"In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson and the need for Tom Standage and Sam Bozzo to step up and help

I usually only write about books that I think are good and this is definitely not a good book. But the idea to describe the development of programming and our interaction with computers over history is a great idea. And the title is so good that people interested in the idea probably will pick it up, my suggestion is to ignore the book and start writing something.

To be honest I think the book was more an idea for a book that needed an introduction (the programmed universe in the last chapter). When Neal begun to write he became fascinated by his own history and forgot that he really did not have anything to say for those of us that are not interested in his personal (and often incorrect) recollection of things.

I hope his fictions are better researched that this book, if it is something I expect of an author it is that they should do their research and not just improvise.

As inspiration for the kind of book that carry the kind of title as Neal’s I suggest the Victorian internet by Tom Standage and the movie Hackers Wanted, by Sam Bozzo, (I think Sam's movie is still only available on BitTorrent). If Tom and Sam came together I think we could get the ultimate story…

PS It is only and article about Sam and his relation to BitTorrent but it is so interesting that I thought I could provide a link as an initial alternative to reading the book that you might have googled for and arrived here... ;) Here is the link to the article in Torrentfreak. If anyone downloads anything by Sam Bozzo from a source where you don't pay I hope you will go to his webpage send him money so can keep up the good work.

IT som verktyg för en långsiktigt hållbar utveckling: ”Potentialen är enorm – men vi måste tänka nytt”

Här är resultatet av en intervju/samtal med Kjell Åström som är med i "Telias miljörapport 2011".Hela rapporten finns att ladda ner som på Telias hemsida (PDF 2.3meg). +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Visst är det lovvärt med Svanenmärkt skrivarpapper och bilar som går på biobränsle. Men många av våra miljöfrämjande insatser är tämligen defensiva. Antingen innebär de att problemen flyttas utanför Sveriges gränser, eller så kräver de resurser i en omfattning som gör dem omöjliga i resten av världen. Detta anser miljövisionären och regeringsrådgivaren Dennis Pamlin, grundare av företaget 21 Century Frontiers.

Han efterlyser de stora greppen, lösningarna som kan fungera för en värld med 9 miljarder invånare. Tröga institutioner motverkar förändring Att utvecklingen mot ett långsiktigt hållbart samhälle går så pass långsamt beror bland annat på våra institutioner. De växte fram under 1900-talets industriella utveckling och fungerade utmärkt i den samhällstyp vi hade då. Men i dag står vi inför helt nya utmaningar enligt Dennis Pamlin.

– Ta till exempel Trafikverket. Där jobbar man fortfarande bara med fysisk förflyttning. Men jag är bergsäker på att det om tjugo år är totalt otänkbart att planera vägar och järnvägar utan att ta hänsyn till de möjligheter som bredband skapar. Trafikverket har bytt namn till Mobilitetsverket och sysslar minst lika mycket med virtuell förflyttning som med fysisk. Dessutom tänker man globalt och låter planeringsarbetet påverkas inte bara av ekonomiska nätverk utan även av kulturella.

Politiker och beslutsfattare är i allmänhet väl medvetna om att dagens institutioner har svårt att bidra till en resurseffektiv och rättvis samhällsutveckling. Men att förändra deras sätt att fungera är en tuff uppgift som man inte riktigt tagit sig an ännu.

– Vi behöver framtidsinriktade aktörer som kan skynda på omdaningen genom att göra sina röster hörda i kommuner, i riksdagen, i Bryssel och på global nivå. Det är mycket viktigt att skapa en strukturell återkoppling som för oss bort från dagens överkonsumtion av naturresurser, in i ett smartare samhälle där vi ser utvecklingen av människor som långt viktigare än ekonomisk tillväxt, menar Dennis Pamlin.

Makt över återinvesteringarna Det finns en handfull grundläggande behov som hela mänskligheten delar. Alla vill vi ha någonstans att bo, mat på bordet och en möjlighet att förflytta oss. Därför finns de allra största ekonomiska möjligheterna inom energiförsörjning, infrastruktur och livsmedel. På dessa områden har it mycket att ge, inte minst transparens. Slutkonsumenterna får tillgång till information som gör att de förstår sammanhangen bättre och ser vilka konsekvenser som deras köpbeslut får.

– När du väljer att köpa vissa varor medverkar du till att skapa morgondagens värld. I framtiden kommer du att se mycket bättre hur detta fungerar. När du plockar en viss sorts havregryn från butikshyllan vet du exempelvis att en del av det du betalar går till investeringar som skyddar regnskog från avverkning eller bevarar ett öppet kulturlandskap i Mellansverige. Det intressanta är att du fokuserar på det som dina pengar kan skapa i morgon, inte på vad de gör i dag, säger Dennis Pamlin.

Energiproduktionen kan påverkas på ett liknande sätt. En elleverantör kan ha miljömärkt el i sitt utbud, men när kunderna ser att pengarna som de betalar investeras i polsk kolkraft går nog många över till ett elbolag där hållbarhet genomsyrar hela verksamheten. Dennis Pamlin betonar den här aspekten av it och menar att tekniken ger den enskilda medborgaren större makt över samhällsutvecklingen. Hus ska leverera energi, inte förbruka den.

Den svenska miljöpolitiken har sina rötter i 70-talet. Den inriktas huvudsakligen på att minska nationella problem av olika slag. Vi försöker exempelvis hålla nere koldioxidutsläppen genom förmånliga regler för bilar som drivs med biobränsle.

– Tanken är god, men åtgärder av det här slaget fungerar inte globalt. Vi flyttar bara problemen utanför våra gränser. Skulle världens alla bilister gå över till bioetanol så rycker vi bokstavligen maten ur händerna på hundratals miljoner människor, Redan i dag ser vi hur vårt system leder till konflikter mellan olika grupper som vill lägga beslag på planetens begränsade resurser, konstaterar Dennis Pamlin.

I stället efterlyser han transformativa förändringar, ett rejält paradigmskifte där vi börjar betrakta världen på ett helt nytt sätt. Insatser inom bostadssektorn är extra viktiga, eftersom den svarar för ungefär 40 % av de globala koldioxidutsläppen. Han menar att det överhuvudtaget inte finns någon anledning att fortsätta uppföra byggnader som förbrukar energi. Plushus är en teknisk verklighet, alltså hus som producerar mer energi än vad som går åt för driften. Den energin kommer ägaren att kunna skicka tillbaka till elnätet eller lagra i batterierna på den elbil som han samäger med sina grannar. Bilen kommer förresten inte att användas särskilt mycket, eftersom många sköter det mesta hemifrån – jobbet, inköpen och umgänget med andra människor.

– På det här sättet övergår byggnader från att vara vår tids största miljöhot till att bli en avgörande miljölösning. Och det är transformativa it-lösningar som gör processen möjlig. Detta är något helt annat än många av dagens ”lösningar”, som i realiteten endast flyttar våra problem till någon annan plats på jorden, säger Dennis Pamlin.

I ett niomiljardersperspektiv duger endast transformativ förändring It-lösningar som bidrar till en transformativ förändring är hårdvaluta i en värld där miljö- och klimatproblemen blir mer och mer akuta. I Sverige finns gott om skärpta och kreativa it-specialister, vilket borde betyda att vi har lysande möjligheter att utveckla revolutionerande system och applikationer som kan exporteras lönsamt. Eller?

– Tyvärr motverkas den här utvecklingen av både marknadsmekanismer och institutioner. Det är absolut inte fråga om någon medveten, ondsint konspiration utan bara resultatet av att våra institutionella ramverk i väsentliga delar är 50 år efter sin tid.

För att få bättre perspektiv på behoven räcker det med att titta på några enkla statistiska uppgifter. Enligt FN:s prognoser är vi 9 miljarder invånare på den här planeten kring år 2050. Kinas städer växer med ca 18 miljoner varje år– alltså dubbla Sveriges befolkning.

– Under de närmaste 20 åren kommer världen att förändras fortare och mer genomgripande än någonsin tidigare. It har potentialen att både lösa dagens stora problem och skapa helt nya möjligheter i ett längre perspektiv. Det är ingen lätt uppgift, men använder vi it på ett klokt sätt kommer vi att lyckas, summerar Dennis Pamlin.

We live in a new industrial revolution: Europe has difficulties to embrace new business models

Here is an interview I did before the "Liechtenstein Congress on Sustainable Development and Responsible Investing 2012" with Steffen Klatt, that turned into a very interesting conversation about the current situation and ICT's role. The original is here

Europe risks being sidelined by emerging countries when it comes to the connected economy, says Dennis Pamlin, one of the main experts in Green Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Western economies tend to see problems ahead, rather than chances. Emerging countries may take the lead in monetising the opportunities that come with networks.

What is green about Green ICT apart from replacing an old computer with a more efficient one?

Dennis Pamlin: There is the greening of ICT on the one side. This is, among others, about the energy efficiency of the equipment, which stands for some 2 per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions. And there is on the other side greening with ICT. That is about using ICT and the fact that we now live in a connected society to drive down the other 98 per cent of CO2 emissions.

So Green ICT is a much wider concept than just the energy efficiency of our equipment?

We in the West live in a problem-driven world. When we say we want to “green” something, then we see it as a problem to solve. But actually we should talk about services to provide. This is about new chances. We live in a new industrial revolution. We had one around steel and fossil fuels. Now we live in a connected society which is based on knowledge and how we interpret things. We actually do not know what we are shaping and what will eventually come out of this revolution. That is exciting.

Where does this new industrial revolution now stand?

We stand at a turning point. For the last twenty years we have built up the infrastructure, the basic capacity to make the old society smarter. Now we are looking at what we have in front of us. Look at the way we distribute information. Everybody can create a pdf today and everybody else can read it. From a user’s perspective it looks similar to how he has read documents before. But if you look behind it, it is totally different. Who makes money out of it and what is the incentive of people to participate? This has totally changed. An ebook today is a database where you can see what other people are reading. In the old industry a few people controlled what was distributed. Now everybody can do it – even if the old guys would like to keep it the old way.

Where does the money for change come from?

On the one hand you have the new phenomenon of open source like Linux or Wikipedia. If you get the framework right, a number of people, each doing quite a little, can create something enormous. So part of the answer is that people bring passion back to action. They can spend some of their money earned in the old economy and some of their spare time and their passion on the new economy. This is nothing new: somebody invests money to create something new. On the other hand ICT can help us measuring what we really want and communicate new opportunities. Until now we are measuring what people spend in the old centralised economy. Like that we only looked at the monetised part of the system. By creating new things that the old economy did not identify as valuable people can now fund such things using crowd financing, where very many pay very small amounts to make sure that new things can be developed. Just look at Kiva (platform for microfinance, stk) and Kickstarter (platform for financing creative projects, stk) as example of the opportunity a connected economy provided. I have one project my-self in Sweden for ‘what should be heard now’ to allow groups that are new and not given a voice to develop new ideas and projects. Thirdly some of the principles we are using in the current system are no longer valid. In the industrial economy I needed the resources for myself and the more that have the same the worse the situation becomes, cars is a good example. A connected world does not necessarily need more resources and the value increase when more people use it, video conference equipment is usual example.

Why? Is the connected society green by nature?

To some extent, yes. We can use the same equipment for different things. We can use computers as a publishing tool, to call other people or to do our online banking. ICT is a catalyst. It can help create this new, smart society. But ICT is mainly a catalyst that accelerate things, and it can help speed up the old and resource-intensive society, too. Today we see both trends. Look at travelling. On the one hand you have video conferencing and teleworking, so that people travel less. On the other hand you have new functions which make travelling more efficient, so that people travel even more around using GPS and web booking of flights.

Who are the drivers of change?

There are no specific stakeholders. Any new economy is about networks. If you really want to create something new, you need knowledge from different sectors. Change-makers are part of new clusters. But the old system keeps people in the old world. This starts with politics: there are ministries of transport, for instance, not ministries of mobility. This means that highways are not planned together with broadband connection. We need to move from organising ourselves around old ways of providing service to a situation where we focus on what we actually need. Which country will be the first that have a ministry of mobility (both physical and virtual)?.

Does it take a revolution to change that?

New clusters do not develop gradually. You see developing different parts of a possible cluster, and then all of a sudden they come together. From outside it might look like a revolution. But from inside it came more naturally.

Where are the epicentres of this change?

If you take the technological side, it is San Francisco and other old innovation hubs like Tokyo. But if you look at actual business models, then they tend to be developed in emerging countries.

Why?

They have less of a vested interest in the old economy. So it is easier for them to see things in a different way. They are open to new things. Secondly, governments in emerging countries need to think more about resource efficiency – not so much out of ecological reasons, but because of national security. China is the only country I’m aware of which includes the cost of military protection into the oil costs when they plan for long-term investment. That might be the reason why they lead much of the development and implementation of renewable energy. We in the West tend to forget that for every barrel of oil there is the need to militarily protect the infrastructure. So renewables and decentralised solutions are already cheaper, we have just not created enough transparency.

Is there enough freedom in a country like China to allow the free flow of innovation?

In terms of the old economy: no. But with microblogging and internet playing such a vital role, it is hard for the old structure to control the flow of information. Moreover, in China the internal flow of information for innovation is almost encouraged. People have the mindset of change. Here in the West many people are almost afraid of change. This is the biggest stumbling block to embracing innovation, especially in Europe. We cling to the old things.

Is Europe a lost case?

Absolutely not. Europe has an absolutely impressive history of freedom of speech and innovation. People in the US, India and China have difficulties thinking outside their national box. In Europe people think in levels: their city, their region, their country, Europe, then the world. Europeans, given the right circumstances, have a good chance to play a role in this global change. But they are hindered by the huge, vested interest. Europe has difficulties to embrace new business models.

How can new business models be built?

The biggest shift is from product to service. People who today provide fridges should start providing fresh food because this is what people really need in their kitchen. A next step could be that the companies producing fridges should rent them out instead of selling them. This would allow them to see when it is most cost-efficient to change them and introduce new technology. Today we have a suboptimal economy because people buy products, but not necessarily the services they need. Next these companies could provide other solutions to provide food an help distribute locally produced fresh food as part of their business model. Amazon.com is a concrete example of where service had led to innovation. First they realised that they could provide better reading opportunity by provider more options if they sold books on the internet, and then they realised that they actually sold the joy of reading, which is not necessarily linked to the printed copy. So they introduced the e-reader. The technology was already there. Sony had already for a decade. But Amazon developed a business model around that.

You were talking about a new industrial revolution. Has the change just begun?

We are actually in the middle of this revolution even if many people in Europe are talking as if it is in front of us. Such a perspective results in investment that is destroying the planet and push Europe into a situation where there will be war and conflicts around natural resource. The change is happening all around us we just need to open our eyes. We are lucky to live in one of what might be the biggest transformation on human history with the number of converging trends. There is almost nothing we cannot do, but with such powerful tools comes a great responsibility and it is time to wake up in order for us to be able enjoy the opportunities.

Article in China Daily 120420 about the launch of China's Global Media Image

Media study throws light on dark images of China

Western media routinely portray China as hostile to dialogue even though the country has been on a path of opening up for more than 30 years, a study has found.

The conclusion, from the Research Center of Journalism and Social Development of Renmin University of China and 21st Century Frontiers, based in Sweden, are presented in a report on China's global image in Western media.

"The findings conflict with the reality," says Dennis Pamlin, founder of 21st Century Frontiers, as the report was unveiled in Brussels on April 18. "And it indicates that both China and the rest of the world have homework to do to improve dialogue."

The two organizations began the project at the beginning of this year and focused on analyzing the covers of 100 news magazines that featured China over the past 15 years.

The magazines included The Economist of Britain, Time and Newsweek of the US and Der Spiegel of Germany. Twenty Chinese researchers analyzed what messages the magazines' editors had delivered by using the covers, many of which use the Chinese flag, a dragon and portraits of the late leader Mao Zedong.

"We used the key word dialogue to describe the message in the magazine covers," says Zheng Baowei, director of the Renmin University of China journalism research center.

Five categories - hostile, not open to dialogue, neutral, open to dialogue and very open to dialogue - were set to assess the messages from the 100 covers.

"The findings really surprised me," Zheng says.

Of the 100 covers, the researchers say, 60 portray China in a negative light, either as hostile (44 covers) or not open to dialogue (16). Nineteen portray China as neutral and 16 as open to dialogue. Only five covers portray China as very open to dialogue.

The analysis also found that China is marginally more frequently presented in a non-human way (55 covers), the three most common symbols used to denote China being the national flag, a dragon and Mao.

They also found that editors wanting to portray China as friendly used a human face, 21 times out of 22. But when hostility was being depicted, a non-human image such as a dragon, flag or tank was used in 45 out of 61 cases.

Pamlin said it is necessary to differentiate between the Western dragon and the Chinese one, long. "This is the year of the dragon, and there is a unique opportunity to explore the possibility to help more people distinguish between the Western, fire breathing and destructive dragon and the Chinese long.

"The Chinese dragon ... brings luck, and as we need dialogue maybe if we are lucky the long could become a symbol for collaboration around important issues."

Professor Zheng expressed concern about the way newsrooms in the West depicted China, particularly as people everywhere were eager to be given a true picture of the country. "Most of these covers can only deepen the misunderstanding between China and the rest of the world." Pamlin and Zheng, the research leaders, say that in publishing the findings they aimed to inspire more dialogue everywhere. They particularly want to encourage editors to become aware of what message they will deliver when they make decisions related to content.

"They need to be aware of their social responsibility, and of the implications of making wrong and unfair decisions," Zheng says. The research team says a program could be set up in which journalism and media students from China and other countries do a work exchange to promote communication between those in the media.

International meetings for journalists could also spend more time discussing how emerging countries such as China are portrayed and how dialogue can be encouraged, they say.

Advocating positive dialogue is the key, they say. "There is a tendency to focus more on problems and conflict than opportunities and dialogue in many cases."

To encourage the publication of items, including illustrations, that portray dialogue and collaboration, a global competition could be initiated by those in the media, they say. Of particular interest would be to show that dialogue is possible even when - indeed particularly when - there is significant disagreement.

Alex Kirby, a retired BBC journalist, said at the report launch that the findings are interesting and that there should be solutions to improve understanding.

Chinese journalists and editors could be invited to work in the newsrooms of Western media, as China Daily, which employs foreign reporters, editors and designers, has done, he said, and journalist associations in China and elsewhere should set up projects to increase understanding.

Cao Qing, a professor from Liverpool John Moores University, says that in follow-up research more attention should be paid to differentiating the audience/readership of the chosen media.

"Audience could be a new variable to the research, which would help better define the interactions between the given image and different social groups."

Measuring the impact of an image on an audience is important, he says, but difficult. Perceptions are bound to be influenced by things such as advertising, the domestic situation of each country and political influences.

Bernard Dewit, chairman of the Belgium-China Chamber of Commerce, says he feels most of the magazines chosen for the research are elite publications. "(Such publications), in my view, represent only a small percentage of the population."

It is also important to look at local and regional media, he says.

Western perceptions of China waver between easy fascination and total opposition, he says, and messages could be distorted for political reasons.

"It is also important to ... note ... that the audience of media is not a coherent bloc." For example, business people have widely divergent perceptions of China, he says.

Multinationals with a foothold in China view the country very positively, he says, but many small- and medium-sized enterprises pick up what they know of the country through superficial general publications and media and are frightened by it.

Read the original article here.

MI 4: History’s longest commercial & inspiration for the future?

What happens when a movie turns into a string of product placements? Of course we have always had product placements in movies, Wikipedia has a good overview, but I felt MI 4 took it to a new level. Watching MI 4 I did not see product placement, I saw a 135 minutes long commercial. After seeing Tom Cruise trying to sell Apple products in a way that made you think the director was tired of the product placement and made spoofs (if you have not seen the movie, look at Tom using an iPad with a camera to see what is around a corner…) more than anything else I keep my fingers crossed for open source companies that care about sustainable development more than simple infotainment. I like the look of Apple, BMW, Burj Khalifa, but I see a pure cynicism in the way they try to create a brand for themselves.

If you feel fascinated by beautiful things, but care about people and the planet, seeing MI4 might be a cure that can help you look for companies that have a soul you can relate to. While the cynical, fun approach of the movie probably always will appeal to quite a large number of teenagers, adults (who control most of the purchasing/procurement) might soon outgrow these long commercials as guide for their consumption patterns.

Just an idea: Maybe the list of companies in the movie mirror those who care more about simple PR more than contributing to sustainable development? Looking at the list from Brandchannel it is almost a top list of companies that focus on PR but with a business model that is very far for sustainable. Comparing this list with free waging could be interesting.

Featured brands: Apple, BBC, BMW, Bulgari, Burj Khalifa, Canon, Casio, Coca-Cola, Dell, Dos Equis, Ferrari, LG, Oakley, Panasonic, Persol, Prada, Rimowa, Zippo

If there is one thing in this long commercial it is that it brings up the issue of the nuclear threat, maybe some will even think about the issue and find their way into the peace movement, or at least see Fog of War a really good movie with a kind of action that MI4 can only dream of.

To see Michael Nyquist in the movie is interfering, I hope he can use some of the money he made to support other things of more lasting value.

When you look at MI4 it might be hard to imagine the incredible performance by Michael back in 2007 Primo Levi, “If this is a man”. He was just standing still all alone on an empty stage reading the text. One of the strongest performances on stage I have seen. In the movie it looks like he can't act. I wonder if it is to make it look like as if Tom Cruise can act, or if he is just very uncomfortable in that kind of setting?

But let’s end on a positive note. If they can manage to make commercials that are this entertaining, maybe they can agree to reduce/remove commercials ads from cities and on the web? Then we can create havens where the focus is in quality and personal development. Where we can create beautiful things and address the major challenges of today while still allow the companies and (young) people that go through that phase of life to still enjoy escapism in beautiful format. Too many of the discussions is about all or nothing when it comes to commercials. Making them visible and keeping areas safe from them will probably/hopefully be an important area the next 30 years.