schools in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. Sometimes one sector or the other had a small advantage. But on the whole, there is very little performance difference between them.

Given the weight of studies, evaluations and federal test data, I concluded that deregulation and privately managed charter schools were not the answer to the deep-seated problems of American education. If anything, they represent tinkering around the edges of the system. They affect the lives of tiny numbers of students but do nothing to improve the system that enrolls the other 97%.

The current emphasis on accountability has created a punitive atmosphere in the schools. The Obama administration seems to think that schools will improve if we fire teachers and close schools. They do not recognize that schools are often the anchor of their communities, representing values, traditions and ideals that have persevered across decades. They also fail to recognize that the best predictor of low academic performance is poverty—not bad teachers.

What we need is not a marketplace, but a coherent curriculum that prepares all students. And our government should commit to providing a good school in every neighborhood in the nation, just as we strive to provide a good fire company in every community.

On our present course, we are disrupting communities, dumbing down our schools, giving students false reports of their progress, and creating a private sector that will undermine public education without improving it. Most significantly, we are not producing a generation of students who are more knowledgable, and better prepared for the responsibilities of citizenship. That is why I changed my mind about the current direction of school reform. (source: Wall Street Journal)
An Evening with Diane Ravitch

Changing Education Paradigms by Sir Ken Robinson

Mister Rogers defending PBS to the US Senate

In 1969, Fred Rogers appeared before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Communications. His goal was to support funding for PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in response to significant proposed cuts by President Nixon.

Big Business War on America

While gullible Americans were preoccupied with Lohan, Sheen, and American Idol--big business, big energy and the GOP were holding clandestine meetings, plotting ways to crush organized labor, exploit the public and further demolish our rights and freedoms.

We though you should know.

Now go back to your entertainment, diversions, toys and gadgets.

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A. By PAUL KRUGMAN

Here’s a thought: maybe Madison, Wis., isn’t Cairo after all. Maybe it’s Baghdad — specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.

As many readers may recall, the results were spectacular — in a bad way. Instead of focusing on the urgent problems of a shattered economy and society, which would soon descend into a murderous civil war, those Bush appointees were obsessed with imposing a conservative ideological vision. Indeed, with looters still prowling the streets of Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, told a Washington Post reporter that one of his top priorities was to “corporatize and privatize state-owned enterprises” — Mr. Bremer’s words, not the reporter’s — and to “wean people from the idea the state supports everything.”The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein’s best-selling book “The Shock Doctrine,” which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor’s budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker’s anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?
The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage — aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum — has slowed the bum’s rush. If Mr. Walker’s plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.

But don’t expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets.

Union Busting Republicans

Republicans balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

Wisconsin Power Play

"Wisconsin Power Play" by Paul Krugman

Last week, in the face of protest demonstrations against Wisconsin’s new union-busting governor, Scott Walker — demonstrations that continued through the weekend, with huge crowds on Saturday — Representative Paul Ryan made an unintentionally apt comparison: “It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison.”

It wasn’t the smartest thing for Mr. Ryan to say, since he probably didn’t mean to compare Mr. Walker, a fellow Republican, to Hosni Mubarak. Or maybe he did — after all, quite a few prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, denounced the uprising in Egypt and insist that President Obama should have helped the Mubarak regime suppress it.

In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.

Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.

In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.

But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain.

The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state’s workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers — namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning — are exempted from the ban; it’s as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.

So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t.

source: New York Times, 20 February 2011, by Paul Krugman

GOP's Save The Rich Campaign

Chaka Khan-My Funny Valentine

My funny valentine
Sweet, comic valentine
You make me smile with my heart
Oooh, mmm

Your looks are laughable
Un-photographable
Yet, you're my favorite work of art
Is your figure less than Greek?
Is your mouth a little bit weak?When you open it to speak, are you smart?

Don't, baby don't, don't you change your hair for me
Not if you care for me
Stay, stay little valentine, stay
Each day is Valentine's...
Each day is Valentine's Day
Stay, little valentine, stay
Stay, stay, yeah yeah
Each day is Valentine's...
Each day is Valentine's Day

Michelle Obama's $3 Billion Dollar Fashion Babe

From the Week's article entitled, "Michelle Obama's $3 billion fashion 'effect' ," posted on October 28, 2010, at 11:32 AM, states that "according to a new study, the first lady, and her chic choices, are moving markets."

Talk about an economic stimulus package. According to a new study, First Lady Michelle Obama is having a profound and profitable effect on some lucky clothing retailers. . . . Here, a brief guide to the findings:

How can Mrs. Obama help sell clothes?

By wearing them. David Yermack, a business and finance professor at New York University's Stern School, looked at 29 clothing companies whose garments Michelle Obama wore in 189 public appearances between November 2008 and December 2009. Their stock prices typically jumped by 2 to 3 percent — and when the first lady wore J. Crew on "The Tonight Show" in October 2008, the company's stock price climbed 25 percent in the next three days. Such increases that "cannot be attributed to normal market variations," says Yermack.

How much money do the companies make?
Yermack reckons that, on average, an appearance by Michelle Obama in a company's clothes is worth $14 million. The total boost for all of the appearances examined in the study — a whopping $2.7 billion. Designer Naeem Khan found out first hand about the first lady's influence when she wore one of his outfits to a state dinner in February 2009. "My stuff is flying out of stores," the designer says. "It's the gift that doesn't stop giving."

How does the effect last?

"The stock price gains persist days after an outfit is worn and in some cases even trend slightly higher three weeks later," says Yermack. Some clothing companies, likes Saks, appear to have experienced long-term gains. And the effect persists regardless of how President Obama is doing. "Her husband’s approval rating appears to have no effect on the returns," says Yermack. Or, as Marni Katz puts it at NBC New York, "even when his approval ratings are down, Mrs. Obama's style score soars."

Are any other celebrities having a similar effect?

"None that I can find," says Yermack. "Once in a while there is someone in politics, Princess Diana, Jacqueline Onassis, come to mind, who just build a very big allegiance among the public and they get celebrated for their sense of style and fashion." France's First Lady, Carla Bruni Sarkozy, is also iconic and stylish, but she only wears one designer: Dior.

What is it about Michelle Obama?

Part of Obama's appeal, and the strength of her effect, is that she mixes high and low fashion, carrying off J. Crew and couture equally well. "She has very consciously tried to wear garments from mid-market retail chains where many voters also would have shopped, and she's talked about that very openly," Yermack says. She's also "recognized by consumers as authentic" — unlike a starlet who might be known to have an endorsement deal or get freebies from a certain designer. And, theorizes Naomi Attwood at Grazia Daily, there's her body type. While she's "gorgeous," Obama "doesn't look like a typical fashion plate, waify clothes horse, therefore people identify with her and believe 'if it works on her..."



Sources: Harvard Business Review, BBC World Service, NBC New York, Grazia Daily, The Independent, Investor Place

Oscar de la Renta Embarrasses First Lady Laura Bush

Oscar de la Renta whines about First Lady Michelle Obama's stunning British-designed Alexander McQueen dress that she wore to the State Dinner, "Why do you wear European clothes?"

According to the Huffington Post, Oscar de le Renta told WWD, "My understanding is that the visit was to promote American-Chinese trade -- American products in China and Chinese products in America. Why do you wear European clothes?" adding, "I'm not talking about my clothes, my business. I'm old, and I don't need it. But there are a lot of young people, very talented people here who do."

De la Renta made similar comments in April 2009, right after the first lady visited London. He told WWD at the time:

"American fashion right now is struggling. I think I understand what [Obama and her advisers] are doing, but I don't think that is the right message at this particular point....I don't object to the fact that Mrs. Obama is wearing J. Crew to whatever because the diversity of America is what makes this country great. But there are a lot of great designers out there. I think it's wrong to go in one direction only."

In the same article, he also knocked the outfit Michelle wore to meet Queen Elizabeth, remarking, "You don't...go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater."

Let's flashback to December of 2006, when Oscar de la Renta's dress made the Official White House Holiday card . . .

People Magazine writes, "Imagine spending $8,500 on a beaded Oscar de la Renta gown to wear to an exclusive White House holiday reception and then arriving to find three other women wearing the same dress. Now, imagine that you’re the First Lady who has found herself in the middle of a real-life, four-way fashion faceoff! "

That’s what happened to Laura Bush at a Dec. 3 event at the White House. Luckily, she able to sneak off upstairs mid-party to change into a new dress.

Susan Whitson, Press Secretary to Mrs. Bush, tells PEOPLE: “Though Mrs. Bush has seen guests at the White House wearing dresses she herself owns, this was the first identical dress-to-dress encounter she has had.

She and the President found it quite amusing that Mrs. Bush and three other ladies had on the same gown at the same event.” If only all Fashion Faceoffs could be solved with a quick run upstairs! (source: People Magazine. 8 December 2006)

"Why do you wear European clothes?"... Perhaps First Lady Obama doesn't want to be humiliated like First Lady Laura Bush was by wearing a matronly, off-the-rack Oscar de la Renta's gowns.

Best Super Bowl Commercials 2011

It looks like the car commercials won for the best Super Bowl commercials. My top picks were the Audi-Kenny G jailbreak, Eminem's Imported from Detroit, and the cute kid in the VW ad. We also liked the mix of the Doritos commercials. Honorable mention goes to the Sealy ad.

2011 Audi A8 Commercial - Kenny G (Super Bowl)

Chrysler Eminem Super Bowl Commercial - Imported From Detroit

This one is so good that Detroit's Chamber of Commerce should use it to generate investments and tourism. Brilliant!

The Force Darth Vader Volkswagen Commercial

Sealy (Mattress) - Posturepedic After Glow