A Conspiracy Theory

I will start with a confession: I have a tendency to create elaborate worst-case-scenarios in my head. It happens when I need to confront a problem or a decision. This automatic response causes me to freeze instead of tackle the problem, and had often caused me to delay or avoid necessary actions.

But I am not the only one who creates those elaborate scenarios. Most conspiracy theories are created by people who decide to ignore Occam's Razor principle, and create unnecessarily complicated, scary and often silly scenarios in order to explain world events. As a result, we end with theories such as "JFK was killed by the FBI", or "The Mossad was responsible for 9/11", as well as a fairly recent one about how "The CIA and Israel were responsible for Japan's 2011 earthquake and tsunami". If you think that any of these theories were invented by me, you can google each and every one of them.

All these theories are wonderfully complex and make a lot of sense. Every detail in them can be explained and every linkage made in these theories has a purpose, in order to achieve the goal of creating an alternate reality. But what happens If the conspiracy theorist gets some of his facts wrong? He will often ignore it, or blame the media for bias or participating in the cover up. Does this kind of behavior reminds you of anything?

And then there are "predictions", on how a certain small group is working to achieve world domination or control over politicians/resources/us, and the cunning ways it's going to use. In the olden times, we would call them prophecies, but now we call them scenarios. And they are usually worst case scenarios, in which most of them we end up being ruled by either corporate or communism, and under the open eye of some kind of a high tech version of the Orwellian Big Brother. Also in many of these scenarios we end up dead or even worse: having to eat American fast food, every day for the rest of our lives.

The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that however improbable they are, they will always find someone to believe in them. To make things worse, they tend to spread and perpetuate themselves, often being updated over the years. The prime example for that is the The Protocols of the Elderz Of Zion, which even though was disproved and condemned on numerous occasions, is still in print and considered non-fiction by many. It was first printed more than a 100 years ago. It's almost impossible to stop them, regardless of the use of logic or actual facts. Conspiracies uses our sense that the world is intricate and we cannot possibly understand what makes it tick and moves it.

But the truth is usually simpler, in very much the same way that evolution is much simpler than creation. The truth will comply with every fact you already know and those that you will discover in the future. The truth is consistent. Conspiracy theories are none of these: they are usually complex, they will ignore facts or distort them, which makes them inconsistent. I rather find out the truth, even if it's disappointingly boring or simple, because only this way you can understand how the world works. Inventing our own theories about is at best silly and at worst dangerous.

So what's my conspiracy theory? Most conspiracy theories are made up by people who are either have no life, or prefer blaming others for their own failures. I belong to the first group.

Not magical

It's a trend now, using words like "magical", "mystical" or "god" to try and explain or describe things that are neither of these three. Sometimes it's being done for promotional purposes, like Steven Jobs' keynote speech about the iPad, when he described it as "magical". Just to make thing clear, it's really not. The iPad is just a user friendly slate with limited capabilities and a few millions lines of clever code running on it. But to be honest, no damage was done here. No one actually believes that Apple replaced the ARM processor with tiny midgets or the C++ code with fairy dust. At least I hope so.

Sometimes however, using supernatural description can be damaging. The world invested $9 billion in CERN's Large Hadron Collider, which was built in order to discover the Higgs boson. I admit that my knowledge of quantum physics is amazingly limited, but if I understand correctly, the Higgs boson is a theoretical particle which separates matter from energy and if discovered, it will be a huge step in the long journey of realizing Einstein's dream of a unified theory. This information is quite dull, so in order to create some public interest, the American physicists and Nobel prize laureate coined the term "god particle"m to raise public interest.

Ever since this nickname appeared, countless of religious types have pointed their fingers towards scientists and atheists, saying "A-ha! See? Even your precious science turns to god when it seeks answers". There were even a few books and documentaries made about how at the end of our scientific research, we will find out that god exists. In my opinion it happened because most of us know close to nothing about advanced physics, and as soon as someone mentions a concept we are more familiar with like "god", we will immediately feel safer and choose to stay in this comfort zone.

This really has to stop. The iPad is not magic, it's just very nice and fun to use. The Higgs boson is not godly, it's just a very illusive and expensive-to-find particle, which may actually not exist. "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory, it's just an idea built to undermine the theory of evolution. Homeopathy is not an alternative to pharmaceutical drugs, it's just pseudoscience which protects itself not by using proper experimental methodology, but by claiming that scientists are closed minded.

When a scientific theory is being suggested, it's either "failed to be rejected" or "rejected", it's never a definite "yes" or "no". This kind of uncertainty is not comfortable, but this is how the real world actually works. But at the very least, science is facing this reality. And if I'm wrong and magic and god do exist, I'm certain that science will eventually fail to reject them too.

But in the mean time, please, stop referring to science as another kind of religion or mysticism.

The future of... an attack on Iran

If Israel has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran?
Most of the world assumes that Israel has a substantial amount of nuclear weapons (some estimates go as high as 400 warheads), and therefore this question is being asked. The answer is quite simple: Israel has never threatened to annihilate any other sovereign nation, not even its worst enemies. According to some sources, the only time Israel was close to using its nuclear arsenal was in late 1973, when both the Syrian and Egyptian armies invaded it and there was a real threat to the nation's existence.

There is an opinion that like it happened with China, Iran will also become more moderate and rational when they get nuclear power. I am not sure if this is a similar case, because back in the 1960s, China was mostly isolated after it severed its ties with USSR. Iran on the other hand, gets support from Russia, China, North Korea and some south American nations. As flimsy as this support is, it does reduce Iran's incentive to become more tolerant towards the West.

Should Iran be attacked?
I hope not. Wars are never a good idea and may cause instability, however the difference here is the fact that Iran already causes instability by itself as a part of their foreign policy, either by themselves or by proxies like the Hezbollah. If there will be a military attack it will to be large, in order to completely stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program: the enrichment and production facilities are scattered all over this large country, many of them fortified and underground which makes aerial bombings very difficult and mostly ineffective. The main reason for an attack is that diplomacy has failed abd sanctions have mostly failed as well, and we're close to the point when we will have to use what Clausewitz called "the other means".

If an attack happens, who should conduct it?
The country that has most to gain from an attack on Iran is obviously Israel, even if it will suffer from consequences like international protests, Iran-sponsored terror attacks and direct retaliation in the form of missiles attacks. Unfortunately Israel simply doesn't have the means: its fleet of F-16I and F-15I attack airplanes, ballistic missiles and submarines, won't be able to go through such a large-scale, long-range attack. Ideally, it should be a coalition of those who Iran threatens, meaning US, EU, Arab and Israeli forces. This obviously cannot happen, and we will need to remove Israel from this coalition. An American-European-Arab coalition was formed in 1991 against Iraq, which was a far weaker enemy, which received far less international support than Iran. My best bet will be just a coalition of the US and the EU, without official Turkish or Arab involvement.

And what if the Iranians are telling the truth, and do not develop nuclear weapons?
Ironically, that reminds me of how Israel objected to international supervision over its nuclear facility in the 1960s. If Iran has nothing to hide, why would it object so much to international supervision? The UN made it clear that nuclear research, energy production and weapon development are not internal affairs. Israel was at least honest about it and refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty. Iran did sign it but refuses to cooperate and remove suspicion. Let's face it, this behavior does not induce confidence.

Mobile Computing in 2012

This original idea behind this blog was to "predict the present": use common sense in order to explain what's going on, in hope of trying to be better prepared for what's going to happen. I do think that trying to accurately predict the future is somewhat pointless, but speculating about it, isn't: if you do it right, you end up with some plausible scenarios which you can work with.

So what's most plausible to happen in 2012?

Smartphones
In 2011, 7 out of 10 mobile phones sold in Israel were smartphones. It is true that they are more expensive, more fragile and in some ways less practical than a regular mobile phone, but they combine the capabilities of almost any other gadget you own: camera, music player, GPS system, diary, personal computer and obviously a phone. We used to think that for this level of compactness we have to compromise in quality or functionality, but in 2011 we saw significant improvements in smartphones' hardware and software, which turned them from semi-functional Swiss Army knives into Leatherman multi-tools.

As for 2012, we will surely see even faster phones with increased amounts of memory and storage. Existing technologies like NFC will become more common and there's a slight chance that battery life will also improve a little, thanks to new the new processors and operating systems that can use them. Smartphones will increasingly replace your wallet and ID card, which will cause concerns about their security. We may also see smartphones that will be able to replace your streamer and send audio, video and Internet content directly to your TV screen.

When it comes to form factor, in 2011 smartphones became thinner but also too large. I really think that for the current technology, 9mm is slim enough and can easily slip into the tightest skinny jeans. On the other hand, we saw phones with 4.7" and even 5.3" - this is too large and cannot be used with just one hand. I really hope that this trend of "bigger is better" will end this year.

Tablets
It is not a secret that I dislike Apple, but I cannot ignore the fact that the iPad is a huge success and it's the only premium tablet that sells in large numbers. In fact, Apple has about 75% of the market and a large ecosystem of applications, accessories and content providers around it. I do not think this situation will not change drastically, despite Android 4.0 and better models. Android-based tablets are enjoying success in the lower-end and eBook reader markets but there are rumors about a cheaper, smaller iPad. I personally don't think it will happen.

The great unknown here is Microsoft's Windows 8. It can run on efficient ARM processors which will allow it to operate on approximately the same hardware as Android and iOS. It may not sound that revolutionary, considering Microsoft's underwhelming success in the mobile phone market, but let's not forget: when it comes to ecosystems, they are still the biggest software producer in the world, and own both Office and Exchange, probably the most widely used business applications. If they won't mess it up, Microsoft may make a tablet OS that can actually be used for work and content creation, not just consumption.

Tablets use the same hardware as smartphone so we can assume that the same improvements we will there will apply to tablets as well. We may see newer, denser screens with resolutions greater than HD. I do hope that we won't see a 3D capable tablet.

Laptops
The laptop market shrunk in 2011, due to the increased popularity of mobile phones and tablets. Laptops are not cool anymore and netbooks seem slow and useless even for basic uses. Intel's idea to solve it is the ultrabooks, which are extremely thin, light and quite powerful laptops that look similar to Apple's Macbook Air. For the time being they haven't been a huge success, but reduced prices and more choice may change that. However, laptops will probably continue on losing ground to easier-to-use, smaller, cheaper and cooler mobile devices.

A gradual change we may see is in laptop storage: most laptops are still equipped with regular, spinning hard drives, however the new ultrabooks use the smaller solid-state drives (SSD). Increased demand for these drives will increase production and drive prices down, which in turn will make SSDs more common in less expensive machines as well. Other technologies we may see this year in some laptops are WiDi, which allows to wirelessly attach screens to laptops and OLED displays which will allows perfect viewing angles, longer battery life and thinner chassis. Intel's Thunderbolt could potentially make desktop computers obsolete by allowing external upgrades to laptops, but its adoption seem to be slowed than expected.

So what would I like to see next year in the mobile marker? I would like the stupid patent war end, better batteries, better user experience and lower prices. I wish for these every year and to be honest, the wish gets partially granted every year. I think this year will be the same.

T - 366

According to a popular meme, we have one year to go. The world will end exactly one year from now, just a little after the winter solstice of 2012 (also known as 21.12.2012). The Mayan said so, the Internet says so and even Ronald Emmerich, the great documentary director said so. So who are we disagree?

The problem is to begin with, that the Mayan never said that the world will end. All they said is that their 4Th era will end and the 5Th one will begin. They actually see it as a cause for celebration, in very much the same way that we saw the beginning of the new millennium as an opportunity to party and replace our IT equipment.

Update: Actually some say that the end of an era is the end of the world, which means that the Mayan civilization is similar to the Western civilization in one respect: we can't seem to be able to agree on anything.

Some epocalyptians would say "Yeah, but look at what happened in 2011. Natural disasters, revolutions, economic collapse, the death of Steven Jobs". I agree, it was quite an eventful year, but how is that related in any way to the concept of "the end of the world"? Well, It isn't. Economic hardship always causes political unrest and natural disasters happen frequently at various magnitudes in various locations around the world. The sad truth is that the only difference this time was that it happened in one of the most developed countries in the world, so we got live video streams.

I can predict what's going to happen in 2012: some people will die, but more will be born. Some leaders will get elected and reelected, others will be lose their positions. Some people will still struggle to get enough food to eat, others will have to struggle with the choice between the McLaren MP4-12C and the Ferrari 458. Many people will find the answers to all of their questions in god, while major scientific discoveries will be made. Apple will release more products that their names start with an "i".

Maybe I am wrong and the world IS going to end exactly one year from now, but I do have good news: 2012 will be 2.74% longer than 2011, so we have one more day to party.

Opinion Nanny State

Back in 1948, Israel declared itself as a "Jewish and democratic state". Let's not be naive, it is almost impossible to make it work smoothly in a way that everyone is satisfied. In fact for a long time (1948 to 1966), the democratic part of this declaration was relevant to non-Arabs only (Jews, Druze, other minorities). The Arabs were still allowed to vote and had some degree of freedom of speech, but that was about it. They were governed by the military in their towns and villages and were greatly limited in their movements and activities.

Strangely though, the idea of "Jewish and democratic" sort of worked for a long time. Not without frictions, not perfectly and the Jewish and Arabs community are mostly separated, but much of it is by choice. Israel is by far not the "apartheid state" which human rights organizations claim it is: Arabs and other minorities vote, have complete freedom of speech, receive social welfare, can study universities and are protected by laws against discrimination.

Something else is worrying and might undermine the idea of "Jewish and democratic" state, and it's not the way the Jewish majority treats minorities, or the LGBT community or even illegal immigrants. It's the right-wing insecurity that makes me concerned. Yes, there is a small group of people inside Israel that can be described as anti-Zionists and object to its existence. It's natural: political opinions, like any other natural phenomenon, behave according to a Normal Distribution curve and you can find a few extremists on both sides. But the majority - the vast majority - are somewhere in the center. Patriotic, loyal and willing to serve their country to one degree or another.

Making such a legislative effort in order to curb these few extremists (which can literally be numbered in dozens) does not make any sort of sense to me. Is this right-wing government that insecure about its own policy, that it's willing to sacrifice basic human rights for even its most loyal citizens, just in order to stop people from talking against it? Is it willing to throw away one of the few and strongest arguments we have left, which is the fact we are the only democracy in the Middle East?

Unlike capitalism, Democracy is equal for everyone, especially in this day and age. Everyone should be able to speak his or her mind. Some of those who support the laws say that these laws only limit certain, extreme and damaging opinions. But the fact is, no one can tell what is a damaging opinion and what isn't. Furthermore, by doing so, you DO limit the freedom of speech and conscience, however you look at it.

I honestly believe that the Israelis are self-assured enough and can form their own opinions by themselves. We do not need a government that tells us what to think and prevents us from speaking our minds. I belong to the center-left, I whole heatedly agree with the idea of Israel as a national home for Jews, but I will not accept it being turned into yet another dictatorship in the middle east. If it will, it won't be my country anymore. Literally.

The man who dared to simplify

It is known that Nicola Tesla discovered the alternating current, which allowed the efficient generation and delivery of electricity. It's also known that Daimler built the first internal combustion engine and car. Still, many believe that Edison had "invented" electricity, and it was Ford's Model T to become the first car to sell more than a million (and later 10 million) copies.

How did that happen?

These people took existing products, discoveries and ideas, polished them, simplified them and made them accesible to the masses. Tesla did discover AC current and efficient way to generate and conduct it, but Edison became famous because he let people see in the dark and listen to music. Daimler did build the first car from the engine and up, but it was Ford who found a way to build them cheaply and on a massive scale.

Same goes for Steven Jobs: Creative and Cowon were already making digital music players a few years before the iPod arrived. Sony Ericsson and HTC were selling smart phones long before the iPhone was announced. Tablet computers have been there, in one form or another since the mid-1990s, but it was Apple's CEO who popularized them, made them a success and establish an emotional connection between the costumers and their devices.

But the greater thing Apple and Jobs are responsible for is ushering the age of personal computing. They did so by creating devices that were increasingly easy to use, functional, good-looking and relatively affordable. It started with the Apple computers, through the MacIntosh computers, and on to the recent i-devices. All of these devices either created whole new industries or at least made the competition work harder.

We shouldn't also forget Steven Jobs' activities in the years of his exile from Apple. His investment in Pixar, George Lucas struggling software workshop, ultimately led to a revolution in animated movies with masterpieces like the Toy Story series, The Incredibles and my favorite, Wall*E. His work at NeXT led to the creation of the object-oriented windowing systems we see today in every operating system, from OS X, through Windows and to Linux. Also, it should be mentioned that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the HTTP and the first web browser, used a NeXT computer both for the work and as the world's first web server.

Some time ago I called Apple a religion and Steven Jobs the prophet of that religion. I meant it as a parody, but in a way it is true. And sure, I never owned an Apple product and probably never will and I do not like Apple's business practices. But as a technology enthusiast I have to appreciate Jobs, because he dared seeing the big picture clearly, and then repaint it the way he thought is best.