Raja Jasti’s Blog - Renaissance Thinking

April 26, 2009

Computer to contest on Jeopardy

Filed under: Technology — Raja @ 10:52 pm

IBM has created a AI software program that can compete against humans on the TV game show jeopardy.

YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, N.Y. — This highly successful television quiz show is the latest challenge for artificial intelligence.

What is “Jeopardy”?

That is correct.

I.B.M. plans to announce Monday that it is in the final stages of completing a computer program to compete against human “Jeopardy!” contestants. If the program beats the humans, the field of artificial intelligence will have made a leap forward.

I.B.M. scientists previously devised a chess-playing program to run on a supercomputer called Deep Blue. That program beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in a controversial 1997 match (Mr. Kasparov called the match unfair and secured a draw in a later one against another version of the program).

But chess is a game of limits, with pieces that have clearly defined powers. “Jeopardy!” requires a program with the suppleness to weigh an almost infinite range of relationships and to make subtle comparisons and interpretations. The software must interact with humans on their own terms, and fast.

Indeed, the creators of the system — which the company refers to as Watson, after the I.B.M. founder, Thomas J. Watson Sr. — said they were not yet confident their system would be able to compete successfully on the show, on which human champions typically provide correct responses 85 percent of the time.

“The big goal is to get computers to be able to converse in human terms,” said the team leader, David A. Ferrucci, an I.B.M. artificial intelligence researcher. “And we’re not there yet.”

The team is aiming not at a true thinking machine but at a new class of software that can “understand” human questions and respond to them correctly. Such a program would have enormous economic implications.

Top Ten Tech CEOs

Filed under: Uncategorized — Raja @ 11:38 am

Om Malik has a top ten list for tech CEOs. Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO tops the list.

When I wanted to find out who were technology sector’s top ranked CEOs, I reached to Glassdoor, a Sausalito, Calif.-based company that that tracks employee satisfaction. They obliged and sent us a list of top ten top ranked CEOs of publicly traded technology companies. CEOs are included on the list if and only if they have garnered 50 or more votes on Glassdoor’s website. reedReed Hastings, CEO of DVD rental service, Netflix ranks the highest followed by Steve Jobs of Apple and Eric Schmidt of Google. The CEO list doesn’t surprise me — these companies are doing reasonably well despite a very bleak economy giving the troops confidence that comes from stability.  I wonder which CEOs can one include in a similar list for non-public/private technology companies?

 

toptechceosratings

Richard Feynman - Renaissance Thinker

Filed under: Personal — Raja @ 11:02 am

feynman

Not many people may know that Richard Feynman, the famous Cal Tech physicist and a great writer, is also an artiste. You can checkout his art work here.

Unschooling

Filed under: Entrepreneurship — Raja @ 10:37 am

Salon has a very fascinating story called ‘the unschooling manifesto‘ which describes Dave Pollars’s thoughts on the new PS Porro’s book called ‘101 reasons why I am an unschooler’.

I think this is good reading material for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur ship is all about setting your own trends and finding your own way.

kelvin high school

In Grade 11, my second last year of high school, I was an average student, with marks in English in the mid 60% range, and in mathematics, my best subject, around 80%. Aptitude tests suggested I should be doing better, and this was a consistent message on my report cards. I hated school. As my blog bio explains, I was shy, socially inept, uncoordinated and self-conscious. My idea of fun was playing strategy games (Diplomacy and Acquire, for fellow geeks of that era — this was long before computer games or the Internet) and hanging around the drive-in restaurant.

Then in Grade 12, something remarkable happened: My school decided to pilot a program called “independent study”, that allowed any student maintaining at least an 80% average on term tests in any subject (that was an achievement in those days, when a C — 60% — really was the average grade given) to skip classes in that subject until/unless their grades fell below that threshold. There was a core group of ‘brainy’ students who enrolled immediately. Half of them were the usual boring group (the ‘keeners’) who did nothing but study to maintain high grades (usually at their parents’ behest); but the other half were creative, curious, independent thinkers with a natural talent for learning. The chance to spend my days with this latter group, unrestricted by school walls and school schedules, was what I dreamed of, so I poured my energies into self-study.

To the astonishment of everyone, including myself, I did very well at this. By the end of the first month of school my average was almost 90%, and I was exempted from attending classes in all my subjects. I’d become friends with some members of the ‘clique’ I had aspired to join, and discovered that, together, we could easily cover the curriculum in less than an hour a day, leaving the rest of the day to discuss philosophy, politics, anthropology, history and geography of the third world, contemporary European literature, art, the philosophy of science, and other subjects not on the school curriculum at all. We went to museums, attended seminars, wrote stories and poetry together (and critiqued each others’ work).

As the year progressed, the ‘keeners’, to my amazement, found they were struggling with this independence and opted back into the regular structured classroom program. Now our independent study group was a remarkable group of non-conformists, whose marks — on tests we didn’t attend classes for or study for — were so high that some wondered aloud if we were somehow cheating. My grades had climbed into the low 90% range, and this included English where such marks were rare — especially for someone whose grades had soared almost 30 points in a few months of ‘independent’ study. The fact is that my peers had done what no English teacher had been able to do — inspire me to read and write voraciously, and show me how my writing could be improved. My writing, at best marginal six months earlier, was being published in the school literary journal. On one occasion, a poem of mine I read aloud in class (one of the few occasions I actually attended a class that year) produced a spontaneous ovation from my classmates. 

The Grade 12 final examinations in those days were set and marked by a province-wide board, so universities could judge who the best students were without having to consider differences between schools. Our independent study group, a handful of students from just one high school, won most of the province-wide scholarships that year. I received the award for the highest combined score in English and Mathematics in the province — an almost unheard-of 94%.

The experience spoiled me for university — I graduated in two years, which was all I could bear, by taking extra courses and summer courses, just to get through it. And the independent study program, despite its extraordinary success, was not repeated in subsequent years. Part of the justification for the pilot program had been to free up teachers’ time to spend with students who needed more individual attention; yet the dubious reason we were given for its cancellation was that “it was unfair to deprive the average students of the presence and example of the more outstanding students”.

All this is by way of introduction to my thoughts on PS Pirro’s excellent new book on Unschooling, which is in effect what my belated “independent study” experience was an example of. Here’s an excerpt to give you a flavour of the book:

The world of the classroom is so unlike anything the real world has to offer – with the exception of other classrooms – that kids can excel at school only to find themselves utterly lost in the real world. Some people think this is the result of failed schooling, but a few of us suspect otherwise. We suspect that this sense of displacement and confusion is actually the result of schooling that succeeds in its most basic unwritten objective: to keep you dependent, timid, worried, nervous, compliant, and afraid of the World.  To keep you waiting. To keep you manageable. To keep you helpless. To keep you small.

Educated, confident, creative people are dangerous to the status quo, dangerous to a centralized economy, dangerous to a centralized system of command and control. Those in power don’t want you educated. They want you schooled.
 
It is not up to teachers or school administrators to figure out what you should be or do. It’s not up to the State, it’s not up to your guidance counselors. It’s not up to your parents. What you do with your life ought to be up to you. What you learn ought to be up to you.  How you navigate the world and create your place in it ought to be your decision. Your life belongs to you.  School does its best to disabuse you of this notion. Unschooling celebrates it. Unschooling puts the responsibility for creating a satisfying life squarely where it belongs: in the hands of the one living it.

PS presents 50 reasons why schooling is, in every imaginable way, bad for us and our society, and then 50 reasons why unschooling, which she defines as “learning without formal curriculum, timelines, grades or coercion; learning in freedom” is the natural way to learn. She argues that we are indoctrinated from the age of five to cede our time, our freedoms, and what we pay attention to, to the will of the State, so that we are ‘prepared’ for a work world of wage slavery and obedience to authority. We are deliberately not taught anything that would allow us to be self-sufficient in society. And in the factory environment of the school, where teachers need to ‘manage’ thirty students or more, ethics and the politics of power is left up, from our earliest and most vulnerable years, to the bullies and other young damaged psychopaths among our peers, to teach us in their grotesquely warped way. As PS explains, it is in every way a prison system.

Unschooling, by contrast, starts with the realization that you ‘own’ your time, and have the opportunity and responsibility to use it in ways that are meaningful and stimulating for you. When you have this opportunity, you just naturally learn a great deal, about things you care about, things that will inevitably be useful to you in making a life and a living. Your learning environment is the whole world, and you learn what and when you want, undirected by curricula, textbooks, alarm clocks and school bells. You develop deep peer relationships around areas of common interest, once you’re allowed to explore and discover what those areas of interest are. And the Internet and online gaming allow you to make those relationships anywhere in the world, to draw on the brightest experts on the planet, and to communicate powerfully with like-minded, curious people of every age, culture and ideology.

April 25, 2009

Value Added Journalism

Filed under: Media, Trends — Tags: , — Raja @ 9:12 am

Jeff Jarvis says journalists must ask themselves where they add value.

How much of the dwindling, precious journalism resource we have - on national and local TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines - goes to original reporting, to real journalism? How much goes to repetition and production?

Journalism can’t afford repetition and production anymore.

Every minute of a journalist’s time will need to go to adding unique value to the news ecosystem: reporting, curating, organizing. This efficiency is necessitated by the reduction of resources. But it is also a product of the link and search economy: The only way to stand out is to add unique value and quality. My advice in the past has been: If you can’t imagine why someone would link to what you’re doing, you probably shouldn’t be doing it. And: Do what you do best and link to the rest. The link economy is ruthless in judging value.

The question every journalist must ask is: Am I adding value?

Look at a service such as PaidContent. They have a small (though growing) staff and they choose carefully what they do, whether it’s worth it to send someone to a conference, whether they can add reporting to a story that’s already known, how they can curate links to the best of coverage that already exists. They fire their bullets carefully, economically, to contribute maximum unique value. PaidContent doesn’t - and can’t afford to - record stand-ups or rewrite others’ reporting for the sake of rewriting it or waste money on production and design niceties.

That’s the way that journalism will have to be executed in the future: efficiently.

Once journalism becomes efficient, I think it can do much better than maintain what we have now. When we cut out all the incredible waste - those standups and rewrites and frills and blather - and when we have an ecosystem that rewards unique value, as the internet does, then I think we could end up with more journalism, more reporting.

Jeff asks a good question. But it is not just about efficiency. Journalism needs to adapt, morph and create new ways of telling stories and enagagin us using all new media at our disposal.

Raising Bill Gates

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, general — Raja @ 8:51 am

Most people would have heard of Bill Gates. But many of them may not much about his parents. WSJ has a nice story on them and Bill Gates’s growing up.

[SB124060685554554093]

Sean Flanigan for The Wall Street Journal

William H. Gates at his home in the Laurelhurst neighborhood of Seattle, WA.

SEATTLE — Spend time with the family of Bill Gates, and eventually someone will mention the water incident.

The future software mogul was a headstrong 12-year-old and was having a particularly nasty argument with his mother at the dinner table. Fed up, his father threw a glass of cold water in the boy’s face.

“Thanks for the shower,” the young Mr. Gates snapped.

The incident lives in Gates family lore not just for its drama but also because it was a rare time that Bill Gates Sr., father of his famous namesake, lost his cool. The argument presaged a turning point in the life of a tempestuous boy that would set him on course to become the Bill Gates whom the public knows as co-founder of Microsoft Corp. and the world’s richest man.

Behind the Bill Gates success story is the other William Gates. The senior Mr. Gates balanced a family thrown off kilter by a boy who appeared to gain the intellect of an adult almost overnight. He served as a quiet counsel as his son jumped into and thrived in the cutthroat business world. When huge wealth put new pressure on the son, the elder Gates stepped in to start what is now the world’s largest private philanthropy.

Bill Gates Sr., 83 years old, is now co-chair of his son’s $30 billion philanthropy, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He has avoided the spotlight. The public details of his life include little beyond his official biography at the foundation, which says he was a Seattle lawyer, World War II veteran, nonprofit volunteer and father of three. He has compiled his thoughts on life in a short book to be published next week.

In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, Bill Gates Sr., Bill Gates and their family shared many details of the family’s story for the first time, including Bill Gates Jr.’s experience in counseling and how his early interest in computers came about partly as a result of a family crisis. The sometimes colliding forces of discipline and freedom within the clan shaped the entrepreneur’s character.

The relationship between father and son entered a new phase when the software mogul began working full-time seven months ago at the Gates Foundation. For the past 13 years, the father has been the sole Gates family member with a daily presence at the foundation, starting it from the basement of his home and minding it while his son finished up his final decade running Microsoft. They now work directly together for the first time.

At six-foot-six, Bill Gates Sr. is nearly a full head taller than his son. He’s known to be more social than the younger Bill Gates, but they share a sharp intellect and a bluntness that can come across to some as curt. He isn’t prone to introspection and he plays down his role in his son’s life.

“As a father, I never imagined that the argumentative, young boy who grew up in my house, eating my food and using my name would be my future employer,” Mr. Gates Sr. told a group of nonprofit leaders in a 2005 speech. “But that’s what happened.”

A Battle of Wills

Bill Gates at an early age became a diligent learner. He read the World Book Encyclopedia series start to finish. His parents encouraged his appetite for reading by paying for any book he wanted.

Still, they worried that he seemed to prefer books to people. They tried to temper that streak by forcing him to be a greeter at their parties and a waiter at his father’s professional functions.

Then, at age 11, Bill Sr. says, the son blossomed intellectually, peppering his parents with questions about international affairs, business and the nature of life.

“It was interesting and I thought it was great,” Mr. Gates Sr. says. “Now, I will say to you, his mother did not appreciate it. It bothered her.”

The son pushed against his mother’s instinct to control him, sparking a battle of wills. All those things that she had expected of him — a clean room, being at the dinner table on time, not biting his pencils — suddenly turned into a big source of friction. The two fell into explosive arguments.

“He was nasty,” Ms. Armintrout says of her brother.

Mr. Gates Sr. played the role of peacemaker. “He’d sort of break them apart and calm things down,” says Ms. Blake, the eldest sibling.

The battles reached a climax at dinner one night when Bill Gates was around 12. Over the table, he shouted at his mother, in what today he describes as “utter, total sarcastic, smart-ass kid rudeness.”

That’s when Mr. Gates Sr., in a rare blast of temper, threw the glass of water in his son’s face.

He and Mary brought their son to a therapist. “I’m at war with my parents over who is in control,” Bill Gates recalls telling the counselor. Reporting back, the counselor told his parents that their son would ultimately win the battle for independence, and their best course of action was to ease up on him.

April 24, 2009

Youtube pofitability strategy

Filed under: Entertainment, Internet, Media — Raja @ 10:05 am

BW calls youtube’s recent moves to partner with media giants sony and CBS as bold. I wouldn’t call them that. They are trying to copy Hulu.

YouTube helped make Scottish singer Susan Boyle an overnight sensation, but the video-sharing site isn’t getting much in return. Clips of the singer’s spectacular debut on U.K. TV show Britain’s Got Talent have been watched an estimated 100 million times. But like most videos on YouTube, the Boyle snippets don’t carry ads and therefore do little directly to make money for the site.

To reverse the trend, Google (GOOG) is setting up partnerships with big media companies that would help it generate more advertising dollars from the millions of videos hosted on YouTube. This month, YouTube added sections for movies and TV shows and announced deals to bring content from Sony Pictures (SNE), CBS (CBS), MGM (MGM), Lions Gate Entertainment (LGF), Starz (LMDIA), and others to the site. Almost three years after purchasing YouTube, Google is taking the boldest—and some say smartest—steps yet to wring profit from its $1.65 billion buy.

By growing its library of professionally produced content, Google aims to make YouTube a more attractive destination for advertisers. “As a repository of user-generated content, YouTube was not going to make it,” says Youssef Squali, analyst with Jefferies & Co. “They’re putting together the building blocks” for profitability, Squali says.

A Losing Proposition?

By many estimates, Google loses hundreds of millions of dollars on YouTube each year. Credit Suisse (CS) analysts believe Google makes about $240 million in annual revenue from the site but spends $711 million, partly for bandwidth from Internet service providers such as Cogent (CCOI) and partly to license content from providers such as Universal Music. Other analysts and people close to YouTube say the figure is too high, though Google doesn’t disclose financial figures for the division. A YouTube spokesman says analysts often overestimate figures for such expenses as bandwidth and storage.

Marketers have largely balked at the unpredictable and sometimes racy quality of video clips on the site. “Advertisers were reluctant to show ads next to content they didn’t really know,” says Jean-Phillippe Maheu, chief digital officer for the North American arm of advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide. Google also avoided placing ads next to content that may have been posted without the creator’s permission. “We only run ads on partner videos, and not all partners choose to run ads on videos,” says YouTube spokesman Aaron Zamost. Whatever the reason, ads show up on a small portion of its videos—from 3% to 9%, according to estimates by researcher eMarketer.

As if making money for its owner weren’t reason enough, YouTube has more cause to step up its advertising game. It’s facing increasingly stiff competition from Hulu, the joint venture of News Corp. (NWS) and NBC Universal (GE), which has helped demonstrate that there’s a market for ads run in conjunction with professionally produced content. In March, just a year after its launch, Hulu became the second most popular site for online video after YouTube. Hulu shows “in-stream ads,” or short video ads before, during, and after its programs. That, says Ogilvy’s Maheu, is “a format that TV advertisers are used to.”

Bill Gates of Bangalore?

Filed under: Business, India — Raja @ 10:00 am

The Gaurdian calls Nandan Nilekani, co founder of Infosys, the Bill Gates of Bangalore. High praise indeed!

Indian businessman Nandan Nilekani

Indian businessman Nandan Nilekani. Photograph: Felix Clay

The man who inspired the slogan “the world is flat” has a small revision to make in the light of recent events. “The world has got flattened,” says Nandan Nilekani, chairman of Indian technology giant Infosys.

The “Bill Gates of Bangalore” - as he became known to star-struck American commentators - first served as inspiration to Thomas Friedman when the New York Times columnist wrote that bible of globalisation, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, way back in 2005. Then, as now, at the epicentre of the Indian IT outsourcing boom, Infosys and its charismatic co-founder seemed the embodiment of the optimistic mood. Soaring world trade, the endless march of the internet and a common language (jargon-inflected English) were ironing out political and geographical divisions around the world.

It all feels an age ago, sitting over a pot of tea in a deserted London hotel foyer. Global trade has collapsed, protectionism is on the rise and the banking crisis has national governments rushing to resurrect control over international business. But Nilekani insists the analysis still holds. “Because the world was flat, we all got flattened: the crisis moved around the world faster,” he says in that enigmatic way that visionary businessmen get away with. Whether he means we were all just flattened to the ground by the financial earthquake at the same time, or irreversibly rolled smooth by the progressive force of globalisation, is left unspoken.

India (and Infosys) have not been immune from the earthquake. The stockmarket has crashed and one of Nilekani’s main competitors, Satyam, has been caught up in a huge accounting scandal. But the optimism that greeted both China and India’s historic re-entry into the world economy remains. India’s banking system was heavily regulated and avoided the worst of the crisis. And as 700 million Indians vote in elections this month, the world has been reminded of the tremendous economic potential of this giant democracy.

Owen Van Natta is Myspace’s New CEO

Filed under: Business, Internet, Media — Raja @ 8:34 am

News Corp has chosen Owen Van Natta as Myspace CEO.

They pulled the trigger: Owen Van Natta is now the CEO of MySpace and will report to Jonathan Miller, the new CEO of Digital Media for News Corp.

Van Natta is a former Facebook and Amazon executive who, until today, was the CEO of a decidedly unstable music startup called Playlist. He’s got the resume to run MySpace, but as we said yesterday there are some serious questions around whether he’s the right guy. He that he still owns a significant part of Facebook and he’s clearly leaving Playlist, and the executives and investors he brought on board, in a bad situation. He joined that company just a few months ago. The rumor is that they’ll now be forced to shut down, although Playlist announces in a separate release that board member John Sykes, a cofounder of MTV, will take over as CEO for now.

April 23, 2009

Hollywood, Real Networks square off on DVD copying software

Filed under: Entertainment, Media, Technology — Raja @ 10:47 pm

From AP:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Hollywood calls it “rent, rip and return” and contends it’s one of the biggest technological threats to the movie industry’s annual $20 billion DVD market — software that allows you to copy a film without paying for it.

On Friday, the showdown over the issue will take place in federal court in San Francisco, where an army of lawyers representing Hollywood will argue that RealNetworks Inc.’s DVD “ripper” is an illegal digital piracy tool.

The company, in turn, will say the $29.99 software that allows DVDs to be easily copied to computer hard drives is legitimate.

The same federal judge who shut down music-swapping site Napster in 2000 because of copyright violations will preside over the three-day trial, which is expected to cut to the heart of the same technological upheaval roiling Hollywood that forever changed the face of the music business.

The movie studios fear that if RealNetworks is allowed to sell its RealDVD software, consumers will quickly lose interest in paying retail for DVDs that can be rented cheaply, copied and returned.

Their lawyers argue the software violates a federal law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that makes software and other tools that enable digital piracy illegal. They also contend shoppers will widely condone such illegal behavior if RealNetworks’ product is allowed on the market.

For its part, the Seattle-based company says its RealDVD product is designed to simply let customers back up a purchased DVD and that the software allows for only one copy to be made.

The company argues that the contract it signed with the DVD Copy Control Association, which equips DVD player manufacturers with the keys to unscrambling DVDs, allows RealDVD because the software doesn’t alter or remove anti-piracy encryption on DVDs like illicit software that is easily obtained for free online.

RealNetworks says its product legally fills growing consumer demand to convert their DVDs to digital form for convenient storage and viewing.

In October, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel temporarily barred sales of RealDVD after the product was on the market for a few days. At the time, the judge said it appeared the software did violate federal law against digital piracy, but ordered detailed court filings and the trial to better understand how RealDVD works.

I understand Hollywood’s plight. They spend a lot of money making these movies want people to pay for their products. But it is fighting a losing battle to control technology. Even if they win against Real Networks in this case, there are plenty of softwares that can do this. The key for Hollywood is to make it very easy for people to rent or buy these movies online from companies like Netflix and watch them instantly. No one will have the patience to rip and burn, if they can watch them by paying a small bit of money.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress