Popular thoughts on my mind... and in my public journal:

Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:48:00 +0000

A recent letter to the editor of The Economist; posted here in the event they don't publish it. Enjoy!

SIR - In your article, "Grappling with America" you venture to decipher "code" in the four "copious" conditions of Mr. Netanyahu's June 14th speech. It is unfortunate that you only managed to decipher negative implications for Palestinians, rather than positive steps for the road to peace. Recognizing Israel as the state of the Jewish people isn't just a condition of Mr. Netanyahu's, it is an intrinsic element of Phase I of the Roadmap requiring an end to incitement. The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a state for the Jews is a central tenet of denying the right of the other to exist. No one including Israel questions the fact that Palestine is a state of the Palestinian people. If the goal is peaceful coexistence, insisting on reciprocal acknowledgement is a reasonable requirement.

TV is still relevant? Yes!

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:10:00 +0000

I've noticed recently that several people have been proclaiming how TV Ad revenue is falling a lot, and that TV is very quickly going the way of newspapers. I've tried to explain that this couldn't be further from the truth, and that of any "old media" medium, TV has a big opportunity for at least a few decades before it takes a hit like news papers. I don't doubt that TV will change a lot, and have been preaching that for years (I even left the TV industry, for the digital media biz because I felt that strongly about it). But VH1 is just one small example of a channel that has captured a niche that is on the "other" side of the digital divide, has money, and matters - as opposed to MTV who didn't handle the digital transition well, and lost an audience.

In this 3 minute Ad Age video, Crown Media CEO Henry Schleiff reminds us that it's the Babyboomers who are watching more TV than anyone else. Using TV ads for branding (making impressions on young kids so they remain loyal forever) isn't the solution anymore. Use TV ads to drive sales, not impressions - and with Babyboomers, the formula isn't the same.

Seems like it's just a wakeup call - not that we need to definitely do things differently - but at the very least, don't be lazy. Reevaluate what we hold to be true, and if it's still relevant great - but be ready to make big changes if evidence confirms what the guts of youngins like myself tell us is true.

Enjoy!

Siloed Sciences

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 26 May 2009 04:42:00 +0000

I just read this great post on my friend Noah Brier's blog, and it got me thinking...

A generally tangential thought - the way Strogatz starts his article kinda baffles me, "unlike Olivia and the previous guest writers, I�m not a biologist, evolutionary or otherwise. In fact, I�m (gasp!) a mathematician."

Why is strange for a mathematician to comment about science? And further, why is it that the various sciences silo themselves? Why does it continue to be an anomaly for different disciplines to team up on a proect and render a brilliant result?

I remember in High School and at NYU not understanding why there wasn't more of an explicit effort to teach science (including math) and art at the same time. The connections are uncanny. Understanding how lenses on film cameras work requires a solid understanding of math and physics. Yet as a student at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, in the film program, I wasn't required to take one math class in order to earn a BFA. How is that possible?

Strogatz's disclaimer reminds me of this TED talk where, "Emily Oster re-examines the stats on AIDS in Africa from an economic perspective and reaches a stunning conclusion: Everything we know about the spread of HIV on the continent is wrong."

Apparently economists and virologists don't talk much.

Taking this another step, I think the reason for my concern above is similar to the Dark Data Wired talks about in this article both Noah and I referenced recently...

Letter to the Editor

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 13 May 2009 05:23:00 +0000

I recently read this article in the Economist, and was compelled to write this letter to the editor:

SIR - I applaud your recent article, "Catheter and Mouse" (published 7th May, 2009) where you note the "greatest gain" will come from the requirement that researchers share negative results. The scientific community has historically been loathe to share results of studies that don't confirm their hypotheses. The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, founded in 1999, was a small step towards encouraging change in a culture set on burying research that doesn't prove a scientist's hypothesis to be correct. But maybe the new EU law (if passed) will be the big push that's needed to remind researchers that all data collected is useful and valuable to humanity. With the data crunching capabilites available today, our problem isn't how to crunch data, but rather ensuring we have large enough data sets to make accurate conclusions. Curbing pain and death among animals by requiring the distribution of all research results is a noble cause. But we musn't forget that we could also curb the death of many human beings if the data of failed experiments was required to be openly shared. I dare say my own country should follow the EU's lead and consider requiring the release of negative results of any experiment using even $1 of public funds.

---

I was inspired in part by this article from Wired, published back in Sept. '07.

Sudanese in Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:12:00 +0000

While the title of this article may be accurate, it misses some great / uplifting elements of an otherwise good article. While Darfuris, Southern Sudanese, and Eritreans aren't "welcomed with open arms" they are finding refuge in Israel, and this article is a huge credit to the amazing communitiy in Tel-Aviv that has gone to great lengths to help the refugees.

As part of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) - and our responsibility to ensure "never again" is applied to everyone, not just Jews - I agree with the author that the Israeli government should have a more positive / helpful approach towards refugees fleeing repression (and even genocide) in their own country.

There is no debate between Evolution & the Judeo-Christian Creation Myth (or any other religion's creation myth)

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:40:00 +0000

I love that in light of Darwin's 200th birthday, everywhere one looks these days, there's talk about the theory of evolution. I decided to write this entry, not to join the cacophony of voices, but to shed light on one element of evolution that I don't see many people discussing.

Here in the United States, there is a strong push (sometimes successful) to require that creationism be taught in parallel with evolution, in Science classes. With all the obvious reasons being put fourth regarding why creationism and evolution shouldn't be taught together, I rarely hear the most obvious: Evolution is a scientific theory which is open for debate, creationism as it is known in the United States is one of many creation myths/stories that is not open for debate, nor can the scientific method be applied to it. Creationism by definition does not follow the scientific method and therefore has no place in a science class. One can believe in the creation myth of the Judeo-Christian making, and still appreciate the theory of evolution.

Science seeks to explain the world around us by utilizing the scientific method. Religion does not, nor should it.

Suggesting that stories from one specific religion be taught in a non-religious class, completely out of context, in publicly funded schools is not only illogical, it is highly offensive to students who come from homes where their religion tells a different creation myth/story.

The only place that creationism could logically be taught in the United States, is in world literature classes - and I'd suggest that if the Judeo-Christian creation story is taught in public schools, then it must be taught in parallel to the many other creation myths that exist around the world. Native American tribes in North and South America have their creation myths, Ancient Greece had theirs, Aborigines of Australia have theirs, tribes all over Africa have theirs, Buddhists and Hindus have theirs (and there are others I'm forgetting).

Theories such as evolution are developed by scientists who understand, respect and practice the scientific method. Theories such as evolution are always being questioned, but only by using the scientific method. Everything students are taught in science classes must be taught within the framework of the scientific method, with an appreciation that all theories are developed with the goal of exhausting every angle at disproving the theory. And once the scientific community believes that every angle has been exhausted, if someone finds a new angle to question the theory, everyone will be open to revising the theory. None of that applies to religion. As such, teaching creationism in science classes negates all that students are being taught. Science classes aren't about memorizing facts, they're about teaching students to:
a. be curious about the world in which they live
b. question everything they're told about the world in which they live
c. understand how theories are developed, and how they continue to be challenged

It is obvious that creationists are terrified about all three points above. As far as they're concerned, the bible has all the answers. What they forget is that we live in a pluralistic society, where many faiths (including lack of faith) are observed, and that faith is something that is personal. To impose ones faith on others, especially when using public funds is illegal.

It is also obvious that creationists have no appreciation for the scientific method, or what the theory of evolution is. Otherwise they wouldn't feel that their story is under attack. There is nothing to debate between the theory of evolution and the creation myths told around the world. Creation myths were developed thousands of years ago, and have been passed down through generations - they're believed to be unchanged, but who knows. The theory of evolution is a theory. It is meant to be challenged, debated, and change if the evidence supports change.

OK, I'll stop now. I think you get the point. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

Giving Credit Where it's Due

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:25:00 +0000

On many occasions I've been very critical of various media organizations such as the NYTimes for their often one-sided critical & highly biased "reports" on conflicts between Israel and Palestinians.

Since Israel's defensive assaults on Hamas began three days ago, I've been surprised by the level to which virtually every media organization has been even-handed in their criticism of both sides.

Here's one example in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/world/middleeast/30hamas.html?_r=1&hp

My Dad

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:41:00 +0000

Recently my dad has become an attraction for people looking for stories to tell. He's a well of information, so it's not surprising. You can find one of the latest at this blog: Save the Deli where the author, David Sax maintains a pretty fun blog about the art of old-world Jewish deli.

For the longest time I've been meaning to make a film about NYC through the eyes of my father (born July 27, 1933). Maybe now is finally the right time...

Great Government Subsidization

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:06:00 +0000

Seattle has a new program to provide efficient toilets, shower heads & faucet aerators to low income families.

I love the idea behind this program. Efficient toilets, and appliances like it are generally more expensive than the less efficient alternatives. Helping low income families participate efficiently in the green movement should be a priority for every local government.

Personally I think government subsidization of green programs is one of the best ways to spend our tax dollars. The cost to our country (today and in the future) for being grossly inefficient far out paces the cost of helping all members of society be as efficient as possible.

Do your part

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:33:00 +0000

Below is an open email I sent to almost everyone I know, this evening.
If you didn't get this email, please read it. I'll post how effective it was in about 2 weeks.

*********************************
Hi Everyone,

As you hopefully know, I try to keep non-personal emails to a minimum, unless there is a pressing issue you all should hear about.

This weekend I saw a talk given by John Doerr at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/128. His 15 minute discussion was an impassioned plea for us to change how we consume energy - or, as he put it, we're not going to make it. He is one of a handful of people who's opinion on this I'd believe. Watch the video for details. Part of his plea, included asking us all to do whatever we can. Here's where me and my network chips in...

Back in Feb '05 you may have received an email from me about switching to Green Power at home. Converting your home to receive Green Power is the easiest and single most significant step you can take to reduce your impact on global warming. If you know something easier & more impactful, please let me know, as I'd like to do that too. Back in '05, about 30 people converted their power as a result of my email. My network has grown since then; I know that together we can double the number of converts!

Important facts:
- You don't need to change anything in your house. The only thing that changes when you buy Green Power is who your power company buys power from (to power your home).
- The price difference is roughly the cost of one Starbucks coffee per week. And everyone receiving this email can afford that.
- You can read more details about what your options are, and the differences, on my blog...

If you're ready to do it now (and live in NYC), follow these simple steps:
1. Get your last ConEd bill (you'll need your acct #) & come back to this computer
2. Visit http://www.poweryourway.com/pages/greenpower.html#providers to see your selection of Green Power providers
3. Once you've selected an energy provider, follow the link to their site & enroll!
4. Feel good every time you get your bill that every penny you spent on electric didn't cause any more C02 to be emitted.

And if you're ready to switch now, but don't want to read too much, just trust my research skills and use the same Green Power company that I do - go directly to their site at: http://www.conedsolutions.com/residential/greenpowermain.htm and enroll there!

If you don't live in NYC, please visit your power authority's web site for details on how to select a Green Power provider. If your power authority doesn't offer a Green Power option - contact your state and federal representatives, and lobby for them to give you options. If you need help with that last step, contact me, I'd love to help.

If you're one of the conscientious people who already converted to Green Power - please forward this email to your friends & family - or write your own message!

Thanks,
-
Steve

Summary of John Doerr's talk:
"I don't think we're going to make it," John Doerr proclaims, in an emotional talk about climate change and investment. Spurred on by his daughter, who demanded he fix the mess the world is heading for, he and his partners at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers embarked on a greentech world tour -- surveying the state of the art, from the ethanol revolution in Brazil to Wal-mart's (!) eco-concept store in Bentonville, Arkansas. KPCB is investing $200 million in green technologies to save the planet and make a profit to boot. But, Doerr fears, it may not be enough.

Beta Fish #1

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:35:00 +0000

I've been working on training my Beta to eat off of my finger tip. He does it regularly now!

Basically I dip my finger in the water, then get a grain of food to stick to my finger, and put it near the surface of the water. He jumps up and grabs it!

Thinking About Government

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:06:00 +0000

This article really got me thinking today about the role of government & our relationship (as citizens) with our government. In my mind, the government is us, in the greatest sense of the word. As such, we should inherently trust our government to do the right thing. At least that's what conservative friends of mine think, when it comes to national security.

Then it started to bother me when I realized that I had a serious distrust in my government. That distrust is so strong, that I'm willing to keep inefficient processes in place - which handcuff people at all levels of government. Is part of the problem with our government that people have such a loathing distrust, and expectations are so low (other than in times of crisis) that our government is reaching the level we set for it? (which is quite low IMHO)...

I'll contribute more later when I have more time...

good line

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:25:00 +0000

I just heard a great line, and had to post it:

"Luck is a bird that flies high in the sky, and every once in a while craps on someone. So go out in the world and take a chance, you just might get crapped on..."

(I'm not sure who originally said it - if you know, pls submit a reference...)

Guest Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:13:00 +0000

My friend Noah Brier recently took advantage of something every Jew between 18 & 26 should take advantage of: Birthright Israel. Some of you may know him as an awesome networker (aka Super-connector), others may know him as a great blogger. While away on Birthright Noah invited several people to be guest bloggers, and luckily I was one of them! You can read my contribution here, as well as the variety of comments people left. I've pasted it below in case you really don't want to navigate away from this page; but I suggest reading it on Noah's site, as you can contribute to the conversation that began there.

********************
A Vision for the Future of Media Distribution

The other day I noticed a sign in Blockbuster's window, announcing an exclusive agreement with The Weinstein Co. I work in the media business and honestly don't know anyone who's compelled to watch a film because The Weinstein Co., or Universal, or any other studio made it. But that's not the main point of this story.

The implications of Blockbuster paying for exclusivity made me think about where the media industry is, and where it �would� go if I were king of the media universe. The first thought was that when Blockbuster gets content creators to sign exclusive agreements, they show a lack of appreciation for who their primary competition is, and worse yet what their customers' expectations are. Customers don't pay Blockbuster for their ability to curate films, they pay HBO for that. Now that Blockbuster is a completely subscription based business, competing on offering may help to fight with Netflix in a winner-takes-all game, but in the big picture, they're only helping their primary competition: free file sharing services on the web.

File sharing services don't care about exclusive agreements, and neither do customers; until it keeps them from accessing media via their chosen distributor. Everything is available on-demand on the web, no matter where you are in the world. So as a customer considering an incomplete offering from both Blockbuster AND Netflix, what would compel me to pay either, or both of them if I can get it all for free, more quickly, online? While I could recommend ways for Blockbuster and Netflix to fix their businesses, they're going to die anyway... so here's what I see coming down the pike once those two (among many others) are out of the way.

I see a future where portals will offer access to every piece of media ever created (and by media I mean everything: from TV shows & films, to video games, music, books, magazines, poems, paintings, etc...). Furthermore, no portal will have exclusive offerings (similar to Internet portals), and there will be minimal barrier to entry (contrasted with the NFL Network's problems). The business model has two fronts, one facing the consumer, and one facing the content creator.

The consumer facing model is based on the fact that every person has �x� number of minutes per day/week/month to spend consuming various forms of media. There is a dollar figure actuaries can determine those minutes are worth both to the portal and to the customer. Quickly a rate plan very similar to tiered cellphone plans will emerge. All the media you can consume in �x� number of minutes per month, for �x� dollars per month.

The content creator facing model will include paying each content creator a fixed amount per unit of time each unique customer spent consuming the media that content creator made available. The kid who took a picture of himself every day for several years & made a film with those pictures deserves the same amount of money per unit of time spent watching his film as did the creators of Spiderman. Why? Because you can't watch both at the same time, and you have a finite amount of time per month to consume anything.

This type of model will take the curating role out of distributors' hands, and leave it in the hands of the artists and their investors. The portals (formerly distributors) will no longer compete on content offering, but on services related to the searching for and interacting with the content. One example is re-inventing the idea of product placement. It won't be about �hoping� your audience noticed everyone in a show only drank Coke. It will be about making a pair of jeans, or a car that's seen on-screen an interactive object that a viewer can click & buy.

Note: I don't assume that the portals will only be accessible on your computer � the computer and the TV will, at this point be minimally different screens to access the same media. But hardware is the final element in this plan: creating tools for consumers to interact with media. Apple is WAY ahead of the curve on this front. With the advent of iTunes, they're not only acting as a portal, but with iPods, and AppleTV they're also offering the hardware and a �whole-product�. Software is relatively easy to develop & roll-out to market, hardware is much more difficult, and anyone who wants into this game had better start partnering with hardware manufacturers, if not buy one or two.

In this altered universe I've imagined, consumers will have ultimate reign, and artists will have way more freedom. The portals will at once offer two-way access from content creators to the smallest niche audiences, and the largest mass-markets. There will no longer be a studio boss, or book publisher who instructs an artist to change their art in order to distribute it. If an artist can afford to make something on their own, they can, and won't need a distributor to reach their desired market. Artists will be free to display their work, and get paid fairly for it. The most successful artists will be picked by mass appeal, rather than by �payola� systems which enable the distribution companies to shove whatever they want down our throats.

Let me know what you guys think!

-
Steve

First Friday's @ The Guggenheim

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:17:00 +0000

Last night I was at the office ~9pm and Atossa called me up. She was on the guest list for Nouvelle Vague's performance at the Guggenheim Museum and asked if I wanted to go!

I quickly finished up my work, and upon arrival at 10pm, with people lined up around the block, Atossa sneaked us in to the party where between the chicks dressed like they're going to the prom, the flowing wine, awesome renditions of "Too Drunk To Fuck", and hipsters not knowing what to do with themselves, it was an awesome night - one Frank Lloyd Wright would be proud of!

Check out some pictures...

On Bias in the Media?

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Thu, 17 May 2007 05:38:00 +0000

I haven't written about bias in the media - specifically against Israel - in quite a while. Maybe this is because Israeli politicians have been careful since Lebanon to restrain themselves... leaving the media with nothing to report on.

Maybe it's because Google News has become my main source of news, and I usually read three articles about any given subject to get as well-rounded a view on the subject as possible - letting the various biases cancel each other out - or call attention to each other & letting the facts seep through.

Today though, I came across an article in the New York Times that went too far in exhibiting the Times' persistent bias against Israel.

The headline read, "Fatah Officials' Home Stormed in Gaza Clashes"

The photograph was of destruction & a large crowd of Palestinians.

The photograph's caption read, "Palestinians searching for survivors after an Israeli missile strike on a building in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip today."

The first paragraph mentions that the Israeli air strike is just one aspect of the violence in Gaza, and then briefly mentions some of the factional fighting. Five paragraphs down the NYTimes finally indicate that the air strike was in retaliation for an increase in missiles raining down on the town of Sderot - which have injured many civilians.

The rest of the article basically focuses on the factional fighting between Hamas & Fatah. They even mention that Hamas militants killed five of their own "by accident" and shot at point-blank range seven Fatah police men.

If it's not clear where the bias is, I'll spell it out. The article was a total of 870 words. Except for maybe one paragraph, the article doesn't mention violence coming from Israel - the article focuses on the "factional violence" (which I'd call civil war). But, we all know what people look at first, in order to determine if they'll keep reading: the headline and the caption for the large photo at the top. Those three elements, in this case, point a bloody finger at Israel.

The headline doesn't indicate who stormed the Fatah Official's home (Hamas stormed it). But the image below the headline, and the caption below the image both discuss Israel's bombing of a "building" (a Hamas office).

At quick glance it's easy to assume that the building bombed by Israel in the image that the caption refers to is the home referred to in the title. Yet the bombing by Israel has nothing to do with the war Palestinians are waging on each other. Considering that the article is about Palestinians killing Palestinians, why is there an image and a caption of Israeli force?

The article can be found here...

On the Mobile Phone Business

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:22:00 +0000

The McKinsey Quarterly often publishes great interviews with business leaders. Today I read an interesting interview with Keith Pardy, Nokia�s senior vp of strategic marketing. Below are some lines that struck a particular cord with me:

"It�s not about pushing out messages any more. You have to initiate interesting conversations and build meaningful relationships with consumers."

"If you start playing games with people, they�ll find out and eat you alive."

"...we haven�t figured out how to unleash all the creative potential that lies in people talking about our products in exciting new ways."

"[in North America] the understanding of the price-value equation is confused, since the cost of the [mobile] device is wrapped up in long-term service contracts."

"watch what happens when you give somebody a new device. The first thing they do is put it in their hands, pop it up and down a little bit, and roll it around. Now that, to me, is an insight."

Read it!

Local Online Social Networking

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:27:00 +0000

Today I read about Clear Channel starting an interesting experiment in local social networking. Read about it here.

As a big proponent of local networking, I'm really interested in seeing how this pans out for Clear Channel... Although I'm a bit skeptical - maybe it'll be great for kids who haven't gone to college yet (and don't know many people outside of their home city), as well as older folk who haven't really tried out online social networking, and don't have a network outside of their home city.

My skepticism is borne out of the appreciation for the appeal of Facebook, et al... users who aren't currently in the same city, can keep in touch easily no matter where they are in the world. And at the same time, they're able to keep in touch with people who do live near them. Just today on Facebook one friend who lives in DC posted that he'll be in Columbus, OH tomorrow in case anyone else will be there and wants to meet up. Another friend who lives here in NYC posted that she'll be attending the Salute to Israel parade on Sunday, if anyone wants to join her.

High Fructose Corn Syrup

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 01 May 2007 04:54:00 +0000

I'm going to put this out there: from the little evidence I have, it appears to me that High Fructose Corn Syrup is connected to the insanely high rate of diabetes in the US, and the high incidence of obesity.

And while I haven't seen much research on the connection HFCS has to poor health- I doubt we'll see a study any time soon, as it's used in almost every American made product.

I don't particularly like conspiracy theories - this one seems plausible. Hopefully I'll be able to find more evidence soon... If you have thoughts or ideas, please share.

Museums & Interactivity

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:46:00 +0000

I've written several posts about my evolving appreciation for how people adopt to new technology. I've also written specifically about the need for communities to get involved in encouraging their citizens to adopt certain technologies like SMS.

Just the other day, a friend was brainstorming with me some ideas to incorporate interactivity and multimedia interfaces for museum goers.

Two technologies came to mind:

1. SMS

2. Bluetooth

How SMS would work:

As a museum visitor walks through the exhibits, the plaque describing each piece in the collection will have a little Google icon (or whichever search service is funding the project) and a unique number to send an SMS to. The visitor can send an SMS to the given number, with any question related to the piece they're looking at.

The unique SMS number will aide the search service to pull more accurate answers because the unique SMS number will indicate to the search service that the inquiry is related to a specific work of art. I envision this working similarly to Google's SMS service which I use all the time, and is generally accurate as long as I include enough information. Most of the time I use it to find stuff in NYC, and I'd love it if there was a unique number for NYC, so I didn't need to type "new york city" each time...

Using SMS promotes the use of an easy to use technology which every phone around the world has pre-installed. It promotes the use of an already adopted interactive technology. Accuracy can be high, and ease of use is already high. Furthermore, there is low overhead to a project like this. Lastly, users can have the answers saved on their phone, for future reference and discussion.

How Bluetooth would work:

When museum visitors enter the museum, there will be a sign (and it will also be on their ticket or receipt for admission) advising them to activate Bluetooth on their phone, and which device to pair it with.

Alternatively, since many people will visit the website of a museum before going, the museum can offer users to pre-set their device to pair with the museum's computers, so that when they arrive, their phone will automatically sync up with the museum's computers and receive pertinent information. There can also be a download right from the site (similar to the already popular downloads of audio-guides to the museum). In addition, if the museum offers ticket sales on their website, users can store their receipt in their phone, and when they arrive they can be validated via Bluetooth at the entrance.

As visitors walk around the museum, each exhibit area can push multimedia data to their phone about the exhibit they've just walked in to, and each piece on exhibit will be feeding information about that specific piece. All of this can include links to the web, for web-enabled phones for further exploration once the visitors leave the museum.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head. Hopefully someone will do something like this soon. I'd use it ;-)

P.S. In the near future, I'll be posting ideas like these to Ideageneration.org - a blog I'm setting up with the specific purpose of posting solutions for various organizations that I simply want to see happen, rather than quit my job to create.

Measuring the Value of Your Work

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:27:00 +0000

"TV networks would get more money than ever. Creative and media agencies will too because while their work might change significantly, the tangible value of that work will become measurable."

This is the most significant line in an article I read today in AdAge about a company called Backchannel Media. What I like most about that line is that it can be applied to almost any sector of the Media industry. So many people in the media business are so scared of changing their daily routine, that change is a fact of life... and that change often brings good things to those who fully accept that reality early on.

As for the article - Backchannel's business is really interesting & worth a read. I have complete faith that the direction they want to take the TV business is the right one it should go in. What I have less faith in is that TV will remain an independent, closed network - separate from the Internet. It simply doesn't make sense to me... Feel free to leave comments and debate points in the article.

Credit Score

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:22:00 +0000

While I could write a book about how flawed our credit systems in the US are, I'll save that for a later date. Right now I just want to help you check on your credit... You are entitled to a free credit report from each of the credit reporting agencies - once per year.

Get yours at annualcreditreport.com

Good Luck!

Face to Face

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:39:00 +0000

One aspect of improving myself in '07 has been focused on connecting with people; and involves three steps -- in this order:

1. Email more people, more often
2. Email less, call more often
3. Call less, face-to-face more often

I'm not doing as well as I had hoped by now, although I think about it every time my first instinct is to type an email, or pick up the phone. I will do better.

Today I read an interesting review by Kathy Sierra on the importance of face-to-face. She took a good look at why, as more tools are created to give us reasons to communicate remotely, we still flock to meet each other in person. The article was a sober reminder that I should be working harder at my three steps above.

One of the most thought provoking phrases she used was "Legacy Brain":

"...[O]ur legacy brain... still has no idea we aren't living in caves where human contact and social face-to-face interaction are key to our survival."

I don't want to get too esoteric, but there is a lot to that concept above. Not long ago I was so interested in the future, and the capability we'll attain from tech we haven't dreamed up yet, that I was ignoring the merits of the tools we have today. Ray Kurzweil had a big effect on that. While I'm still VERY intere sted in what the future holds, my focus has shifted to sharpening the tools I have today. I believe this will allow me to contribute to future advances in a more realistic way.

Where I started:

One of the many lessons my yoga practice has been teaching me is to be aware of every muscle in my body, and the affect my mind has on my physical body's tension. We'll be in Warrior Two, and an instructor will ask me why my back toes are crunched, or why my shoulders are crouching up against my neck instead of extending down my back -- only then will I realize that I was even doing that. Over time, using a little abstraction, I've applied this to other aspects of my life. I began to watch myself closely, and began to acknowledge the incredible power of another person's presence. I noticed my physical and emotional reactions to the energy people brought into situations. From these interactions, I have learned so much about myself and others -- bringing me closer to appreciating the power of presence: my own and others'.

LikeMind, started by Noah Brier - a great friend & awesome dreamer - is certainly helping. There's probably one in your city. Try it!

In a later post, I'll try to approach the even more incredible power of touch.

*********************
P.S. If you love the intersection of technology and personal interaction, try these services:
Meetro, Area/Code, Pacmanhattan, Meetup, Barcamp, and leave comments for others if you know of good ones!

Great Philosophical Point

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:26:00 +0000

People change when they have to � not when we tell them to.

One of the best lines from Thomas Friedman's latest article for the New York Times, "The Power of Green" - a really well written, and well thought out essay. I recommend it to all.

If the article above sparks any interest in what YOU can do - read my post from February 19, 2005: http://www.kalifowitz.com/2005/02/green-power.html

Leave comments if you have any other ideas.

Cause-based Concerts - how effective are they?

noreply@blogger.com (Steven) — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:06:00 +0000

Today, all over the news we heard about the announcement of Al Gore's Live Earth Concert Series. I heard Gore on the BBC this morning talking about how he sees this as a way to kick off wide-spread awareness of global warming, with the goal of seeing results within 3 years. He spent about 10% of the interview discussing that. He spent the rest of his time talking about Live Earth being the biggest concert in history, taking place on every continent, with an unprecedented number of bands from al genres, bla, bla, bla. I can't wait to hear what Danny Goldberg has to say about this (if you don't know him, I suggest reading his book, How the Left Lost Teen Spirit).

The timing of this is interesting for me. Mainly because the other day I was thinking of the Live-8 concert, and cause-based concerts of the past decade or so. I was thinking about how they failed to produce any results.

A little background: In high school and college my brother and I were heavily involved in Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) -- Justin was lucky enough to get an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he came to Central Park a year later. In 1998 we helped put on the massive Tibetan Freedom Concert in Washington DC. Since then I worked at Woodstock '99 (for the television company that put it on) and have been involved in countless conversations with people hoping to produce a concert in order to raise awareness for a cause. Justin attended Woodstock '99 as a representative of SFT, and has also been involved in many of the same conversations about concerts.

I'm completely convinced that putting on a concert for a cause in today's world has but one attainable goal - raising money by selling tickets, dvd's, and the rights to air it live & to re-broadcast it. If the goal is to raise awareness, it's hopeless. Why does everyone conveniently forget that we live in a society that has an attention span of 5 minutes? What's worse is that we live in a "it's all about you" society. Yesterday Justin and I were in Dunking Donuts/Baskin Robbins and Justin pointed out that every sign in the store was encouraging consumers to treat themselves "because you deserve it".

As for the music aspect, I don't think there has ever been a time in history where experiencing music is what it is today: a remarkably personal experience. Something to be enjoyed by yourself - with your little ear buds in your ears, whether at your desk, in the park, on the train or in your room. While people still go to concerts, and lots of them, I find that the experience today is different than it was ten years ago. I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing, or a good thing. My point is that the intensely individual nature in which music is experienced today, in my view, is making it harder to get people to connect to a common cause through a song or a concert the way they did in the past.

There is one more element I think everyone has completely ignored: the Woodstock (1969) cause/effect dynamic. Woodstock '69's success was based on the spontaneous nature of it. This is impossible to repeat with today's overwhelming corporate-commercial nature and hyper-sensitive news media which rushes to categorize, analyze and criticize every cultural movement before it's even happened - with irrelevant pundits who enjoy hearing their own voice. Furthermore, Woodstock '69 didn't have a very specific message other than three days of "peace and music" - which could be interpreted in many different ways - but primarily spoke to it's "hippie" audience. We don't have that today. We don't have a subset of society who's identity is inherently tied to music the way hippies were.

Every time a cause-based concert is forced upon us, with tons of media hype and corporate sponsorship - where sponsors expect more attention on them than the cause - the cause is trying to speak to an audience that doesn't exist. Last summer's Live 8 concert is a shining example. Everyone who went to a concert, or saw it on AOL or MTV did so for one reason: they wanted to see a live performance by artists they liked. End of story.

That said, I haven't given up on the potential music has to influence our society. I'm confident there's a way to rally people around a cause, which speaks to us the way music does. When I figure out what that method is, I trust you'll hear about it in a big way!

In the mean time, if you have ideas, please post a comment.