The Future on Autopilot

Self-driving cars are not science-fiction. This generation will grapple with the societal implications of the automation of much of personal and commercial transportation.



Many desired technology innovations—personal jetpacks, thriving moon colonies, an iPhone that doesn't need to be charged daily (ha!)—may never be realized, but one is a lot closer than most people think: self-driving cars. While interning at Google this summer, I witnessed sister company X's autonomous vehicles on Mountain View roads and attended speaker events with people on the project (with which I had zero involvement), and have become convinced this is the future. The technology, while still improving, is indeed viable—a when, not if situation—and the changes it represents could improve personal safety, relieve congestion, lower transportation costs, and reduce environmental impact.

The most salient benefit of self-driving cars is that they will eventually be able to perform inarguably more safely than human drivers, whose errors account for hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world each year. Able to "communicate" with one another, self-driving cars will also maintain speed and handle relative positioning more efficiently than human drivers, improving traffic flow and changing development patterns. But there's much more to it. Currently, the cars we own remain unused most of the time, taking up space when they are not taking us from Point A to Point B. Optimally, a (clean emissions) vehicle would be in operation as much as possible, serving the needs of many commuters, so fewer people would require vehicles exclusively their own. Among the smaller pool of total cars needed to serve a population, those in use would be far less likely to idly occupy a parking spot. Much of the urban and suburban space currently dedicated to parking lots and garages could be repurposed for more productive ends, including green space.

For Your Eyes Only

Ephemeral-photo service Snapchat is betting that it can stick around longer than one of its trademark disappearing messages. To justify a $3 billion valuation, it has to find a way to make money and hold on to a traditionally fickle user base.

Yesterday afternoon's Wall Street Journal report that mobile photo-messaging service Snapchat apparently rejected a $3 billion acquisition offer from Facebook has come as a surprise to many in the business and tech world. The surprise is two-fold, actually -- not just that Facebook would pony up such an astronomical amount, but that Snapchat itself believes it could be worth far more. Eyebrow-raising assessments of a relatively new mobile app I first heard of only a year ago and which is most notorious for engendering media hype over the app's potential facilitation of "sexting".

As with other high-profile Internet company acquisitions, such as Facebook's $1 billion purchase in April of fellow photo-app Instagram (with its 13 employees and $0 revenue) or Yahoo's $1.1 billion purchase in May of blogging-service Tumblr (which had never turned a profit), there is again considerable general befuddlement over the economics of such a deal and whether these high-premium purchases of niche competitors are a further proof of the re-emergence of the "dot-com bubble".

So what does Facebook see in Snapchat? It's easier to first eliminate the explanations that don't make sense:

Check Out the View

This week, Google introduced its new "Street View" feature, built into the Google Maps website. So now, in addition to the overhead satellite imagery of an area, you can get a ground-level perspective on things.

"The Street View vista appears in a little frame over the standard Google Map view. You can pan around the view or zoom in just by scrolling or double-clicking. Then, wander through the city by clicking the arrow icons that float over each street."

This is a pretty cool feature that I can see being especially useful for looking up directions to a destination. The view from the sidewalk is a lot easier to navigate from than a bird's-eye view.

Of course, you have to wonder what developments lie ahead for this kind of technology, which is sure to come to your cellphone or GPS device within months. Given that so many people use this feature for navigating, I suppose it's only a matter of time before the "Street View" offered is a live camera feed.

That'd be great for giving you a heads-up about traffic, but in providing an instantly accessible camera on potentially every street corner, you have to worry about privacy concerns. Already, several websites have posted pictures from "Street View" showing a man outside an adult bookstore, women sunbathing, and more.

Public privacy has been steadily shrinking for years as technology has gotten more advanced. But it isn't Big Brother who's been pushing to keep an eye on all of us--we've done that to each other. That distinction is of no comfort to me, but I guess we'll all just have to get used to it.

So smile, you could be on candid camera!

High Flying Hubble

Great news today: NASA has announced that it will send a shuttle mission to rescue the Hubble Space Telescope, only recently left for dead. I say this with no small amount of pleasure because it is such surprising news--in the past few years, the HST program had become marginalized for a number of reasons, including a priority on the International Space Station, President Bush's Mars idea, and the Columbia space shuttle disaster.

I have always believed the HST to be vitally important not just because of its scientific impact--it has helped determined the age of the universe, and furthered understanding of dark energy, for example--but because of its appeal to the public. Those breathtaking pictures of deep space that everyone knows and loves have contributed significantly to the public's support (emotional support yes, but more importantly financial support) for space exploration.

I mean, let's face it, anyone from my generation was born at least a decade after the last Apollo moon landing. Since then, what else in the field of space exploration has been able to get people excited, especially in the 1990s and 2000s after the novelty of the space shuttle wore off?

As a result of today's decision, the Hubble will be repaired and improved in 2008 and will remain operational at least until 2013, when its successor will be launched. Props to NASA for making the right decision.

View of the Eagle Nebula pillars	View of the Tarantula Nebula

Google Boosting

A recent NY Times article about how certain advocacy groups are using sophisticated tactics to manipulate Google's results on certain searches reminded me of that old "miserable failure" gag that pointed users to the official web site of President Bush. I got to thinking that I may as well try and exert some influence on my own Google presence by creating a list of favorable references to myself. So, as an experiment, here goes:

Jay Nargundkar - link to this blog, Citizens Band
Jay Nargundkar - link to my group sports blog, Da Sports Authority
Jay Nargundkar - link to my Blogger profile
Jay Nargundkar - link to a search for my Diamondback columns
Jay Nargundkar - link to a Jan '06 Financial Times article I was cited by name in
Jay Nargundkar - link to an online column by Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, referencing our then-ongoing battle over the Takoma Park MS Florida Trip

And for good measure, my headshot for the online version of my Diamondback column, in the hopes I can get this on Google Image Search:



I will check back in a few weeks and see if this has made any difference.

Permanent Records

My column in today's Diamondback focuses on the downside of the permanent digital archive that is the Internet. Through blogs, AIM profiles, and sites like Facebook, not to mention the ubiquitous Google search, you can basically unearth a college student's entire life. Employers and law enforcement are already relying on such techniques, and there could be trouble for us if the person on the other end doesn't like what they're seeing.

From "Permanent Records":

Some time in or around the year 2030, I am sure I will be awakened one morning by the ringing of the hologram phone. The president — whether it will be Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton, I don’t know — will say to me: “Jay, I have bad news. You can’t be Fed Chairman/Secretary of War/Supreme Overlord after all. The opposition party’s got some dirt on you, and you’ll never make it through the confirmation hearing.”

As I sit there, dealing with my crushing rejection, I’d wonder what did me in. Was it the away message back in 2014 that said: “Skipping work today. At the baseball game”? Did my uncle violate U.N. sanctions by selling pop tarts to the Libyans — and then brag about it on his MySpace? Or did Sen. Chuck Norris threaten a filibuster over my membership in a Facebook group that claimed he is Jack Bauer’s girlie little sister?

Click here to read the column.

$2 Billion for Facebook?

This week's BusinessWeek report that Facebook, the online networking site, could fetch up to $2 billion in a sale doesn't seem to have raised enough eyebrows--and that has me worried. The proposed sale to a media giant like Viacom seems to me to be yet another example of "Old Economy" types paying outrageous sums for "New Economy" technology and companies they don't really understand.

Yes, Facebook is enormously popular. In little over two years, www.facebook.com has become the 7th most visited site on the Internet. For those not in the know, Facebook is an online directory and networking site for college students (the site also recently expanded to high schools). There isn't a college student in America who hasn't heard of Facebook, and virtually all off them are users of the site. Facebook has transcended noun status to become a verb as well. On campuses, to "Facebook" someone is easily as common as the verb "Google" is in popular culture.

But for those of you above the age of 30 and not in the know, Facebook allows users at each school to post profiles and link to friends, classmates, and people with shared interests. My profile, for example (see right), has a picture of me along with details like my major (finance), contact info, clubs and jobs, and favorite music ("hip hop, classic rock"), books, movies, etc.

All this makes the company sound like a worthwhile investment. Rupert Murdoch certainly thought so. Last year, his News Corp. paid $580 million for MySpace, an online journal site which has been in the news lately because some people on the Internet--gasp!--publish lewd content or misrepresent themselves or prey on underage children. None of this has hurt MySpace, and Murdoch has been lauded for his forward-thinking. (Reuters CEO Tom Gloceg called the acquisition a "turning point", adding "Sites like MySpace are rebuilding our world.")

Yet I've heard no one propose any avenues for Facebook's continued growth over the years. Right now, its revenue comes from the advertisements on the site. I think, however, that advertisers will find that most high schoolers (and middle- and elementary- schoolers if Facebook goes down that route of Kids Without Credit Cards) aren't exactly the type to buy products online. Currently the site gets a lot of page views from its college students, but now that its presence is established, growth will level off.

All things considered, I just don't like the idea of a company which makes its money exclusively through advertisements. Google may seem to defy this notion, but at least that company has tremendous room for expansion. Even then, I thought Google CFO George Reyes delivered a long overdue announcement last month when he announced "Our growth rates are slowing... We are going to have to find new ways to monetize the business." Shareholders didn't like to hear that news, but I'm glad management is confronting a future challenge.

I've told college friends in the past that Facebook, were the company to ever go public, would be the perfect IPO to get in on and ride for the short term. When even people like David Brooks give inches in their newspaper column trying to understand this online fad (he declared Facebook "rollicking but respectable"), you know the company has drawn a lot of attention. But "fad" is a good keyword here. I can't identify a sound fundamental reason why it'd be a good idea to pay an outrageous sum of money to own this company. Facebook, for its command of the young demographic alone, is worth something, but my figure would be a fraction of that $2 billion. Sumner Redstone, consider this your warning!

The iPod & Podcasting

This Christmas, I had Santa/my parents to thank for allowing me to finally join the ranks of the more than 22 million iPod owners. I've downloaded my music and photos onto my 5th-generation iPod, which can now play videos, but am disappointed that shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" don't yet have episodes available for purchase. (What, you want me to watch "Lost"?) So in the mean time, I've dived into the world of podcasts, which are a kind of downloadable audio broadcast.

Apple's podcast directory offers free subscriptions to all kinds of podcasts, in categories like sports, politics, news, technology, entertainment, and more. I've downloaded commentary from ESPN, entire episodes of Bill Maher's HBO show, news feeds and more. Ricky Gervais, star of the terrific BBC show The Office (now playing in the U.S. with Steve Carrell), has a funny talk show in which he and his friends discuss bizarre stories like the recent Cambodian gladiator match between a lion and 42 midgets. (The fight was called off after 12 minutes, we learn, after 28 of the midgets were killed.) Suffice to say, this brand of comedy may not be for everyone.

I was just listening to Slate.com's "The Year in George W. Bush", an overview of 2005 by John Dickerson covering everything: Social Security reform (remember the staged "town hall" Q&A sessions?), the Iraq war, the battle over Terry Schiavo, the new flap over domestic surveillance, and everything in between. This trip down memory lane is well worth a listen.

If any of you have any favorites I should know about, do tell. I don't yet know whether this podcasting thing is going to take off, or whether it will be a passing fad. (Anyone remember the whole "e-books" push from several years ago? That wound up going nowhere.) For now at least, the idea of informative and entertaining programming that can easily be created and enjoyed by anyone seems like a good idea to me!

NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet

Rocket science doesn't come easy these days. Following the February 2003 Columbia tragedy, NASA called off all shuttle missions while the disaster was investigated and the shuttle program itself was reevaluated.

Finally, after 29 months of no launches, Discovery took off on Tuesday. Immediately, problems were noticed--most serious of all, a recurrence of falling foam debris, almost the same size as that which brought down Columbia. Thankfully, the Discovery appears not to have been seriously harmed and the crew should not be in any jeopardy for the rest of its mission.

However, with this latest setback, NASA has once again grounded the space shuttle fleet. "Until we fix this, we're not ready to fly again," said shuttle program manager Bill Parsons.

After the Columbia disaster, NASA spent over $1 billion in trying to fix the shuttle--which, according to President Bush's vision, is due to be retired in 2010 with the completion of the International Space Station. What is now evident is that there is still much work left to be done, and we are unfortunately not ready to take that next step. NASA will now return to square one while its public image takes a beating and people question the worth of manned space exploration itself.

On that point at least, the answer is obvious: yes, it always has been, and always will be worth it. In light of the space program's current troubles, it's worth noting that July 20 marked the 36th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Back in 1969, using computers no more powerful than today's simplest handheld calculators, we were able to send two men to the moon and bring them back home safely. Let that serve as our inspiration to proceed, then, to do the things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Google Earth: Bent on World Observation

For the past couple days, I've been playing around with Google Earth, the latest cool new toy offered by everybody's favorite tech wizards. Google Earth, a descendant of the Keyhole service, allows users to view satellite imagery of any part of the world. This feature, which has been around for many years, has now been integrated with data (where available) plotting transit systems, commercial enterprises, and more. A map overlay detailing schools, restaurants, hotels, and more yields extra information than just the standard terrain scan.

Google Earth is remarkably easy to use. Type in the location you're searching for, and the program automatically "flies" you to your destination in fine cinematic style. I did the requisite searches for famous landmarks (see examples), old neighborhoods, etc., and found the results (when data was available for the location) to be pleasing--if not practical, at least entertaining. Google Earth also tries to incorporate a three-dimensional aspect to the program, allowing users to "tilt" the landscape. While a cool idea, this feature rarely delivers results that look good without losing perspective or detail.

This morning, as I was following the details of the terrible tragedy in London, I decided to put Google Earth to the test to try and create a rudimentary map plotting the locations of the bombings. This proved to be remarkably easy; all I had to was type in the name of a location, say, "King's Cross Station, London", and I was "flown" immediately to the spot. By selecting or deselecting various options, I could view street names, transit stations, rail lines, and more. The resulting map I created is seen below:



With regards to today's terrorist attacks, I think British PM Tony Blair said everything that needed to be said:

When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm. We will show, by our spirit and dignity, and by our quiet but true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs. The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorise people, and we will not be terrorised.

I would like once again to express my sympathy and my sorrow to those families who will be grieving, so unexpectedly and tragically, tonight. This is a very sad day for the British people, but we will hold true to the British way of life.

Today is another reminder that the "war on terrorism" doesn't just take place in faraway countries. Despite all the precautions and security measures in place, our enemies can still on occasion take the war to our doorstep, with devastating results. We are reminded there is still much work ahead of us in order to ascertain a safer, more secure future.

The Hype About Skype

What popular Internet program boasts over 100 million downloads yet its name is unfamiliar to most Americans? That would be Skype, an Internet telephony service based in Europe that is enjoying phenomenal popularity "across the pond" (and in Asia as well). Owing as to how a similar service has only just come to the States--New Jersey-based Vonage--and how "VoIP" (Voice Over IP) is only just starting to become a familiar acronym, I hope I am excused for only just getting to know what it's all about.

This week, I decided to give it a try for myself. I downloaded the Skype program, which allows anyone with a microphone and speakers/headphones to use their computer as a phone to call, for free, any other Skype user in the entire world. The program is remarkably easy to use, and it works very well. The quality of the connection, even on international calls, is quite good.

One thing I've enjoyed about Skype is the ease by which users from all over the world can search for other people with whom to have conversations. Already, I've talked to people as far away as Germany, Syria, and China. My very first time using Skype, a teacher in Wuxi, China (coincidentally, a city I happened to visit on my tour of China last summer) contacted me looking to practice her English. I've talked to her a few times this week, about the school where she teaches English, her students, travel experiences in China, American music and movies, and more. The only technical difficulty we've had thus far was one time when the electricity in her school was abruptly cut off.

A few days ago, a 32-yr old unmarried hotel worker living in Damascus, Syria called me. He wanted to know my opinions on a number of regional issues, such as the situation in Lebanon, the Iraq war, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I in turn asked him how he felt about Hezbollah, spoke of a stabilizing Iraq, and expressed my hope for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Though his English was limited, it was an interesting conversation. We both found it funny when, in quizzing him about his attitudes toward America I asked, "Do you like the U.S.?" He hesitated a long while before answering "...er...maybe!"

This weekend, I took my Skype-ing to the next level by signing up for "SkypeOut", which enables me to use my computer to dial regular phones. Yes, this technology has been around for many years now, but I don't think it's been this cheap or reliable until recently. Using SkypeOut, I can make calls for only 2 cents/min to my family in Maryland--and to anywhere in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Australia, and more. For other countries, the rates are higher, but are still likely to be cheaper than what you would normally pay. I haven't used SkypeOut much, yet, but it appears to work quite well. The quality of the connection has always been great, and the person on the other end would never suspect I was calling from my computer. The only negative thus far has been a few dropped calls, but I'm not sure if that is Skype's fault.

I mentioned Vonage earlier. I haven't had a chance to use their product yet, but poking around their website has been quite interesting. Vonage crossed the 400,000-subscriber mark at the beginning of this year, and they continue to grow rapidly. Currently their product is more expensive and perhaps a bit more limited than Skype, but I anticipate that will change fairly soon. For American consumers, Vonage is the better choice, and by next year I'm sure I'll have made the switch.

While my experimentation this past week has been fun, it has become clear to me that the real hype is about VoIP, and for good reason. Broadband telephony offers consumers a better, cheaper, and more versatile service than "classic" telephony. This technology is so easy, and so useful, it's bound to become the Next Big Thing. But that's only if, as I mentioned last week, more homes in the U.S. had a broadband connection!

U.S. Lagging on Broadband

"Today, nearly all Japanese have access to 'high-speed' broadband, with an average connection time 16 times faster than in the United States - for only about $22 a month."

Many people, myself included, automatically assume that the United States is on the forefront of the Internet revolution in terms of technological development and use. While this is true in many cases, Thomas Friedman's wake-up call in Friday's New York Times shows that when it comes to high-speed Internet connections, we are being outstripped by countries like Japan, South Korea, and even China.

This news is particularly discouraging because it was only about a year ago when, in the early stages of the presidential campaign, Bush was touting affordable broadband access for all Americans by 2007. A very ambitious goal, and despite certain deregulatory actions taken to facilitate the expansion of broadband, this vision seems far from being realized. The problem is not limited to rural or poor areas. Even back home in my suburban Maryland neighborhood, DSL access is unavailable, and cable-modem Internet service runs around $50 per month.

Telecom companies should be thinking more aggressively about expanding and improving broadband service. The government should be encouraging this, and providing incentives to these companies for the proliferation of high-tech solutions. Or, the government itself could take on some of the burden. The city of Philadelphia recently announced that it will spend $15 million to create a city-wide wireless Internet zone, providing access on the cheap to subscribers for under $20 per month. This kind of tech-savvy action captures my imagination. It's a perfect example of the kind of active approach we should be taking in order to make sure that in the digital age, we are not followers.

A quote in the article about Philly's Wi-Fi plans said "in today's world having access to the Internet is as important as keeping your house or feeding your family." A hyperbolic statement, yes, but the importance of connectedness--especially in the vastly more competitive world Tom Friedman envisions--is hard to understate. The cost of making advances on these technological fronts may seem expensive now, but it is an investment in the future that is definitely worth it. (Surely we don't want our chief contribution to the "Information Superhighway" be the "emoticon"?) The U.S. may have fallen a little behind the curve, but with our infrastructure and innovation, there's no reason we have to be riding the coattails of East Asia when it comes to the Internet revolution!

The New Scourge

CB is back after a weeklong hiatus during which I've had to deal with, among other things, my computer becoming infected with a virus/spyware (twice), erasing my hard drive and losing all my files (twice), setting up a new hard drive, and re-installing my OS and various software programs (three times).

My experience is a case in point to reveal the huge problem spyware poses to personal computers. While the premise--3rd party programs installing software on your PC to collect information--may seem more of a nuisance than a malicious threat, be assured that this emerging phenomenon is decidedly in the latter category.

Even only a year ago, when asked what was the biggest problem plaguing the Internet, most people would say it was spam--unsolicited email sent in bulk to thousands of users. Spam emails were often the vehicle by which computer viruses would propagate. And while spam remains an irritant, the concerted efforts of email providers to protect against spam (via filters and such) and legal action taking against some leading spam perpetrators has resulted in spam posing a diminished threat to computers.

The same cannot be said for spyware, the new rogue element of the Internet. Spyware programs seem to be uniquely designed to propagate themselves, often hidden in other software, and once entrenched on a system, will hijack a computer. Spyware programs embed themselves deeply within the computer's framework and can be nearly impossible to remove. Though free downloadable programs such as Ad-Aware and Search and Destroy are designed to counter the infiltration of spyware on PCs, some people with infected machines like myself are left with no choice but to erase their hard drive completely--losing all their files in the process--and start from scratch. Many people have their own horror stories.

The main loss for me was the hours I had to spend putting my system back together, though one can imagine that for businesses faced with this threat, the loss could drain money and resources. I hope that leading companies in the tech world will speed up their efforts to counter this growing and more dangerous threat to computers across the Internet. Spam has, for the most part, been put in the can. Now to do the same to this latest scourge!

Free for All

Today, January 15, is the fourth anniversary of the launching of Wikipedia, the free online collaborative encylopedia project that has become one of the best web sites on the Internet. When it started, the idea of creating a reference collection whose material was supplied by the public seemed absurd. Anyone at any time can with just one click create or edit an article on any subject. On the surface, the potential for abuse seems that it would wreck any chance of creating an authentic source of information.

I'm happy to report that is not the case. Wikipedia has grown at a tremendous rate, branching out into different languages (over a million articles, roughly 450,000 in the English version) and different projects, such as Wikiquote (an extremely useful free encyclopedia of quotations) and Wiktionary (free dictionary). Its legitimacy has been maintained thanks to the interest of thousands of intelligent and articulate users who self-police themselves. Wikipedia in fact is excellent at providing information on controversials topics, because its strict neutrality policy brings out both sides of an argument. Controversial articles that draw charges of bias are flagged with the appropriate disclaimer. Wikipedia's users work with one another to create the fairest presentation possible.

Furthermore, Wikipedia has a huge advantage over other encyclopedias because it is constantly being updated (several hundred times a day), allowing you to find information on new subjects. Lastly, since each of its contributors is specialized in the topic they write about (users choose what articles they want to edit or write about), Wikipedia offers detailed information on even minutiae or obscure topics.

For more reasons about "Why Wikipedia is so Great", I would encourage you to start using it yourself. Thousands of Internet users already do, and for good reason. Wikipedia is free and open to everyone. Anyone can contribute--thousands already have. Wikipedia has indexed an unbelieavable amount of information, long since surpassing its original goal of producing 100,000 articles. To me, this site represents a realization of the wonderful potential of the Internet to do good, useful work.

Wikipedia is a name I'm sure will soon be household. Happy 4th birthday to the 21st century answer to Encyclopedia Britannica!