Click here to toggle the BBC's profiles and data on the Middle Eastern countries currently experiencing unrest.
Based on the below 'Shoe Thrower's Index' Yemen takes the cake at 87% (100% = most unstable).
Source: The Economist
Wednesday, February 16
Michael Lewis on his FCIC 'dissent from the dissent from the dissent'
From Michael:
A surprising number of my fellow citizens appear to be unaware of my service these past 18 months as a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
Thus it may come as news that I have declined to sign the report issued by the majority, or the dissent by the three- member minority, or even the dissent from their dissent, written by the now-immortal Peter J. Wallison. I hereby dissent from the dissent from the dissent. My dissent is different from all those other dissents, which is why I am dissenting.Read Michael's full Bloomberg pieced titled 'All You Need to Know About Why Things Fell Apart' here.
The $625 Cookbook
 |
| 47 pounds of recipes & tips |
At a biblical 2,400 pages and for its whopping price it better be!
The WSJ dubs former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold's guide de gourmand a "game-changing cookbook" and claims it "upends everything you thought you knew about cooking".
And if you've ever wondered what it's like to eat a 30-course meal check out the feast at Chez Nathan's here (which includes pics of dishes).
P.S. Psst..the book only costs $467.62 on Amazon.com.
Podcast: Interview with Michael Lewis, 'Financial Disaster Tourist'
Link to NPR Planet Money podcast featuring Michael Lewis here.
A description of the interview and a few excerpts:
A description of the interview and a few excerpts:
"At bottom, I'm not all that interested in money," Michael Lewis tells us on today's Planet Money.
"It's peculiar that I've written financial books and worked on Wall Street. ... I'm interested in something else, and I guess that other thing is character and action and the general drift of societies. Money, because people care so much about it ... is this great prism through which to view people."
On the show, we talk about the long arc of Lewis's work.
In the '80s, he wrote a book about the people who created mortgage-backed securities. Last year, he described people who bet against mortgage backed securities and got rich when they collapsed in the financial crisis.
In his next book, he'll profile some of the places that got hit particularly hard in the crisis.
"We're having this global financial crisis. The cause in the various countries is all basically the same thing: it's incontinent credit. It's money washing in at terms that shouldn't be offered, to people who should never be lent money in the first place. ... But in each place, the symptoms are completely different if you look closely."
"So I thought, here we have an opportunity to create a genre: financial disaster travel journalism. We are going to learn about the places through the prism of their financial affairs. They're all subjected to a temptation: a pile of money in a dark room. Do what you want with it. ... They want to do different things in different places. Those are social portraits. They're masquerading as financial pieces."
Monday, February 14
Video: Niall Ferguson on The Political Economy of the Cold War
18 October 2010 (Part 1 in the lecture series)
At its heart the Cold War was a competition between two economic systems. Despite having in common a "military-industrial complex", they were profoundly different in the degree of freedom they offered their citizens, the living standards they were able to achieve and the pace of technological innovation they could sustain. In this first lecture, Niall Ferguson compares and contrasts the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War and asks how far the outcome of the Cold War was economically determined from the outset. In particular, what role did commercial and financial globalization play in enhancing U.S. power in the world? And how serious a threat did inflation pose to the United States in the 1970s?
At its heart the Cold War was a competition between two economic systems. Despite having in common a "military-industrial complex", they were profoundly different in the degree of freedom they offered their citizens, the living standards they were able to achieve and the pace of technological innovation they could sustain. In this first lecture, Niall Ferguson compares and contrasts the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War and asks how far the outcome of the Cold War was economically determined from the outset. In particular, what role did commercial and financial globalization play in enhancing U.S. power in the world? And how serious a threat did inflation pose to the United States in the 1970s?
Video: Niall Ferguson on The Third World's War
24 November 2010 (Part 2 in the lecture series)
Although never a "hot" war between the superpowers, the Cold War was waged partly through a series of proxy wars in Third World countries from Guatemala to Korea to Vietnam. Although a great deal of attention has been devoted to a select number of U.S. Interventions in the Third World, there is an urgent need to see the "Third World's War" in perspective, showing how successful the Soviet Union was in pursuing a strategy of fomenting revolution and how consistently successive U.S. administrations behaved in response.
Although never a "hot" war between the superpowers, the Cold War was waged partly through a series of proxy wars in Third World countries from Guatemala to Korea to Vietnam. Although a great deal of attention has been devoted to a select number of U.S. Interventions in the Third World, there is an urgent need to see the "Third World's War" in perspective, showing how successful the Soviet Union was in pursuing a strategy of fomenting revolution and how consistently successive U.S. administrations behaved in response.
Sunday, February 13
Video: Niall Ferguson on The Grand Strategy of Détente
18 January 2011 (Part 3 in the lecture series)
'Nixon goes to China' shattered the façade of Communist unity and dug the United States out of the hole it found itself in at the end of the 1960s. Critics have seen Nixon and Kissinger's policy as morally compromised, but was it actually the key to America's victory in the Cold War?
Video: Atlas Shrugged Movie Trailer Disappoints
My first reaction: it has the look and feel of a Left Behind type film in terms of production quality (not good). And please don't ask how I know what a Left Behind movie looks like.
Second reaction: setting it in the modern world is a questionable call. It's easy to criticize Atlas Shrugged today, but it's important to remember the context and historical period in which it was written. Aesthetically, there's not enough art deco in this trailer, and it should be in black and white, preferably filmed in a Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow grain.
Also for such a long-winded story to have any chance of holding the attention of a general audience it probably needs A-Listers. While I'm not a huge fan of Angelina Jolie, perhaps she could pull off Dagny; maybe Antonio Banderas could play Francisco, etc.
Atlas Shrugged and its characters in particular captured my imagination when I was younger, but as I blogged previously Rand's ideas are (for starters) inconsistent.
Last word on the film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged goes to Tiger Beatdown:
I myself am greatly looking forward to the movie. Because the whole point of it – superior people make superior products and earn superior money because they're superior! – is going to be really complemented by the spectacle of this broke-assed movie made with former WB stars for like five cents.
Saturday, February 12
2045: The Year Science Makes Humans Immortal?
 |
| Ray Kurzweil |
A good read published in Time yesterday on this topic, and radical life-extension, featuring inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, Cambridge Professor Aubrey de Grey, investor Peter Thiel, and others at the forefront of this (for lack of a better term) movement.
From the article:
The more you read about the Singularity, the more you start to see it peeking out at you, coyly, from unexpected directions. Five years ago we didn't have 600 million humans carrying out their social lives over a single electronic network. Now we have Facebook. Five years ago you didn't see people double-checking what they were saying and where they were going, even as they were saying it and going there, using handheld network-enabled digital prosthetics. Now we have iPhones. Is it an unimaginable step to take the iPhones out of our hands and put them into our skulls?
Already 30,000 patients with Parkinson's disease have neural implants. Google is experimenting with computers that can drive cars. There are more than 2,000 robots fighting in Afghanistan alongside the human troops. This month a game show will once again figure in the history of artificial intelligence, but this time the computer will be the guest: an IBM super-computer nicknamed Watson will compete on Jeopardy! Watson runs on 90 servers and takes up an entire room, and in a practice match in January it finished ahead of two former champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. It got every question it answered right, but much more important, it didn't need help understanding the questions (or, strictly speaking, the answers), which were phrased in plain English.
The idea of the Singularity first hit me like a lightning bolt a little over a decade ago when I read Sun Microsystem co-founder Bill Joy's alarming Wired article titled Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. I've been fascinated and trying to wrap my mind around the many potential implications of exponential technological development and living indefinitely ever since.
The Antithesis of Idle Chitchat
If you're looking for a way to spice up your next dinner party or bar conversation then I encourage you to trot out the idea of science making immortality a reality within your lifetime.
As noted by Kurzweil, people can more easily accept the idea of superhuman HAL-like computer artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future than banishing death. Based on limited anecdotal observations women in particular seem to have an almost viscerally negative, knee-jerk response when first confronted with the notion that the necessary technological advances could arrive in their lifetime.
In fact I have yet to encounter a single woman that responds positively at first blush to the idea of living forever. Perhaps the only thing this reveals is a homogeneity amongst my circle of female friends and acquaintances. But it has led me to wonder whether there is something fundamental to radical life extension which makes it more appealing to men?
Personally, I don't think so. Rather I think this is a case of a big, hard to fathom idea traumatically upending the perceived natural order of life's apple cart. Once you get passed initial concerns over things like quality of life (living long but as a gimp or vegetable) or what this means for romance (and concepts like soul mates) then some women soften up their initial distaste for life extension.
I for one love the idea of extending life indefinitely! There is so much I would love to learn, see, and do; to one day catch a sunrise on planet Mars and then climb Olympus Mons, a mountain almost three times as tall as Everest!
So far as I can imagine there is simply nothing else which would more profoundly alter life as we know it than the Singularity and radical life extension. However, their prospect raises tectonic moral, philosophical, socioeconomic, and security implications. Joy's concerns, which are shared by Kurzweil, must be addressed.
The Antithesis of Idle Chitchat
If you're looking for a way to spice up your next dinner party or bar conversation then I encourage you to trot out the idea of science making immortality a reality within your lifetime.
As noted by Kurzweil, people can more easily accept the idea of superhuman HAL-like computer artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future than banishing death. Based on limited anecdotal observations women in particular seem to have an almost viscerally negative, knee-jerk response when first confronted with the notion that the necessary technological advances could arrive in their lifetime.
In fact I have yet to encounter a single woman that responds positively at first blush to the idea of living forever. Perhaps the only thing this reveals is a homogeneity amongst my circle of female friends and acquaintances. But it has led me to wonder whether there is something fundamental to radical life extension which makes it more appealing to men?
Personally, I don't think so. Rather I think this is a case of a big, hard to fathom idea traumatically upending the perceived natural order of life's apple cart. Once you get passed initial concerns over things like quality of life (living long but as a gimp or vegetable) or what this means for romance (and concepts like soul mates) then some women soften up their initial distaste for life extension.
I for one love the idea of extending life indefinitely! There is so much I would love to learn, see, and do; to one day catch a sunrise on planet Mars and then climb Olympus Mons, a mountain almost three times as tall as Everest!
So far as I can imagine there is simply nothing else which would more profoundly alter life as we know it than the Singularity and radical life extension. However, their prospect raises tectonic moral, philosophical, socioeconomic, and security implications. Joy's concerns, which are shared by Kurzweil, must be addressed.
Below is a video of a 17-year old Kurzweil during his 1965 television appearance on I've Got a Secret, and here is a link to his most recent television interview on Charlie Rose where he describes the Singularity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)