A real quick post since I haven’t made an entry in some time (due in part to ongoing Android development[read: cursing at Java books and Sun Microsystems]), but I thought this was an interesting article at Science Daily.  The article delves into the recent Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) report that outlines the health of the U.S.’s science and engineering system via a number of markers such as total R&D costs and patent fillings.  The gist is that Asian countries, particularly South Korea, are starting to make a significant splashes in the global science and technology pool, and in a round-a-bout way at the expense of U.S. developers.  The article noted that “[a]nnual growth of R&D expenditures in the U.S. averaged 5 to 6 percent while in Asia, it has skyrocketed. In some Asian countries, R&D growth rate is two, three, even four, times that of the U.S.”  It goes on to say that foreign inventors seeking patent protection in America is on the rise from nations such as Taiwan and South Korea, though (somewhat) surprisingly is still relatively low in major countries like India and China.

At first blush, that sounds like the U.S. is losing ground, which would keep in line with the pessimistic outlook of this country’s future that has been circulating for some time.  As the U.S. becomes more of a “knowledge economy” driven by intellectual property and technological innovation, maintaining itself as a leader in engineering and science is essential.  True, the U.S. has not completely abandoned its manufacturing roots, and high-tech areas such as alternative fuel and defense development are likely to remain “in-house”, so to speak, for some time.  At the same time, though, if the U.S. expects to maintain its position as a leading global power, it must continue to be a leader in innovation and technological growth internationally, especially as Asian countries continue their impressive growth.

My issue with the article, and I guess the growing mindset that America is losing ground to other Eastern countries, is that most of these reports seemingly disregard the immense differences in the economies and growth patterns of the various countries.  While the U.S. is a mature nation with an established research base, nations like Taiwan, Korea, and even China are relative newcomers to the global technological stage, and all realize that to become a player they need to increase their production significantly.  That means more and more money being dedicated to research and development in order to spur on growth, but always with the caveat that most of the countries are still lagging significantly behind other developed countries in terms of innovation.  Without delving too deeply into the report (which can be found here for anyone who has a masochistic desire to skim 730+ pages of small text), the numbers show that while growth in foreign countries outstrips America’s, the total output by the U.S. still dwarfs the efforts from these rising nations.  So while it is still impressive to see 3x growth per year in some countries, the massive grain of salt is that they are based on much smaller starting bases.  And while the size of the countries should obviously be taken into account when analyzing the raw numbers, the fact remains that the U.S. should remain an innovation leader for years to come.

Of course, this position relies on a continued stream of high-quality engineers and scientists being produced by American schools and employers, which this report showed was eroding somewhat.  Less Americans are graduating college with degrees in engineering and the sciences than in years past, and even where there is growth it is somewhat minimal or due to classifications of “science” degrees that may not translate to real R&D growth.  And yes, the rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over America’s struggles to promote science to a younger generation cannot be ignored.  But as others have noted, looking at raw numbers like graduation rates and total degrees being issued can be immensely misleading, since how ones defines a science background is obviously open for interpretation.  Also, quality of education at many of these schools is dubious at best, resulting in individuals graduating in a couple of years with degrees that are engineering degrees in name only.  So while the focus on science in America certainly needs to be reinforced (a position taken by President Obama both during his campaign and since entering office), the notion that America is about to be lapped in the server farms and laboratories by other nations is a bit premature.

22 Comments »

Sorry for not updating recently – it has been hectic with the holidays, grad school applications, and surviving hoards of New York shoppers.

Currently my chief project is becoming reacquainted with my old nemesis Java and its many idiosyncrasies.  As I told a colleague yesterday who was considering trying to learn Java, it may be the worst non-binary language for a first-time programmer to learn.  It is certainly quite powerful and feature-rich, but the level of minutiae and class hierarchies can be daunting for even seasoned programmers.  While I have yet to find a great Java book (probably because the aforementioned eccentricities are difficult to convey in coherent prose), Sun does have a nice online reference system – which seemingly hasn’t changed since the last time I used it in 2002 – and I have found a couple of nice example sites via stumbleupon.

(*Quick tangent – stumbleupon is probably the most addicting add-on I have ever used while browsing the web, and ranks up there as one of the best sneaky-useful programs around.  I have “stumbled” upon useful websites for web development, cooking, running, and even dog training.  Just an amazing tool).

Now, the reason I am trying to relearn Java is because I am focusing on creating applications for the Android OS.  That is a major reason why I rushed out to purchase a Motorola Droid (well, that and the fact I accidentally washed and dried my old phone) – I wanted to begin developing for the platform.  When I was then asked to port Dan Bricklin’s Note Taker for the the iPhone to Android, I knew I had to buckle down and start studying.

First impressions of Android development

My first impressions of developing for the Android OS is that the uncertainty about the hardware capabilities of the device running your app can prove bothersome at least initially.  Whereas with an iPhone or iPod Touch you have a relatively standard device (with obvious exceptions for different processors and the like), with Android the devices vary quite significantly.  The Droid, for example, runs Android 2.0 and features a tangible keyboard along with a touch screen and one of the fastest processors on the market, while the Droid Eris runs Android 1.6, is touch screen-only, and has a much slower processor.  This argument, of course, mirrors the one that has waged between PC and Mac users for years – the PC market provides the potential for more powerful and full-featured systems, but Macs are a consistent and known platform with solid performance for most common usages.

Now, I have two options:  (1) limit my development to devices running Android 2.0 (which presumably should have better hardware), or (2) try to make the program backward-compatible with 1.6, which should remain viable in the market for at least a couple more years.  Pick option 1 and I limit my available audience but cut down on time-consuming “optimization” for the slower devices, or pick option 2 and have a more popular program but one that would show significant performance differences across platforms.  Right now, I am leaning toward option 1 because more powerful devices are winding their way through the pipeline, and legacy support/backward compatibility in the handheld world seems less important than in other tech fields.  At the same time, though, I will still try to make the program as usable on 1.6 devices as possible, even if it might require some tweaks in functionality.

I will post updates on my progress, and I welcome any suggestions or insights about this endeavor.

No Comments »

As quick post about running, the Detroit Marathon, and the New York Marathon.

I have been a distance runner since high school, competing in everything from the Firecracker Mile to the Boston Marathon, and am one of those strange people who actually finds it enjoyable.  I don’t run for some greater purpose other than I enjoy running long distances and it allows me to enjoy the outdoors relatively unencumbered by others.  Sure, it helps to keep the weight off and led to me meeting my wife at the University of Michigan’s Running Club, but I honestly look forward to running because it feels natural and, not to sound like a dork, gives me an opportunity to listen to podcasts from ESPN, Adam Carolla, and NPR.  Plus, it allows me to explore places and cities that would either be difficult or not nearly enjoyable by some other means (for example, traveling along the Hudson River in Manhattan to Central Park would be a rather boring and painful drive).

Though I had previously sworn off marathons since law school (it was hard to put in the necessary training, I’m getting a little older, other commitments, etc.), I decided to give the Detroit Marathon a try.  I figured it would be nice to compete in the local race, and my wife raved about running it back in college.  It also gave me an opportunity to explore Detroit a bit, to see some of its sights and landmarks that I never gave much thought to before.

Well, I am happy to say that it was a great choice of a race, save for the weather.  Starting temperature was a clip below 30 degrees, and only barely warmed up by the end.  Of course, that is to be expected given the fact the race started at 7 a.m., but it was still a shock given how mild temperatures had been for most of the month leading up to the race.  That said, it was a nice run, one that featured racers crossing over the Ambassador Bridge to Canada and then back underwater for a mile via the Windsor Tunnel.  I was able to run through pockets of renewal in the city such as Greektown, Corktown, and Indian Village, as well as run around Belle Isle Park, an island park designed by Frederick Olmsted, who also designed Central Park in New York City.  It was also nice to finish along the Riverwalk, a new addition to the city and one that portends more revitalization along the river.

Unfortunately, the race was marred by the deaths of three runners competing in the half-marathon.  The men ranged in age from 26 to 65, and all died within 16 minutes of each other toward the end of the race.  While deaths at marathons are not completely uncommon (remember, the original marathon runner Pheidippides supposedly collapsed and died at the end of his run) they also are rarely predictable and are usually tied to poor training, latent physical issues such as heart problems (as was the case with Ryan Shay), or environmental variables such as extreme heat or dehydration/hyponatremia.  But temperatures throughout the race were pretty mild; if anything, it was a little colder than I expected given the time of year.  It also sounds like all the men were in good physical shape and certainly prepared for the rigors of the half-marathon, so poor health/training seems unlikely.  That only leads latent physical maladies, which may ultimately prove to be the root cause though it will still take weeks for autopsy results to confirm this.  Irrespective of the cause, though, my heart goes out to the families of these runners, and you hope they are given closure soon.

As for how this will affect marathons (and more importantly, participation) going forward, I doubt there will be even a slight reduction simply because of the rarity of such deaths occurring.  The chances of a death at a marathon varies between 1-in-50,000 to 1-in-75,000, and with more volunteers and medical staff available, my guess is that this ratio will continue to improve.  Furthermore, marathons remain a great incentive for those in an increasingly-sedentary society to push themselves to remain healthy and fit, or at least accomplish a task that remains so daunting and insurmountable.

My one concern, though, is that people are starting to view the marathon more as a life accomplishment or an outlet for charity and less for what it really is – a grueling, physically demanding race that requires months of proper physical and emotional training.  I’ve noticed this trend in some of the high-profile races I have competed in, such as the Chicago Marathon and the New York Half-Marathon.  There seems to be a significant number of runners who are competing in these races because they feel out of shape, or want to support some worth charity, and figure they can train around their busy lives and show and at least finish, even if it takes 5+ hours.  While I am not one to question anyone’s motives to compete in a race, I do question the logic behind tackling such an event when there are 5Ks and 10Ks with similar charitable connections and less daunting distances.

The New York Times recently had an article highlighting this phenomenon of the “plodders”, noting that over 20% of participants in the New York Marathon finish over 5 hours.  The crux of the article is that whereas marathons used to be viewed as events only for elite or near-elite runners, it has become a more appealing event for runners of all ages and abilities, resulting in more entrants but slower overall times.  This has angered a subset of the marathon culture, who charge that is a “joke to run a marathon by walking every other mile or by finishing in six, seven, eight hours,” and wonder if the aura of completing the race has been tarnished by racers finishing 2-3 hours behind even moderately-paced runners.  These slower runners counter that their level of running does not affect the results of others, and that finishing the race is just as important to the individual irrespective of his or her time.  They also argue that most marathons rely on the entrance fees of the slower runners to keep pace with rising costs associated with running such an event, and that as paying entrants they should be able to finish the race given a reasonable amount of time.

On the surface, it seems that the “plodders” have it right – unless they are impeding the progress of the faster runners, it should be irrelevant how long it takes them to finish the race.  Runner A taking 4 hours to finish does not “cheapen” Runner B’s 2:55 finish, just like a 3:10 time does not lessen the thrill of accomplishment and victory that comes from winning a race in 2:10.  Personally, I have less of an issue with slow runners who train properly as slow runners who are not prepared to the demands of the race.  If you train properly for the race and that equates to a 5-hour marathon, then so be it and I wish you the best.  It doesn’t affect my run, and anything that drives people to push their boundaries safely and strive for such an accomplishment should be promoted.

I do take issue, though, with those who compete in marathons without adequate training beforehand.  These people are placing their health at risk, and both in the short term as well as the long term.  After completing Detroit this year, I could barely get up and down the stairs at my parents’ house, and for the rest of the week felt a burning sensation in my ankles and thighs when I did even innocuous movements such as rise from the couch or walk down a hill.  It was painful, and I had been training for months, had proper running equipment, and have competed in races like this before.  My guess is that less-prepared individuals experienced at least as much pain as I did following their marathons, and probably competed in less-than-optimal equipment.  Furthermore, I have established a workable running form that has (so far) protected me from any major injuries, and it is a form that took years to forge over thousands of miles.  Even if you run on a treadmill for 4-5 miles every few days, you likely have not developed a form that can withstand the pounding your body will take while competing in a marathon, and that improper form can lead to back, leg, and tendon injuries that can be debilitating.  And while the counter-argument is that these runners will be running at a slower, more manageable pace, it doesn’t take into account the fact that they will still be on their feet and moving for the bulk of 5-6 hours while exposed to the elements.  The distance remains the same for everyone, and 26.2 miles is tough irrespective of whether it takes you 3 hours or 6 hours to finish it.  Finally, every marathon runner has a (slightly) heightened risk of heart damage/injury while competing, and novices run an even higher risk of potential injury if they already suffer from decreased fitness or medical condition.

Ultimately, though, I would encourage anyone interested in running a marathon to consider the physical and emotional tolls it entails and, if they feel up to the challenge, to compete in one at least once in his or her life.  There may be no greater feeling of accomplishment than crossing the finish line and realizing what you have accomplished and how that sense of accomplishment will always be yours.  I only caution that if you do not believe you can put in the time and effort necessary to properly prepare, perhaps focus on some other event and slowly build your way up to a marathon.  As the saying goes, “life is not a sprint; it’s a marathon.”

No Comments »

Today the Internet lost a vanguard in the form of Geocities, at one point a dominant player in web-hosting and one of the first sites to offer the service to individuals on a massive scale and for free.  Utilizing a unique “neighborhood” design, users would be assigned to a particular sub-section depending on the focus of their site (such as “Petsburgh” for sites focusing on pets, or “HotSprings” for health and fitness).  It was a pioneer in bringing the power of personal expression and discourse ubiquitous to the Internet the masses, in large part because it made the creation process so simple.

Though it is often forgotten today with services such as Wordpress, Blogger, MySpace, and other sites providing simple webpage templates, but  in Geocities’s infancy back in the mid-90s you needed to know at least a workable amount of HTML to create a page and maintain it.  Geocities was one of the first sites that offered a simple site generator that required minimal knowledge of HTML, and made it simple to add such “cool” features as a visitor counter, guestbook (a forbearer to comments sections today), and various HTML/text effects.  Sure, that sometimes resulted in some pretty awful looking pages, but it still helped to break down a massive wall blocking individuals from venturing onto the information superhighway (the go-to buzzword at the time).  Today this level of streamlining is expected, but back then it was a godsend for those wanting to dip their toes into the digital stream without first having to don waders.  In fact, it is fair to say that sites like MySpace, Friendster, and much of social media owe at least part of their existence to the pre-fabricated little ‘burbs that sprung out from Geocities.

As one analyst put it, “[i]t was was the first proof that you could have something really popular and still not make any money on the internet.“  Of course, this inability to generate sustainable revenue was a major reason why the service was discontinued by Yahoo!, which had been underperforming in recent quarters and needed to streamline its business somewhat.  Coupled with a shift in how people express themselves on the Internet – “ shifting away from isolated Web pages [and instead using] social-networking sites such as Facebook, with built-in features for creating a profile, staying in touch with contacts, and maintaining at least a little privacy,” it seemed that Geocities’s days were numbered.

Of course, with any passing, there are tributes to past glory as well as those who look to cull some message or greater meaning from its end.  In my opinion, Geocities ultimate demise was due to the same factor most sites wrestle with – they could not sufficiently monetize the immense traffic they received effectively.  Sure, Geocities adopted the tried-and-true banner ads, and I’m sure that generated revenue to a point.  But successful advertising on the web is elusive, and I have my doubts that it will ever be a viable option for sustaining a large hosting service like Geocities, Blogspot,  or Facebook.  Of course, people will point to Google as an example of a company profiting from ads, but Google is an extremely unique case – they are a leader in so many facets of the Internet (searching, email, blog hosting, etc.) and are so diverse in their holdings that they almost “had” to make money.  Their dominant position, though, is unique to them alone, and by its nature could never be duplicated by other companies.

It will be interesting to see if the next generation of user-generated service companies such as Facebook and Youtube find a way become profitable based on their users; my guess is that Geocities’s failings had less to do with its own inability to evolve or poor management as it did with the realities of the Internet, where paying for services sometimes seems sacrilegious.

But as for Geocities, I’ll miss it.  Back in high school, I actually used them to host an early web page shortly after I learned how to “code” in HTML.  I have no idea what happened to that site, but it was certainly fun to lay claim to a small plot of cyberspace for my very own.  Plus, as someone with precious little artistic talent, it was somewhat liberating to design a page that looked unique, if not a bit cool.  So R.I.P. Geocities, and hopefully people won’t ever forget how pioneering it was to have an address CollegePark.

2 Comments »