Information overload is a growing problem that most of us face each and every day. Email, phone calls, voice mail, facebook notifications, and that doesn't include the endless flow of spam. However there's no reason all this constant communication can't be tamed and organized so that we don't feel the stress and anxiety associated with being under a waterfall of information.
While some may feel powerless in the face of technological change, resigned to the notion that all this email and information is necessary for their work or personal advancement, the reality is that the cost of our desire to always be connected is high and still growing.
For example the research firm Basex Inc examined the economic impact of information overload on the US economy, and their findings point to a steady growth from one year to the next. In 2005 the cost of information overload to the US economy was $588 billion dollars and in 2006 that figure grew to $650 billion.
Perhaps a more tangible way to articulate this cost is via a similar study conducted by Intel, which estimated that people on average lose 8 hours of every week to information overload.
John Edwards recently announced he was pulling out of the Democratic Presidential Primary. This was in contrast to previous indications from both the candidate and one of his senior advisers, Joe Trippi that he would stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday.
Other than money, the main reason to withdraw from the race at this point would be to give a clear boost to Obama as the anti-Hillary candidate. Yet had Edwards stayed in the race he would have easily gained enough delegates that in a tight race he'd be able to have considerable influence on the final outcome.
So why would Edwards give up this potential position of being the King/Queen maker? Perhaps because Obama offered him the job of running-mate as part of an Obama/Edwards Presidential ticket.
We know Edwards is open to the job of vice-president as he ran with Kerry, and he's young enough that 8 years from now he could run again for President. I'm unaware of any serious policy conflicts between Edwards and Obama that John couldn't stomach, especially in contrast to John Kerry's mediocrity.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama on the other hand will need someone like Edwards to balance out his ticket. The Black intellectual from the North can certainly benefit from the White Southern populist. Together they could bring an incredible amount of both excitement and credibility to the Democratic hopes of sweeping Congress and the Executive Office.
In my public speaking I often like to spend time on the subject of the Global Village, the McLuhan metaphor that describes our inter-connected global society. I cite events such as the OJ Simpson trail, the death of Princess Diana, and 9/11 as a few examples among many that illustrate the times when millions of people come together and share their emotions simultaneously across the continent or even the planet.
This week there were two such events, and what I find fascinating is the difference between how the two were understood and experienced.
What they both have in common is an effective Internet strategy that allows them to make do with less, while also raising considerable funds online. Huckabee and Paul have both been outspent by opponents who blanket mainstream media with negative ads. Yet in the face of this they've both been able to use the Internet to speak directly to their growing supporters, inspiring them to work for and donate to the campaign.
I'm curious therefore to see whether Huckabee will be able to place well in Michigan and even if he can win in South Carolina this week. Is he independent and populist enough to win over some of the Ron Paul supporters? Would a ticket with Mike Huckabee as President and Ron Paul as Vice-President be popular? Though I do suspect that such a team would be vetoed by the Republican establishment which has the capability to parachute in their own nominees at the last minute.
Obviously the politics behind choosing a running mate is more than just mathematics and match-making. At this point the openly expressed symbolism has Chuck Norris as the VP in a Huckabee administration.
I think if the primary elections involved declaring a running mate it would be far more interesting. It could be balanced by having a deadline to declare a running mate relatively late in the game, thus increasing the possibility of competitors dropping out to become running mates for other candidates.
The really powerful combination would be if Barack Obama agreed to be Hillary Clinton's running mate. That would be the type of historical administration that could actually start to change the world's perception of America.
While this would all but guarantee that Obama is the next Democratic presidential nominee after Hillary, I doubt he'd agree to it, and I'm also not sure that the Clinton camp would want it either. I wouldn't rule it out however. Their combined thirst for power may be enough for them to get over their respective egos and see the opportunity such a combination offers.
Mike Huckabee, with the help of Chuck Norris, has been able to defeat Mitt Romney who out spent him by a factor of 20! Some estimates put Romney's Iowa expenditures at $10,000 per vote.
Barack Obama, with the help of Obama Girl, has been able to defeat Billary who admittedly had low expectations for Iowa to begin with. It's also worth noting that John Edwards has been able to stay in the race, in no small part due to his sophisticated Internet operation.
Of course I'm not suggesting that literally the videos I cite above are responsible for the victories. Rather the candidates who won did so against the odds and the Internet played an important role in that victory.
Which brings me to the story many journalists are missing this morning, which is Ron Paul. His results in Iowa may seem small compared to the victors, yet 10 and 11 percent is actually quite impressive for the congressman from Texas.
Ron Paul is running the most successful Internet campaign of any candidate because he and his campaign team make no effort to control their online activity. What shocks most journalists and political consultants is the way in which the Ron Paul campaign is autonomous and spontaneous.
The $20 million dollars raised in the last quarter of 2007 will go along way to keeping Congressman Paul in the race. He may not win, but he will affect the process as a whole.
Today, after Iowa, it's clear that there is great sentiment for Change. Huckabee, Obama, Paul, all are candidates that campaign from the outside, call for change, and embody the Internet's President.
Mind you, don't count out Billary and John McCain. The former has money and a machine that can keep them competitive right till the end. McCain has also been using the Internet quite effectively to offest his fundraising problems. He may easily win New Hampshire now that Romney is on the ropes.
For the record, I like aspects of all these candidates. I'm loving this election, and am looking forward to it getting strange, weird, and totally out of control!
Near the end of 2007 I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Ursula Franklin regarding her political and religious beliefs, as well as her lifelong activism and social criticism. I first heard her speak in 1995 at a conference around community access to the information highway (oh what weird words we used back then). At the time I was just starting to look at critical perspectives on technology, and Ursula's work influenced me quite a bit. Her definition of technology as being "how we do things around here" helped me understand the cultural impact of technology where others tend to miss this crucial influence.
In this interview we cover quite a bit of ground, starting with the analysis of the rise of techno-fascism, and the destructive impact of a society that is driven by the machines of war, which we contrast to the role of feminism and pacifism in moving towards a more socially just society. This discussion was an extension of the ideas in her latest book, The Ursula Franklin Reader: Pacifism as a Map, which was published by Between The Lines.
Computer security is a field I've always been interested in, both as a journalist, researcher, and system administrator. However I'm also often quite critical of the industry as a whole, and the manner in which they communicate with their customers.
Today a particularly symbolic and silly episode is transpiring that illustrates why the trust and power we put into security and anti-virus software is often misplaced.
Users of the CA eTrust software are being alerted that they've been infected by the JS/SNZ.a virus whenever they surf a website that runs any one of a few common javascript libraries. This includes my own site, which is causing some of my readers to get alerts, one of whom emailed me about it.
The problem of course is that this is not a virus at all, rather a false positive. Most users however won't know that, and instead are being scared away from thousands if not millions of legitimate websites.
The organization of all this criminal activity manifests in the form of bot nets (see sidebar) such as the storm worm, networks of hijacked machines that allow criminals to engage in their activities without being traced or identified. The sophistication of these bot nets has increased so rapidly that many observers have begun speculating that we're witnessing the early stages of a new online arms race, a cyber cold-war in which new weapons and tactics are being developed and tested.
The following segment from 3D Dialogue is a great example of how the show combines politics, religion, sociology, and economics to cover a story in a unique way, especially when it comes to complex issues such as the recent protests in Burma. This interview with Bush Gulati, from the Committee for Restoration of Democracy in Burma, provides an overview of the role Buddhist Monks play in the struggle against the military dictatorship in Myanmar.
The past two weeks have seen a number of announcements by Microsoft, Google, and Facebook that have set the stage for an incredible clash of the titans when it comes to the future of the Internet.
On one side, reigning champion Microsoft, monopolist of the personal computer era, backing young upstart Facebook, the early leader in the emerging social computing era.
On the other side, reigning search engine and online advertising king Google, and instead of backing a single emerging player, they've taken the longer tail and have embraced the concept of Open, which while including open source, also includes a broader philosophical approach to open internet development and initiatives.
