Archive for June, 2009

The Google Conspiracy

Monday, June 29th, 2009
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

statcounterglobalSource: StatCounter Global Stats – Search Engine Market Share

Few days ago I came across with the graph above. I have always known that Google’s share of all the searches made is huge, but I never knew it was that big. It is true that the figure 90% or so is just an estimate, but even the other sources say that Google’s share is very superior to that of the others, such as Yahoo etc. In other words, it is very much up to Google on what information we will see and what not in the web. Every time we do a search, it is the folks in Google (or their algorithms)  that decide what type of information we will receive and what kind of world view it represents.

For a conspiracy theorist Google makes a pretty tempting “target”. There are already quite a few theories, I googled (naturally) some of them, and among others found this list on where different type of google-conspiracy-theories were categorized. Many of the theories  have their faults, but I have to admit that the ingredients for a good conspiracy theory or just to be bit suspicious are, well, very much out there.

Search could be translated into “what is it that you want or need?”. Google has the answer. By performing the search and showing up the results, Google decides what is it that you will get. Moreover, just as well that the search can be used to predict flu epidemies it can also be asked what is it that people currently want or need and where. To take one step further, Google decides what is it that you will use to satisfy your need. At the same time, it might be even able to create new needs and desires via the results it provides. This would mean that Google could also decide what is it that you need.

Besides the share of searches Google maintains, there are also other reasons. First of all, Google has been able to gain “control” on probably the most significant place/area/platform of the moment (and most likely the future as well), the www. Communication of any sort takes place more and more within the web, and as and if more developing countries connect, Google is right there waiting for them, ready to introduce them to the wonderfull world of the net.

Furthermore, Google has had some controversial views on privacy, and possesses inmense amounts of data on users and their preferences as well as their web behaviour in general. This data is received not only through search, but through other services and sites such as email or Gmail, Google Maps, Youtube, Google Chrome (which seems to have so far somewhat limited impact though) etc. Furthermore, more and more webmasters rely on Google’s programs such as Analytics, Website optimizer etc. Advertizers are very familiar with words such as AdWords or AdSense. In the web, Google seems to be everywhere.

It is a clear overstatement to say that Google is the web, but in many cases it seems to be at least the gate to the web, no matter what is your purpose of being in there. With its massive amounts of user (and other) data, highly popular search engine and (in most cases free) tools and services, Google can, for instance, affect the information we receive, the things we buy, the way we live and our world view in general. From there you only need to add one more ingredient, that is the evil mind in the top who “does evil”, and has some links to e.g. Illuminati or Bilderberg Group, and there you have it, the conspiracy theory with Google in the center.

However, as in most of the conspiracy theories, something is lacking. One thing is that the web is not disconnected from the real world, and Google does not have the same power outside the web as within it. If search results were significantly fixed, you could find the “correct” information from other sources (unless they as well would be involved). In any case, eventually Google would most likely only be shooting itself into the leg. If the users do not find what they want, they go to somewhere else, and luckily enough, there are other options available.

Furthermore, conspiracy theories many times have at least one thing in common with economics, that is they tend to see individuals as robot-likes, with very little capacity to think on their own or differently from the rest. Everybody is made out of the same mold and behaves exactly the same and has the same wants and needs. Admitted that in some cases this might be true (the human race has certainly committed its fair share of stupidities), but I still refuse to agree that we are all idiots all of the time.

Finally, despite of some of the more controversial issues such as the one on privacy and user data, Google seems to be one of the lesser evils to say the least. That does not mean that they are angels, but on most occasions they have been very far from hell as well. Besides, running a company like Google should keep “them” busy enough, why in the world would one want any more harm by ruling the world as well? This said, Google’s might should not be underestimated either. They do seem to effect the everyday web usage of most of us who are able to connect. I personally still do not seem them too bad, at least not yet, happily letting Google to put their adds and using Analytics on my blog. However, if this post or blog would strangely disappear from the search results, who knows, maybe there are more in it than few proper ingredients…

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The Iranian Election

Friday, June 26th, 2009
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

June 17 Photos of Protests at Karim Khan Street, Tehran, Iran.
Creative Commons License photo credit: misterarasmus

This has been puzzling me recently: Despite the massive demonstrations, I have not seen any news report/article over the claimed wrongdoings in the Iranian election. All the western media I read only reported that Ahmadinejad won by a clear margin and none of them noted any rigging of the votes etc. However, the opposition claims this has been very much the case. I suppose (but do not know) there were no independent election monitors. Then again, as far as I know, none of the western states or the UN has criticized the election process as such, just the way the authorities have handled the demonstrations. Furthermore, in this case the rigging should have been massive, the margin was so huge between the two.

If the election was fair, from my perspective it is a done deal, the current president won and that’s it. In accordance with the democratic principles the opposition should in this case congratulate the winner and get ready for their job as the opposition again, frustating as it might be. In any case, as already noted above, I do not know. I just wish somebody could tell what or why is it exactly that the opposition got so “upset” about, or is it more just a general custom that after the elections this always happens (I recall that it was not like this the last time, but with this memory nothing is certain…). In what way was the election not fair?

On the other hand, I did read that it was said that especially the young were more likely to vote for the opposition. If the turnout was considerably high, how is it possible that in a country where the medium age is 27 Ahmadinejad was able to win with such a big margin?

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

FuTrends1: Europe as a Miniworld

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

city

Some years ago I did an internship with the task of trying to “predict” the trends of the future. I liked it a lot, and because of that I decided to try something similar here. Every now and then i will try to put out my own predictions about the things to come (FuTrends). To add a pinch of salt into the mix after every trend there is a survey about whether you find the whole thing credible or not. Without further remarks, here goes.

Few weeks back I realized that within 20 metres of my frontdoor there are 5 stores/businesses owned by Chinese, one bar, one barber, 2 clothes stores and one store that sells bit of everything (and really cheap). In addition, next to the Chinese barber there is a Pakistanese barber (who never stops working), and also very close few bars and restaurants owned by Mexicans and South Americans (not sure from which countries exactly), one Libanese restaurant, and few other businesses owned by people of non-local origin.

Needless to say, I live in a suburb that has its fair share of immigrants, including myself. It is still considered very much “local”, that is, there is also a lot of people who have their origins in here and overall the suburb upholds many of the local traditions and festivities. However, like all the bigger cities in Europe, Barcelona and my suburb with it is receiving more and more people from outside (even though the crisis has slowed the process down),  and by now one sixth of the inhabitants have been born abroad.

The picture is similar in many other European cities. There are over a million foreigners in Madrid, in Paris the figure is 19.4% (people born outside France )(1999). Amsterdam is the city with most nationalities in the world (2007) and one third of people living in London were born abroad. Some of the nationalities/ethnic groups might reside in certain suburbs, and in certain areas certain groups might preside over others, but in many cases there exists also an interesting mix.

The principal nationalities of the newcomers vary somewhat from one place to another. In Barcelona most of the immigrants come from South America or Morocco, but there are also people from Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia (notably China and Pakistan but also from countries in the Middle East) and from other European countries (mainly Italia and France but also people from Central-East European states). The origin of immigrants depends on many things. In addition to geographics etc, the colonial history of a given country has its role to play. In Madrid and Barcelona there is a lot of people from South America, in London Indians and Pakistanis are common (among others), in Paris people of Algerian origin are met more than in other European cities and so on.

Overall the variety of different nationalities in big cities can be seen as somewhat Western (here meaning European, North American and  Australian/New Zealandian) phenomenon: without a doubt there are a lot of immigrants in many other big cities in the world, but they tend to comprise of only a very few nationalities/ethnicities, such as Zimbabweans in Johannesburg or Pakistanis and Indians in some of the Middle Eastern cities etc. Furthermore, cities in non-western industrialized countries tend to have not so high proportions of foreigners. Tokyo for example only has a foreign population of 1.5%, Hong Kong on its behalf some more, about 5%, but it still stays clearly behind its Western counterparts.

There is nothing new as such in the flow of foreign people into the big cities. It is a process that has been going on for years. However, things have gotten more curious due to the increasing numbers of the incoming new residents. Every nationality and ethnicity brings along its own culture, attitudes and customs, and the more representatives there is, the more it shows. Therefore it is completely possible to experience Chinese New Year, South African Freedom Day, Mexican “Día de los Muertos” festival or Islamic Ramadan in almost any of the European big cities.  Big national, regional or ethnic events are no longer national or local in the sense that they will be equally celebrated in many other places, spiced up with local customs, and they are likely to be tied into more than one single ethnic group.

There has been other changes as well. In addition to the local languages there are significant immigrant languages existing on their side. Moreover, there are more living areas primarily inhabited by people from few different cultural backgrounds, none of which is necessarily local (in Madrid there was a school where 12 of the approx. 300 students were Spanish). This does not go on to mean that local, “original” identities are in “danger”, quite the contrary, they are most likely to stay as the prominent ones. It is just that the ambient and atmosphere of these cities have become a lot more culturally varied.

All these changes are likely to go few steps further. Since attitudes, worldviews and beliefs will be brought along as well, big cities will also start to reflect more and more the real events of the whole world. Therefore everything that will happen in country A (good or bad), will be transferred to the living areas of the people residing in european city X who have their origin in country A. Furthermore, the effects travel both directions. If something happens within the in city X within living areas of people of origin country A, country A and its people will also react. The line between national and international issues will become a lot less clear (as a some sort of an example of this can be held Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s reassurence to the Indian government that Australia is not a racist country on the matter of attacks to Indians in Sydney).

European cities are more likely to reflect the events of the world than other Western cities due to their larger share of immigration (see US vs. Europe). Europe is also more fragmented culturally and identically than for example Australia or North America (excluding Mexico). Furthermore, due to colonization the continent holds links to most parts of the world. Thus, while maintaining their own roots and traditions, European cities will become certain kinds of ” images” of other regions of the world. Every city will reflect the events and situations of the regions where it has received most immigration. Non of the European cities will represent the entire world by itself though, it is the all the cities together that will create this miniworld within the continent. The well-being of the world will be reflected in the big cities in Europe. Everything that happens there, happens also here. Everything that happens here, happens also there.  If there are disputes between Indians and Pakistanis in Asia, there are also some in Europe. If tensions calm down, the same happens in the other place.

Finally, there is also the element of creating something totally new. As cultures and ideologies that would not otherwise meet (due to national borders or geographic distances) are almost obliged to do so, the result can be something completely new and unthought of. The possibility of clashes and other negative events between different groups exists, but more positive outcomes are likely as well. These can vary from learning to live with one another (and hoping in the case of mutually hostile groups that the effects will travel back to their places of origin) to new innovations, new ways of thinking, even new or at least shared cultures. There will be less Japanese, Mexican or French food and more Japanese-Mexican-French food, equipped with a twist of something completely new that never before has existed.

Europe as a Miniworld: Do you find this trend likely?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Discussions

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

discussion

Every now and then the question over the relationship between language and culture pops up. It usually concentrates on one specific theme, for instance how does one shape the other, is the influence unidirectional or, the one of the chicken and the egg, was it the language that made the culture or viceversa. I always find the topic an interesting one, since it goes on to prove that language is possibly a lot more than just a tool of communication, it can also shape the way we are, the way we think and the way we view others.

Even though the existence of this kind of relationship has always seemed very logical to me, I have always had difficulties in pinpointing where exactly was this to be seen and how did it affect our everyday life. I did read once that the talent many Indians have possessed in mathematics can be traced back to the structure of the Sanskrit language, but since i did not speak it I had some difficulties in understanding why and how.  However, some time ago I came across with a concrete example of my own, one that seems to be affecting at least my life on a daily basis. Needless to say,  the example has its flaws and it does not reflect all the local people being somewhat “stereotypetive” by its nature, but I think it makes a case in point.

Few years back while learning Spanish I got to know that the word “discusión” (“discussion” in English) and the verb of the same word, “discutir” (“discuss”), tend to mean more of having an argument than a normal conversation. The word “discussion” in Spanish had and has this connotation of arguing, it is considered to be a some sort of a verbal fight, at least not very far from it. It is like disagreeing to disagree. The thing is that on my opinion this also reflects the way the people often communicate here in order to solve problems, to exchange opinions or just to wonder about something.

Back at the North (based on my own, probably biased, experiences) discussions of this sort were often aimed at coming to some sort of a conclusion. The important thing was not really on who was wrong and who was right but more on the matter itself. You built your view on the topic at hand together with the other, and you could easily include to your own thinking the pieces of information the other one had. You did not have to agree with the other one, but just listen the arguments the other one had, and if you still did not agree, you should tell the other one why not and so the conversation kept on going. Naturally, people did and do argue and have arguments in there as well, but the basic nature of a typical discussion was not a confrontational one, it was one of co-operation. It was ok to disagree, but even then you often agreed to disagree.

In Spain discussions, like the word implies, are more like duels. It is one opinion against the other, and the discussion (or the argument) becomes easily one on who is right and who is wrong. The information of the other is automaticly false or at least understood wrong. Furthermore,  the winner (yes, there is a winner) is not necessarily solved on the basis of the facts, but on who is more convincing.  Being convincing, on the other hand, is sometimes nothing else than being firm (keep on repeating your stand) and making a cracking joke about the other party on a suitable moment. Moreover, listening is for losers. The end-result is that every discussion comes to resemble a televised political debate between the opposition and the governing party. Lot of talk, but little conclusions that both agree on or even agree to disagree on.

The curious thing is that this is the direction that many conversations take, even though they start off as “non-agressive” ones. It represents itself as a normal mode of communication. Sometimes it seems that the locals are on a continuos state of heated debate, where the topic might chance but opinions do not. The most important thing is to keep your ground, no matter the ground. Conversations of the co-operation kind do not really exist. In most cases they take the form of not exchanging ideas, but one of teaching, where one is the teacher and the other the pupil. Then there is no need for argument, the setup makes things already clear: the teacher has the point.

I do not know if this is the case in other languages as well, or are Spanish and Catalan somewhat unique in this sense. Moreover, as said before, it is not entirely clear which came first, the word or the behaviour. In any case, it has its advantages and disadvantages. The good thing is that you get to learn to debate about everything, since instead of concentrating to the issue you learn to concentrate onto the debate. In addition it brings more passion to life, since even the haircolor of S. Berlusconi can be a topic of an emotions-run-wild type of discussion. The bad thing is that sometimes conversations or discussions seem to lose their purpose. Furthermore, from a northeners point of view, it is difficult to know how heated the situation reality is or what is actually going on. Even though according to the northern standards the situation/discussion can already be considered as hostile one, this might not be entirely the case. Thus, it might be ok to call the other one idiot, but complete idiot might already cross the line. Where is the limit? Like said, it is impossible to know, since it is up to the locals to set the standards. This again implies that as a foreigner, one can only be wrong.

The level of agreement with the post

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)