Send your comments, letters to the editor, and related articles to seltzer@samizdat.com For information on who we are check www.samizdat.com/who.html
To access other issues, go to www.samizdat.com/ioad.html. The full text of all issues is available for free, with hypertext links to the sites referenced. (Please keep in mind that URLs frequently change. We will attempt to update the information in this on-line edition, but don't expect perfection.)
For plain-text books on CD ROM, a library for the price of a book, visit our online store at http://store.yahoo.com/samizdat
You can now receive Internet-on-a-Disk by email, by signing up at Yahoo Groups. Either send email to subscribe-ioad@yahoogroups.com , or register at the Web site http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ioad. You can also use that group to discuss related matters and share insights with other readers and with me (Richard Seltzer seltzer@samizdat.com).
Off-the-Wall Ideas by Richard Seltzer, seltzer@samizdat.com
Financially, that looks like a great idea. But strategically, it looks like a disaster in the making. In today's world of terrorism, it should be more important than ever to broadly distribute your resources. In this world, redundancy is good, so if bombs disabled one or two or even half a dozen bases at the same time, we'd still have a powerful, fully-functional military force immediately available. But instead, we're putting everything together in one place -- a target that is likely to look almost as tempting as Pearl Harbor in 1941.
On the other hand, military efficiency is a worthy goal. As a rough
estimate, let's say that the typical military force today consists of about
10% front-line combat personel and 90% support. Then by focusing on those
support functions -- reducing paperwork, finding creative ways to get the
same work done -- it should be possible to change that ratio, to make more
people available for combat roles (or dual combat/support roles), so with
the same budget and the same total number of people, you have a much more
effective military. Facing an equally powerful enemy, or facing a
political situation in which dollars for military spending are hard to
come by, those kinds of changes could make a crucial difference. It is
quite possible that that kind of thinking led to the decision to move the
whole Atlantic fleet to Norfolk. It must be difficult to keep the strategic
consequences in mind while fighting the classic bureaucratic battle for
efficiency. And it is ironic that, this time, pork-barrel politics would
have actually led to a far better result.
Perhaps Congress should consider putting the images on US currency up for bid, as an alternative way to raise revenue and reduce taxes. Imagine an annual on-line auction for each denomination. Imagine wealthy people like Trump or Gates who might want to see their picture on the $1 bill, and might be willing to pay a few billion dollars for it. Or imagine a corporation that might be willing to spend a few billion to have their corporate logo and tag line on US currency. Or imagine fans of a rock star or movie/TV star or super model or sports hero willing to do "class-action" bidding for the personality/image of their choice -- combining millions of small bids automatically online (like voting for baseball all-stars or for winners of American Idol).
If you could raise billions of dollars that way, every year, why not? And the currency itself could well become far stronger in foreign markets than it is today, simply from collectors taking millions of bills out of circulation.
And if that works, we'd be psychologically prepared to sell advertising on military uniforms, tanks, planes, etc. (a la NASCAR), as well as on government buildings and historic monuments -- well on our way to free-enterprise, tax-free Nirvana.
Hallelujah!
But if I could just take a few sailing lessons... If I could just figure out how to build a simple sail boat, and how to use it, then if I time-travelled to ancient Greece or Rome, I could change the course of history. The Greeks and Romans were severely limited by their fixed-sail ships. The Greek fleet assembled at Aulis was desperate for a favorable wind -- desperate enough to sacrifice Agamemnon's daughter -- because their boats could only cross the Aegean when the wind was blowing in the right direction. And Rome, dependent on grain from Egypt, could only receive shipments for about six months of the year, when the prevailing winds in the Mediterranean blew from East to West. And in battle, the fleet that had the wind on its side totally dominated.
I could imagine building a fleet of simple sailboats, like the pleasure boats I see on the Charles River, and teaching crews how to tack, and with that capability commanding trade in the Mediterranean in Greek and Roman days.
Of course, my personal advantage would be short lived as others learned the same skills and built similar boats, and then far better ones. But the course of history would be radically changed.
When European settlers first arrived in the South, the land was inhabited by Indians/Native Americans. The settlers proceeded to exterminate or exile all those Indians, with the climax coming with the "Trail of Tears" explusion under President Andrew Jackson -- pushing them all west of the Mississippi.
Why did Southern plantation owners support such a policy?
If they believed in slavery and believed in their own superiority over native races, why didn't they enslave the Indians?
Instead, they imported Africans and turned them into slaves, even though the lengthy and dangerous voyage across the Atlantic led to many deaths and hence high prices for the survivors, and differences in climate often made continued survival difficult.
Why did they go to all that trouble and expense, instead of just taking advantage of the local labor resource? Surely, it wasn't a matter of justice or respect for human rights. So what was the basis for the decision?
I believe that the Spanish had already set a precedent. In the Carribean, they first made Native Americans slaves. Then as the numbers of Natives dwindled in the harsh conditions of harvesting sugar cane, they imported Africans to fill the vacancies.
But plantantion owners in the South appear to have turned immediately to Africa as a source of slaves, and to have considered Native Americans as a hindrance and an obstacle, rather than as a labor resource.
How did that come about? Where's that missing link in American History?
In the H.G. Wells story, the entire eco-system of Earth operates as a sinle organism. The germs and viruses to which man has built immunity operate as a global defense system against invaders from other planets. It's a surprise ending that is also a moment of enlightenment, shocking us into realizing the important role of organisms that we previously thought of as the enemies of our health and well-being.
But the same mechanism could just as easily work in reverse. Remember, when Europeans first arrived in America, they didn't die of diseases that Native Americans were immune to. Rather, they brought from new diseases, like chicken pox and small pox and syphillis that decimated the Natives. Along those lines, it would be easy to imagine the arrival on Earth of a benevolent, well-meaning alien species, who inadvertently bring with them microbes that wipe out the human race.
In another plot line, the delicate atmosphere/environmental balance of Earth could act as a defense against aliens. Remember, in The Day After Tomorrow a change of temperature of the oceans of a few degrees causes cataclysmic climate changes. Imagine an alien invasion and resulting total war leading to similar heating of the oceans and devastating weather consequences that wipe out the invaders, while leaving a handful of humans alive to start afresh.
In still another plot line, aliens might use the delicate environmental balance of Eath to their advantage, as a simple way to destroy mankind, without the risks to themselves that would come from war. In this story, aliens, not man, are responsible for global warning, etc.
What have the Patriots been doing? One week they play the Colts and shut down the most powerful offense in football. The next week they play the Steelers and score 41 points against the most powerful defense in football.
They keep winning and winning again, but in very different ways, adapting their style to match the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents.
What makes the difference? Extremely talented players? Incredible coaching?
I'm guessing that they have reinvented the game. That their style of play makes many of the old standard assumptions obsolete -- including the concept of "parity."
The NFL has prospered by making the strength of teams relatively equal, so any time could beat any other team on any given Sunday. They have done that primarily through the salary cap and the rules governing draft choices.
But the Patriots value players differently than the other teams in the NFL do. They have carefully assembled a set of very intelligent, flexible, well-prepared all-round football players, rather than a set of stars and specialists. Brady was a 199th draft pick. And they traded a second round draft pick for Corey Dillon. When this run began over a year ago, the Pats dropped their team captain and "star" defensive player Lawyer Malloy. He wouldn't renegotiate his contract so the team could distribute the salary money more evenly and get the players they needed; and he wasn't a team player. No matter how good he was as an individual players, he was not a good fit with Belichek's system. So he went. The team lost the first game of the 2003 season to Buffalo. And since then, the team has just won, and won, and won again.
The Pats select and value all-round players who can take on multiple roles; intelligent players who can understand and execute complicated schemes, can handle multiple roles, and can improvise on the field taking advantage of unexpected opportunities. Troy Brown, playing offense, defense, and special teams, is the epitome of this flexibility and intelligence. Everybody on the field is involved in every play -- receivers and back block; defense men come in for special roles on offense; receivers act as running backs. Brady throws to as many as nine different receivers in a game. And he has a remarkable talent for quickly seeing and evaluating opportunities -- rationally dealing with many rapidly changing choices. Sometimes they line up on offense with everybody on the line and nobody in the backfield but Brady. Sometimes on defense the line never goes into a set position; the players stand and seem to roam about, upsetting the expectations of the opponents, so the players on the offensive line don't knew who to block. In the typical game, every player on the Patriot bench (except the backup quarterback) played, and played in important situations. This wasn't a matter of building huge leads and bringing in the backups when what they did wouldn't matter.
The Pats had many injured players last year. And this year they were missing Ty Law and Tyrone Poole for most of the year, and Richard Seymour for the playoffs. But they just won and won and won.
Basically, in football, intelligence, flexibility and preparation reduce the effects of surprise, and extraordinary physical talent, and random events.
There were two old styles of football -- motivational and x's and o's. In a game where two teams were evenly matched, the team with the greater motivation would often win. x's and o's were fancy plays and tactics where each individual player had a specialized role, like in an assembly line, and if everybody did just what they were told to do, they would prevail over a less well prepared opponent.
The Patriots play a different kind of football. Yes, they have plays that they have prepared. But the players are generalists rather than specialists and can each play a variety of roles, and all have the intelligence and flexibility to improvise and do whatever is necessary to outmaneuver their opponents. And their plays are designed with multiple roles and intelligence presumed. If the original play breaks down, they adjust, and even though this unique set of circumstances may never have occured before, they are familiar enough with this kind of play that they immediately help where help is needed.
Of course there's always an element of chance. Of course these players are only human and are therefore subject to the mistakes that come from overconfidence. Yes, they blew a huge lead and lost to the lowly Dolphins.
But the Patriot's style of football is so far superior to the styles of the other teams that they have quietly, unassumingly dominated the league for two years, repeatiedly beating teams, like the Colts, that the media rated as one of the best of all time.
Reinvented. Yes. For instance, consider the Colts game where with 4th down and 1 yard to go on about the Patriot's 40 yard line, the Colts elected to punt. it was a good punt, putting the Patriots back on their own 10 yard line. By the old style of football strategy, the Colts had good field position, and were in excellent shape to get the ball back with even better field position. But the Patriots simply marched down the field, repeatedly gaining just enough for a first down. Their combination of runs and short passes was unstoppable. As a result, they ate up about eight minutes on the clock on their way to a touchdown. In other words, starting on their own 10 yard line turned into an advantage -- giving them more opportunity to use time. It turned out that after that drive, the Colts were as good as beaten -- there simply wasn't enough time on the clock to make up the deficit.
Over the next few years, It's going to be interesting watching as the other teams try to figure out and imitate the system.
And until those others do figure it out, it's going to be a lot of fun being a Patriots fan.
Go to Google http://www.google.com Click on "More" in the the line above the search box. Then, toward the bottom of the page, click on "Google Desktop Search". Download and install the free software.
This software allows you to search through just about everything on your hard drive -- plain text, html, word, email, even powerpoint and excel files. It is fast and powerful.
Keep in mind that like all search engines, you should be as specific
as possible in your searches. Look for unique rare words, or look for phrases
(a series of words enclosed in quotation marks). As an
alternative, enter several words or even a dozen or more words without
quotation marks, then click to have the results appear in order of relevance
(instead of by date, which is the default), and pages on which all those
words appear will show up at the top of the list, and pages with only one
of them at the bottom. Give it a try.
Also, please keep in mind that it takes a while for the software to index all your files -- there might be a delay of a few hours from when you first install the software to when it can find everything in all your files -- and that's hours with the computer on.
Requires Windows XP or Windows 2000 SP 3+.
FYI -- I thought it was great for the first couple days. But I didn't
use it for a month after that, and then uninstalled it. It doesn't let
you select what of your content you want to index and doesn't let you focus
your search on particular directories or file types.
McEwan smoothly leads the reader into the surgeon's world -- all of his concerns and emotions, from professional to family. You see what he sees. You feel what he feels, including the wrenching pain and disorientatoin of confrontation with random brutality -- incidents that deny and affirm the meaning of his life.
McEwan has the ability to create an entire world in a single paragraph, and without the need for extraordinary events (like Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway walking down the street, only far more engrossing and compelling).
His style reminds me of the old piece of wisdom that every part of the world, no matter how small, implies the existence of the entire universe. For God to create a single rose, He must create eerhting -- all in its proper place and with all of its past and all of its likely future. When McEwan creates a character or sets a scence, he does so with such rich texture and such palpable reality that it feels like he has created a universe. Reading such a book is pure pleasure.
At one point, he uses the phrase "poised on a hinge of perception" to describe the surgeon's perspective. Time and again the moments described and shown are carefully chosen. Yes this is a "day in the life", but it's a well-chosen day, and the pieces of it shown feel important, even climactic, even though they deal with "ordinary" events (events and emotions that are very easy to identify wth).
The surgeon's world is very different from another "day in the life" of world -- that of Ivan Denisovich (in the book by Solzhenitsyn). Denisovich too introduced the reader to an entire world, in very few pages, but it dealt with circumstances that were hard to imagine, stretching our notion of what can consititute a human life, of the range of possibilities, of the depths to which one can sink and still retain some semblance of humanity, of value systems that should apply everywhere. By contrast, Saturday engages us with the familiarity of the scenes and sensations. Yet it too stretches our perceptions of humanity and values and the meaning of life.
My
Internet: a Personal View of Internet Business Opportunities
by Richard Seltzer, on CD, includes four books, 162 articles, and 49 newsletter
issues that will inspire you and provide the practical information you
need to build your own personal Web site or Internet-based business, helping
you to become a player in this new business environment.
Web
Business Boot Camp: Hands-on Internet lessons for manager, entrepreneurs,
and professionals by Richard Seltzer (Wiley, 2002).
No-nonsense guide targets activities that anyone can perform to achieve
online business
success.
Reviews.
A
library for the price of a book.
This site is
Published by Samizdat Express, 213 Deerfield Lane, West
Roxbury, MA 02132. (203) 553-9925. seltzer@samizdat.com
.