The human eye is a perceptual powerhouse. It can see millions of colors, adjust easily to shifting light conditions, and transmit information to the brain at a rate exceeding that of a high-speed Internet connection.
But why stop there?
In the Terminator movies, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character sees the world with data superimposed on his visual field—virtual captions that enhance the cyborg’s scan of a scene. In stories by the science fiction author Vernor Vinge, characters rely on electronic contact lenses, rather than smartphones or brain implants, for seamless access to information that appears right before their eyes.
These visions (if I may) might seem far-fetched, but a contact lens with simple built-in electronics is already within reach; in fact, my students and I are already producing such devices in small numbers in my laboratory at the University of Washington, in Seattle. These lenses don’t give us the vision of an eagle or the benefit of running subtitles on our surroundings yet. But we have built a lens with one LED, which we’ve powered wirelessly with RF. What we’ve done so far barely hints at what will soon be possible with this technology.
Conventional contact lenses are polymers formed in specific shapes to correct faulty vision. To turn such a lens into a functional system, we integrate control circuits, communication circuits, and miniature antennas into the lens using custom-built optoelectronic components. Those components will eventually include hundreds of LEDs, which will form images in front of the eye, such as words, charts, and photographs. Much of the hardware is semitransparent so that wearers can navigate their surroundings without crashing into them or becoming disoriented. In all likelihood, a separate, portable device will relay displayable information to the lens’s control circuit, which will operate the optoelectronics in the lens.
These lenses don’t need to be very complex to be useful. Even a lens with a single pixel could aid people with impaired hearing or be incorporated as an indicator into computer games. With more colors and resolution, the repertoire could be expanded to include displaying text, translating speech into captions in real time, or offering visual cues from a navigation system. With basic image processing and Internet access, a contact-lens display could unlock whole new worlds of visual information, unfettered by the constraints of a physical display.
Besides visual enhancement, noninvasive monitoring of the wearer’s biomarkers and health indicators could be a huge future market. We’ve built several simple sensors that can detect the concentration of a molecule, such as glucose. Sensors built onto lenses would let diabetic wearers keep tabs on blood-sugar levels without needing to prick a finger. The glucose detectors we’re evaluating now are a mere glimmer of what will be possible in the next 5 to 10 years. Contact lenses are worn daily by more than a hundred million people, and they are one of the only disposable, mass-market products that remain in contact, through fluids, with the interior of the body for an extended period of time. When you get a blood test, your doctor is probably measuring many of the same biomarkers that are found in the live cells on the surface of your eye—and in concentrations that correlate closely with the levels in your bloodstream. An appropriately configured contact lens could monitor cholesterol, sodium, and potassium levels, to name a few potential targets. Coupled with a wireless data transmitter, the lens could relay information to medics or nurses instantly, without needles or laboratory chemistry, and with a much lower chance of mix-ups.
Three fundamental challenges stand in the way of building a multipurpose contact lens. First, the processes for making many of the lens’s parts and subsystems are incompatible with one another and with the fragile polymer of the lens. To get around this problem, my colleagues and I make all our devices from scratch. To fabricate the components for silicon circuits and LEDs, we use high temperatures and corrosive chemicals, which means we can’t manufacture them directly onto a lens. That leads to the second challenge, which is that all the key components of the lens need to be miniaturized and integrated onto about 1.5 square centimeters of a flexible, transparent polymer. We haven’t fully solved that problem yet, but we have so far developed our own specialized assembly process, which enables us to integrate several different kinds of components onto a lens. Last but not least, the whole contraption needs to be completely safe for the eye. Take an LED, for example. Most red LEDs are made of aluminum gallium arsenide, which is toxic. So before an LED can go into the eye, it must be enveloped in a biocompatible substance.
So far, besides our glucose monitor, we’ve been able to batch-fabricate a few other nanoscale biosensors that respond to a target molecule with an electrical signal; we’ve also made several microscale components, including single-crystal silicon transistors, radio chips, antennas, diffusion resistors, LEDs, and silicon photodetectors. We’ve constructed all the micrometer-scale metal interconnects necessary to form a circuit on a contact lens. We’ve also shown that these microcomponents can be integrated through a self-assembly process onto other unconventional substrates, such as thin, flexible transparent plastics or glass. We’ve fabricated prototype lenses with an LED, a small radio chip, and an antenna, and we’ve transmitted energy to the lens wirelessly, lighting the LED. To demonstrate that the lenses can be safe, we encapsulated them in a biocompatible polymer and successfully tested them in trials with live rabbits.
Second Sight:
In recent trials, rabbits wore lenses containing metal circuit structures for 20 minutes at a time with no adverse effects.
Seeing the light—LED light—is a reasonable accomplishment. But seeing something useful through the lens is clearly the ultimate goal. Fortunately, the human eye is an extremely sensitive photodetector. At high noon on a cloudless day, lots of light streams through your pupil, and the world appears bright indeed. But the eye doesn’t need all that optical power—it can perceive images with only a few microwatts of optical power passing through its lens. An LCD computer screen is similarly wasteful. It sends out a lot of photons, but only a small fraction of them enter your eye and hit the retina to form an image. But when the display is directly over your cornea, every photon generated by the display helps form the image.
The beauty of this approach is obvious: With the light coming from a lens on your pupil rather than from an external source, you need much less power to form an image. But how to get light from a lens? We’ve considered two basic approaches. One option is to build into the lens a display based on an array of LED pixels; we call this an active display. An alternative is to use passive pixels that merely modulate incoming light rather than producing their own. Basically, they construct an image by changing their color and transparency in reaction to a light source. (They’re similar to LCDs, in which tiny liquid-crystal ”shutters” block or transmit white light through a red, green, or blue filter.) For passive pixels on a functional contact lens, the light source would be the environment. The colors wouldn’t be as precise as with a white-backlit LCD, but the images could be quite sharp and finely resolved.
We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs. For now, active pixels are easier to attach to lenses. But using passive pixels would significantly reduce the contact’s overall power needs—if we can figure out how to make the pixels smaller, higher in contrast, and capable of reacting quickly to external signals.
By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye. After all, a normal and healthy eye cannot focus on objects that are fewer than 10 centimeters from the corneal surface. The LEDs by themselves merely produce a fuzzy splotch of color in the wearer’s field of vision. Somehow the image must be pushed away from the cornea. One way to do that is to employ an array of even smaller lenses placed on the surface of the contact lens. Arrays of such microlenses have been used in the past to focus lasers and, in photolithography, to draw patterns of light on a photoresist. On a contact lens, each pixel or small group of pixels would be assigned to a microlens placed between the eye and the pixels. Spacing a pixel and a microlens 360 micrometers apart would be enough to push back the virtual image and let the eye focus on it easily. To the wearer, the image would seem to hang in space about half a meter away, depending on the microlens.
Another way to make sharp images is to use a scanning microlaser or an array of microlasers. Laser beams diverge much less than LED light does, so they would produce a sharper image. A kind of actuated mirror would scan the beams from a red, a green, and a blue laser to generate an image. The resolution of the image would be limited primarily by the narrowness of the beams, and the lasers would obviously have to be extremely small, which would be a substantial challenge. However, using lasers would ensure that the image is in focus at all times and eliminate the need for microlenses.
Whether we use LEDs or lasers for our display, the area available for optoelectronics on the surface of the contact is really small: roughly 1.2 millimeters in diameter. The display must also be semitransparent, so that wearers can still see their surroundings. Those are tough but not impossible requirements. The LED chips we’ve built so far are 300 µm in diameter, and the light-emitting zone on each chip is a 60-µm-wide ring with a radius of 112 µm. We’re trying to reduce that by an order of magnitude. Our goal is an array of 3600 10-µm-wide pixels spaced 10 µm apart.
One other difficulty in putting a display on the eye is keeping it from moving around relative to the pupil. Normal contact lenses that correct for astigmatism are weighted on the bottom to maintain a specific orientation, give or take a few degrees. I figure the same technique could keep a display from tilting (unless the wearer blinked too often!).
Like all mobile electronics, these lenses must be powered by suitable sources, but among the options, none are particularly attractive. The space constraints are acute. For example, batteries are hard to miniaturize to this extent, require recharging, and raise the specter of, say, lithium ions floating around in the eye after an accident. A better strategy is gathering inertial power from the environment, by converting ambient vibrations into energy or by receiving solar or RF power. Most inertial power scavenging designs have unacceptably low power output, so we have focused on powering our lenses with solar or RF energy.
Let’s assume that 1 square centimeter of lens area is dedicated to power generation, and let’s say we devote the space to solar cells. Almost 300 microwatts of incoming power would be available indoors, with potentially much more available outdoors. At a conversion efficiency of 10 percent, these figures would translate to 30 µW of available electrical power, if all the subsystems of the contact lens were run indoors.
Collecting RF energy from a source in the user’s pocket would improve the numbers slightly. In this setup, the lens area would hold antennas rather than photovoltaic cells. The antennas’ output would be limited by the field strengths permitted at various frequencies. In the microwave bands between 1.5 gigahertz and 100 GHz, the exposure level considered safe for humans is 1 milliwatt per square centimeter. For our prototypes, we have fabricated the first generation of antennas that can transmit in the 900-megahertz to 6-GHz range, and we’re working on higher-efficiency versions. So from that one square centimeter of lens real estate, we should be able to extract at least 100 µW, depending on the efficiency of the antenna and the conversion circuit.
Having made all these subsystems work, the final challenge is making them all fit on the same tiny polymer disc. Recall the pieces that we need to cram onto a lens: metal microstructures to form antennas; compound semiconductors to make optoelectronic devices; advanced complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor silicon circuits for low-power control and RF telecommunication; microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducers and resonators to tune the frequencies of the RF communication; and surface sensors that are reactive with the biochemical environment.
The semiconductor fabrication processes we’d typically use to make most of these components won’t work because they are both thermally and chemically incompatible with the flexible polymer substrate of the contact lens. To get around this problem, we independently fabricate most of the microcomponents on silicon-on-insulator wafers, and we fabricate the LEDs and some of the biosensors on other substrates. Each part has metal interconnects and is etched into a unique shape. The end yield is a collection of powder-fine parts that we then embed in the lens.
We start by preparing the substrate that will hold the microcomponents, a 100-µm-thick slice of polyethylene terephthalate. The substrate has photolithographically defined metal interconnect lines and binding sites. These binding sites are tiny wells, about 10 µm deep, where electrical connections will be made between components and the template. At the bottom of each well is a minuscule pool of a low-melting-point alloy that will later join together two interconnects in what amounts to micrometer-scale soldering.
We then submerge the plastic lens substrate in a liquid medium and flow the collection of microcomponents over it. The binding sites are cut to match the geometries of the individual parts so that a triangular component finds a triangular well, a circular part falls into a circular well, and so on. When a piece falls into its complementary well, a small metal pad on the surface of the component comes in contact with the alloy at the bottom of the well, causing a capillary force that lodges the component in place. After all the parts have found their slots, we drop the temperature to solidify the alloy. This step locks in the mechanical and electrical contact between the components, the interconnects, and the substrate.
The next step is to ensure that all the potentially harmful components that we’ve just assembled are completely safe and comfortable to wear. The lenses we’ve been developing resemble existing gas-permeable contacts with small patches of a slightly less breathable material that wraps around the electronic components. We’ve been encapsulating the functional parts with poly(methyl methacrylate), the polymer used to make earlier generations of contact lenses. Then there’s the question of the interaction of heat and light with the eye. Not only must the system’s power consumption be very low for the sake of the energy budget, it must also avoid generating enough heat to damage the eye, so the temperature must remain below 45 °C. We have yet to investigate this concern fully, but our preliminary analyses suggest that heat shouldn’t be a big problem.
In Focus:
One lens prototype has several interconnects, single-crystal silicon components, and compound-semiconductor components embedded within. Another sample lens contains a radio chip, an antenna, and a red LED.
All the basic technologies needed to build functional contact lenses are in place. We’ve tested our first few prototypes on animals, proving that the platform can be safe. What we need to do now is show all the subsystems working together, shrink some of the components even more, and extend the RF power harvesting to higher efficiencies and to distances greater than the few centimeters we have now. We also need to build a companion device that would do all the necessary computing or image processing to truly prove that the system can form images on demand. We’re starting with a simple product, a contact lens with a single light source, and we aim to work up to more sophisticated lenses that can superimpose computer-generated high-resolution color graphics on a user’s real field of vision.
The true promise of this research is not just the actual system we end up making, whether it’s a display, a biosensor, or both. We already see a future in which the humble contact lens becomes a real platform, like the iPhone is today, with lots of developers contributing their ideas and inventions. As far as we’re concerned, the possibilities extend as far as the eye can see, and beyond.
The author would like to thank his past and present students and collaborators, especially Brian Otis, Desney Tan, and Tueng Shen, for their contributions to this research.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Universal Translator for Web Browsers (Interdisciplinary Method)
Ever wondered what the Arabic or Chinese press are saying about the issues of the day? Finding out just got a lot easier, at least for those using the Firefox web browser.
A new plug-in identifies the language used on a web page and automatically provides a translation, leaving the layout of the page unchanged.
The plug-in, designed by the San Francisco - based Worldwide Lexicon project, recognizes over 40 languages. Users start by telling the software which language they prefer. When a page written in a different language loads, the software searches for translations provided by the project's community of volunteers. If none is available it uses an online services such as Google Translate.
A test version of the plug-in is available at the Firefox website.
A new plug-in identifies the language used on a web page and automatically provides a translation, leaving the layout of the page unchanged.
The plug-in, designed by the San Francisco - based Worldwide Lexicon project, recognizes over 40 languages. Users start by telling the software which language they prefer. When a page written in a different language loads, the software searches for translations provided by the project's community of volunteers. If none is available it uses an online services such as Google Translate.
A test version of the plug-in is available at the Firefox website.
Wearable Tech: The O.R.B.™ (Launch in January 2010)
Q. What exactly is the O.R.B.? A ring or a headset?
A. Both, actually! The O.R.B. is a "digitset™" that transforms from a ring with a simple twist to become a Bluetooth headset worn on the ear that is capable of hands-free calling. Incorporating NXT technology the O.R.B. provides high quality bone conduction audio without the discomfort of placing a device inside the ear. A Deluxe edition also features a FOLED (Flexible Organic Light Emitting Diode) display for caller ID, text messaging, and calendar reminders.
Q.How do I change it from my finger to my ear?
A. To use the ring as a headset, you simply remove it from the finger and open at a hinged joint. The ring (now headset) is placed over the upper ear between ear and side of head. The receiver end of the headset rests just above the jawbone and utilizes dual speaker "voice annihilation" DSP technology. The transmit exciter transducer rests just behind the outer ear.
Q.What kind of communications can I send/receive when the O.R.B. is in the "ring" position?
A. The ring vibrates, through surface excitation "vibration tones", to alert user a call is received or a meeting is scheduled. The user can glance down at the finger and see a horizontal streaming message of caller I.D. or meeting schedules. When not in use the ring serves as a time device/alarm clock. If the user would like to silence a call he/she can simply touch a button on the band.
Q. What are some of the additional uses for the charging base?
A. The home charging base has two options; a charger/storage location and/or amplified speaker for alarms and preplanned reminders synced through the O.R.B. to the attached handset. The user sets there mobile handset to desired wake time and places the ring on the charging base. When the ring is signaled to vibrate (same as meeting alert or incoming call) the amplified speaker is activated. The user can stop the alarm two ways. First, the user can pick the ring off the charging base and return it to the base to activate the snooze option and the user can completely remove the ring form the base to cancel the alarm. The base includes a wrap around blue LED light to indicate the ring is on the base and charging. The alarm speaker is located on the top surface of the charging post. Note the contact surfaces match the + and - charging surfaces on the ring.
Q. Is the O.R.B. waterproof?
A. Yes it is. The O.R.B. features military spec seals and gaskets.
Q. What are the specific ring sizes that are associated with the small, medium, large and extra large O.R.B. sizes?
A. The small fits ring sizes 4-6, the medium fits ring sizes 7-9, the large fits ring sizes 10-12 and the extra large fits ring sizes 13-16. All of the sizes have an expansion hinge, spring prongs and adjustable adhesive soft pads on the interior edge which lend to a secure and comfortable fit both on the finger/thumb as well as the ear.
Q.When is the official launch date for the O.R.B.? How much does it cost?
A. The base model O.R.B. is scheduled to launch in January 2010 carrying a suggested retail price of USD$129, while the Deluxe edition is due in April 2010 with a price of USD$175. The Limited edition designer models are also due in April 2010 with their price based on the value of the gemstones incorporated into the device.
Q. Where will I be able to purchase one?
A. Distributers to be announced.
A. Both, actually! The O.R.B. is a "digitset™" that transforms from a ring with a simple twist to become a Bluetooth headset worn on the ear that is capable of hands-free calling. Incorporating NXT technology the O.R.B. provides high quality bone conduction audio without the discomfort of placing a device inside the ear. A Deluxe edition also features a FOLED (Flexible Organic Light Emitting Diode) display for caller ID, text messaging, and calendar reminders.
Q.How do I change it from my finger to my ear?
A. To use the ring as a headset, you simply remove it from the finger and open at a hinged joint. The ring (now headset) is placed over the upper ear between ear and side of head. The receiver end of the headset rests just above the jawbone and utilizes dual speaker "voice annihilation" DSP technology. The transmit exciter transducer rests just behind the outer ear.
Q.What kind of communications can I send/receive when the O.R.B. is in the "ring" position?
A. The ring vibrates, through surface excitation "vibration tones", to alert user a call is received or a meeting is scheduled. The user can glance down at the finger and see a horizontal streaming message of caller I.D. or meeting schedules. When not in use the ring serves as a time device/alarm clock. If the user would like to silence a call he/she can simply touch a button on the band.
Q. What are some of the additional uses for the charging base?
A. The home charging base has two options; a charger/storage location and/or amplified speaker for alarms and preplanned reminders synced through the O.R.B. to the attached handset. The user sets there mobile handset to desired wake time and places the ring on the charging base. When the ring is signaled to vibrate (same as meeting alert or incoming call) the amplified speaker is activated. The user can stop the alarm two ways. First, the user can pick the ring off the charging base and return it to the base to activate the snooze option and the user can completely remove the ring form the base to cancel the alarm. The base includes a wrap around blue LED light to indicate the ring is on the base and charging. The alarm speaker is located on the top surface of the charging post. Note the contact surfaces match the + and - charging surfaces on the ring.
Q. Is the O.R.B. waterproof?
A. Yes it is. The O.R.B. features military spec seals and gaskets.
Q. What are the specific ring sizes that are associated with the small, medium, large and extra large O.R.B. sizes?
A. The small fits ring sizes 4-6, the medium fits ring sizes 7-9, the large fits ring sizes 10-12 and the extra large fits ring sizes 13-16. All of the sizes have an expansion hinge, spring prongs and adjustable adhesive soft pads on the interior edge which lend to a secure and comfortable fit both on the finger/thumb as well as the ear.
Q.When is the official launch date for the O.R.B.? How much does it cost?
A. The base model O.R.B. is scheduled to launch in January 2010 carrying a suggested retail price of USD$129, while the Deluxe edition is due in April 2010 with a price of USD$175. The Limited edition designer models are also due in April 2010 with their price based on the value of the gemstones incorporated into the device.
Q. Where will I be able to purchase one?
A. Distributers to be announced.
Singular Simplicity by Alfred Nordmann (IEEE)
Take the idea of exponential technological growth, work it through to its logical conclusion, and there you have the singularity. Its bold incredibility pushes aside incredulity, as it challenges us to confront all the things we thought could never come true—the creation of superintelligent, conscious organisms, nanorobots that can swim in our bloodstreams and fix what ails us, and direct communication from mind to mind. And the pièce de résistance: a posthuman existence of disembodied uploaded minds, living on indefinitely without fear, sickness, or want in a virtual paradise ingeniously designed to delight, thrill, and stimulate.
This vision argues that machines will become conscious and then perfect themselves, as described elsewhere in this issue. Yet for all its show of tough-minded audacity, the argument is shot through with sloppy reasoning, wishful thinking, and irresponsibility. Infatuated with statistics and seduced by the power of extrapolation, singularitarians abduct the moral imagination into a speculative no-man’s-land. To be sure, they are hardly the first to spread fanciful technological prophecies, but among enthusiasts and doomsayers alike their proposition enjoys an inexplicable popularity. Perhaps the real question is how they have gotten away with it.
The trouble begins with the singularitarians’ assumption that technological advances have accelerated. I’d argue that I have seen less technological progress than my parents did, let alone my grandparents. Born in 1956, I can testify primarily to the development of the information age, fueled by the doubling of computing power every 18 to 24 months, as described by Moore’s Law. The birth-control pill and other reproductive technologies have had an equally profound impact, on the culture if not the economy, but they are not developing at an accelerating speed. Beyond that, I saw men walk on the moon, with little to come of it, and I am surrounded by bio- and nanotechnologies that so far haven’t affected my life at all. Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.
Now consider the life of someone who was born in the 1880s and died in the 1960s—my grandmother, for instance. She witnessed the introduction of electric light and telephones, of automobiles and airplanes, the atomic bomb and nuclear power, vacuum electronics and semiconductor electronics, plastics and the computer, most vaccines and all antibiotics. All of those things mattered greatly in human terms, as can be seen in a single statistic: child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.
So on what do intelligent people base the idea that technological progress is moving faster than ever before? It’s simple: a chart of productivity from the dawn of humanity to the present day. It shows a line that inclines very gradually until around 1750, when it suddenly shoots almost straight up.
But that’s hardly surprising. Since around 1750 the world has witnessed the spread of an economic system, by the name of capitalism, that is predicated on economic growth. And how the economy has grown since then! But surely the creation of new markets and the increasingly fine division of labor cannot be equated with technological progress, as every consumer knows.
Age of Invention
Click for a large version of this timeline.
Technological optimists maintain that the impact of innovation on our lives is increasing, but the evidence goes the other way. The author’s grand mother lived from the 1880s through the 1960s and witnessed the adoption of electricity, phonographs, telephones, radio, television, airplanes, antibiotics, vacuum tubes, transistors, and the automobile. In 1924 she became one of the first in her neighborhood to own a car. The author contends that the inventions unveiled in his own lifetime have made a far smaller difference.
Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that technological innovation has truly accelerated, the line leading to the singularity would still be nothing but the simple-minded extrapolation of an existing pattern. Moore’s Law has been remarkably successful at describing and predicting the development of semiconductors, in part because it has molded that development, ever since the semiconductor manufacturing industry adopted it as its road map and began spending vast sums on R&D to meet its requirements. Yet researchers and developers in the semiconductor industry have never denied that Moore’s Law will finally come up against physical limits—indeed, many fear that the day of reckoning is nigh—whereas singularitarians happily extrapolate the law indefinitely into the future. And just as the semiconductor industry wonders nervously whether nanotechnology really can give Moore’s Law another lease on life, singularitarians accept that this will occur as a given and then appropriate the exponential growth curve of Moore’s Law not only to all the nano- and biotechnologies but to the cognitive sciences as well.
A typical example is the therapeutic development of brain-machine interfaces. In 2002, people were able to transmit 2 bits per minute to a computer. Four years later that figure had risen to 40 bits—that is, five letters—per minute. If this rate of progress continues, the argument goes, then by 2020 brain communication with computers will be as fast as speech. This isn’t just the breathless cant of a true believer. The idea that an enhanced communication of thoughts will exceed speech can also be found in the 2002 report ”Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance,” issued by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce. It says that such methods ”could complement verbal communication, sometimes replacing spoken language when speed is a priority or enhancing speech when needed to exploit maximum mental capabilities.” Presumably, the singularity will be reached soon afterward, when transmission rates exceed the speed of thought itself, allowing the computer to transmit our thoughts before we think them.
This fantastic vision works only by ignoring the critical limit, which is the great concentration you have to muster to send the bits. It is a procedure far more tedious than speech. To ease that requirement—to make a brain-machine interface into a true mind-machine interface—we’d have to know a lot more than we do about the relation between specific thoughts and corresponding physical processes in the brain.
The seductive power of extrapolation has also been applied in ways less spectacular but no less foolish. The ”lab on a chip” and other technologies for biochemical analysis have significantly increased the number of measurements—blood lipids, for instance—that can be obtained from a single drop of blood. It’s a fine achievement, no doubt, but visionaries stretch the imagination when they assume that a second Moore’s Law is about to produce astounding success stories and a transformation of all medical diagnostics.
Yet that assumption, which extrapolates an extrapolation—Moore’s Law—to another field, is precisely what lies behind the now commonly expressed fear that increasing diagnostic powers are creating ethical problems in medicine. Physicians, we are told, will routinely inform patients of impending diseases for which they can offer no cure.
Yet in fact the path is very long from quicker blood analysis to instantaneous detection of the near certainty of a dread disease in a patient’s future. A lab on a chip may provide mountains of data, but without great advances in many other fields—notably systems biology, pathology, and physiology—no one will be able to do much with it. Doctors already have more physiological information than they can profitably use.
Both examples of mindless extrapolation constitute wishful thinking. And in both cases, public debate is diverted from the real moral issues and quandaries that technology raises.
Rather than dream about how technology will soon effect an almost magical transformation of human life, societies need to debate the many real problems connected with technological changes that are already under way. These problems belong to the here and now.
Why, then, are so many people captivated by the simple story of exponential growth that culminates in a life-altering singularity? Part of the appeal lies in simplicity itself, part in technological optimism—yet both of these tendencies are very old. What’s new, though, is the changing role of technical expertise.
Plainly put, it is getting harder than ever to know whom to believe. Policy makers and members of the public have always had to put a degree of trust in experts. But now, when considering highly complex phenomena—in cellular processes, in chips containing billions of transistors, or in programs numbering hundreds of thousands of lines of code—even the experts must take a great deal on trust. That is because they have no choice but to study such phenomena using a cross-disciplinary approach.
These experts greet extraordinary claims made from within their own disciplines with skepticism and even indignation. But they can find it very hard to maintain such methodological vigilance in the hothouse atmosphere of a high-stakes collaboration in which researchers want desperately to believe that their own contributions can have wonderfully synergistic effects when combined with those of experts in other fields. And so, modest researchers recruit one another into immodest funding schemes.
The electronics engineer and the physiologist, the cognitive scientist and the physicist, the economist and the manufacturing specialist—all must take one another’s statements on trust. They must trust in the contributions from other disciplines, trust in the power of visions to motivate the cooperation, trust in techniques and instruments that remain somewhat opaque to their users, trust in the trajectories of technical development.
Where trust has become a virtue even for scientists, there is little incentive to challenge outrageous claims or to hold singularitarians accountable. They describe the progressive realization of technical possibility, after all, and their story has a pleasant ring to it. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the singular simplicity of the singularitarian myth—unless you have something against sloppy reasoning, wishful thinking, and an invitation to irresponsibility.
This vision argues that machines will become conscious and then perfect themselves, as described elsewhere in this issue. Yet for all its show of tough-minded audacity, the argument is shot through with sloppy reasoning, wishful thinking, and irresponsibility. Infatuated with statistics and seduced by the power of extrapolation, singularitarians abduct the moral imagination into a speculative no-man’s-land. To be sure, they are hardly the first to spread fanciful technological prophecies, but among enthusiasts and doomsayers alike their proposition enjoys an inexplicable popularity. Perhaps the real question is how they have gotten away with it.
The trouble begins with the singularitarians’ assumption that technological advances have accelerated. I’d argue that I have seen less technological progress than my parents did, let alone my grandparents. Born in 1956, I can testify primarily to the development of the information age, fueled by the doubling of computing power every 18 to 24 months, as described by Moore’s Law. The birth-control pill and other reproductive technologies have had an equally profound impact, on the culture if not the economy, but they are not developing at an accelerating speed. Beyond that, I saw men walk on the moon, with little to come of it, and I am surrounded by bio- and nanotechnologies that so far haven’t affected my life at all. Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.
Now consider the life of someone who was born in the 1880s and died in the 1960s—my grandmother, for instance. She witnessed the introduction of electric light and telephones, of automobiles and airplanes, the atomic bomb and nuclear power, vacuum electronics and semiconductor electronics, plastics and the computer, most vaccines and all antibiotics. All of those things mattered greatly in human terms, as can be seen in a single statistic: child mortality in industrialized countries dropped by 80 percent in those years.
So on what do intelligent people base the idea that technological progress is moving faster than ever before? It’s simple: a chart of productivity from the dawn of humanity to the present day. It shows a line that inclines very gradually until around 1750, when it suddenly shoots almost straight up.
But that’s hardly surprising. Since around 1750 the world has witnessed the spread of an economic system, by the name of capitalism, that is predicated on economic growth. And how the economy has grown since then! But surely the creation of new markets and the increasingly fine division of labor cannot be equated with technological progress, as every consumer knows.
Age of Invention
Click for a large version of this timeline.
Technological optimists maintain that the impact of innovation on our lives is increasing, but the evidence goes the other way. The author’s grand mother lived from the 1880s through the 1960s and witnessed the adoption of electricity, phonographs, telephones, radio, television, airplanes, antibiotics, vacuum tubes, transistors, and the automobile. In 1924 she became one of the first in her neighborhood to own a car. The author contends that the inventions unveiled in his own lifetime have made a far smaller difference.
Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that technological innovation has truly accelerated, the line leading to the singularity would still be nothing but the simple-minded extrapolation of an existing pattern. Moore’s Law has been remarkably successful at describing and predicting the development of semiconductors, in part because it has molded that development, ever since the semiconductor manufacturing industry adopted it as its road map and began spending vast sums on R&D to meet its requirements. Yet researchers and developers in the semiconductor industry have never denied that Moore’s Law will finally come up against physical limits—indeed, many fear that the day of reckoning is nigh—whereas singularitarians happily extrapolate the law indefinitely into the future. And just as the semiconductor industry wonders nervously whether nanotechnology really can give Moore’s Law another lease on life, singularitarians accept that this will occur as a given and then appropriate the exponential growth curve of Moore’s Law not only to all the nano- and biotechnologies but to the cognitive sciences as well.
A typical example is the therapeutic development of brain-machine interfaces. In 2002, people were able to transmit 2 bits per minute to a computer. Four years later that figure had risen to 40 bits—that is, five letters—per minute. If this rate of progress continues, the argument goes, then by 2020 brain communication with computers will be as fast as speech. This isn’t just the breathless cant of a true believer. The idea that an enhanced communication of thoughts will exceed speech can also be found in the 2002 report ”Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance,” issued by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce. It says that such methods ”could complement verbal communication, sometimes replacing spoken language when speed is a priority or enhancing speech when needed to exploit maximum mental capabilities.” Presumably, the singularity will be reached soon afterward, when transmission rates exceed the speed of thought itself, allowing the computer to transmit our thoughts before we think them.
This fantastic vision works only by ignoring the critical limit, which is the great concentration you have to muster to send the bits. It is a procedure far more tedious than speech. To ease that requirement—to make a brain-machine interface into a true mind-machine interface—we’d have to know a lot more than we do about the relation between specific thoughts and corresponding physical processes in the brain.
The seductive power of extrapolation has also been applied in ways less spectacular but no less foolish. The ”lab on a chip” and other technologies for biochemical analysis have significantly increased the number of measurements—blood lipids, for instance—that can be obtained from a single drop of blood. It’s a fine achievement, no doubt, but visionaries stretch the imagination when they assume that a second Moore’s Law is about to produce astounding success stories and a transformation of all medical diagnostics.
Yet that assumption, which extrapolates an extrapolation—Moore’s Law—to another field, is precisely what lies behind the now commonly expressed fear that increasing diagnostic powers are creating ethical problems in medicine. Physicians, we are told, will routinely inform patients of impending diseases for which they can offer no cure.
Yet in fact the path is very long from quicker blood analysis to instantaneous detection of the near certainty of a dread disease in a patient’s future. A lab on a chip may provide mountains of data, but without great advances in many other fields—notably systems biology, pathology, and physiology—no one will be able to do much with it. Doctors already have more physiological information than they can profitably use.
Both examples of mindless extrapolation constitute wishful thinking. And in both cases, public debate is diverted from the real moral issues and quandaries that technology raises.
Rather than dream about how technology will soon effect an almost magical transformation of human life, societies need to debate the many real problems connected with technological changes that are already under way. These problems belong to the here and now.
Why, then, are so many people captivated by the simple story of exponential growth that culminates in a life-altering singularity? Part of the appeal lies in simplicity itself, part in technological optimism—yet both of these tendencies are very old. What’s new, though, is the changing role of technical expertise.
Plainly put, it is getting harder than ever to know whom to believe. Policy makers and members of the public have always had to put a degree of trust in experts. But now, when considering highly complex phenomena—in cellular processes, in chips containing billions of transistors, or in programs numbering hundreds of thousands of lines of code—even the experts must take a great deal on trust. That is because they have no choice but to study such phenomena using a cross-disciplinary approach.
These experts greet extraordinary claims made from within their own disciplines with skepticism and even indignation. But they can find it very hard to maintain such methodological vigilance in the hothouse atmosphere of a high-stakes collaboration in which researchers want desperately to believe that their own contributions can have wonderfully synergistic effects when combined with those of experts in other fields. And so, modest researchers recruit one another into immodest funding schemes.
The electronics engineer and the physiologist, the cognitive scientist and the physicist, the economist and the manufacturing specialist—all must take one another’s statements on trust. They must trust in the contributions from other disciplines, trust in the power of visions to motivate the cooperation, trust in techniques and instruments that remain somewhat opaque to their users, trust in the trajectories of technical development.
Where trust has become a virtue even for scientists, there is little incentive to challenge outrageous claims or to hold singularitarians accountable. They describe the progressive realization of technical possibility, after all, and their story has a pleasant ring to it. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the singular simplicity of the singularitarian myth—unless you have something against sloppy reasoning, wishful thinking, and an invitation to irresponsibility.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
The Mobile Internet is Always On and Always Active by Bruce Simpson, CEO, Novarra
Forget about webmail: Social networking and content sharing sites like Facebook, Flickr and Craigslist are now the most visited Internet sites on mobile devices, according to recent usage data from my company, which provides mobile Internet software.
Social media are redefining what it means to be constantly connected and accelerating the transition of the mobile Internet from merely “always on,” to “always on, always active.” This new paradigm promises to have a significant impact on society, enabling consumers to communicate anytime, anywhere – proactively.
At first blush this seems like a classic situation where everybody wins: Consumers are eager to transfer PC web habits to mobile. In one recent study, 30% of 16- to 35-year-olds accessed Facebook and Twitter via their mobile devices.
But unlike PCs (and even bulky laptops), the four billion mobile phones deployed globally are with consumers at all times; this means the so-called “window of engagement” on mobile devices is 20 to 30 times greater than on computers.
Internet brands can be even more connected to their audiences, and mobile advertisers have much to gain by the continued maturation of the mobile web. Faster, richer mobile browsing could lead to customer awareness and interaction.
And mobile network operators finally have a service that can help drive up data usage and revenue, and to re-energize growth – especially important in developed markets that are approaching voice plan saturation.
It is a promising vision. Yet, hurdles do exist for mobile Internet.
Operators face the threat of network congestion despite huge increases in network capacity in recent years. Viral content sharing, video access and deep browsing contribute to accelerated data traffic growth – and the increasing likelihood of capacity constraints. Already there is talk of capping data usage or throttling services to ensure continued profitability.
Consumers’ expectations have risen, especially around the mobile Internet. Users unfamiliar with or disappointed by early services now expect a rich, full and fast mobile internet experience – similar to what they enjoy on their PCs. Eventually, consumers will find that too many downloaded applications are unmanageable, preferring simple, familiar web access to their favorite services with usability aids that leverage the unique capabilities of the mobile device and provide an optimum user experience.
Smart phones, as great as they are, still have shortcomings. The phenomenal growth in smart phones comes with the expectation that users will experience better browsing functionality and the benefits of “always on, always active” mobile Internet. A number of new devices come purposely built for social networking. But the truth is even the most robust smart phone browser is not as capable as the browser on a PC. Increasingly complex and rich web technologies will continue to challenge device capabilities, risking disappointment with smart phones.
Fortunately, technology exists today that significantly smoothes this transition to mobile social networking and other Web 2.0 activity, and beyond.
For many service providers, at the core is a distributed architecture solution (like the one Novarra delivers that can be accessed by two-thirds of U.S. mobile subscribers and one billion mobile users worldwide), which splits processing between the network and the mobile device. Web content is automatically optimized or adapted for the specific capabilities of all types of mobile devices, which can number in the tens of thousands.
This solution delivers the best experience for mobile internet usability and service mash-ups that combine location, context and site content. Additionally, these distributed solutions can reduce the amount of over-the-air “payload” on the carriers’ networks simply by managing the way content is delivered to handsets.
All this work in the network relieves pressure on handsets, which arguably can never keep pace with the capabilities of a PC and the rapid technology changes on the Web.
The result enables consumers to truly transfer PC Web habits to mobile and enjoy the full value of internet mobility, especially mobile Web 2.0. It gives service providers the ability to launch compelling new services that drive meaningful data revenue while maximizing network investments. Ultimately, it enables an always on – and just as cruicially, always active – mobile Internet.
Social media are redefining what it means to be constantly connected and accelerating the transition of the mobile Internet from merely “always on,” to “always on, always active.” This new paradigm promises to have a significant impact on society, enabling consumers to communicate anytime, anywhere – proactively.
At first blush this seems like a classic situation where everybody wins: Consumers are eager to transfer PC web habits to mobile. In one recent study, 30% of 16- to 35-year-olds accessed Facebook and Twitter via their mobile devices.
But unlike PCs (and even bulky laptops), the four billion mobile phones deployed globally are with consumers at all times; this means the so-called “window of engagement” on mobile devices is 20 to 30 times greater than on computers.
Internet brands can be even more connected to their audiences, and mobile advertisers have much to gain by the continued maturation of the mobile web. Faster, richer mobile browsing could lead to customer awareness and interaction.
And mobile network operators finally have a service that can help drive up data usage and revenue, and to re-energize growth – especially important in developed markets that are approaching voice plan saturation.
It is a promising vision. Yet, hurdles do exist for mobile Internet.
Operators face the threat of network congestion despite huge increases in network capacity in recent years. Viral content sharing, video access and deep browsing contribute to accelerated data traffic growth – and the increasing likelihood of capacity constraints. Already there is talk of capping data usage or throttling services to ensure continued profitability.
Consumers’ expectations have risen, especially around the mobile Internet. Users unfamiliar with or disappointed by early services now expect a rich, full and fast mobile internet experience – similar to what they enjoy on their PCs. Eventually, consumers will find that too many downloaded applications are unmanageable, preferring simple, familiar web access to their favorite services with usability aids that leverage the unique capabilities of the mobile device and provide an optimum user experience.
Smart phones, as great as they are, still have shortcomings. The phenomenal growth in smart phones comes with the expectation that users will experience better browsing functionality and the benefits of “always on, always active” mobile Internet. A number of new devices come purposely built for social networking. But the truth is even the most robust smart phone browser is not as capable as the browser on a PC. Increasingly complex and rich web technologies will continue to challenge device capabilities, risking disappointment with smart phones.
Fortunately, technology exists today that significantly smoothes this transition to mobile social networking and other Web 2.0 activity, and beyond.
For many service providers, at the core is a distributed architecture solution (like the one Novarra delivers that can be accessed by two-thirds of U.S. mobile subscribers and one billion mobile users worldwide), which splits processing between the network and the mobile device. Web content is automatically optimized or adapted for the specific capabilities of all types of mobile devices, which can number in the tens of thousands.
This solution delivers the best experience for mobile internet usability and service mash-ups that combine location, context and site content. Additionally, these distributed solutions can reduce the amount of over-the-air “payload” on the carriers’ networks simply by managing the way content is delivered to handsets.
All this work in the network relieves pressure on handsets, which arguably can never keep pace with the capabilities of a PC and the rapid technology changes on the Web.
The result enables consumers to truly transfer PC Web habits to mobile and enjoy the full value of internet mobility, especially mobile Web 2.0. It gives service providers the ability to launch compelling new services that drive meaningful data revenue while maximizing network investments. Ultimately, it enables an always on – and just as cruicially, always active – mobile Internet.
California Pols Break Fast with Hamas Front by IPT
Updated September 2. Dozens of California lawmakers are expected to gather in the state Capitol this evening for an Iftar dinner – the meal breaking the daily fast for Muslims during the month of Ramadan.
In doing so, the politicians are partnering with a group that federal law enforcement officials say is a Hamas-front.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) California chapter issued a news release Monday boasting that the dinner is co-hosted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and 35 other lawmakers.
** Update A. spokeswoman for Speaker Karen Bass said the Speaker's name appeared on the co-host list without their authorization or knowledge. "The Speaker has nothing to do with this event," said spokeswoman Shannon Murphy. "We have no idea how this came about." A Schwarzenegger spokesman said the governor did not attend the dinner but agreed to be listed as a co-host because he "supports elevating the holiday."
The spokesman did not know whether the governor's office was aware of the documents linking CAIR to Hamas support.**
An aide in Steinberg's office confirmed that, while a co-host, he would not be attending the dinner.
Public use of the Capitol's Eureka Room requires a member of the California Assembly's sponsorship. Assembly Member Dave Jones, who has spoken at numerous CAIR functions, helped reserve the room, records at the Joint Rules Committee show.
Jones did not respond to calls seeking comment. In addition, a message left with Speaker Bass' office was not returned. A spokesman in the governor's office referred questions to his office of external affairs, which has not provided additional information about the governor's apparent endorsement of the dinner. (A list of the Assembly co-hosts appears at the bottom of this story)
Iftar dinners are fairly common. President Barack Obama is hosting a similar event at the White House continuing a tradition started by President George W. Bush. CAIR-California's release, which was distributed via email, says tonight's gathering in Sacramento is the 6th annual event. In those six years, however, incriminating information about CAIR has come to light. It's not clear whether the elected officials supporting the dinner don't know about them, don't believe them or don't care.
Among the disclosures:
The FBI last year cut off communication with the group, pointing to exhibits in evidence in the Hamas-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Five former HLF officials were convicted last fall of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group.
The FBI's case agent testified that CAIR was a Hamas front in the United States, with other exhibits showing it was part of a network of groups and individuals called the "Palestine Committee," which aimed to help Hamas financially and politically. Prosecutors say CAIR's very birth in 1994 is a part of that effort.
In the fall of 1993, Hamas members and supporters met in Philadelphia to discuss ways to "derail" U.S.-led efforts to broker a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. The group opposed the plan because they feared it would marginalize the Islamist Hamas movement as the secular Fatah became the dominant power and because the group truly opposed a peaceful settlement, an ideal spelled out in the Hamas charter.
FBI agents secretly recorded the meeting, capturing CAIR-founder and recently-retired Chairman-emeritus Omar Ahmad agreeing that "war is deception" and that it was not wise to discuss their true objectives openly – "We didn't say that to the Americans," he said.
Executive Director Nihad Awad participated in the meetings, too, discussing media strategies. In one transcript, the group discussed creating a new political organization to advance the cause. Awad and Ahmad moved to Washington and opened CAIR the following summer.
In explaining the FBI's cut-off to inquiring U.S. senators, an FBI liaison wrote that the evidence led to the conclusion that CAIR was not "an appropriate liaison partner." That would continue "until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS." See the letter here.
Journalist Mary Jacoby notes that CAIR has responded by "working to stoke tensions in local Muslim communities over FBI investigative tactics. CAIR is angry at the FBI, because the bureau embarrassed it."
The strongest line of attack has come in the FBI's use of informants in counter-terror investigations. Informants played significant roles in breaking up plots to attack the Fort Dix army base, to bomb New York synagogues and shoot down a military aircraft, and by Americans training to wage jihad abroad.
CAIR officials have cast informants as "agent provocateurs," and gone to the wall in the case of Ahamdullah Niazi, charged with violating immigration laws and lying about his travels to Pakistan. The FBI targeted Niazi because his brother-in-law was a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden and he lied to government officials about his communication with his relative. In sworn testimony, an FBI agent said Niazi voluntarily described bin Laden as an angel talked of bombing targets in Southern California.
In remarks posted on his blog April 28, CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush cast the FBI as an agency on a partisan witch hunt targeting Muslims:
"Unfortunately, the agency [FBI] seems to have been hijacked by individuals who are either driven by ideological right-wing politics and a goal of undermining President Obama's commitment to end the Bush years of fear and abuse, are influenced by their anti-Muslim bigotry, or are enjoying a lot of free time and, apparently, great job security."
In January, Ayloush spoke at a seminar in Anaheim, falsely portraying American support for Israel as the cause of the 9/11 attacks:
"We tend to forget that actually the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks, one of the main grievances they raised, almost the only one they raised, what was it? Palestine. They said it was because of the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel that we're doing this."
That's an interpretation not shared by terrorism analysts or even by Osama bin Laden. He has offered shifting justifications for his efforts to kill Americans. In his 1998 fatwa he said it was "an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
Meanwhile, California politicians have been down this road before. In 2007, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer rescinded an award she bestowed on CAIR-Sacramento Director Basim Elkarra after being informed of CAIR's support of terrorists.
"We made a bad mistake not researching the organization," Boxer told the Sacramento Bee. "If individuals are doing great work, I commend them personally, but not in the context of the organization."
The governor lights a Christmas tree in the Capitol every year. Hosting an Iftar dinner by itself wouldn't be an issue. At some point, however, the depth of material showing CAIR's links with terrorists calls into question whether it is appropriate to continue such partnerships with the group.
** Updated September 2. A spokesman for Assembly Member Paul Krekorian said Krekorian did not agree to be listed as a co-host as shown below. He did respond to an invitation saying he would consider attending the dinner if he were in town Tuesday, but he was not and did not attend. He was not aware he would be listed on any CAIR release.**
According to the CAIR release, the Assembly co-hosts of the dinner include:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Board of Equalization Chairwoman Betty Yee
Senate President pro Tem Darrel Steinberg
Senator Alex Padilla
Senator Carol Liu
Senator Elaine Alquist
Senator Fran Pavley
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Lou Correa
Senator Mark Leno
Senator Pat Wiggins
Senator Denise Ducheny
Senator Leland Yee
Senator Lois Wolk
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass
Assemblymember Dave Jones
Assemblymember Fiona Ma
Assemblymember Jared Huffman
Assemblymember Alyson Huber
Assemblymember Anthony Adams
Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal
Assemblymember Hector De La Torre
Assemblymember Ira Ruskin
Assemblymember Isadore Hall
Assemblymember Jose Solorio
Assemblymember Lori Saldaña
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada
Assemblymember Mike Eng
Assemblymember Paul Fong
Assemblymember Pedro Nava
Assemblymember Anthony Portantino
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Assemblymember Tom Torlakson
Assemblymember Tony Mendoza
Assemblymember Warren Furutani
Assemblymember Alberto Torrico
Assemblymember Mary Hayashi
Assemblymember Paul Krekorian
In doing so, the politicians are partnering with a group that federal law enforcement officials say is a Hamas-front.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) California chapter issued a news release Monday boasting that the dinner is co-hosted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and 35 other lawmakers.
** Update A. spokeswoman for Speaker Karen Bass said the Speaker's name appeared on the co-host list without their authorization or knowledge. "The Speaker has nothing to do with this event," said spokeswoman Shannon Murphy. "We have no idea how this came about." A Schwarzenegger spokesman said the governor did not attend the dinner but agreed to be listed as a co-host because he "supports elevating the holiday."
The spokesman did not know whether the governor's office was aware of the documents linking CAIR to Hamas support.**
An aide in Steinberg's office confirmed that, while a co-host, he would not be attending the dinner.
Public use of the Capitol's Eureka Room requires a member of the California Assembly's sponsorship. Assembly Member Dave Jones, who has spoken at numerous CAIR functions, helped reserve the room, records at the Joint Rules Committee show.
Jones did not respond to calls seeking comment. In addition, a message left with Speaker Bass' office was not returned. A spokesman in the governor's office referred questions to his office of external affairs, which has not provided additional information about the governor's apparent endorsement of the dinner. (A list of the Assembly co-hosts appears at the bottom of this story)
Iftar dinners are fairly common. President Barack Obama is hosting a similar event at the White House continuing a tradition started by President George W. Bush. CAIR-California's release, which was distributed via email, says tonight's gathering in Sacramento is the 6th annual event. In those six years, however, incriminating information about CAIR has come to light. It's not clear whether the elected officials supporting the dinner don't know about them, don't believe them or don't care.
Among the disclosures:
The FBI last year cut off communication with the group, pointing to exhibits in evidence in the Hamas-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Five former HLF officials were convicted last fall of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group.
The FBI's case agent testified that CAIR was a Hamas front in the United States, with other exhibits showing it was part of a network of groups and individuals called the "Palestine Committee," which aimed to help Hamas financially and politically. Prosecutors say CAIR's very birth in 1994 is a part of that effort.
In the fall of 1993, Hamas members and supporters met in Philadelphia to discuss ways to "derail" U.S.-led efforts to broker a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. The group opposed the plan because they feared it would marginalize the Islamist Hamas movement as the secular Fatah became the dominant power and because the group truly opposed a peaceful settlement, an ideal spelled out in the Hamas charter.
FBI agents secretly recorded the meeting, capturing CAIR-founder and recently-retired Chairman-emeritus Omar Ahmad agreeing that "war is deception" and that it was not wise to discuss their true objectives openly – "We didn't say that to the Americans," he said.
Executive Director Nihad Awad participated in the meetings, too, discussing media strategies. In one transcript, the group discussed creating a new political organization to advance the cause. Awad and Ahmad moved to Washington and opened CAIR the following summer.
In explaining the FBI's cut-off to inquiring U.S. senators, an FBI liaison wrote that the evidence led to the conclusion that CAIR was not "an appropriate liaison partner." That would continue "until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS." See the letter here.
Journalist Mary Jacoby notes that CAIR has responded by "working to stoke tensions in local Muslim communities over FBI investigative tactics. CAIR is angry at the FBI, because the bureau embarrassed it."
The strongest line of attack has come in the FBI's use of informants in counter-terror investigations. Informants played significant roles in breaking up plots to attack the Fort Dix army base, to bomb New York synagogues and shoot down a military aircraft, and by Americans training to wage jihad abroad.
CAIR officials have cast informants as "agent provocateurs," and gone to the wall in the case of Ahamdullah Niazi, charged with violating immigration laws and lying about his travels to Pakistan. The FBI targeted Niazi because his brother-in-law was a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden and he lied to government officials about his communication with his relative. In sworn testimony, an FBI agent said Niazi voluntarily described bin Laden as an angel talked of bombing targets in Southern California.
In remarks posted on his blog April 28, CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush cast the FBI as an agency on a partisan witch hunt targeting Muslims:
"Unfortunately, the agency [FBI] seems to have been hijacked by individuals who are either driven by ideological right-wing politics and a goal of undermining President Obama's commitment to end the Bush years of fear and abuse, are influenced by their anti-Muslim bigotry, or are enjoying a lot of free time and, apparently, great job security."
In January, Ayloush spoke at a seminar in Anaheim, falsely portraying American support for Israel as the cause of the 9/11 attacks:
"We tend to forget that actually the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks, one of the main grievances they raised, almost the only one they raised, what was it? Palestine. They said it was because of the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel that we're doing this."
That's an interpretation not shared by terrorism analysts or even by Osama bin Laden. He has offered shifting justifications for his efforts to kill Americans. In his 1998 fatwa he said it was "an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
Meanwhile, California politicians have been down this road before. In 2007, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer rescinded an award she bestowed on CAIR-Sacramento Director Basim Elkarra after being informed of CAIR's support of terrorists.
"We made a bad mistake not researching the organization," Boxer told the Sacramento Bee. "If individuals are doing great work, I commend them personally, but not in the context of the organization."
The governor lights a Christmas tree in the Capitol every year. Hosting an Iftar dinner by itself wouldn't be an issue. At some point, however, the depth of material showing CAIR's links with terrorists calls into question whether it is appropriate to continue such partnerships with the group.
** Updated September 2. A spokesman for Assembly Member Paul Krekorian said Krekorian did not agree to be listed as a co-host as shown below. He did respond to an invitation saying he would consider attending the dinner if he were in town Tuesday, but he was not and did not attend. He was not aware he would be listed on any CAIR release.**
According to the CAIR release, the Assembly co-hosts of the dinner include:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Board of Equalization Chairwoman Betty Yee
Senate President pro Tem Darrel Steinberg
Senator Alex Padilla
Senator Carol Liu
Senator Elaine Alquist
Senator Fran Pavley
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Lou Correa
Senator Mark Leno
Senator Pat Wiggins
Senator Denise Ducheny
Senator Leland Yee
Senator Lois Wolk
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass
Assemblymember Dave Jones
Assemblymember Fiona Ma
Assemblymember Jared Huffman
Assemblymember Alyson Huber
Assemblymember Anthony Adams
Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal
Assemblymember Hector De La Torre
Assemblymember Ira Ruskin
Assemblymember Isadore Hall
Assemblymember Jose Solorio
Assemblymember Lori Saldaña
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada
Assemblymember Mike Eng
Assemblymember Paul Fong
Assemblymember Pedro Nava
Assemblymember Anthony Portantino
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano
Assemblymember Tom Torlakson
Assemblymember Tony Mendoza
Assemblymember Warren Furutani
Assemblymember Alberto Torrico
Assemblymember Mary Hayashi
Assemblymember Paul Krekorian
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Is the War in Afghanistan Worth Fighting?
On Monday the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan called for a new strategy to fight the Taliban. The Post asked experts whether the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting. Below are contributions from John Nagl, Andrew J. Bacevich, Erin M. Simpson, Clint Douglas, Thomas H. Johnson and Danielle Pletka.
JOHN NAGL
President of the Center for a New American Security
America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary. The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown. Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.
U.S. policymakers must, of course, weigh all actions against America's global interests and the possible opportunity costs. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, low-cost strategies do not have an encouraging record of success. U.S. efforts to secure Afghanistan on the cheap after 2001 led it to support local strongmen whose actions alienated the population and thereby enabled the Taliban to reestablish itself as an insurgent force. Drone attacks, although efficient eliminators of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, have not prevented extremist forces from spreading and threatening to undermine both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The so-called "light footprint" option has failed to secure U.S. objectives; as the Obama administration and the U.S. military leadership have recognized, it is well past time for a more comprehensive approach.
ANDREW J. BACEVICH
Professor of History and International Relations at Boston University
Almost eight years into the Afghanistan war, the golfer in the Oval Office is essentially taking a mulligan: He's insisting that we allow him a do-over, starting the war all over again. Yet granting President Obama's request makes sense only if he can first make the following case:
That Afghanistan, an impoverished, landlocked country producing nothing that Americans want or need (apart from illegal drugs), qualifies as a vital U.S. national security interest.
That fixing the place -- an effort at armed nation-building likely to require at least as many years as we have already wasted -- provides the most expeditious way to satisfy those interests.
That adequate resources -- troops, dollars, will, and expertise -- exist to see the project through.
That other, more important uses for those resources do not exist.
Thus far, the president has not been able make that case persuasively. This is hardly surprising, because it is impossible to do so.
ERIN M. SIMPSON
Former professor at the Marine Command and Staff College; contributor to the blog Abu Muqawama
The war is worth fighting, and it's worth fighting well. Years of strategic neglect and severely limited resources have seriously undermined U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan. In the last year we finally acknowledged that Pakistan is critical to the success of our efforts in Afghanistan. In the next year we must recognize the degree to which Afghanistan is key to Pakistan's future stability. A fragmented, war-torn, or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan would offer both al Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban a plush sanctuary with greater freedom of movement than is currently enjoyed in Pakistan. It is the future stability of this nuclear-armed neighbor that demands our presence and our perseverance in Afghanistan.
Some might argue for a quarantine strategy for Afghanistan, akin to previous counterterrorism missions. But this is not a war that can be meaningfully fought from stand-off range. The intelligence demands are daunting and cannot be met from either the Indian Ocean or satellites in orbit. And even if they could, given the distances involved, such information is perishable. Only people on the ground -- civilians and soldiers, Americans and Afghans -- can secure the population and deny our adversaries the sanctuaries they crave.
Is the War in Afghanistan worth fighting? Yes, but we've really only just begun.
CLINT DOUGLAS
Freelance writer and Afghanistan war veteran; will redeploy to Afghanistan soon.
It has become painfully difficult to continue to argue for a continued American occupation of Afghanistan. However, I can see no other realistic options. The war, odious and vicious as it is, must continue. The difficulty lies not with all of the tragically squandered blood and treasure, nor with the tenacity of the Taliban, but with the venality of the Karzai regime. The thuggish kleptocracy that passes for a government in Afghanistan does more to further the spread of the insurgency than any misguided air strike. If the Afghan government, which is propped up by both American guns and money, cannot provide some facsimile of a reasonably efficient rule, then the brutal but otherwise predictable alternative offered by the Taliban will prevail. There is no reason to believe that the government will improve any time soon, if the shenanigans surrounding these latest elections are any indication. And we have much less influence in domestic Afghan politics than we'd like to admit.
However, we are far from powerless. We can continue to fund the expansion of the Afghan security forces, and we can enforce zones of relative stability that could facilitate the organic emergence of an Afghan leadership that can project both strength and integrity. All of which is a long shot, but a return to the status quo antebellum is impossible given the ever closer ties between the Taliban and the jihadist movement. An American withdrawal from Afghanistan now is not a move towards peace, but one that all but guarantees much greater instability and bloodshed in central and south Asia, which, let's face it, will inevitably draw us back into the region and on even less hospitable terms.
The opinions expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent those of the U.S. government.
THOMAS H. JOHNSON
Research Professor and Director of the Program of Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School
The war in Afghanistan is worth fighting only if we have well-defined goals and a realistic political and military strategy to achieve our objectives. Right now, we have neither. If the goal is to build a stable, "democratic" regime in Kabul, we will almost certainly fail. Afghans will never see such a government in Kabul as legitimate because democracy is not and has never been a source of legitimacy for governance in Afghanistan. Legitimacy in Afghanistan for thousands of years has stemmed exclusively from dynastic and religious sources.
Just as we misunderstand the basis for regime legitimacy in Afghanistan, we also profoundly misunderstand the nature of the enemy. In Afghanistan, we insist on fighting a counterinsurgency strategy based on secularly defined objectives, while the enemy is fighting a religiously inspired jihad. It's hard to defeat an enemy if you don't understand him. Most insurgencies end through some combination of negotiation and reconciliation, but the jihadists will never sincerely negotiate with us. Our "clear, hold, and build" approach is failing in Afghanistan for the same reasons it failed in Vietnam -- because we insist on prosecuting the approach sequentially -- not simultaneously. We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we need a strategy that is village-based and represents decentralized, bottom-up nation building based on traditional Afghan tribal leadership and legitimacy.
DANIELLE PLETKA
Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute
Poor Afghanistan, so lacking in succor for the self-righteous. No Jews oppressing Muslims, no apartheid, no Islamists starving Africans. Angelina Jolie doesn't seem to care. It isn't even Iraq. It's no longer the good war, the one worth winning, as it was during the elections. And when Cindy Sheehan and George Will agree it's time to get out, can a hasty retreat be far behind?
Worse still, for those who believe victory is worth achieving in Afghanistan, it's not easy to pinpoint what victory looks like. It never has been. Nonetheless, Afghanistan has both strategic and moral value to the United States. And it is wise to remember that the price of failure is horribly high. We have failed before in Afghanistan and betrayed the trust of Afghans who believed America cared about them. After two decades and the rise of an al Qaeda homeland, we paid the price.
Now we have a chance to cement a better system into place in Afghanistan. It won't be easy, and the price will continue to escalate. But it is a lie to suggest it will be possible through remote counterterrorism operations; as in Iraq, security on the ground and faith in the future are the best antidotes to insurgents. Real victory is attainable; a real Afghan national army is being slowly empowered; and though the elections were a disappointment to many, they remain a model of suffrage compared to the past. We are progressing slowly, but we are progressing. And capitulating to the Taliban is unthinkable.
JOHN NAGL
President of the Center for a New American Security
America has vital national security interests in Afghanistan that make fighting there necessary. The key objectives of the campaign are preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a sanctuary for terrorists with global reach and ensuring that it does not become the catalyst for a broader regional security meltdown. Afghanistan also serves as a base from which the United States attacks al-Qaeda forces inside Pakistan and thus assists in the broader campaign against that terrorist organization -- one that we clearly must win.
U.S. policymakers must, of course, weigh all actions against America's global interests and the possible opportunity costs. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, low-cost strategies do not have an encouraging record of success. U.S. efforts to secure Afghanistan on the cheap after 2001 led it to support local strongmen whose actions alienated the population and thereby enabled the Taliban to reestablish itself as an insurgent force. Drone attacks, although efficient eliminators of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, have not prevented extremist forces from spreading and threatening to undermine both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The so-called "light footprint" option has failed to secure U.S. objectives; as the Obama administration and the U.S. military leadership have recognized, it is well past time for a more comprehensive approach.
ANDREW J. BACEVICH
Professor of History and International Relations at Boston University
Almost eight years into the Afghanistan war, the golfer in the Oval Office is essentially taking a mulligan: He's insisting that we allow him a do-over, starting the war all over again. Yet granting President Obama's request makes sense only if he can first make the following case:
That Afghanistan, an impoverished, landlocked country producing nothing that Americans want or need (apart from illegal drugs), qualifies as a vital U.S. national security interest.
That fixing the place -- an effort at armed nation-building likely to require at least as many years as we have already wasted -- provides the most expeditious way to satisfy those interests.
That adequate resources -- troops, dollars, will, and expertise -- exist to see the project through.
That other, more important uses for those resources do not exist.
Thus far, the president has not been able make that case persuasively. This is hardly surprising, because it is impossible to do so.
ERIN M. SIMPSON
Former professor at the Marine Command and Staff College; contributor to the blog Abu Muqawama
The war is worth fighting, and it's worth fighting well. Years of strategic neglect and severely limited resources have seriously undermined U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan. In the last year we finally acknowledged that Pakistan is critical to the success of our efforts in Afghanistan. In the next year we must recognize the degree to which Afghanistan is key to Pakistan's future stability. A fragmented, war-torn, or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan would offer both al Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban a plush sanctuary with greater freedom of movement than is currently enjoyed in Pakistan. It is the future stability of this nuclear-armed neighbor that demands our presence and our perseverance in Afghanistan.
Some might argue for a quarantine strategy for Afghanistan, akin to previous counterterrorism missions. But this is not a war that can be meaningfully fought from stand-off range. The intelligence demands are daunting and cannot be met from either the Indian Ocean or satellites in orbit. And even if they could, given the distances involved, such information is perishable. Only people on the ground -- civilians and soldiers, Americans and Afghans -- can secure the population and deny our adversaries the sanctuaries they crave.
Is the War in Afghanistan worth fighting? Yes, but we've really only just begun.
CLINT DOUGLAS
Freelance writer and Afghanistan war veteran; will redeploy to Afghanistan soon.
It has become painfully difficult to continue to argue for a continued American occupation of Afghanistan. However, I can see no other realistic options. The war, odious and vicious as it is, must continue. The difficulty lies not with all of the tragically squandered blood and treasure, nor with the tenacity of the Taliban, but with the venality of the Karzai regime. The thuggish kleptocracy that passes for a government in Afghanistan does more to further the spread of the insurgency than any misguided air strike. If the Afghan government, which is propped up by both American guns and money, cannot provide some facsimile of a reasonably efficient rule, then the brutal but otherwise predictable alternative offered by the Taliban will prevail. There is no reason to believe that the government will improve any time soon, if the shenanigans surrounding these latest elections are any indication. And we have much less influence in domestic Afghan politics than we'd like to admit.
However, we are far from powerless. We can continue to fund the expansion of the Afghan security forces, and we can enforce zones of relative stability that could facilitate the organic emergence of an Afghan leadership that can project both strength and integrity. All of which is a long shot, but a return to the status quo antebellum is impossible given the ever closer ties between the Taliban and the jihadist movement. An American withdrawal from Afghanistan now is not a move towards peace, but one that all but guarantees much greater instability and bloodshed in central and south Asia, which, let's face it, will inevitably draw us back into the region and on even less hospitable terms.
The opinions expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent those of the U.S. government.
THOMAS H. JOHNSON
Research Professor and Director of the Program of Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School
The war in Afghanistan is worth fighting only if we have well-defined goals and a realistic political and military strategy to achieve our objectives. Right now, we have neither. If the goal is to build a stable, "democratic" regime in Kabul, we will almost certainly fail. Afghans will never see such a government in Kabul as legitimate because democracy is not and has never been a source of legitimacy for governance in Afghanistan. Legitimacy in Afghanistan for thousands of years has stemmed exclusively from dynastic and religious sources.
Just as we misunderstand the basis for regime legitimacy in Afghanistan, we also profoundly misunderstand the nature of the enemy. In Afghanistan, we insist on fighting a counterinsurgency strategy based on secularly defined objectives, while the enemy is fighting a religiously inspired jihad. It's hard to defeat an enemy if you don't understand him. Most insurgencies end through some combination of negotiation and reconciliation, but the jihadists will never sincerely negotiate with us. Our "clear, hold, and build" approach is failing in Afghanistan for the same reasons it failed in Vietnam -- because we insist on prosecuting the approach sequentially -- not simultaneously. We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we need a strategy that is village-based and represents decentralized, bottom-up nation building based on traditional Afghan tribal leadership and legitimacy.
DANIELLE PLETKA
Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute
Poor Afghanistan, so lacking in succor for the self-righteous. No Jews oppressing Muslims, no apartheid, no Islamists starving Africans. Angelina Jolie doesn't seem to care. It isn't even Iraq. It's no longer the good war, the one worth winning, as it was during the elections. And when Cindy Sheehan and George Will agree it's time to get out, can a hasty retreat be far behind?
Worse still, for those who believe victory is worth achieving in Afghanistan, it's not easy to pinpoint what victory looks like. It never has been. Nonetheless, Afghanistan has both strategic and moral value to the United States. And it is wise to remember that the price of failure is horribly high. We have failed before in Afghanistan and betrayed the trust of Afghans who believed America cared about them. After two decades and the rise of an al Qaeda homeland, we paid the price.
Now we have a chance to cement a better system into place in Afghanistan. It won't be easy, and the price will continue to escalate. But it is a lie to suggest it will be possible through remote counterterrorism operations; as in Iraq, security on the ground and faith in the future are the best antidotes to insurgents. Real victory is attainable; a real Afghan national army is being slowly empowered; and though the elections were a disappointment to many, they remain a model of suffrage compared to the past. We are progressing slowly, but we are progressing. And capitulating to the Taliban is unthinkable.
Afghanistan's Difficult Counterinsurgency by Douglas Farah
It is clear that the counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan (only now seriously beginning as a counterinsurgency effort) is in serious difficulty. As the New York Times reports, there is little actual support from the central government’s police or military forces outside of Kabul.
Support for the war is dropping at home and among key allies, particularly Britain. The most optimistic assessment that the commanding general there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, can come up with is that the situation is serious but salvageable. Hardly the rose colored glasses.
But the underlying problem, as McChrystal and others know, is not the military, but the complete and utter incompetence of the Karzi regime, to which we are so tightly wedded.
The corrosive corruption and unwillingness/inability/blindness of the Karzi is what will be the ultimate demise of that war. A foreign fighting force cannot win unless a host government, viewed as legitimate by its people, is fighting the war as well. That is not the case in Afghanistan.
History should not be forgotten. What propelled the Taliban to power in 1996 was the public disgust with the corruption and state violence of that time. Transportation was impossible because of the multiple road blocks. Constant bribes made it impossible to rebuild the country or attract anything like foreign investment. Warlords fighting over poppy revenues and ethnic interests left the country a wreck.
The Taliban’s appeal then, as now, is rooted in the promise of restoring order and eliminating corruption. It is a sad measure of how bad things are currently that the fact that the Taliban utterly failed at this the first time around is often ignored or that their reign of religious terror is viewed as preferable to the current situation.
The public knowledge that his close family members are among the largest heroin traffickers in the country make any pretense of eradication or a successful “kingpin” strategy (knocking off the top traffickers to break up large criminal organizations) a bad joke.
I am not an Afghanistan expert but have covered and studied numerous insurgencies and counter insurgencies over more than two decades and that is the one lesson I take away as a universal.
The unfettered power of local, regional and national officials to make people pay for basic services, the administration of “justice,” or any other basic transaction, is the most destructive force that gives insurgents the oxygen they need to thrive.
The impunity granted officials who steal, rape and pillage their own population will undercut any “clear and hold” strategy because the people do not want the government to come in behind. And the government, if it does come in behind, comes to loot and pillage.
This is the fundamental dynamic that more troops, no matter how well they fight and what sacrifices they make, cannot address. It is the result, in part, of the neglect of Afghanistan during the previous administration, coupled with the general unwillingness of NATO troops to view the situation as a war. The exploding poppy trade has made all the worst elements, from the Taliban to Karzi-allied warlords, rich enough to finance their conflict for years to come.
All this adds up to the fact that changing tactics on the ground for U.S. troops fighting in hostile conditions, or even a major strategic initiative to win hearts and minds, will ultimately fail. Only the Afghan people and their frightfully short-sighted and greedy leadership, can make the changes necessary. If you can make the Taliban look good, you are not really fit to govern.
Support for the war is dropping at home and among key allies, particularly Britain. The most optimistic assessment that the commanding general there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, can come up with is that the situation is serious but salvageable. Hardly the rose colored glasses.
But the underlying problem, as McChrystal and others know, is not the military, but the complete and utter incompetence of the Karzi regime, to which we are so tightly wedded.
The corrosive corruption and unwillingness/inability/blindness of the Karzi is what will be the ultimate demise of that war. A foreign fighting force cannot win unless a host government, viewed as legitimate by its people, is fighting the war as well. That is not the case in Afghanistan.
History should not be forgotten. What propelled the Taliban to power in 1996 was the public disgust with the corruption and state violence of that time. Transportation was impossible because of the multiple road blocks. Constant bribes made it impossible to rebuild the country or attract anything like foreign investment. Warlords fighting over poppy revenues and ethnic interests left the country a wreck.
The Taliban’s appeal then, as now, is rooted in the promise of restoring order and eliminating corruption. It is a sad measure of how bad things are currently that the fact that the Taliban utterly failed at this the first time around is often ignored or that their reign of religious terror is viewed as preferable to the current situation.
The public knowledge that his close family members are among the largest heroin traffickers in the country make any pretense of eradication or a successful “kingpin” strategy (knocking off the top traffickers to break up large criminal organizations) a bad joke.
I am not an Afghanistan expert but have covered and studied numerous insurgencies and counter insurgencies over more than two decades and that is the one lesson I take away as a universal.
The unfettered power of local, regional and national officials to make people pay for basic services, the administration of “justice,” or any other basic transaction, is the most destructive force that gives insurgents the oxygen they need to thrive.
The impunity granted officials who steal, rape and pillage their own population will undercut any “clear and hold” strategy because the people do not want the government to come in behind. And the government, if it does come in behind, comes to loot and pillage.
This is the fundamental dynamic that more troops, no matter how well they fight and what sacrifices they make, cannot address. It is the result, in part, of the neglect of Afghanistan during the previous administration, coupled with the general unwillingness of NATO troops to view the situation as a war. The exploding poppy trade has made all the worst elements, from the Taliban to Karzi-allied warlords, rich enough to finance their conflict for years to come.
All this adds up to the fact that changing tactics on the ground for U.S. troops fighting in hostile conditions, or even a major strategic initiative to win hearts and minds, will ultimately fail. Only the Afghan people and their frightfully short-sighted and greedy leadership, can make the changes necessary. If you can make the Taliban look good, you are not really fit to govern.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Apple kicks ZFS in the butt by Robin Harris
It’s official: ZFS - a kick-butt file system is nowhere to be seen in the latest release of Mac OS X, Snow Leopard. Even though it appeared in 10.5 Server, and was expected to become the default file system at some point, Apple has abandoned the Sun-developed ZFS, the first 21st century file system.
A bummer for anyone who stores data on their computer.
Why should I care?
Apple is hoping you don’t - and they’re probably right. None of the mainstream press have mentioned dropped feature, even though it is right up there with parallel processing support as a winner for users.
ZFS combines a file system and a volume manager, along with some cool architectural features, to create an easily managed and highly reliable file system. Advanced features that just work.
Some cool features.
* Manage storage, not disks. You can put all your disks in a pool and specify the redundancy level. ZFS takes care of the rest.
* No more silent data corruption.Wonky things can happen to your data to and from a disk. ZFS checksums every file before it is written and stores the checksum on the parent. When the file is read, the checksum tells the filesystem if that is the block it wrote.
* Easy snapshots. Ever wish you could roll back to a known good state? Snapshots make that easy and ZFS makes snapshots easy.
* High performance software RAID built-in. Worried about protecting your data. ZFS provides strong RAID capabilities without adding hardware.
* Transparent compression on the fly. Save capacity by compressing old and/or large files automagically.
What happened?
2 years ago it looked like ZFS was locked in to Snow Leopard. The Apple team was working with the Sun ZFS team. It was enabled as a read-only file system on 10.5 server. Apple even freakin’ announced ZFS on Snow Leopard. The advantages - to storage geeks - were obvious.
Plus the opportunity to put daylight between OS X and Windows 7. Microsoft’s ambitions for something called WinFS crashed to earth 3 years ago.
But Apple started walking back ZFS about 9 months ago. Newer builds of Snow Leopard had less and less ZFS content until today’s official release - which has none.
Maybe some insight will emerge from secretive Apple, but don’t count on it. Removing ZFS from the server edition, where it makes even more obvious sense, suggests it is gone for good.
What did it in? Maybe it was a schedule problem - file systems require a lot of testing - and rewriting all the other bits took precedence. NIH - Not Invented Here - syndrome is another possibility. Or perhaps the uncertainty of Sun’s future led Apple to pull back.
Or maybe they just decided customers wouldn’t know enough to care, so why bother? Whatever the reason it is a major step backwards for the PC industry.
The Storage Bits Take
File systems are essential but unsexy plumbing. Whether it’s a missing or corrupted file or a system slowing to a crawl because the directory is bloated, there is no error message that says “Your FS is screwed up.”
And as noted in How Microsoft puts your data at risk - which indicted Apple’s HFS+ as well -
. . . more than half of all data loss is caused by system and hardware problems. A high quality file system that took better care of our data could eliminate many of those failures.
The industry knows how to fix the problems. The question is when. With a resurgent Mac pushing ZFS maybe Redmond will see the light sooner, rather than later, and dramatically increase the reliability of all our systems.
With Apple’s retreat from ZFS everyone who uses a personal computer is the loser. Maybe the Microsoft team working to improve NTFS will now take the lead in file system quality and feature.
A bummer for anyone who stores data on their computer.
Why should I care?
Apple is hoping you don’t - and they’re probably right. None of the mainstream press have mentioned dropped feature, even though it is right up there with parallel processing support as a winner for users.
ZFS combines a file system and a volume manager, along with some cool architectural features, to create an easily managed and highly reliable file system. Advanced features that just work.
Some cool features.
* Manage storage, not disks. You can put all your disks in a pool and specify the redundancy level. ZFS takes care of the rest.
* No more silent data corruption.Wonky things can happen to your data to and from a disk. ZFS checksums every file before it is written and stores the checksum on the parent. When the file is read, the checksum tells the filesystem if that is the block it wrote.
* Easy snapshots. Ever wish you could roll back to a known good state? Snapshots make that easy and ZFS makes snapshots easy.
* High performance software RAID built-in. Worried about protecting your data. ZFS provides strong RAID capabilities without adding hardware.
* Transparent compression on the fly. Save capacity by compressing old and/or large files automagically.
What happened?
2 years ago it looked like ZFS was locked in to Snow Leopard. The Apple team was working with the Sun ZFS team. It was enabled as a read-only file system on 10.5 server. Apple even freakin’ announced ZFS on Snow Leopard. The advantages - to storage geeks - were obvious.
Plus the opportunity to put daylight between OS X and Windows 7. Microsoft’s ambitions for something called WinFS crashed to earth 3 years ago.
But Apple started walking back ZFS about 9 months ago. Newer builds of Snow Leopard had less and less ZFS content until today’s official release - which has none.
Maybe some insight will emerge from secretive Apple, but don’t count on it. Removing ZFS from the server edition, where it makes even more obvious sense, suggests it is gone for good.
What did it in? Maybe it was a schedule problem - file systems require a lot of testing - and rewriting all the other bits took precedence. NIH - Not Invented Here - syndrome is another possibility. Or perhaps the uncertainty of Sun’s future led Apple to pull back.
Or maybe they just decided customers wouldn’t know enough to care, so why bother? Whatever the reason it is a major step backwards for the PC industry.
The Storage Bits Take
File systems are essential but unsexy plumbing. Whether it’s a missing or corrupted file or a system slowing to a crawl because the directory is bloated, there is no error message that says “Your FS is screwed up.”
And as noted in How Microsoft puts your data at risk - which indicted Apple’s HFS+ as well -
. . . more than half of all data loss is caused by system and hardware problems. A high quality file system that took better care of our data could eliminate many of those failures.
The industry knows how to fix the problems. The question is when. With a resurgent Mac pushing ZFS maybe Redmond will see the light sooner, rather than later, and dramatically increase the reliability of all our systems.
With Apple’s retreat from ZFS everyone who uses a personal computer is the loser. Maybe the Microsoft team working to improve NTFS will now take the lead in file system quality and feature.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
US faces smaller, smarter enemy in Afghanistan by Lara Jakes
After three tours in Iraq, U.S. Marine Sgt. Andre Leon was used to brutal shootouts with enemy fighters and expected more of the same in Afghanistan.
Instead, what he's seen so far are anonymous attacks in the form of mines and roadside bombings — the mark of what he calls a cowardly adversary.
"I'm not impressed with them," Leon, 25, of Herndon, Va., said this past week from a Marines camp deep in the southern province of Helmand, where U.S. forces are challenging Taliban insurgents and their devastating use of IEDs, or homemade bombs. "I expected more of a stand-and-fight. All these guys do is IEDs."
Marines on the front lines in southern Afghanistan say there's no question that the militants are just as deadly as the Iraqi insurgents they once fought in Iraq's Anbar Province. The Afghan enemy is proving to be a smaller, but smarter opponent, taking full advantage of the country's craggy and enveloping terrain in eluding and then striking at U.S troops.
In interviews, Marines across Helmand said their new foes are not as religiously fanatic as the Syrian and Chechen militants they fought in Iraq and often tend to be hired for battle. U.S. commanders call them the "$10 Taliban."
Taking advantage of the Afghanistan's mountainous rural landscape, the fighters often spread out their numbers, hiding in fields and planting bombs on roads, rather than taking aim at U.S. forces from snipers' nests in urban settings, as often was the case in Iraq. And they are not as bent on suicide, often retreating to fight another day.
"One thing about Afghanistan, they're not trying to go to paradise," said Sgt. Robert Warren, 26, of Peshtigo, Wis. He served a tour in both Iraq and Afghanistan before his current assignment at Combat Outpost Sharp, a Marines camp hidden in cornfields and dirt piles.
"They want to live to see tomorrow," Warren said. "They engage with us, but when they know we'll call in air support, they'll break contact with us. ... They're just as fierce, but they're smarter."
Marine commanders believe they face between 7,000 and 11,000 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, although it is unclear how many are low-level militants hired for battle as opposed to extremist leaders.
By comparison, officials still are unsure how many members of al-Qaida in Iraq remain. Earlier estimates ranged between 850 to several thousand full-time fighters, although commanders believe that number has been reduced significantly as a result of counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq.
There are some similarities between the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officers and enlisted troops said both foes have no qualms about using civilians as human shields.
Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine brigade leading the current fight in Helmand, said the Taliban's use of IEDs shows the extremists' disregard for Afghan civilians — much as in Iraq. "Enemy here is equally brutal and cowardly in conducting despicable acts of intimidation and cruelty directed against (the) local population," said Nicholson, who was severely wounded in a rocket attack in Fallujah in 2004 during the first of his two commands in Iraq. Both foes are also sometimes known to use drugs — troops have reported finding syringes and needles in enemy camps.
Training does not seem to be an issue for Marines who have been making the transition from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their skills appear to have held up in both war zones. But new U.S. battle guidelines that limit shooting into or otherwise attacking buildings without ensuring there are no civilians inside have at times made the fighting more difficult. The rules were put into place this summer after dozens of Afghans were killed in a May battle in Farah province that ended when U.S. forces bombed a building where Taliban fighters were believed to be hiding.
"It's frustrating to be attacked from a building," said Lt. Joe Hamilton of Baltimore as he scrutinized two-story village structures on the other side of dirt-and-barbed wire walls at Combat Outpost Fiddler's Green. "You can't shoot back because you don't know if there are civilians there." He added: "They're more disciplined. They wait longer until we get in their kill zones, then they attack us." Once in Iraq, now in Afghanistan, the Marines say they relish the battle in either place, preferring the action to staying home, out of the fight.
Asked where he felt the threat was most dire, Sgt. Warren shrugged his shoulders. "Camp Lejeune," he said wryly. The North Carolina base is where Marines train and live between deployments.
Bring On the Replicator Already by Jack Loftus
A gadget site Taste Test week wouldn't be complete without a hat tip to that fictional food-creating staple of the Star Trek universe, the replicator.
A replicator was a device that used transporter technology to dematerialize quantities of matter and then rematerialize that matter in another form. It was also capable of inverting its function, thus disposing of leftovers and dishes and storing the bulk material again. [Memory Alpha]
Yes, I know it's not real. We got that bit out of the way right up there in the lead. Now we can have some fun hypothesizing and waxing all futuristic like about how these fantastical infinite buffets could (stress could) be possible some day.
In fact, in the most primitive sense, there's a form of replication happening in manufacturing shops around the world right now. Called 3D printing, the technique isn't even that new, with roots extending back to the 1990s. They were really expensive then, of course, but today they're relatively ubiquitous in companies large and small. The technique is pretty simple. In layman's terms, a user creates or downloads a 3D model of real world object on their workstation, and then a special printer works to recreate that object using resin or plaster or plastic or whatever the material may be. Voila. Instant prototype, and you can have all the tchotchke trinkets your heart desires, on demand, beamed to you from anywhere in the world.
But you can't eat a resin hamburger. And you can't drive the mockup that just got spit out of your rapid prototyping rig. The replicator could do both these things.
What we need is something that physically assembles atoms and molecules into tasty shapes so we can tell some uber supercomputer with a soothing female voice to get us some Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. Oh, and it has to create a little glass cup for us to drink it in too (Quick trivia: What did Picard do with all those dirty dishes? Answer above!).
This is where things get a bit sticky (food!), exciting (recent discoveries!) and depressing (its a LONG way off!) all at once. Theoretically, people are debating and thinking about "molecular assemblers" right this instant. In fact, these hypothetical machines would implement some form of nanotechnology, which is already used in everyday items like batteries, fuel technologies and even bikinis. Hell, there's a Wikipedia page for molecular assemblers up right this instant—our replicator must be right around the corner, right?
Unfortunately, current nanotech implementations are almost what I'd call "dumb" deployments of the technology. We're just coating a material with some nano bits to repel liquid; or we're placing nanorods in a battery to improve efficiency... nothing, in other words, that would have Geordi doing a double take. Certainly not that Wesley Crusher kid either, for that matter (More asides: Wes, my man. Your replicators could produce anything you wanted—what the hell was up with that rainbow jumper?!).
But there is some hope. As recently as November, scientists had silver nanoparticles self-assembling into specific structures. Now, Guinan can't serve us up a plate of silver, so that doesn't really count as a replicator just yet, but it does drive our research in the right direction. The same direction that saw IBM scientists imaging molecular bonds for the first time ever on Thursday:
By "seeing" these bonds scientists think they can better understand how to manipulate them. For IBM scientists that means quantum processors and such in the far future. For guys and gals like you and me, it might mean snacks on demand as we start to understand why snacks look and feel the way they do on the molecular level.
While we're down at the molecular level, I'd be remiss not to mention the nano pinhole camera some enterprising Russian scientists created in June:
In their atom pinhole camera, the atoms act like photons in an optical pinhole camera, but instead of light traveling through a lens, it travels through a pinhole on a mask and creates a high-res inverted image on a silicon substrate. This camera is capable of resizing nanostructures down to 30 nm-10,000 times smaller than the original. So, a camera with say 10 million pinholes could produce large numbers of identical (or diverse) nanostructures simultaneously.
It's the most promising "replicator related" discovery in recent memory, but even so we joked that the Giz crew would probably be slurping pureed baby food and soiling our adult undergarments by the time it came to fruition. Still, the research is there, and every month IBM or the CERN folks or someone else who's much smarter than I am is firing off a new research paper about manipulating the world of the very, very small.
The replicator, in short, would be a paradigm shift the likes of which the world has never seen. Famine? Potentially gone forever. Shortages? See ya. Alinea? Probably the first place to get one. You and I? Optimistically speaking, we'll probably need some Depends by the time one comes along. Silver lining is we can crap to our hearts content and dispose of the mess in our replicator. Then it's lunch time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)