Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Update: Manchester, Poland and beyond

When I last brought everyone up to date on my status, I had just spent my first Christmas away from home, and my second New Years Eve. Since then, not a heck of a lot has gone on, but enough to warrant an update. (note: click on any of the pictures in this post to see a larger version)

I spent the first few months of 2007 as I spend most of my months-going to debate tournaments and slacking off from doing any real work. The debate season is much less intense after the Christmas break, so there were only a few IVs (tournaments) to go to, though we did quite well by and large (I generally went with DanB). We went to Glasgow twice, Edinburgh, and London and made it to the final or semi-final in each. Many escapades occurred at some of these, though I won't get into that, even if I could remember all the details.

The most interesting one was Tilbury House. Tilbury House is the debate society for the University of Cologne, Germany, and is legendary amongst Manchester debaters for being the most fun IV of the year. Aside from the fact that the Tilbury guys are some of the coolest, nicest and easiest-going debaters, it's also a chance to see a really nice city in Germany, and they provide all sort of entertainment and spectacle.

As is traditional with foreign IVs, we spent a few days just exploring Cologne itself. The highlights of this are the gorgeous cathedral and the Lindt chocolate musem. The Cathedral is a massive testament to the Catholic church's penchant from dramatic architecture and the spires affords some amazing view of the city (in addition to a cardio workout that is non-pareil, given the number of steps one must climb to get there. Massive, vaulted ceilings, beautiful stained glass and works of art, and a series of enormous bells give testament to what you can achieve with nearly limitless untaxed financial resources, and a dedication to a higher power. Simply put, if you want to inspire a sense of awe in the almighty in people, a building like this is a great way to do it.

Interestingly, though, I found the interior of the cathedral to be somewhat... austere... compared to others I've seen. Notre Dame and Le Sacre Coeur in Paris, for example, absolutely drip with ostentatious opulence and grandeur. The Cologne cathedral, on the other hand-while grand and well-ornamented to be sure-had an interior largely devoid of excessive decoration. The massive walls up to the vaulted ceiling, for example, were largely bare, and presented an almost ascetic view of the church. Don't misunderstand-paintings and stained glass still abound, but they are more confined to specific areas than I've noted in other such grandiose churches.

The Lindt chocolate museum, on the other hand, was sugar-sweet fun. It showed a history of both the origins of the cocoa bean and its cultivation, and the Lindt company itself. A wander-at-your-own-pace experience, I was able to see everything from the earliest tools and canoe used to harvest and transport the pods of cocoa beans, up to currently-operational chocolate-making machinery. Quite an interesting process to get from giant palm-frond-bearing trees with nearly tasteless, bitter beans up to chocolate so yummy it borders on being a controlled substance. Plus, the entire place smells of chocolate, which is always nice. There's also a gift shop, which is just mean, because after spending an hour and a half learning about chocolate, how am I supposed to resist spending way too much on cool varieties of chocolate (including my favourite-dark chocolate with a hint of chili powder).

The tournament itself was fun, though I did disappointingly poorly. In general, I'm not too fussed about doing well or poorly, but in this case, I felt my team (Hannah and I) were clearly robbed in one round, which I do find frustrating. Still, one of the advantages of being thoroughly non-competitive is that you can still enjoy yourself even if you don't win. And we did that in droves. From a "bar crawl" that covered all of two bars (the latter of which I almost immediately fell asleep in despite being only tipsy) to a basement club buffet and party, to Kenny and I fake-smoking rolled-up vanilla wafers (while wearing a ridiculous shamrock Guinness hat I'd brought because it was St. Patrick's Day), it was a good time all around, and I eagerly await going back next year for more. And, in fairness, Manchester was represented in the final, as Tom and Kenny defended the right of people to gauge in incestual relationships (note: the sides of a debate are chosen randomly, and debaters' views do no necessarily represent what they argue in the round).

The next big event was my trip to Krakow, Poland. This was a fairly spur-of-the-moment trip, organised all of ten days before we left. Mo and his MBA compatriots were set to finish their course near the middle of April, and Mo wanted to take some time off to travel before starting work. Therefore, he recruited myself and his friend Sam into a trip to Eastern Europe. We settled on Krakow fairly arbitrarily, insofar as it was cheap, none of us had ever been there, and I'd heard it was great (I have several friends who had spent some time in Krakow, and all raved about the experience). And I have to say, I'm glad we went.

I had misconceptions about Eastern Europe, largely based on the dated stereotypes of a run-down, desolate wasteland, held over from the days of the USSR and its iron curtain (see Eurotrip for the classic view of this stereotype). In fact, it's quite the contrary. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall and Soviet-era communism, and aided by the EU, the former Eastern Bloc countries have pushed for greater integration and prosperity, and it shows. Yes, there are still pre-fab construction apartment blocks, but there's also a wealth of old and exquisite architecture. Honestly, it's one of the favourite trips I've taken, and I cannot wait to go back.

Partly, we got lucky. The entire time we were there, it was 22C and sunny, which makes any trip nicer (just wish I'd brought shorts). But it's more than that. Krakow, especially in April, when we went, isn't too touristy, so you don't get a throng of camera-wielding people wherever you go. Everything is cheap-food, beer, consumer products, all cost about 1/3 of what they do in the UK. The women are beautiful and plentiful, a wonderful-if rare-combination. The nightlife was thriving and featured a lack of cover charges in addition to the aforementioned cheap drinks. And there's tons of history, which I will describe below (since the nightlife stories don't exactly require a lot of explanation). There are three historic sites of note which I visited while there: Kamierz, Auschwitz, Wawel Castle and the Wieliczka salt mine.

Kazimierz is the Jewish district, which at one point was the largest Jewish community in all of Europe. Though many of the Jews fled during the Nazi occupation, the area still maintains its distinctive feel and atmosphere, and provided a nice walk on a sunny day. I also ate, with Sam, one of the best meals I had in Poland at a small restaurant called "Noah's Ark", which featured live traditional Jewish music, played by a three-piece band (bass, clarinet and accordion).

Auschwitz, of course, lies at the other end of the spectrum of Jewish significance. The site of the largest concentration camps of the Nazi regime, Auschwitz and Birkenau, the location is steeped in morbid infamy. I unfortunately arrived late in the day, only about an hour and a half before the close of the camp (now a museum), so I didn't get to explore to the extent that I would have liked.

The front gates of Auschwitz are marked with the infamous slogan Arbeit Macht Frei. This translates to "work will set you free". Which, as it turns out, was a lie. Auschwitz, and more specifically Birkenau (which I ran out of time for, and didn't get to see) were home to the worst parts of the Nazi "Final Solution". This is where people were herded onto cattle cars and gassed by the thousands. Needless to say, it's a sobering experience. However, what I found interesting is that the camp itself didn't seem as ominous as I'd expected; though obviously people were crammed in well beyond any reasonable capacity, the barracks looked like standard barracks, not the bastions of torture they really were. What really drove the point home, though, was the little things. It was seeing a display of the hundreds of thousands of eye glasses, shoes or combs that were unearthed. Even though it doesn't seem like this should carry the same weight as the pictures and descriptions of the place, these displays of so many commonplace objects, combined with the obvious reason behind their being discarded, really drove home the magnitude of the atrocities.

It also created an interesting dilemma for me, as a visitor to the camp. After being chastised many times by my mother for taking pictures of places and things as opposed to myself in those places, I have made sure I get photos of myself whenever I travel. But, it brought up an interesting question: is it right to smile in a photo taken at Auschwitz? It seems very disrespectful to be smiling in photos of a place where one of the worst crimes in human history was perpetrated, where untold millions lost their lives. In the end, I chose to appear in the photos, but to not smile.

Wieliczka, on the other hand, is a much cheerier place. It's a salt mine first opened in the 13th century, though surface salt had been discovered as much as 200 years prior. It's also, by far, the biggest salt mine in the world, extending down over 300m and featuring over 200km of internal tunnels and over 2000 caverns. This alone would make it an interesting site to see. What's truly fascinating, however, is the carvings. You see, as the miners (who were not professional sculptors) dug further into the earth, they created massive carvings along their way, of amazing intricacy. But these carvings and statues were not hewn from stone or wood; instead they were carved directly into the salt walls themselves. The big giant head you see Mo and I standing besides (and old king of Poland), for example, was carved directly from the salt itself as the cavern was excavated. Futhermore, the plaque behind the head, the walls and even the floor and ceiling were similarly carved out of the salt walls. They even carved mosaics, including the last supper and other frescos. The work was amazing intricate and I verified that it was made out of salt (I licked the Copernicus statue). The amount of time and effort required for such a thing is truly mind-boggling.

Perhaps most impressive, though, was the main hall. The picture you see to the left is a view from the balcony (also carved out of salt). What must be noted about this view is that everything is made out of salt. The stairs, the floor "tiles", even the chandeliers! At one point, this entire hall (about 125m underground, by the way) was nothing more than a solid wall of rock salt. It was only as the salt was removed for sale and processing that the hall as you now see it emerged. And once more, you wouldn't know it, unless you you were told (or licked the walls and floor), because the floor looks like marble tiles, as do the stairs and walls; the chandeliers look like any other crystal chandeliers, and the wall carvings look like stone carvings. At the far end of the hall is an entire Catholic altar for church proceedings (most of the miners were very religious). It truly was a marvel to see.

Needless to say, I loved Poland. while there I ran into a random Canadian who was spending a year teaching English. I have to see, it's an idea whose appeal seems instantly obvious to me. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and cannot wait to go back; the idea of being able to spend a year really getting to know the city is one with great magnetism. No matter what, I know I will return, as soon as I am able.

And that brings us pretty much up to speed. My work is progressing, slowly. I have made up my first batch of samples, and have sent them off to the lab with which collaborate (in Marseilles, France). In the meantime, I'm back to doing more boring journal-reading and online research. Which is why I get bored and write in my blog instead of doing work. That being said, I'm hoping to get some real results soon, which is both encouraging and something I hope will spur further excitement-it's easy to feel the drag of long projects like this one. I hope all is well with any who read this, and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The MacOS as a command economy, the PC as a free market

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Working men of all countries, unite!"

- Karl Marx

The title of this post is hyperbolic at best, outright disingenuous at worst. I do not see Steve Jobs as Lenin, nor Bill Gates as Adam Smith. Rather, it reflects a recent revelation that I had: Apple strives for tight-knit control over the whole computing ecosystem for Macs (Steve Jobs famously described Apple's strategy as "Making the whole widget"), and are largely successful at doing so (the most notable example being the vertical integration of the iPod, iTunes and the iTunes Store); the PC world, on the other hand (by which I mean Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Dell, HP, etc.) is much more about having a wide variety of competition for every component (Microsoft's antitrust practices aside). Each side has benefits and problems, and I think the two approaches reflect very aptly the strengths and weaknesses of a command economy contrasted with a free market state.

As a note of disclosure, I have been using Macs exclusively at home, starting 20 years ago with a Mac 512K, up to my current system-a PowerMac G5 tower. I have used a variety of Windows-based systems at school and work, and have dabbled very slightly in Linux/Unix, but cannot claim significant knowledge. In addition, I read Slashdot and similar nerdy sites, thus keeping abreast of tech news to whatever extent I can (often to the detriment of my general world knowledge and my Ph.D.). My undergrad degree was also computer related, specifically it was in Engineering Systems and Computing. So, while I'm by no means a professional tech pundit, neither am I a babe in the woods.

So, let me first be clear about why I feel each approach is representative of the economic/political strategy with which I have associated it. Apple has traditionally tried to maintain much tighter control over its products. Putting aside the poorly-thought-out cloning program in the mid-90s, Apple has been the only company capable (legally and technically) of making computers that run the MacOS. Furthermore, they have stuck to stringent standards with their computers: whereas a company like Dell will buy network cards (for example) from whichever supplier can give them the best price on a given day, Apple tends to stick to one manufacturer-and one particular model of network cards-for long periods of time. Apple tends to include lots of features right on the motherboard that PC manufacturers typically include as PCI cards (high-quality sound cards, gigabit ethernet, firewire, etc.). As a result, there is a comparatively small market of upgrade cards for Macs. Since Apple includes most features on-board that average users would need, many people will never even upgrade. Therefore, Apple can reasonably predict that the overwhelming majority of its products in use conform to a reasonably small, and definitely finite set of specifications. Furthermore, Apple provides, free of charge on new Macs, a fairly robust set of software-notably iLife (photo management, music creation and playing, video and DVD creation), iWork (a word processor and Powerpoint-like presentation application), Safari (Apple's Web Browser) and Mail.

The PC world, on the other hand, is dominated by a plethora of manufacturers. You want to buy a network card? There are 200 brands at your local PC superstore. USB cards and peripherals, video cards, and of course, software, all come in myriad competing packages. Though Windows is dominant on the operating system front, there is a hardcore contingent of Linux and Unix users. Furthermore, because the basic installation of Windows contains fairly rudimentary software packages compared to iLife and iWork, and because there are so many Windows users, there's a much more burgeoning market for 3rd-party software. As a result of all this, there is a nearly-limitless number of potential configurations of PC machines. Any slightly-different combination of modem/network card/video card/USB card/Operating System/Productivity applications/etc. is an entirely novel setup compared to any other. While I'm sure the number of potential setups is theoretically finite, I pity the poor bastard who'd have to even figure out how many potential combinations there are, much less what they all are. Similarly, non-iPod MP3 players can choose from a variety of online music stores (Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music and the like) whereas the iTunes store is the only store that sells DRM-protected music that will play on the iPod. Note that the iPod will also quite happily play any non-protected MP3s, AACs, WAVs and a few other formats; this is true of most other MP3 players as well, though many will also play WMA, which the iPod will not.

So, what can we glean from these approaches? Well, I feel that it provides insight into the pros and cons of trying to control the delivery of a service, versus letting anyone and everyone take a shot at getting their product into play.

Macs have long been known to be more stable. This has changed with recent versions of Windows XP, but certainly there are still some issues. For example, I have crazy USB issues on my work PC, where certain devices will only work when connected to certain ports. The reason for this is drivers-little bits of software that tell an operating system how to communicate with attached devices. Each device requires its own drivers, and sometimes those drivers conflict. On the Mac side, you can test fairly well for this; on the PC side, there are just too many combinations of hardware, and from too many obscure, fly-by-night manufacturers to be able to do so.

Macs, on the other hand, are engineered from the get-go to run largely on hardware and software produced by Apple; while the choices are often more limited, the coherence tends to be much better. I know many people will dispute this, and it's ultimately a matter of taste, but I think that by-and-large the consistency and stability of Macs has long been considered one of its strongest points. And this is a result of Apple's position as an influential player in the computer market as a whole and their exclusive role within the Mac platform. A secondary effect of this is that Apple is able to dictate, essentially by fiat, what will be included on Macs. They therefore have the ability to push new technologies in a way that no individual PC manufacturer (say, Dell or HP) can. Although USB was designed by Intel and supported by Microsoft, the single biggest push to adoption of the technology was when Apple included it as the sole peripheral interface on the wildly-popular first-generation iMac. Because of the popularity of that machine, and because ever single iMac sold had to use USB to connect printers, mice, keyboards, etc. (Apple dropped legacy technologies such as ADB, serial and SCSI ports), it provided an instant market and is widely considered to be the turning point for the adoption of USB. Similar effects can be found with CD-ROM drives in the late 1980s, Wi-Fi networking and more.

This then leads to the parallels one can draw. When the Soviet Union represented the dominant socialist power on Earth, it provided a unique vantage point for comparative economic theory. And what we saw reflects what I've stated above. Putting political oppression aside for the moment, when it came to thing like consumer choice, Americans had a definite advantage. A free market, by its very nature promotes choice and competition; Americans had choices in consumer goods that Soviets could never dream about. Furthermore, the efficiencies in manufacture and delivery of goods drove costs down (Macs, at least to a superficial inspection, still tend to cost more than bog-standard PCs), and increased speed of delivery (when Intel announces a new CPU, Dell and HP tend to announce computers using that CPU on the same day; Apple does so much later). However, the flip side to this is internal conflict. Standardisation can be difficult (see the money wasted on the needless VHS vs. Beta/BluRay vs. HD-DVD/X2 vs K56Flex vs. 42bis format wars for videos, next-gen DVDs and modems, respectively). Furthermore, the companies vie for what is best for their bottom line, not necessarily what is best for the consumer. We end up with cheap, disposable, environmentally unfriendly products far more often than we should.

A single command point is slower to react, but generally leads to-eventually-greater synchronicity. Apple's near-fanatical devotion to easy-to-use interfaces tends to trickle down to 3rd-party Mac software; one of the most common complaints of Mac versions of Windows software is that it doesn't "feel like a Mac application". Apple is in a unique position to do so, because they control so much of the vertical integration, they can set an example that Microsoft, Adobe, etc. simply cannot. Furthermore, individual components not only work better together, but can do so in a more-intuitive way, because one company-with a visionary leader at the helm, no less-directs how things "should" work. The Soviet Union didn't exactly prise aesthetics in design, but they certainly praised consistency and comprehensibility to a degree that the disparate companies of the West never did.

The reality, of course, is that no rational person preaches either a fully-unregulated free market, nor a micromanagement, top-down command economy. As with so many other things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And of course, with my computing analogy, neither the PC world, nor the Mac world truly represent either extreme: Macs do compete with PCs, as well as Linux distributions that run on Mac hardware; similarly, PCs adhere to standards and practices laid down by the government or standards bodies. When it comes to computing, it ultimately should be a personal choice: which "feels" better to you. For me that's a Mac, for others its Windows or Linux. So be it. Fortunately for us, our system of government allows for enough of a free market to ensure that each one of us can choose the platform we like. However, to assume that there are no downsides is about as foolhardy as blindly choosing Windows just because there are more boxes on the shelf than there are for Macs. Choice is important, but it too comes with a cost.

"Unfortunately, people are not rebelling against Microsoft. They don’t know any better."

-Steve
Jobs