I just want to remind you all:
DO NOT read these emails.
I ONLY want you to read them on my blog: www.owensenglishnews.blogspot.com
Thanks!
About Me
- Owen McCaffrey
- I am 32 years old. I work at Kyungnam University in South Korea and I have gained my MA in Linguistics from Waikato University.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Voter turnout not high despite record enrolment
-NZPA
Stuff.co.nz
Sunday, 09 November 2008
Voter turnout at yesterday's election was among the lowest in decades despite record-breaking numbers of people enrolling to vote, according to early estimates.
Preliminary results from the Electoral Office estimated 2,345,104 votes were cast this year, including 240,000 special votes. That would eclipse 2005's count of 2,304,005.
However, of the record 2,979,366 people enrolled to vote – nearly 95 per cent of those eligible – 634,262 failed to show up on polling day.
That was more than 100,000 extra no-shows than last election.
The estimated 78.69 per cent of enrolled voters turning out to vote would be the second-lowest proportion recorded since 1987.
Voter turnout for the 2005 election was 80.92 per cent of enrolled voters.
The National Party secured 951,145 votes (45.45 per cent) and Labour 706,666 (33.77 per cent).
In contrast, the Residents Action Movement received just 405 votes (0.02 per cent) and the party with the least support was The Republic of New Zealand Party with 298 (0.01 per cent).
The Official Results process began today with all votes being recounted and special votes included, before the final numbers are released on November 22.
To read the original article click here.
Stuff.co.nz
Sunday, 09 November 2008
Voter turnout at yesterday's election was among the lowest in decades despite record-breaking numbers of people enrolling to vote, according to early estimates.
Preliminary results from the Electoral Office estimated 2,345,104 votes were cast this year, including 240,000 special votes. That would eclipse 2005's count of 2,304,005.
However, of the record 2,979,366 people enrolled to vote – nearly 95 per cent of those eligible – 634,262 failed to show up on polling day.
That was more than 100,000 extra no-shows than last election.
The estimated 78.69 per cent of enrolled voters turning out to vote would be the second-lowest proportion recorded since 1987.
Voter turnout for the 2005 election was 80.92 per cent of enrolled voters.
The National Party secured 951,145 votes (45.45 per cent) and Labour 706,666 (33.77 per cent).
In contrast, the Residents Action Movement received just 405 votes (0.02 per cent) and the party with the least support was The Republic of New Zealand Party with 298 (0.01 per cent).
The Official Results process began today with all votes being recounted and special votes included, before the final numbers are released on November 22.
To read the original article click here.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
New Government for New Zealand!
(click on the picture to listen to audio of this speech)
I can't tell you how good it is to be here!
Ladies and gentlemen, today, New Zealand has spoken! In their hundreds of thousands across the country, they have voted for change! And I can tell you there will be a new National-led government in New Zealand!
So let me start, by thanking every New Zealander who has cast their vote for National today. Thank you for your support. And thank you for your trust. Because some of you have stuck with National through 9 long years. And tonight, your patience has been rewarded. For others, you have heard National's message that New Zealand can do better. And you've come to share our beliefs. So to all of you I simply say thank you.
Today across the country, New Zealanders have voted for a safer, more prosperous and more ambitious New Zealand. They voted for hope. They voted for action. And they voted for results. They voted for a better life for all New Zealanders.
In my first speech after becoming leader of the National Party (in 2005), I talked about when I was a boy living in a State House. Riding my bike past the homes of kids more fortunate than me. What inspired me then, and still inspires me today, is that belief within ourselves that we have the ability to make our lives better. And as it is for individuals, so it is for our country. Because New Zealand has so much more potential...this is not as good as it gets!
So yes, we face challenges. But we will rise to them. Because as a country we have tremendous advantages - our capacity to produce food; our landscapes and scenery; and maybe, most of all, the incredible Kiwi Ingenuity. So we must make the most of our advantages, because the state of our global economy and the global financial crisis means that the road ahead may well be a rocky one. Now, more than ever, New Zealand needs to be on top of it's game. What will determine success is the unity of purpose. A willingness to work together. While recognising that our collective success, rests on the success of individuals. A willingness to use our smallness to our advantage. To be nimble, sure-footed and flexible.
We all bring our different perspectives and we all have our political debates, and that is as it should be. But now is a time for working together, because we need everybody pulling in the same direction. If we do that, if we work hard, if we remain determined, we will make New Zealand as prosperous as we all know it can be. So let me say this - whether you voted for National or not, tonight, tonight, you have my pledge: I will lead a government that serves the interest of ALL New Zealanders. And it will be a government that values individual achievement; and it will be a government that supports those that cannot support themselves; and it will be a government we can all be part of.
Tonight, I want to thank Helen Clark. A little earlier this evening I spoke to her and she was most gracious with her comments. So it is fair to say, that Helen and I have different views about what policies are best for New Zealand. But. We share a love of this country. And I have always admired her dedication to the job; her ferocious work ethic; and her desire to make New Zealand a better country. As Prime Minister of New Zealand she has always ensured our small voice was loudly heard on the international stage. So on behalf of you all I say thank you (to Helen Clark).
Ladies and Gentlemen, earlier this evening I spoke to ACT leader Rodney Hide and United Future Leader Peter Dunne. I rang to offer my congratulations. And while the details of any formal agreement between National, ACT and United Future are yet to be resolved, I can confirm their support to establishing a new government in New Zealand! I also spoke to Maori Party leader Tariana Turia...and I expressed my willingness to engage in dialoge with her and her party next week.
So to you - the National Party officials, the members and the volunteers who have worked so tirelessly in every single electorate around the country, I say: Thank you very much! We owe it to you.
But there are some very special people I want to thank. And the first of them is our (National Party) President Judy Kirk. And the second of them is a guy who's a long way south tonight - Bill English! He's in Gore and I know they know how to have a good time down there, don't worry about that. And I want to thank the man who ran the campaign. Who rang me every morning at 6:00am. Who was up at 4:30am in the morning. Who read every newspaper from cover to cover: Stephen Joyce, you ran a great campaign mate. And I want to say to my caucus, which just got alot bigger, you worked so hard for the last three years, it's my priviledge to be your leader. Thank you very much for the support. And to all the National Party candidates. some of whom made the courageous and selfless decision to put their own careers on the line in order to do something they truly believed in, even when they were up against the odds. Thank you very much.
And haven't we had some great results?
-Auckland Central...went BLUE! What a cracker!
- New Plymouth!
- Otaki - we always knew Nathan Guy could do it!
- Rotorua - Tom McClane;
- Taupo - Louise Upston.
- West-Coast Tasman went BLUE!
- Hamilton West;
- Maungakiekie!
- Waitakere - amazing result! Truly tremendous.
There are some very special people I want to thank. When you are the leader of the party, you're around the country alot. You are not always in your electorate everyday. So I want to thank the great people of Helensville who chose me as their MP again. I want to thank my staff Janelle and Mel, who look after me so well and Jenny who's come back from overseas. And I want to thank my staff in Wellington. The demands on them have been unbelievable and the sacrifices have been incredible. They are an amazing group of individuals. But at the the risk of leaving some of them out because they all just did a fantastic job - Emma who worked so hard in my office day after day, Wayne, and Kevin, and Grant, and Nicola, Phil and Sarah, Rihanan, Jason, Leslie, Danny, Aileen, Brett, Willy, Francis - get some sleep guys you need it! Because I will tell you what~ we are going to be busy in the next few weeks. No you don't need sleep, not on a night like tonight you don't need sleep.
I want to thank my sisters Sue and Liz and all of my family who have been so great. But most of all, I want to thank the most important people to me, in my life, and that is Brona, and Sephie and Max. But I've got a bit of bad news guys...there's no puppy coming! I couldn't have done it without you. Ok! Maybe I'll reconsider the puppy. What the hell! If the cat won't mind it maybe we can work our way through it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a priviledge to be here tonight. You have made this possible. It will be a night, I am sure none of us ever will forget. Tonight is a night of celebration. And tomorrow, tomorrow, the hard work begins.
Have a great evening. Thank you very much indeed.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
'Change has come' Barack Obama's Presidential Acceptance Speech
8:15 AM on 05th November 2008
Hello, Chicago!
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference. It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.
A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.
I congratulate him; I congratulate Governor Palin for all that they've achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart, and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton ... and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years ... the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady ... Michelle Obama.
Sasha and Malia ... I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us ...to the new White House.
And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.
And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe ... the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best - the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.
To my chief strategist David Axelrod ... who's been a partner with me every step of the way.
To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics ... you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.
It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy ... who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.
It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.
This is your victory.
And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me.
You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.
There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.
There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
I promise you, we as a people will get there.
OBAMA: There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.
But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.
It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.
Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.
In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.
Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those - to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.
That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the colour of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
To read the original article click here.
Hello, Chicago!
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference. It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.
A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he's fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.
I congratulate him; I congratulate Governor Palin for all that they've achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart, and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton ... and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years ... the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady ... Michelle Obama.
Sasha and Malia ... I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us ...to the new White House.
And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother's watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you've given me. I am grateful to them.
And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe ... the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best - the best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.
To my chief strategist David Axelrod ... who's been a partner with me every step of the way.
To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics ... you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.
It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy ... who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.
It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.
This is your victory.
And I know you didn't do this just to win an election. And I know you didn't do it for me.
You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.
There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.
There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.
I promise you, we as a people will get there.
OBAMA: There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.
But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it's been done in America for 221 years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.
It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.
Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.
In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.
Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those - to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.
That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight's about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the colour of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.
And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
To read the original article click here.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
What is Cloud Computing?
PC Mag
by John Brandon
06.23.08
Everyone's talking about cloud computing. But what is it, who's competing for it, and what will it mean for everyday users?
Cloud computing is set to take over the world, or at least possibly replace Microsoft Outlook. The cloud concept is simple: It's a way to access your data and apps from anywhere, via the Internet (or "the cloud"). Yet everyone from Gartner Group to Google has a slightly different take on cloud computing: It can be anything from storing and sharing documents on Google Docs to running your entire company operations using a remote, third-party data center. Some envision it as a way to compute without operating systems, or pesky local client programs, and with minimal hardware needs (just a basic client machine).
"The most important single characteristic of a cloud is abstraction of the hardware from the service," says John Willis, a noted cloud-computing expert and blogger, explaining that the location of the servers is not as important as easy access to the data. "However you define it, I think cloud technology will have a footprint in every business that does IT within the next five years."
The particular type of cloud computing that the business world could take advantage of requires massive server cluster farms and superfast network bandwidth. It also requires that companies be ready to hand over their data to a third party. A few small companies, among them Zoho.com (which offers business apps, such as word processing and task lists) and Box.net (which supplies online file storage) have established themselves as SaaS (software as a service) providers, with varying degrees of success. But SaaS is primarily a race between Google and Microsoft to provide advertiser-supported cloud applications to customers.
Security is one critical issue that both companies must address. Depending on the SaaS provider, data can be encrypted from point to point, and since services are Web-based, they're very easy to patch. Google, for example, can respond to a new security threat without customers even being aware of the problem — or the fix. But end users essentially would have to entrust their data to an outside entity, which is a big leap of faith. Dave Girouard, a VP and general manager at Google, says that the company is working to allay the fears that make trust difficult to achieve.
"Google is investing enormous amounts of capital and sweat equity to ensure that we can protect your data better than you can do yourself," he says. "Cloud computing will be additive. Usage patterns will change, and users will look primarily to the cloud for most of the things they turn to their PCs for today."
Yet others aren't as optimistic about cloud computing. Forrester Research analyst Frank Gillett cautions that it's not quite ready for prime time. He says that the framework is in an early phase of development—it's almost experimental, rather than a reliable and trusted computing paradigm, .
Ironically, even though Google is battling to dominate the cloud, some of its apps, such as Google Earth, still cache a tremendous amount of data locally to speed up operations. Add to that the privacy, network bandwidth, and political hurdles yet to address, and it looks as if cloud computing will have to drop down to earth a bit more before it can enjoy widespread adoption by both consumers and businesses.
To read the original article click here.
by John Brandon
06.23.08
Everyone's talking about cloud computing. But what is it, who's competing for it, and what will it mean for everyday users?
Cloud computing is set to take over the world, or at least possibly replace Microsoft Outlook. The cloud concept is simple: It's a way to access your data and apps from anywhere, via the Internet (or "the cloud"). Yet everyone from Gartner Group to Google has a slightly different take on cloud computing: It can be anything from storing and sharing documents on Google Docs to running your entire company operations using a remote, third-party data center. Some envision it as a way to compute without operating systems, or pesky local client programs, and with minimal hardware needs (just a basic client machine).
"The most important single characteristic of a cloud is abstraction of the hardware from the service," says John Willis, a noted cloud-computing expert and blogger, explaining that the location of the servers is not as important as easy access to the data. "However you define it, I think cloud technology will have a footprint in every business that does IT within the next five years."
The particular type of cloud computing that the business world could take advantage of requires massive server cluster farms and superfast network bandwidth. It also requires that companies be ready to hand over their data to a third party. A few small companies, among them Zoho.com (which offers business apps, such as word processing and task lists) and Box.net (which supplies online file storage) have established themselves as SaaS (software as a service) providers, with varying degrees of success. But SaaS is primarily a race between Google and Microsoft to provide advertiser-supported cloud applications to customers.
Security is one critical issue that both companies must address. Depending on the SaaS provider, data can be encrypted from point to point, and since services are Web-based, they're very easy to patch. Google, for example, can respond to a new security threat without customers even being aware of the problem — or the fix. But end users essentially would have to entrust their data to an outside entity, which is a big leap of faith. Dave Girouard, a VP and general manager at Google, says that the company is working to allay the fears that make trust difficult to achieve.
"Google is investing enormous amounts of capital and sweat equity to ensure that we can protect your data better than you can do yourself," he says. "Cloud computing will be additive. Usage patterns will change, and users will look primarily to the cloud for most of the things they turn to their PCs for today."
Yet others aren't as optimistic about cloud computing. Forrester Research analyst Frank Gillett cautions that it's not quite ready for prime time. He says that the framework is in an early phase of development—it's almost experimental, rather than a reliable and trusted computing paradigm, .
Ironically, even though Google is battling to dominate the cloud, some of its apps, such as Google Earth, still cache a tremendous amount of data locally to speed up operations. Add to that the privacy, network bandwidth, and political hurdles yet to address, and it looks as if cloud computing will have to drop down to earth a bit more before it can enjoy widespread adoption by both consumers and businesses.
To read the original article click here.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Polar warming 'caused by humans'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Thursday, 30 October 2008
The research has plugged a gap, say the researchers
The rise in temperatures at Earth's poles has for the first time been attributed directly to human activities, according to a study. The work, by an international team, is published in "Nature Geoscience" journal.
In 2007, the UN's climate change body presented strong scientific evidence the rise in average global temperature is mostly due to human activities. This contradicted ideas that it was a result of natural processes such as an increase in the Sun's intensity. At the time, there was not sufficient evidence to say this for sure about the Arctic and Antarctic.
Now that gap in research has been plugged, according to scientists who carried out a detailed analysis of temperature variations at both poles. Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions. Researchers expected this result for the Arctic - because of the recent sharp increase in the melting of sea ice in the summer in the region - but temperature variations in the Antarctic have until now been harder to interpret.
Today's study, according to the researchers, suggests for the first time that there's a discernable human influence on both the Arctic and Antarctica. The research team took the temperature changes over the polar regions of the Earth and compared them with two sets of climate models. One set assumed that there had been no human influence the other set assumed there had. The best fit was with models that assumed that human activities including the burning of fossil fuels and depletion of ozone had played a part.
According to one of the researchers involved with the study, Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, formally showing that the Antarctic was being influenced by human activities was the key development. "In the recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report for example," he said, "it wasn't possible to make a statement about the Antarctic because such a study had not been done at that point. "But nevertheless when you do that you see a clear human fingerprint in the observed data. We really can't claim anymore that it's natural variations that are driving these very large changes that we are seeing in our in the climate system."
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said: "Our study is certainly closing a couple of gaps in the last IPCC report. "But I still think that a number of people, including some politicians, are reluctant to accept the evidence or to do anything about it until we specifically come down to saying that one particular event was caused by humans like a serious flood somewhere or even a heatwave. "Until we get down to smaller scale events in both time and space I still think there will be people doubting the evidence."
To read the original article click here.
Science correspondent, BBC News
Thursday, 30 October 2008
The research has plugged a gap, say the researchers
The rise in temperatures at Earth's poles has for the first time been attributed directly to human activities, according to a study. The work, by an international team, is published in "Nature Geoscience" journal.
In 2007, the UN's climate change body presented strong scientific evidence the rise in average global temperature is mostly due to human activities. This contradicted ideas that it was a result of natural processes such as an increase in the Sun's intensity. At the time, there was not sufficient evidence to say this for sure about the Arctic and Antarctic.
Now that gap in research has been plugged, according to scientists who carried out a detailed analysis of temperature variations at both poles. Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions. Researchers expected this result for the Arctic - because of the recent sharp increase in the melting of sea ice in the summer in the region - but temperature variations in the Antarctic have until now been harder to interpret.
Today's study, according to the researchers, suggests for the first time that there's a discernable human influence on both the Arctic and Antarctica. The research team took the temperature changes over the polar regions of the Earth and compared them with two sets of climate models. One set assumed that there had been no human influence the other set assumed there had. The best fit was with models that assumed that human activities including the burning of fossil fuels and depletion of ozone had played a part.
According to one of the researchers involved with the study, Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, formally showing that the Antarctic was being influenced by human activities was the key development. "In the recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report for example," he said, "it wasn't possible to make a statement about the Antarctic because such a study had not been done at that point. "But nevertheless when you do that you see a clear human fingerprint in the observed data. We really can't claim anymore that it's natural variations that are driving these very large changes that we are seeing in our in the climate system."
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said: "Our study is certainly closing a couple of gaps in the last IPCC report. "But I still think that a number of people, including some politicians, are reluctant to accept the evidence or to do anything about it until we specifically come down to saying that one particular event was caused by humans like a serious flood somewhere or even a heatwave. "Until we get down to smaller scale events in both time and space I still think there will be people doubting the evidence."
To read the original article click here.
The Geography of Thought
The Geography of Thought by Richard E. Nisbett
Review by Dr. John D. Eigenauer (2006)
The author argues that the Greeks had a highly unusual and unusually developed “sense of personal agency”. This sense of individualism coincided with an equally developed curiosity. This, in turn, led them to cultivate learning as an important social and leisure activity. This contrasts sharply with the Chinese sense of “collective agency”, through which individuals nourished their sense of self through social relations, contributing to group goals, and “carrying out prescribed roles.” This emphasis on belonging and contributing diminished confrontation, debate, and curiosity.
These two social tendencies were reflected in the two civilizations’ main philosophies. The Greeks developed highly linear methods of understanding objects in isolation. This led to explanations of phenomena in terms of properties, such as a stone possessing “gravity” and a piece of wood possessing “levity.” A second characteristic of Greek thought is the emphasis on stasis: things do not change because things have properties, and properties cannot vary. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, emphasized flux, holism, complexity, and resonance. All things were to be understood in terms of their relationship to and embedded-ness in their environments. While the Greeks understood discrete objects in isolation, the Chinese understood objects as part of and inseparable from a larger environment. These two views led to two philosophical languages: the Greek that emphasized linearity, objectification, and elimination through contradiction, and the Chinese that emphasized circularity, holism, and an acceptance of contradiction (because “contradiction” was seen only as a distinction between “now” and a future state).
The author proposes a theory in the second chapter that socioeconomic and cultural factors “affect cognitive habits.” Specifically, the Greek mind (and hence the Western European mind) developed tendencies toward “personal freedom, individuality, and objective thought” because of an ecology that gave rise to economic and social structures such as shipping, trading, and hunting that enhanced individualism. In turn, these structures enhanced attentional tendencies to notice and describe objects in isolation, which led to an epistemology and a metaphysic that explained objects and their properties in isolation. In contrast, the Chinese ecology led to an agricultural society that emphasized interdependent networks of social relations. This led to attentional tendencies that focused on interconnectedness and relationships attentional among attentional objects, which naturally gave rise to a holistic philosophy that emphasized change and flux.
If the theory is correct, it ought to be testable through experiments that measure “field dependence”—a measurable tendency to see things as being isolated or integrated. Specifically, differences between Western European and East Asian people ought to manifest themselves in perceptions about objects and environments, objects and substances, the “controllability of the environment”, “stability and change”, categories and relationships, logical rules, and comfort with contradiction. The author argues that the Eastern concept of “self” is quite different from the corresponding Western concept. Asians’ sense of feeling good often comes from participation in a group, as can be seen by the fact that “In Chinese there is no word for ‘individualism.’ The closest one can come is the word ‘selfishness.’” Not only are Asians less aware of the individual, they also see themselves as being more malleable, describing “themselves” in different ways according to the occasion. Indeed, individuals in Eastern culture take pleasure in being involved in a harmonious “network of supportive social relationships” and in playing “one’s part in achieving collective ends.”
Numerous studies prove that traits typical of interdependent and independent people align themselves with Western and Eastern styles of being. Westerners prefer choices that allow autonomy, while Asians typically prefer those that encourage group preference or guidance from an authority figure. This is true from children to corporate workers to parents. These preferences are paralleled by Western preferences for binding contracts and legalistic resolution to conflicts (presumably because the individual is responsible for knowing and obeying the law), and for Eastern preference for negotiation and consideration of circumstance.
Studies also indicate that Western and Eastern language differs on these matters as well. Westerners have a highly developed “rhetoric of argumentation”, while Asians rarely (if ever) engage in this kind of dialogue. This is true of business, science, education, and law. Consequently, Asians often try to negotiate agreeable solutions in business or law where Westerners might see conflict resolved only in victory. This is equally true in science and education, where Asians might find technological solutions, but will not argue for the correctness of their theories in the same way that Western scientists or education commonly do.
The author hypothesizes that if social existence dictates the way that people see the world, then modern East Asian mentalities ought to mirror those of ancient Asia, and modern Western mentalities ought to parallel those of ancient Greece. This should be true, he says, not only of mental outlooks, but of actual perceptual tendencies. Many tests bear this hypothesis out. For example, Americans consistently identify objects by their shape, while Asians identify the substance of which something is made and see two objects as being “alike” if they share the same substance, even though they may have different shapes or different functions.
These perceptual tendencies spill over to the workplace, where Americans see companies as composed of discrete parts and workers as having discrete jobs, whereas Asians work is seen as a holistic place in which networks of people work together to reach an end.
This is true more generally as well. Tests demonstrate that even as children, Americans are more object- and fact-oriented than Asians, which allows Asians to be far more aware of environment and social context. As adults, Asians describe things contextually, while Americans describe objects as environment-independent. Consequently, Asians are better at seeing “relationships between events.” One result of these perceptual differences is that Americans perceive themselves as being more in control of their environments and their destinies. Not only do they see themselves as more in control, but Americans express a decided need to be in control, whereas Asians express comfort with the fact that many things are beyond their control. This tacit understanding of the individual’s role in controlling his future may explain why Americans consistently saw trends as likely to continue and Asians saw them as signs that they would likely reverse.
In the next chapter, Nisbett theorizes that Asians emphasize context more in their causal explanations than do Americans. Consequently, Americans use theories about individual personalities to explain actions and outcomes, whereas Asians tend to offer explanations that emphasize environment. This is equally true in simple perceptual tests that indicate that Westerners emphasize ascribe more to properties of objects than do Asians, who see environments as influencing objects. “Westerners attend primarily to the focal object object or person and Asians attend more broadly to the field. Westerners tend to assume that events are caused by the object and Asians are inclined to assign greater importance to the context.” One interesting facet of these tendencies is that Americans tend to isolate objects (or people) in causal chains, while Asians emphasize the complex nature of multiple events in any given situation. This makes American explanations of historical events more simplistic and Asian explanations more complex.
The next chapter explores the relationships between language and thought, demonstrating that Asian and Westerner languages reflect the perceptive differences of their respective speakers. Westerners, for example, use categories to classify objects more readily and more frequently than Asians, who prefer to describe objects in terms of relationships. Consequently, Westerners also apply rules to categorization more easily.
This difference starts out in childhood, where studies prove that Western children learn nouns faster than verbs, and Asian children learn verbs faster than Western children. This may in turn be partly attributable to the languages themselves, given that “East Asian languages are highly contextual,” with meaning necessarily being extracted from context, whereas English words are intentionally decontextualized. For example, English sentences focus largely on objects, with the subject often taking primary place, whereas Asian sentences mostly begin with “context and topic.”
This could mean that “the differences in linguistic structure between languages are reflected in people’s habitual thinking processes.” Tests about how people group objects (based upon relationships or characteristics) bear this out, suggesting that thought patterns are affected by both culture and language.
Eastern and Western views of logic have diverged greatly, with the Asian tradition making only slight inroads in logical theory, and never separating logic from context. Consequently, Asians use experience more and logical principles less in judging propositions. This leads to the observation that Asians often seek conflict resolution through some middle ground, while Americans commonly choose one side of an argument. This leads us to believe that Americans are generally uncomfortable with contradiction, while Asians are not—a conclusion confirmed by numerous tests. One such test, for example, shows that Asians are likely to report contradictory emotions when describing a face, while Americans are likely to choose between emotions, such as “happy” or “sad” but not at the same time.
There are many social ramifications of different Eastern and Western modes of thought. For example, Eastern medicine focuses on prevention and balance, while Western medicine focuses on cure and intervention. Legally, Western rationalism has led to a focus on justice at odds with Eastern ideas about fairness and the complexity of circumstances. Quite naturally, these different views of law result in different views of debate and rhetoric, with Westerners focusing more on linguistic and logical devices that enable pursuit of a single truth. The pursuit of a single truth, in turn, may complicate matters such as international relations, politics in general, contracts, and even human rights; Asians make decisions in all these fields with a focus on cooperative, holistic, flexible solutions.
One could ask which of these two forms of thought is “correct”. The answer is that each has benefits and drawbacks. In political and social settings, reductionist solutions may provide a means of conflict resolution that satisfies legalistically, but may diminish social relations; Asian means of conflict resolution enhance social relations and feelings of cooperation. On the other hand, scientific research benefits from binary truth solutions and direct debate and suffers from traditionally Asian tactics that more easily accommodate contradiction.
There is debate about whether the world is headed toward integrated Americanism or if continued diversity will be the rule. The evidence, as might be expected, is completely inconclusive, with each side able to produce indications that we are headed one of those directions. More important than this speculation is the concrete finding that people are culturally malleable, their minds and tendencies shifting toward the culture in which they reside.
To read the original article click here.
Review by Dr. John D. Eigenauer (2006)
The author argues that the Greeks had a highly unusual and unusually developed “sense of personal agency”. This sense of individualism coincided with an equally developed curiosity. This, in turn, led them to cultivate learning as an important social and leisure activity. This contrasts sharply with the Chinese sense of “collective agency”, through which individuals nourished their sense of self through social relations, contributing to group goals, and “carrying out prescribed roles.” This emphasis on belonging and contributing diminished confrontation, debate, and curiosity.
These two social tendencies were reflected in the two civilizations’ main philosophies. The Greeks developed highly linear methods of understanding objects in isolation. This led to explanations of phenomena in terms of properties, such as a stone possessing “gravity” and a piece of wood possessing “levity.” A second characteristic of Greek thought is the emphasis on stasis: things do not change because things have properties, and properties cannot vary. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, emphasized flux, holism, complexity, and resonance. All things were to be understood in terms of their relationship to and embedded-ness in their environments. While the Greeks understood discrete objects in isolation, the Chinese understood objects as part of and inseparable from a larger environment. These two views led to two philosophical languages: the Greek that emphasized linearity, objectification, and elimination through contradiction, and the Chinese that emphasized circularity, holism, and an acceptance of contradiction (because “contradiction” was seen only as a distinction between “now” and a future state).
The author proposes a theory in the second chapter that socioeconomic and cultural factors “affect cognitive habits.” Specifically, the Greek mind (and hence the Western European mind) developed tendencies toward “personal freedom, individuality, and objective thought” because of an ecology that gave rise to economic and social structures such as shipping, trading, and hunting that enhanced individualism. In turn, these structures enhanced attentional tendencies to notice and describe objects in isolation, which led to an epistemology and a metaphysic that explained objects and their properties in isolation. In contrast, the Chinese ecology led to an agricultural society that emphasized interdependent networks of social relations. This led to attentional tendencies that focused on interconnectedness and relationships attentional among attentional objects, which naturally gave rise to a holistic philosophy that emphasized change and flux.
If the theory is correct, it ought to be testable through experiments that measure “field dependence”—a measurable tendency to see things as being isolated or integrated. Specifically, differences between Western European and East Asian people ought to manifest themselves in perceptions about objects and environments, objects and substances, the “controllability of the environment”, “stability and change”, categories and relationships, logical rules, and comfort with contradiction. The author argues that the Eastern concept of “self” is quite different from the corresponding Western concept. Asians’ sense of feeling good often comes from participation in a group, as can be seen by the fact that “In Chinese there is no word for ‘individualism.’ The closest one can come is the word ‘selfishness.’” Not only are Asians less aware of the individual, they also see themselves as being more malleable, describing “themselves” in different ways according to the occasion. Indeed, individuals in Eastern culture take pleasure in being involved in a harmonious “network of supportive social relationships” and in playing “one’s part in achieving collective ends.”
Numerous studies prove that traits typical of interdependent and independent people align themselves with Western and Eastern styles of being. Westerners prefer choices that allow autonomy, while Asians typically prefer those that encourage group preference or guidance from an authority figure. This is true from children to corporate workers to parents. These preferences are paralleled by Western preferences for binding contracts and legalistic resolution to conflicts (presumably because the individual is responsible for knowing and obeying the law), and for Eastern preference for negotiation and consideration of circumstance.
Studies also indicate that Western and Eastern language differs on these matters as well. Westerners have a highly developed “rhetoric of argumentation”, while Asians rarely (if ever) engage in this kind of dialogue. This is true of business, science, education, and law. Consequently, Asians often try to negotiate agreeable solutions in business or law where Westerners might see conflict resolved only in victory. This is equally true in science and education, where Asians might find technological solutions, but will not argue for the correctness of their theories in the same way that Western scientists or education commonly do.
The author hypothesizes that if social existence dictates the way that people see the world, then modern East Asian mentalities ought to mirror those of ancient Asia, and modern Western mentalities ought to parallel those of ancient Greece. This should be true, he says, not only of mental outlooks, but of actual perceptual tendencies. Many tests bear this hypothesis out. For example, Americans consistently identify objects by their shape, while Asians identify the substance of which something is made and see two objects as being “alike” if they share the same substance, even though they may have different shapes or different functions.
These perceptual tendencies spill over to the workplace, where Americans see companies as composed of discrete parts and workers as having discrete jobs, whereas Asians work is seen as a holistic place in which networks of people work together to reach an end.
This is true more generally as well. Tests demonstrate that even as children, Americans are more object- and fact-oriented than Asians, which allows Asians to be far more aware of environment and social context. As adults, Asians describe things contextually, while Americans describe objects as environment-independent. Consequently, Asians are better at seeing “relationships between events.” One result of these perceptual differences is that Americans perceive themselves as being more in control of their environments and their destinies. Not only do they see themselves as more in control, but Americans express a decided need to be in control, whereas Asians express comfort with the fact that many things are beyond their control. This tacit understanding of the individual’s role in controlling his future may explain why Americans consistently saw trends as likely to continue and Asians saw them as signs that they would likely reverse.
In the next chapter, Nisbett theorizes that Asians emphasize context more in their causal explanations than do Americans. Consequently, Americans use theories about individual personalities to explain actions and outcomes, whereas Asians tend to offer explanations that emphasize environment. This is equally true in simple perceptual tests that indicate that Westerners emphasize ascribe more to properties of objects than do Asians, who see environments as influencing objects. “Westerners attend primarily to the focal object object or person and Asians attend more broadly to the field. Westerners tend to assume that events are caused by the object and Asians are inclined to assign greater importance to the context.” One interesting facet of these tendencies is that Americans tend to isolate objects (or people) in causal chains, while Asians emphasize the complex nature of multiple events in any given situation. This makes American explanations of historical events more simplistic and Asian explanations more complex.
The next chapter explores the relationships between language and thought, demonstrating that Asian and Westerner languages reflect the perceptive differences of their respective speakers. Westerners, for example, use categories to classify objects more readily and more frequently than Asians, who prefer to describe objects in terms of relationships. Consequently, Westerners also apply rules to categorization more easily.
This difference starts out in childhood, where studies prove that Western children learn nouns faster than verbs, and Asian children learn verbs faster than Western children. This may in turn be partly attributable to the languages themselves, given that “East Asian languages are highly contextual,” with meaning necessarily being extracted from context, whereas English words are intentionally decontextualized. For example, English sentences focus largely on objects, with the subject often taking primary place, whereas Asian sentences mostly begin with “context and topic.”
This could mean that “the differences in linguistic structure between languages are reflected in people’s habitual thinking processes.” Tests about how people group objects (based upon relationships or characteristics) bear this out, suggesting that thought patterns are affected by both culture and language.
Eastern and Western views of logic have diverged greatly, with the Asian tradition making only slight inroads in logical theory, and never separating logic from context. Consequently, Asians use experience more and logical principles less in judging propositions. This leads to the observation that Asians often seek conflict resolution through some middle ground, while Americans commonly choose one side of an argument. This leads us to believe that Americans are generally uncomfortable with contradiction, while Asians are not—a conclusion confirmed by numerous tests. One such test, for example, shows that Asians are likely to report contradictory emotions when describing a face, while Americans are likely to choose between emotions, such as “happy” or “sad” but not at the same time.
There are many social ramifications of different Eastern and Western modes of thought. For example, Eastern medicine focuses on prevention and balance, while Western medicine focuses on cure and intervention. Legally, Western rationalism has led to a focus on justice at odds with Eastern ideas about fairness and the complexity of circumstances. Quite naturally, these different views of law result in different views of debate and rhetoric, with Westerners focusing more on linguistic and logical devices that enable pursuit of a single truth. The pursuit of a single truth, in turn, may complicate matters such as international relations, politics in general, contracts, and even human rights; Asians make decisions in all these fields with a focus on cooperative, holistic, flexible solutions.
One could ask which of these two forms of thought is “correct”. The answer is that each has benefits and drawbacks. In political and social settings, reductionist solutions may provide a means of conflict resolution that satisfies legalistically, but may diminish social relations; Asian means of conflict resolution enhance social relations and feelings of cooperation. On the other hand, scientific research benefits from binary truth solutions and direct debate and suffers from traditionally Asian tactics that more easily accommodate contradiction.
There is debate about whether the world is headed toward integrated Americanism or if continued diversity will be the rule. The evidence, as might be expected, is completely inconclusive, with each side able to produce indications that we are headed one of those directions. More important than this speculation is the concrete finding that people are culturally malleable, their minds and tendencies shifting toward the culture in which they reside.
To read the original article click here.
Why free early childhood education?
Linda Mitchell
Senior Researcher
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
The New Zealand Government’s policy is to provide up to 20 hours free optional early childhood education (ECE) to all 3 and 4 year-olds in teacher-led services from July 2007. This initiative came with widespread early childhood education sector support, having been promoted as a goal by sector representatives and individuals who participated in the working group to develop the early childhood education strategic plan. The working group’s vision was for “an entitlement to a reasonable amount of free early childhood education for all children before they start school” (working group for the Development of the Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education, 2001).
New Zealand’s adoption of a policy of free early childhood education is in keeping with trends in OECD countries to provide at least two years free provision before children start school. A free universal approach has long been adopted in some countries: in Italy from age 3 years, in Belgium (Flemish and French communities) from 30 months, and in the Netherlands from age 4 (OECD, 2001). More recently other countries have come to regard free provision as a priority, including England where 3 and 4 year-olds are entitled to a part-time early childhood education place,
comprising five 2½-hour sessions per week for 11 weeks each term. One issue being aired now is how to expand the entitlement to younger children and for longer hours. According to the Daycare Trust in England, while “parents have welcomed the initiative and the take-up of free place has been very high”, the hours are in paid employment (Daycare Trust, 2004).
Arguments for early childhood education to be free are based on research evidence on benefits of early childhood education and arguments for a rights-based approach to education of young children.
Participation in good quality early childhood education benefits children. Knowledge, skills, and dispositions developed in the early years equip a child to be a successful learner and participate constructively in society. Children who have experienced good quality early childhood education have higher performance on average than children who do not have this experience. These differences are enduring throughout a child’s schooling and into adulthood (Boocock, Barnett, &
Frede, 2001).
Any participation in good quality early childhood education is valuable. But the length of time children participate and their hours of attendance per week also make a difference. A range of studies, including the "Competent Children" study in New Zealand, the large-scale "Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years" project in the UK, and Swedish studies, found children who attend good quality early childhood education for longer (three or more years) do better on performance measures. There is less evidence about what is a desirable number of hours per week for children of different ages, but the up to 20 hours per week free to be offered in New Zealand falls within the range of optimal intensity for children’s learning and wellbeing.
Recently, the Early Childhood Council (Early Childhood Council, 2006) argued that the free early childhood education policy should be modified to fund 20 free hours for the “most disadvantaged” children. However, a targeted approach would not serve the best interests of children at risk, and does not address the needs of children who are not at risk.
targeted approaches rely on costly and time-consuming administrative processes that can stigmatise eligible families, deterring applications for assistance. There are issues about how to set criteria for “disadvantage” and assess these, and problems about children at the margins who do not meet criteria missing out. There is a danger of “ghettoising” at risk children, when research indicates that children from disadvantaged homes do better in centres that have more advantaged children in the same group (Jacobsen, 2003).
Recently, there has been advocacy to develop policy framed around the participatory rights of children. Provision of free early childhood education for all children whose parents see they would benefit from the opportunity is consistent with such rights.
References
Boocock, S. S., Barnett, W. S., & Frede, E. (2001). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs in other nations: Lessons for Americans. Young Children, September, 43–50.
Daycare Trust. (2004). A new era for universal childcare? London: Daycare Trust.
Early Childhood Council. (2006, 26 January). 20 free hours policy, in current form, will force early childhood centres to close. Media release, Early Childhood Council.
Jacobsen, L. (2003). Oklahoma Pre-K Progra m found Effective. Education Week, October 29, 19.
OECD. (2001). Starting strong. Early childhood education and care. Paris: Author.
Working Group for the Development of the Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education. (2001). Final report of the Working Group for the Development of the Strategic Plan forEarly Childhood Education. Retrieved 13 February 2006, from www.minedu.govt.nz
To read the original article click here.
Senior Researcher
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
The New Zealand Government’s policy is to provide up to 20 hours free optional early childhood education (ECE) to all 3 and 4 year-olds in teacher-led services from July 2007. This initiative came with widespread early childhood education sector support, having been promoted as a goal by sector representatives and individuals who participated in the working group to develop the early childhood education strategic plan. The working group’s vision was for “an entitlement to a reasonable amount of free early childhood education for all children before they start school” (working group for the Development of the Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education, 2001).
New Zealand’s adoption of a policy of free early childhood education is in keeping with trends in OECD countries to provide at least two years free provision before children start school. A free universal approach has long been adopted in some countries: in Italy from age 3 years, in Belgium (Flemish and French communities) from 30 months, and in the Netherlands from age 4 (OECD, 2001). More recently other countries have come to regard free provision as a priority, including England where 3 and 4 year-olds are entitled to a part-time early childhood education place,
comprising five 2½-hour sessions per week for 11 weeks each term. One issue being aired now is how to expand the entitlement to younger children and for longer hours. According to the Daycare Trust in England, while “parents have welcomed the initiative and the take-up of free place has been very high”, the hours are in paid employment (Daycare Trust, 2004).
Arguments for early childhood education to be free are based on research evidence on benefits of early childhood education and arguments for a rights-based approach to education of young children.
Participation in good quality early childhood education benefits children. Knowledge, skills, and dispositions developed in the early years equip a child to be a successful learner and participate constructively in society. Children who have experienced good quality early childhood education have higher performance on average than children who do not have this experience. These differences are enduring throughout a child’s schooling and into adulthood (Boocock, Barnett, &
Frede, 2001).
Any participation in good quality early childhood education is valuable. But the length of time children participate and their hours of attendance per week also make a difference. A range of studies, including the "Competent Children" study in New Zealand, the large-scale "Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years" project in the UK, and Swedish studies, found children who attend good quality early childhood education for longer (three or more years) do better on performance measures. There is less evidence about what is a desirable number of hours per week for children of different ages, but the up to 20 hours per week free to be offered in New Zealand falls within the range of optimal intensity for children’s learning and wellbeing.
Recently, the Early Childhood Council (Early Childhood Council, 2006) argued that the free early childhood education policy should be modified to fund 20 free hours for the “most disadvantaged” children. However, a targeted approach would not serve the best interests of children at risk, and does not address the needs of children who are not at risk.
targeted approaches rely on costly and time-consuming administrative processes that can stigmatise eligible families, deterring applications for assistance. There are issues about how to set criteria for “disadvantage” and assess these, and problems about children at the margins who do not meet criteria missing out. There is a danger of “ghettoising” at risk children, when research indicates that children from disadvantaged homes do better in centres that have more advantaged children in the same group (Jacobsen, 2003).
Recently, there has been advocacy to develop policy framed around the participatory rights of children. Provision of free early childhood education for all children whose parents see they would benefit from the opportunity is consistent with such rights.
References
Boocock, S. S., Barnett, W. S., & Frede, E. (2001). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs in other nations: Lessons for Americans. Young Children, September, 43–50.
Daycare Trust. (2004). A new era for universal childcare? London: Daycare Trust.
Early Childhood Council. (2006, 26 January). 20 free hours policy, in current form, will force early childhood centres to close. Media release, Early Childhood Council.
Jacobsen, L. (2003). Oklahoma Pre-K Progra m found Effective. Education Week, October 29, 19.
OECD. (2001). Starting strong. Early childhood education and care. Paris: Author.
Working Group for the Development of the Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education. (2001). Final report of the Working Group for the Development of the Strategic Plan forEarly Childhood Education. Retrieved 13 February 2006, from www.minedu.govt.nz
To read the original article click here.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Cause of Poverty
J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, (New World's Press, 1989), pp. 44, 45.
"The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that "there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously since.
Through repeated acts of enclosure the peasants were pushed off the land so that the gentry could make money raising wool for the new and highly productive power looms. They could not do this if the peasants were to retain their historic entitlement to a share of production from the land. Massive starvation was the inevitable result of this expropriation.
There were serious discussions in learned circles about overpopulation as the cause of this poverty. This was the accepted reason because a social and intellectual elite were doing the rationalizing. It was they who controlled the educational institutions which studied the problem. Naturally the final conclusions (at least those published) absolved the wealthy of any responsibility for the plight of the poor. The absurdity of suggesting that England was then overpopulated is clear when we realize that "the total population of England in the sixteenth-century was less than in any one of several present-day English cities."
The hunger in underdeveloped countries today is equally tragic and absurd. Their European colonizers understood well that ownership of land gave the owner control over what society produced. The most powerful simply redistributed the valuable land titles to themselves, eradicating millennia-old traditions of common use. Since custom is a form of ownership, the shared use of land could not be permitted. If ever reestablished, this ancient practice would reduce the rights of these new owners. For this reason, much of the land went unused or underused until the owners could do so profitably. This is the pattern of land use that characterizes most Third World countries today, and it is this that generates hunger in the world.
These conquered people are kept in a state of relative impoverishment. Permitting them any substantial share of the wealth would negate the historic reason for conquest -- namely plunder. The ongoing role of Third World countries is to be the supplier of cheap and plentiful raw materials and agricultural products to the developed world.
Nature's wealth was, and is, being controlled to fulfill the needs of the world's affluent people. The U.S. is one of the prime beneficiaries of this well-established system. Our great universities search diligently for "the answer" to the problem of poverty and hunger. They invariably find it in "lack of motivation, inadequate or no education," or some other self-serving excuse. They look at everything except the cause -- the powerful people own the world's social wealth. As a major beneficiary, we have much to gain by perpetuating the myths of overpopulations, cultural and racial inferiority, and so forth. The real causes must be kept from ourselves, as how else can this systematic damaging of others be squared with what we are taught about democracy, rights, freedom, and justice?"
To read the original article click here.
"The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that "there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously since.
Through repeated acts of enclosure the peasants were pushed off the land so that the gentry could make money raising wool for the new and highly productive power looms. They could not do this if the peasants were to retain their historic entitlement to a share of production from the land. Massive starvation was the inevitable result of this expropriation.
There were serious discussions in learned circles about overpopulation as the cause of this poverty. This was the accepted reason because a social and intellectual elite were doing the rationalizing. It was they who controlled the educational institutions which studied the problem. Naturally the final conclusions (at least those published) absolved the wealthy of any responsibility for the plight of the poor. The absurdity of suggesting that England was then overpopulated is clear when we realize that "the total population of England in the sixteenth-century was less than in any one of several present-day English cities."
The hunger in underdeveloped countries today is equally tragic and absurd. Their European colonizers understood well that ownership of land gave the owner control over what society produced. The most powerful simply redistributed the valuable land titles to themselves, eradicating millennia-old traditions of common use. Since custom is a form of ownership, the shared use of land could not be permitted. If ever reestablished, this ancient practice would reduce the rights of these new owners. For this reason, much of the land went unused or underused until the owners could do so profitably. This is the pattern of land use that characterizes most Third World countries today, and it is this that generates hunger in the world.
These conquered people are kept in a state of relative impoverishment. Permitting them any substantial share of the wealth would negate the historic reason for conquest -- namely plunder. The ongoing role of Third World countries is to be the supplier of cheap and plentiful raw materials and agricultural products to the developed world.
Nature's wealth was, and is, being controlled to fulfill the needs of the world's affluent people. The U.S. is one of the prime beneficiaries of this well-established system. Our great universities search diligently for "the answer" to the problem of poverty and hunger. They invariably find it in "lack of motivation, inadequate or no education," or some other self-serving excuse. They look at everything except the cause -- the powerful people own the world's social wealth. As a major beneficiary, we have much to gain by perpetuating the myths of overpopulations, cultural and racial inferiority, and so forth. The real causes must be kept from ourselves, as how else can this systematic damaging of others be squared with what we are taught about democracy, rights, freedom, and justice?"
To read the original article click here.
In favour of Immigration
What's the best long-term immigration policy for the global economy? Right now we have an international system where goods and services move easily across national borders, but flows of people are strictly regulated. The 149 countries that belong to the World Trade Organization are committed, by treaty, to a "substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade." No such Organizationorganization or commitment exists for global immigration reform.
I think that's wrong. It should not be the case that toys and cars can move from country to country more easily than people do. Instead, pulling down the barriers that impede immigration should be our long-term goal. Immigration policy should facilitate the movement of people, just as trade policy facilitates the movement of goods.
From an economic perspective, this is a no-brainer. Right now, there are massive differences across countries in the rewards that skills garner. According to a new paper from Mark Rosenzweig, an economist at Yale, immigrants to the U.S. who are high school graduates earn far more than they did in their home countries. The same is true for college immigrats grads. An immigrats from Mexico with a college degree can earn almost 10 times more in the U.S. compared with what he or she would receive in Mexico.
In such a world, an open immigration policy produces massive gains to trade, as people move to countries that can make the best use of their skills and pay them accordingly. It's unambiguously good for the overall global economy if an entrepreneurial Mexican or Chinese can move to the U.S. and start a new business. Similarly, it's good that an ambitious and smart young Russian or Indian can move to the U.S., go to business school, and become a hot-shot consultant or an investment banker, either in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Such a world of open borders would mimic, on a larger scale, the situation that already exists within the U.S. People can move long distances from one part of the country to another, chasing better jobs and higher pay. Florida and Arizona do not erect barriers saying, "No more immigrants from the Midwest." Instead, they welcome them and even boast about the number of people moving to their states as a driving force for growth.
What are the objections to such an open-borders policy? The obvious one is that letting in a higher number of immigrants would drive down wages. However, economist David Card, of the University of California at Berkeley, has shown that there's little evidence that pay has gone down significantly in cities with large immigration populations (see BusinessWeek.com, 5/08/06, "The Economic Case For Legalizing Illegals").
This seemingly incomprehensible result makes more sense if you realize that an influx of immigrants is little different than native-born Americans moving to a new city, as happens all the time, or even a spate of children reaching working age. In each case, additional workers will create new jobs by their spending on food, housing, entertainment, and the like, even as they take existing jobs.
Another objection is that a higher number of immigrants will add to the country's fiscal burden, through higher future medical and education costs. There's more validity to this argument. It costs local governments a lot to educate immigrant children, and future Medicare and Medicaid expenses could effectively bankrupt the government, according to current projections.
But these problems are not as big as they seem. As the children of immigrants grow up, their contributions to the overall economy should exceed the costs of their education, even though that may not help the finances of the towns or cities where they grew up. And the long-term state of Medicare and Medicaid is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with regardless of whether or not there are immigrants here.
The biggest genuine obstacles to an open-borders policy are political and cultural, not economic. The first is that an excessively rapid and large influx of entrants from other countries could overwhelm the existing culture in a country or a region. This is a serious issue and not merely a reflection of cultural bias.
Second, an excessively rapid and large outflow of emigrants from a country -- particularly an outflow of especially well-educated people -- can lead to a brain drainthat damages the viability of an existing society. In the extreme, if enough people leave, it could create what Lant Pritchett of the World Bank calls a "ghost country." Nevertheless, the ability to move should be a fundamental right.
Open borders for immigration are not going to happen anytime soon. The political and cultural obstacles are too large, as the latest immigration debate in the U.S.A. shows. But over time, facilitating the free flow of people is going to be a critical step toward achieving a truly global economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)