While in Washington, D.C. three weeks ago, an interesting opportunity approached me. General Motors was giving test drives of their HydroGen prototype vehicle, which runs on compressed hydrogen gas. The fuel cell powered auto is a bit smaller than the average sedan, comparable in size to a Prius, but higher off the ground with more headroom and larger windows. There are no mechanical components of the vehicle besides the front and rear axles. There is no drive shaft. There is no shifting assembly. The stearing wheel is not physically connected to the front wheels, lacking tie-rods and a pitman arm. Everything in the vehicle is controlled electronically. There are "forward," "reverse," and "park" buttons located on the center console between the two front bucket seats. The "gas" and "brake" are still in the form of pedals on the floor, however.

The car's pickup can be compared to a typical 4-cylinder campact car. It can easily keep up with city traffic (as I drove it quickly around the National Mall and through Washington's central downtown). The hydrogen car successfully functions like a normal combustion engine car on the highway (although I didn't test highway driving); it can easily reach 100 miles per hour. The HydroGen is a sleak addition to the future of motoring in the United States. Its technology can compete with today's internal combustion vehicles and release absolute zero emissions into the environment. The exhaust pipe releases entirely pure water vapor; the water visibly drips from the pipe. GM is successfully promoting hydrogen technology by continually driving the vehicles in downtown D.C. Tourists and government officials alike point and gawk at the HydroGen, asking enthusiastically, "When will this be on the market?!?" The GM specialist in the passenger seat replies with a smile, "Not for ten years, at least."

Today, the New York Times published an article entitled "Colleges Chase as Cheats Shift to Higher Tech." The article opens by describing three sets of students who recently 'cheated' via high-tech means: a student at the University of California who used class notes on a PDA during an exam, Students at San Jose State University who used their computers for spell check during an exam, and students at the University of Nevada Las Vegas who used cameras on cell phones to trade answers during a test. In the course of the article, a dean at U.N.L.V. states, "If they'd spend as much time studying, they'd all be A students." While these cases may seem somewhat clear cut, it's worth taking a few minutes to reflect on two questions: Why, exactly, do students cheat? and What can we consider cheating?

Professors and parents alike have been scratching their heads for quite a long time at what they consider an entirely mindless desire to cheat. Why, they wonder, do students cheat? If only they realized that they're only hurting themselves, they say. And, to some extent, they're correct. It is clear, however, that students continue to cheat despite these protestations, and, as Steven Levitt aptly noted, people don't act without incentives.

It is an unfortunate truth that, more often than not, there seems to be absolutely no connection whatsoever between what students learn in school and what they'll need to know in order to function in the real world. Pre-med students, for example, must take courses in organic chemistry, a field that, while related to medicine, has almost no use whatsoever for students hoping to become clinicians. Likewise, countless Professors require their students to memorize equations that they could easily look up if needed and that they would memorize through repeated use if the formulas were truly useful. When a student is required to take a class that will have no use in her future job and in which she has very little interest, it is clear that she has very little incentive to study other than a rather misplaced desire to get a good grade.

An even more important, though related, question should also be considered. What exactly is cheating? Implicitly, we must also ask what the purpose of testing is. The Times article cited students using technology to read notes, to check spelling, and to trade answers during exams. It is clear that such activities undermine the idea of modern-day testing. The validity of such tests, however, is quite a bit less clear.

Tests are, or should be, intended to asses the understanding students have about materials they will need to understand in order to function in the future. Quite a few tests, however, do not measure what they should. As noted previously, students are often tested on material they will find wholly useless. Likewise, as technology improves, the need for memorization seems to decrease dramatically. The case of the students who ‘cheated’ by using computers to check spelling is an exempli gratia. Why, one might wonder, is a college professor testing students on spelling? Even in a writing class, students’ spelling seems entirely irrelevant; while a student can spell pneumonia correctly, he may still be a very poor writer indeed. Likewise, the very idea of testing college students on spelling, something upon which they should have been tested in first or second grade, is ridiculous. The cases of using cell phones and PDAs to read notes and trade answers seem similar. If students can obtain such information so readily, it seems illogical to require them to memorize it.

Indeed, modern testing seems quite lacking as a means to prepare today’s students for their future roles as tomorrow’s professionals. Professional educators should focus on training their students to synthesize information, solve problems, and create new ideas rather than requiring them to memorize facts and formulas.

The New York Times published an article today discussing European/U.S. attempts to negotiate with Iran. According to the new offer, Europe and the United States would aid Iran in building a light-water nuclear reactor in exchange for Iran's ending of "activities suspected of being a cover for a weapons program." Ostensibly, such a compromise seems ideal for both sides. But is it?

As American and European politicians scramble to find a solution to the Iran problem, one might easily recall the ways in which the allies tried to appease Nazi Germany just before the onset of the second World War. Indeed, despite America's "shoot first, ask questions later" style of diplomacy, it is clear that American cannot afford– socially, politically, or economically–another war. Likewise, a lethargic Europe seems even more unlikely declare war over the matter.

As China and Russia drag their feet–an inaction which seems primarily motivated by a reluctance to prevent anything that might weaken Western Europe and the United States–causes one to wonder exactly what we should be doing about Iran.

The hypocrisy of nuclear-proliferated countries telling Iran it can't have a nuclear weapons program aside, every political analyst agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran would be incredibly dangerous–for the U.S., Western Europe, and China and Russia. What, then, should we do? Presenting an offer so clearly favorable to Iran when we really have nothing to bargain with is not the answer.

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer is both a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography and an essential read for anyone interested in the politics of nuclear energy and warfare both historically and today. The book, written by Kai Bird and Tufts University’s own Martin J. Sherwin, details Oppenheimer's life from his birth in New York City in 1904 to his death of throat cancer in 1967. The story is beautifully told and provides great insight into Oppenheimer's art, work, and politics. Perhaps more importantly, American Prometheus illuminates the origins of many of the world's current conflicts. What has been called the only "truly comprehensive" biography of the father of the atomic bomb is well worth the read.

The debate for nuclear power in the United States has been an ever-inflamed issue since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 at the plant's Unit 2 reactor. Since then, no new nuclear power generating stations have been built in the U.S. leaving us behind countries like France, who produce close to 90% of their power from nuclear energy. The American public has been pumped with anti-nuclear stigma for thirty years and is extremely reluctant in accepting nuclear technology of any type. The public idea of nuclear power associates a mushroom cloud to the technology. The idea can't be farther from the truth. The only "explosion" (if you even can call it that) that can occur is a steam flash event, or the effect of a steam-pipe leak within the reactor containment dome. The superheated steam rapidly expands once hitting ambient air temperatures within the reactor dome. The dome is specifically designed to contain this swift air expansion. The dome has near five-foot-thick, concrete walls reinforced with steel rods that form a woven steel grid. These steel woven "baskets" build on top of one another within the poured concrete. The result is a containment dome that can withstand never-before-seen tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, nuclear blasts, and specifically, direct impacts of military aircraft or missiles.

The incident at Three Mile Island was, in fact, a success in containing a reactor meltdown. The events at Chernobyl in Ukraine are completely different in that the reactors at the Soviet generating station were not contained in a reinforced dome, but in a conventional, industrial building. The lack of safety measures directly led to this "disaster," where 56 people (mostly firefighters responding to the reactor's fires) died from radiation exposure. Not one human being has ever died from nuclear power generation in the United States of America.

When considering the effects of power generation from coal or oil firing (asthma, respiratory failure, heart disease, mercury and lead poisoning, acid rain, strip mining, middle east relations, global warming, etc.) nuclear power seems like the "million dollar answer," as our Seabrook tour guide exclaimed when speaking about the country's energy issues. One pellet of unreactive Uranium, which is about 3/4 of an inch in length and 1/2 an inch in diameter, contains the same amount of energy potential as a train load of coal. The benefits of nuclear energy are obvious. When will the people of this country, after experiencing thirty years of safe nuclear power generation, wake up to this potential?

The Devil may be shivering in his boots, but at least now he can run Windows on his Macintosh computer.

Thats right, Hell has actually frozen over. This past week, Apple released a beta version of their software “Boot Camp” which will be included into their next version of Mac OS X. It allows Macs with an intel processor to install and run the Windows operating system.

But how could this be good for Apple? After all, they would argue that OS X is superior to Windows. Unfortunately, there are many people out there who can’t buy a Mac because the software they need is only available on Windows. Boot Camp is meant to provide a saftey net for those people who feel they can’t switch over because of that one program they need to run in Windows. The question is, will it help seduce current Windows users over to the Mac?

The response from the community has been extremly positive. Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal says, “Whether you want to run Mac or Windows programs, an Apple computer may be the only computer you’ll need.” And Analyst Shaw Wu of American Technology Research says, “We believe this is a big deal and potentially could be a significant game changer…We view this as an incremental negative for HP, DELL and other PC makers as Apple will be able to garner additional PC market share.” Apple’s stock even jumped 10 points on Boot Camp’s announcement.

This news is great for current Mac users. I personally enjoy computer games, and would love to run a copy of Window on my Mac. Also, there are many people who need Windows for work. For Apple users, this can only be a good thing.

But will it really be enough to tempt all of these PC users to switch? Initially, maybe so. But over time, those people who are coming from a Windows background will be compelled to consistently boot into Windows, where they feel comfortable. Its like giving a drug addict the option to buy coke while in rehab. Whats the point of learning a new operating system when you can just use what you already know?

It is important to note who the people that are getting excited about this: geeks. It’s easy for a technically minded person to switch between operating systems. But for that average person who gets fed up when they can’t find the Control Panel or Internet Explorer, don’t be suprised when you find them booting back into Windows for good.

Today, Microsoft announced that it received its 5000th U.S. Patent. As the article explains, Microsoft’s intellectual property strategy is fairly defensive. As much as I tend to hate Microsoft, they could be worse; there are quite a few companies with much more aggressive policies. Take over 1600 record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, for example. As we all know, the RIAA and its associates have recurrently pursued aggressive lawsuits against copyright violators. It’s also common knowledge that quite a few people are less than pleased with the RIAA.

While companies and consumers seem locked in a never-ending battle over the freedom of data, the intellectual property struggle is producing a much more subtle, though arguably more profound, effect on technological innovation. Wired.com recently published a nice, though predictably uninformative, article on innovation in the era of copyrights and patents.

What the Wired article leaves out, among other things, is the dramatic effect that the open source movement is having on innovation. While most of us are at least aware, if not relieved, by free, useful software products like Firefox and Thunderbird, many are unaware of the vast array of open source alternatives available. While Open Source’s influence outside of the software industry is even more obscure, collaborative efforts have yielded better journalism, better energy innovation, and even better beer. It is, perhaps, the open source movement’s surprising implications that led Thomas L. Friedman to dub the open source movement as “radical” in his newest book, The World is Flat.

The open-source idea, however, is not as new as Mr. Friedman believes. For example, concepts of authorship in the 18th Century were quite different than they are today. In Shakespeare’s era, it was incredibly uncommon for playwrights to claim “ownership” of a text; the plentiful additions to the texts of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and many other famous writers during the period give evidence to the sense of collaboration that existed then.

Likewise, democratic forms of government and the idea of the university are enduring examples of successful collaboration. So why does everybody keep insisting that open source will fail?

Walmart has begun its systematic takeover of the blogosphere. In retaliation for current government and public attacks against the company, Walmart is beginning to hire current employees and embedded bloggers to do their dirty-work; they are feeding Walmart propaganda into the blog world. Recently, a state-legislated bill was announced that would force Walmart to increase spending on employee health insurance. Walmart currently encourages employees to seek public health benefits and welfare programs, instead of using the company’s programs. Brian Pickrell, a paid Walmart crony and frequent blogger, was posting in spades pro-Walmart messages attacking the bill: “All across the country, newspaper editorial boards — no great friends of business — are ripping the bills…” The New York Times ran the article this morning, giving an inside look into the invasion of the blog world:

Several sentences in Mr. Pickrell’s Jan. 20 posting — and others from different days — are identical to those written by an employee at one of Wal-Mart’s public relations firms and distributed by e-mail to bloggers.

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

Walmart is using mudslinging in blogs to tarnish the name of rival stores, such as Target, and stamp down competition. The company seems to be moving closer and closer to a national monopoly. Walmart is responsible for the slow shutdown of the world renown fish markets of Hong Kong, when it spent millions on research and development to imitate those markets inside its Chinese store locations. The Chinese street markets took a major economic hit when Walmart made its debut there. In highly capitalistic environments, Walmart is similar to bacteria at optimal growing conditions.

Are we going to sit here and let Walmart invade our territory? The money hungry corporation has already invaded our towns, closed our family-run stores, and has paved over countless acres of our farmland and historic sites. When will Walmart face reparation? Or, will this leech of a company continue to grow until it has consumed America and has its hands in our politics (it may already be embedded in the government) and private lives?

For the record, semanticparanoia.com will continue to refuse participation in any Walmart media infiltration.

In the last six months the U.S. has been playing catch-up with the rest of the world; from going green to better cell phones, it seems like America might finally be catching up.

There is at least one area, however, where the U.S. hasn’t even begun to modernize. Broadband internet speeds in the United States max out at a rather lethargic 6 megabytes per second, compared to about 100 megs per second in England, and up to 250 megs per second in Japan and other parts of Asia.

But why is the U.S. so behind, and what does that mean for the future of broadband in America?

For one thing, despite the exorbitant investment in fiber optic cable that occurred in the ’90s, America’s high speed infrastructure was never completed. Entrepreneurs and investors never got around to laying the “last mile” of cable, meaning that almost no houses or businesses are actually connected directly via fiber optic; the bottle-neck that ensued continues to prevent speeds from rising.

Today, the New York Times published an article speculating that MaBells plan to past the cost of upgrading our infrastructure to websites themselves, who will then pass that cost on to the consumer. The article states: “Companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google fear that if they do not buy faster access, they could end up in a slow lane.”

Such a conclusion, however, seems unfounded, especially since none of the three popular websites offer enough data-heavy content, such as music or video, to cause any noticeable difference between users on a 6 megabyte connection and those surfing at faster speeds.

Likewise, the article has also ignored the fact that most internet companies do not actually charge users for their services, but rather make their profit via advertising revenue.

Given the general trend of super-targeted advertisements displayed online, it seems unlikely that MaBell charges would significantly impact profit for such websites; as advertisements become increasingly targeted, the websites can afford to charge even more for them. Even if those companies purchasing advertisements did pass on the extra cost, that cost would be dispersed so widely that it seems unlikely anybody would notice.

CBS reports that a group of 5 former dropouts have built a soybean-fueled car that goes from zero to sixty in 4 seconds; pretty damn impressive.

They also speculate on why nobody has managed this feat yet:

“We made this work,” says Hauger. “We’re not geniuses. So why aren’t they doing it?”

Kosi thinks he knows why. The answer, he says, is the big oil companies.

“They’re making billions upon billions of dollars,” he says. “And when this car sells, that’ll go down — to low billions upon billions.”