The nature of machines

Every time there's a man-made disaster that's happened, a kind of talk finally emerges about Mother Nature biting us back for what we did and how it was a disaster waiting to happen. I don't think there's any such thing as a "disaster waiting to happen" (disasters happen because no one could have predicted their occurrence) but I digress.

We tend to say such things because they are a kind of background on which our civilization is based. Without it, we'd be nothing: all of our most important resources would disappear and the habitability of the world would decline alarmingly. Like some theoretical physicists say, we're background-dependent.

However, all that would still be just as right as it was about 200 years ago if our form of engagement with nature hadn't changed. With the advent of machines, humans moved out from within the resources-processing interface and into the processed-consumption interface.

Obviously, two-hundred years prior, the price of a product could have been determined by how dangerous it was to acquire the resources required to make it. Today, the price of the product is determined by how many people want to consume it.

As Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations (Book 01 chapter 07):

The market price of every particular commodity is regulated by the proportion between the quantity which is actually brought to market, and the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity, or the whole value of the rent, labour, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither. Such people may be called the effectual demanders, and their demand the effectual demand; since it may be sufficient to effectuate the bringing of the commodity to market. It is different from the absolute demand. A very poor man may be said in some sense to have a demand for a coach and six; he might like to have it; but his demand is not an effectual demand, as the commodity can never be brought to market in order to satisfy it.

The industrial interface has created a quick process through which absolute demand can become effectual demand (albeit for the purpose of capitalization): it makes previously unaffordable products wanted at first, and then cheaper, and then accessible.

In other words, our background dependence has shifted away from simply nature and towards simply industry. In fact, our engagement with nature is mediated in significant part by our engagement with various industries. Even if we ignore the very-real possibility that there's no clean way to do certain things, the immediate focus is more on consumption patterns than on industrial processes.

That's because everything is demand driven. If there is enough demand for a commodity, then it must be manufactured until the need has been satiated. Such thinking leaves no space for the evaluation of options during the resources-processing stage.

Who, then, watches the watchers? Who has an eye or, better yet, a hand over demand? Is there any such thing as consumer social responsibility? I suppose it's only been gaining traction for a decade or so with the coming of social media and greater general awareness on and accessibility of environmental issues.

However, it's not enough. Just because there are more people consuming than there are people producing doesn't mean the consumers will won; it can never be a war of numbers. On the other hand, I believe that those who engage with the environment in producing things for us to consume should have some say - and how much say should be the focus of policy-level debate. Consumer social responsibility can, at best, influence only how much wealth is created and not how it is created.

If anything, we should've learnt this from the penetration of social media, and technology by extension, into our lives: the way technology develops is hinged significantly on our perception of its capabilities. What technology becomes capable of doing is navigated by what we want it to do more than anything else.

Looks like I digressed anyway. What I (actually) wanted to ask was: with this new background-dependence on industrial processes, will the biggest disasters "waiting to happen" change from the natural kind to the industrial kind? Will they focus less on things such as resource depletion and more on possible resource use?

We've started to toy with industries in an effort to mitigate their impact on nature: if something's going wrong with the natural world, we quickly take a step back and make the necessary corrections on the industrial whiteboard. But because of a changing dynamic, surely this knee-jerk must have long-term effects.

--

This is an extension of something that Isaac Asimov touched on in one of his non-fiction pieces called 'The Robot Chronicles'.

The resolved pleasure of rural journalism

On January 2, 2012, I didn't think rural journalism would be something I could come to like. Being a science nerd, amongst other things, I always thought my heart would lie with the urban side of things: huge laboratories smashing the smallest things together, guilt-spasmed corporations funding obscure research, the grand designs and the fervent pursuit of knowledge, and essentially all things developed. However, meeting with the fishermen, farmers and salt pan workers of Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, shook the foundation I took for granted enough to have me reconsider my options. At first, at least.

The first sensation that becomes apparent is that, in rural journalism, public participation is much greater than on the urban side. In India, that's just because government policy is conspicuously biased toward the urban populace and urbanization, leaving the rural and the poor to fend for themselves in an economic environment that takes more than it gives. When the journalist shows himself, he finds that his place has already been clearly marked out: adversary to the government, darling of the masses, assumed to be sacrificial and, in many cases, leftist.

For the uninitiated, i.e. me, that's the sort of attention I've to really fight to get when working in science journalism. When reporting science stories, I don't have the assured readership of thousands of people, I don't have the constant reminder that if I goof up somewhere, actual lives and livelihoods will be rattled with it, and most of all, I don't have a fresh crop of stories day after day, week after week. Fortunately, and disregarding all these terrible thoughts (that have only the effect of bogging me down), what reportage in rural India will do best is reinforce your purpose as a journalist. That at the lowest level, journalism is as pertinent and life-changing as influencing economic policy is at the highest level.

At the same time, it becomes very easy to get lost in a sea of the micro: micro-political issues are rampant and most of them are self-limiting, and micro-economic issues often restrict the penetration of "urban goodness". With such regular and close contact with the deprived, most journalistic remediation focuses on the micro-issue of mitigation of the effects of resource theft. What IMHO it should focus on is the mitigation of the effects of improper deployment and administration, which is the root cause of all the theft.

For instance, the Sterlite copper smelting plant situated on the coast, next to Tuticorin's harbour, has been accused of severely polluting the neighbouring waters, depleting the water of the Thamirabharani, and undermining the significance of local and more traditional industries. I don't think that's what Sterlite has done. I think that's what all copper smelting plants do when the government can't step up and do its bit: modify policy perspectives to prevent abuse in the face of demand and have a hand on long-term evolution characteristics, broadly speaking.

However, because of a queasy and money-mongering government, Sterlite operations everywhere will take a hit. People will quote the damage the corporation has wrecked in south Tamil Nadu even if a plant is coming up somewhere where the necessary safeguards are in place. Industrialism is not all that dispensable, if you didn't know, and toying around with it for personal gains is only going to delegitimize its already-pocked facade. This is one of the most important perspectives of rural journalists that needs to be emphasized: that stories extend far beyond the interface of the deprived and the depleter, that just because they're not visible to the naked eye doesn't mean they aren't there.

[caption id="attachment_21204" align="aligncenter" width="266" caption="P. Sainath is an award-winning rural journalist who works efficiently between the deprived and the depleter, but his negligence of remedial measures makes him a cynic-in-power."][/caption]

All in all, I had a wonderful time talking to the people in Vagaikulam, Aalanthalai, Rajapandinagar, Nattaathi, Periyakulam, Subramaniyapuram, Srivaikundam, people employed in paddy-farming and banana plantations, raking salt in the salt pans, fishing, pearl-diving, weaving, and trading, people generous with their food, cynicism, homes and opinions. For a change, it felt strangely good to travel vast distances just to solicit the petitions of a few men and women under the grating January sun simply because there was someone waiting for a listen. That was the moment of (selfish?) pleasure that made the trip worth it.

Tackling Redhouse gas emissions

The 17^th conference on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change claims to have invited delegates from all member states of the UN to discuss on and arrive at a consensus toward the future of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in December next year. However, recent trends amongst participants have shown that the principle negotiating blocks are the USA, the EU and the BRICS nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Unfortunately, trends have also shown that no consensus on anything is reached until the last moment of the conference, thanks primarily to the lack of commitment each nation is willing to put up.

The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, put a binding legal agreement upon developed nations (or, as it calls them, “annex 1 nations”) to cut down on their emissions or face UN-imposed sanctions. As frail as the embargoes may themselves sound, most developed nations with the exception of the USA ratified the agreement and began the arduous process of, to use an appropriate mathematical term, “leaning” down. A recent study by The Economist has emerged that shows how Czechoslovakia cut down its emissions by as much as 30 per cent. But that misses the point: the focus has since shifted away from every country to a certain group of countries, each with its own brand of interests.

The successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which will take effect from 2015 onward if it is formulated in 2011 or 2012, will have to accommodate the emissions of developing nations. Before the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, more than half of all global emissions came from developed nations; today, 58 per cent of all emissions are by developing nations. This means that a binding legal agreement will have to lean down the USA, the EU as well as the BRICS bloc, and therein lies the rub.

The USA is willing to accede to such an agreement if the same limits and sanctions are imposed on all countries that ratify it, shirking away from a West-specific clause that will jeopardise its capacity to keep the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian economies in check. India, in turn, has a different concern altogether. The average emissions per capita per annum of an Indian are a mere 1.2 tonnes, and with more than 400 million of its people still living in poverty, India’s needs are more pressing than America’s because its need for development is righteously immense. Therefore, leashing both the USA and India with the same amount of rope makes no sense. However, the prospect of finally leashing the USA has the EU excited, which makes the BRICS’s resistance all the more important, all the more precarious.

Because of the significant unified bargaining power of the BRICS block, the biggest threat it could face is one of its members breaking rank, which the head of the Chinese delegate almost did. On December 6, Mr. Xie Zhenhua announced that China was ready to participate in a treaty that would legally bind both developing and developed nations, an announcement that is sure to have sent a shiver down the convention’s spine. However, before anything radical materialized, Mr. Zhenhua clarified that China was willing to participate in a treaty that would bind only the developed nations even though developing nations would be a part of it.

What is he trying to say? That the developing nations will evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of the developed nations? Or that China was prepared to break away and form its own bargaining front? Or was it simply a case of reckless overstepping that was quickly mitigated by the realization that China would have nowhere to go from thereon? Greenhouse gases can step aside: it seems a blast of hot, red air demands some attention now.

We, not the people.

Displacement versus development is a problem particularly difficult to explore because, beyond the initial recognition of the government's role as being "villainous", there is not much that has been said or done to establish a line beyond which displacement, with rehabilitation, becomes simply necessary. The pursuit of developmental goals by the Indian government has resulted in over 21.3 million being displaced internally according to a 1998 report by the Indian Social Institute, and almost 5.8 per cent, or 1.25 million, of them have been displaced by the establishment of industrial estates.

On the one hand, development seems like a two-faced engine that, whilst making possible a future wherein important resources may be purchased, consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. The proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam, for instance, will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu's shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added with the proposed installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned.

Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate?

Further, in order for the government to be in a position to define future growth in any sector, it must first be in a position to produce the necessary resources indigenously. In an increasingly urbanized context, however, those displaced are usually from the countryside - especially farmers, who are reliant on natural resources directly for their sustenance - and, therefore, upon displacing them, the government is only displacing the nation's principle conservationists. In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two instead of one.

1. Why is the government intent on displacing those peoples who are poised to benefit the least from the projects that displace them? (It is also that these people are invariably of a particular caste and/or profession, which makes the problem seem motivated)


2. Can development become necessary under any conditions and, therefore, assume precedence over displacement and the problems therewith? (This question includes issues of necessity, too)

In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India's leading economists, the central government's adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an "old order" that hasn't fully been dismantled. Whether or not it merits dismantlement is another question, but it is definitely unfair to systematically target a certain section of the population.

Subsequently, even before we are in a position to centre a debate around the safeguards against a reactor meltdown at Kudankulam, we must ask why Kudankulam and why not the outskirts of Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. We must ask what else is being done to whittle down unnecessary "losses" that have resulted in such huge power shortages.

Considering that the previous argument did not concern itself with the mining of natural resources: when it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a consequence of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state's part: that it will frame its growth rate in consultation with representatives from all industries without exception.

(In the absence of rehabilitation, those displaced from their lands become akin to refugees, such as those displaced by armed conflict, despite the granting of refugee status being at the discretion of political authorities. Post-displacement, projects aimed at rejuvenating the adivasi communities have only been on an ad hoc basis.

Even in the latest Draft National Rehabilitation Policy (NRP) 2006, those affected by the acquisition of their land do not have the right to be consulted before their property is chosen for acquisition. While there are landowners who have indeed agreed to hand over their land to the government, they are reluctant to do so until the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act is passed. Unfortunately, the corresponding bill is not listed among the 31 priority bills of the Parliament's winter session in 2011.)

If, at the policy level, a framework can be brought into existence that mandates a process through which, say, the rights of the Dongria Kondh are prioritized over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.

[caption id="attachment_20760" align="aligncenter" width="325" caption="Bauxite mining (top); Vedanta Alumina, a subsidiary of Sterlite Industries, Ltd., which received the controversial clearance from the SC to proceed with bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills"][/caption]

Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn't there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?

I am not against nuclear power or bauxite mining but for it; what I am against is the government's tendency to define "public interests" without the real interests of the "public" in mind. India needs some amount of aluminium and some amount of energy to realize some of its projected growth rates; what it doesn't need is the dousing of such important issues in a socio-political quagmire. Displacement v. development is, uniquely, a human rights issue, and it is an environmental issue as well, and while we are debating it, it is important to be aware of the human rights and environmental factors that influence the parameters whose traits we take for granted.

Half against the whole

In the context of such a massive number as seven billion, it becomes even more urgent to address a host of issues that are of concern to people today. While the stresses imposed on mineral and food resources guide state policies toward minimizing consumption, making distribution more efficient and distribution channels cleaner, the institutionalization of such directives involves, at its heart, women. It is important to address the needs and rights of those who constitute half the population of this planet.

The desired consequence of empowering women is their gaining in confidence that can help them escape those stereotypes born of outdated traditional customs, stereotypes that keep them from emerging into a meaningful public life.

While such grim realities are hardly reflected in statistical data, the disparity in access to healthcare services between men and women is startling. For instance, the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports (2010) by the United States government shows that in 2008, the state forecast that a minimum of 60.7 per cent of the people suffering from blood clots in the arteries could undergo successful fibrinolysis, a complex procedure to relieve the clots, by the year 2010. However, in 2010, while the number had been attained for males, women were expected to hit it somewhere in 2012.

Therefore, the transition from rhetoric to performance mandates the provision of round-the-clock and  easy access to healthcare for women. This empowers them to decide when or when not to have children and to determine the spacing between multiple births.

The reliance on such empowerment drives has been the greatest in developing and underdeveloped countries. Therefore, when the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded that the world's poorest countries have higher fertility and population growth rates, the causes seem to be lack of freedom to decide when to procreate, jobs that confine women to performing tasks within households, and the lack of access to contraceptives - or  ignorance of their use.

In turn, an increase in the number of people points to fewer opportunities for poor families to rise out of poverty. It is in such areas where deprivation is prevalent that unreasonable and hindering cultural norms arise, norms that hold women back from holding paying jobs. American anthropologist Oscar Lewis once said, "The subculture of the poor develops mechanisms that tend to perpetuate it, especially because of what happens to the world view, aspirations, and character of the children who grow up in it."

Once she has emerged from poverty and its special circumstances, how does her employment affect the global population? To answer this, consider a study published in 2010 by the Department of Professional Employees (DPE) that shows that labour force participation has increased "most dramatically" among married women in the years from 1950 to 2009. The same study by the DPE shows that the number of working women (in the USA) increased from 18.4 million in 1950 to 66.2 million in 2009, with the corresponding drop in fertility in the same period being 3.6 births per woman to 2.0 births per woman.

Interpreting these facts together, the consequences of a woman working assume two forms: the first is that more the time she spends at work, less the time she will have for her family and even less her willingness to bear more children. The second is that there will be a corresponding shift from larger to nuclear families, such as those that can afford to live in cities where job opportunities are more abundant. Fertility rates, therefore, are brought down as  larger families become unaffordable.

It must be borne in mind that these reforms, and any other, become effective only if the woman is in control of her reproduction. If we are to hope that seven billion is the peak after which there is a decline that eases the stress on our almost-invaluable resources, we will have to invest in the health and social wellbeing of women.

Cry havoc and let loose the apps of war!

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't eagerly awaiting the launch of Google+. I'd heard about it a month ago and ever since, I've had this feeling that Google's going to be integrating all the products it's rolled out in the past in one stroke, posing the first real threat to Facebook. While Buzz, Wave and Lively each had their flaws when deployed as a standalone application, they could find some relevance in this new avatar of social networking.

Going by the few reviews that have come out, it seems like Google+ is ahead on points because of its "refreshing" approach to online privacy - called Circles - and the video-chat add-in for conferencing.

Bernard Moon at VentureBeat had this to say:

But I realized that for many people, especially those outside of Silicon Valley, Facebook was their first and only social networking experience. These people either simply accepted all their worlds colliding, or limited their Facebook “friends” to real friends. Circles allows someone like me to group casual business acquaintances into a distinct circle where I don’t have to share personal details like family photos. It also allows for those previously uncomfortable with Facebook to potentially “let loose”.

He's right. Facebook for many years monopolized the social networking industry to the point of forcing its users to build their life around it, but with Google going the other way by being a little more flexible with its options, users now avail a choice: live around your social network, or let your social network live around you.

Here's another thing I noticed: Facebook co-owns the information I put up on it. Google+, on the other hand, has this to say on the license agreement:

“You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”

That's more like it!

(In fact, Google's privacy policy is only some 1,000 words long against Facebook's 6,000+.)

Let's set aside the broader picture for now and focus on the little things. The thing about Facebook and Twitter that made them quickly popular was their accessibility. On Twitter, all you had to do was create an account and pick the users you wanted to follow. On Facebook, after a simple login, you could add friends and... voila! Every other tool was ready for your use.

Not so for Google+. As soon as I login, I'm told I don't have a profile. See, and I didn't know that. So I went about filling in stuff and uploading my CV and whatnot. Then, it was time for my profile picture. That's when I realized that uploading one is apparently one of the things we take for granted: while it works like magic on Twitter and Facebook, it took me 20 minutes to "get it right" on Google+. First, it wasn't a picture of me. Fair enough. I picked another one, gave it a crop and hit submit: too big. Next: "Your internet connection is too slow". Next: "Invalid image".

Having a profile picture is one of the fundamental things about social networking, and I'm not moved by Google's concern to have everyone put up "legitimate" pictures as much as I'm frustrated with the delay it poses in accessing the good stuff. This should be moved out of the way as soon as possible.

An excerpt from CNN's piece on the release:

Google+ has photo sharing, which places a large emphasis on smartphone usage. For example, photos taken from an Android phone can be automatically dumped into a private folder in the Google+ Web service, a la Apple's iCloud.

The +1 button, which was previously made available as an optional program for Google account holders, ties this all together, not unlike Facebook's "Like" button. Clicking +1 on Google search results, embedded on other sites or from within Google+ pages, allows you to share links with friends or selectively with groups of friends.

Unsurprisingly, Google has tapped its prowess in Web search for a section called Sparks. It's like Google Alerts, for receiving updates on favorite topics. Facebook's search engine is Microsoft's Bing, but users of that site can't subscribe to updates in this way.

That pretty much sums it up. The release is still in Beta and so nothing can be said about the site's dynamics when large volumes are concerned. One other thing is that Facebook and Microsoft are known to share a close relationship, and the latter's hefty acquisition of Skype a few weeks ago could mean a closer tie-in between the two to rival the video-chat advantage Google holds.

On a separate note: perhaps Facebook couldn't bear all the attention diverted away from it. Reuters got there first.

Chief Executive and founder Mark Zuckerberg told reporters in a visit to Facebook's Seattle office on Wednesday that the company planned to "launch something awesome" next week.

A Facebook spokesman declined to provide further details about Zuckerberg's comments.

'Nuff said.

Cry havoc and let loose the apps of war!

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't eagerly awaiting the launch of Google+. I'd heard about it a month ago and ever since, I've had this feeling that Google's going to be integrating all the products it's rolled out in the past in one stroke, posing the first real threat to Facebook. While Buzz, Wave and Lively each had their flaws when deployed as a standalone application, they could find some relevance in this new avatar of social networking.

Going by the few reviews that have come out, it seems like Google+ is ahead on points because of its "refreshing" approach to online privacy - called Circles - and the video-chat add-in for conferencing.

Bernard Moon at VentureBeat had this to say:

But I realized that for many people, especially those outside of Silicon Valley, Facebook was their first and only social networking experience. These people either simply accepted all their worlds colliding, or limited their Facebook “friends” to real friends. Circles allows someone like me to group casual business acquaintances into a distinct circle where I don’t have to share personal details like family photos. It also allows for those previously uncomfortable with Facebook to potentially “let loose”.

He's right. Facebook for many years monopolized the social networking industry to the point of forcing its users to build their life around it, but with Google going the other way by being a little more flexible with its options, users now avail a choice: live around your social network, or let your social network live around you.

Here's another thing I noticed: Facebook co-owns the information I put up on it. Google+, on the other hand, has this to say on the license agreement:

“You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”

That's more like it!

(In fact, Google's privacy policy is only some 1,000 words long against Facebook's 6,000+.)

Let's set aside the broader picture for now and focus on the little things. The thing about Facebook and Twitter that made them quickly popular was their accessibility. On Twitter, all you had to do was create an account and pick the users you wanted to follow. On Facebook, after a simple login, you could add friends and... voila! Every other tool was ready for your use.

Not so for Google+. As soon as I login, I'm told I don't have a profile. See, and I didn't know that. So I went about filling in stuff and uploading my CV and whatnot. Then, it was time for my profile picture. That's when I realized that uploading one is apparently one of the things we take for granted: while it works like magic on Twitter and Facebook, it took me 20 minutes to "get it right" on Google+. First, it wasn't a picture of me. Fair enough. I picked another one, gave it a crop and hit submit: too big. Next: "Your internet connection is too slow". Next: "Invalid image".

Having a profile picture is one of the fundamental things about social networking, and I'm not moved by Google's concern to have everyone put up "legitimate" pictures as much as I'm frustrated with the delay it poses in accessing the good stuff. This should be moved out of the way as soon as possible.

An excerpt from CNN's piece on the release:

Google+ has photo sharing, which places a large emphasis on smartphone usage. For example, photos taken from an Android phone can be automatically dumped into a private folder in the Google+ Web service, a la Apple's iCloud.

The +1 button, which was previously made available as an optional program for Google account holders, ties this all together, not unlike Facebook's "Like" button. Clicking +1 on Google search results, embedded on other sites or from within Google+ pages, allows you to share links with friends or selectively with groups of friends.

Unsurprisingly, Google has tapped its prowess in Web search for a section called Sparks. It's like Google Alerts, for receiving updates on favorite topics. Facebook's search engine is Microsoft's Bing, but users of that site can't subscribe to updates in this way.

That pretty much sums it up. The release is still in Beta and so nothing can be said about the site's dynamics when large volumes are concerned. One other thing is that Facebook and Microsoft are known to share a close relationship, and the latter's hefty acquisition of Skype a few weeks ago could mean a closer tie-in between the two to rival the video-chat advantage Google holds.

On a separate note: perhaps Facebook couldn't bear all the attention diverted away from it. Reuters got there first.

Chief Executive and founder Mark Zuckerberg told reporters in a visit to Facebook's Seattle office on Wednesday that the company planned to "launch something awesome" next week.

A Facebook spokesman declined to provide further details about Zuckerberg's comments.

'Nuff said.

The morality of money

Let us clarify our moral position towards money.

• It is unfair to blame the egoism of an egotist on the money he or she possesses.


• It is unfair to blame any evil inflicted upon the undeserving on the money that enables it.


• It is unfair to blame the failure of the working on the profits he or she may have first aspired for.


• It is unfair to assume that money may not purchase happiness or love without knowledge of all of one's recourses.


• It is unfair to conclude that money does not make the world go around irrespective of whether it may or may not.


• It is unfair to foist the status quo of the human condition upon the desire for money.


• It is unfair to include money into theocratic disciplines so as to justify its purpose in the hands of man, woman and/or child.


• It is unfair to exclude the institution of money from the successes of mankind.


• It is unfair to blame money whilst grieving the loss of money.


• It is unfair for any one man, woman and/or child to claim money is ephemeral.


• It is not wholly fair for all men, women and/or children to claim money is ephemeral.


• It is unfair to renounce money and, therefore, claim to have renounced materialism.


• It is unfair to hoist solely the blame of violating law upon money when it also facilitates the creation of law.

Wherefore the hungry hand recedes from the market upon the doorstep of which it has laid down a product of its skill, thereunto extends the healthy hand the money that stamps the seal of fair exchange.

The morality of money

Let us clarify our moral position towards money.

• It is unfair to blame the egoism of an egotist on the money he or she possesses.


• It is unfair to blame any evil inflicted upon the undeserving on the money that enables it.


• It is unfair to blame the failure of the working on the profits he or she may have first aspired for.


• It is unfair to assume that money may not purchase happiness or love without knowledge of all of one's recourses.


• It is unfair to conclude that money does not make the world go around irrespective of whether it may or may not.


• It is unfair to foist the status quo of the human condition upon the desire for money.


• It is unfair to include money into theocratic disciplines so as to justify its purpose in the hands of man, woman and/or child.


• It is unfair to exclude the institution of money from the successes of mankind.


• It is unfair to blame money whilst grieving the loss of money.


• It is unfair for any one man, woman and/or child to claim money is ephemeral.


• It is not wholly fair for all men, women and/or children to claim money is ephemeral.


• It is unfair to renounce money and, therefore, claim to have renounced materialism.


• It is unfair to hoist solely the blame of violating law upon money when it also facilitates the creation of law.

Wherefore the hungry hand recedes from the market upon the doorstep of which it has laid down a product of its skill, thereunto extends the healthy hand the money that stamps the seal of fair exchange.