Ivy Style/Museum at FIT/Dress Codes @lisa03755

WSJ.com

Dress Codes

By LAURA JACOBS

New York

In 1954 the term "Ivy League" became an official designation for the Northeastern athletic conference that included Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth and Cornell—eight of the oldest and most prestigious all-male academic institutions in America. The term had already been in use for decades, though its origin remains covered in ivy. In the 1930s, for instance, comparing the football teams of Princeton and Columbia to Fordham University's ferocious squad, a newspaper reporter disparaged the pair as "only Ivy League." Yet there is evidence that the term is rooted in the Roman numeral IV—pronounced "I-V"—which was how an earlier conference of four teams (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia) was referred to back in the 1800s. One thing is certain: The initial usage had to do with sports—not with the Social Register, secret societies or the "best and brightest" status we today associate with the term.

"Ivy Style," a new exhibition at New York's Fashion Institute of Technology, looks at the code of dress that has long been associated with the Ivy League. A thought-provoking show with a light touch, it is laid out not chronologically but thematically. This allows curator Patricia Mears to set fin de siècle, Jazz Age and postwar pieces side by side with more recent clothes from Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger and Thom Browne—an approach that demonstrates how these archetypal silhouettes are not only going strong but have evolved little, despite instances of postmodern and millennial tweaking.

The space is laid out like a college quad with wide paths. Along the walls, like dioramas, are the rooms in which Ivy males lived their cosseted lives: dorm, class, locker room, common room, the local university shop. Crests, shields and school colors are much in abundance, as well as blazers striped and piped. One immediately recognizes that Ivy style is a nexus of converging influences, all of which reinforce an unspoken ideal of ruling-class privilege. "God is an Englishman" tweeds and tails meet the letter-sweater sporting life of America's monied elite. The glib, candy-colored wit of Eton and Oxbridge pair up with plain old chinos, brought to campus by soldiers returning on the G.I. Bill. Footwear shows a predominance of slip-ons: Weejuns ("All Weejuns are loafers but not all loafers are Weejuns"), tuxedo flats, Top-Siders (Sperry, of course), and the embroidered whimsies of Stubbs & Wootton. Presumably, the man who wears these slippers will glide or sail through life.

The show begins at Princeton because, as the wall text says, "No university played a greater role in the development of Ivy style during the interwar years." This was due to Princeton's "relatively rural location, the homogeneity of its student population—nearly 85% white Protestant men, graduates of elite private schools from wealthy families—and its reliance on a unique student-regulated society, typified by its stratified and ostentatious 'eating clubs.'" Princeton contains the word 'prince,' and Ivy elegance is unquestionably the closest this country comes to a style deemed aristocratic. The crested blazer and modern sport jacket trace back to Princeton, as well as the emergence of white flannel trousers and buckskin shoes. Not as lasting was the Princeton "Beer Suit"—workmen's overalls in white cotton with matching jacket.

image
The Museum at FIT

A Brooks Uniform Co. blazer with the 1923 Princeton University insignia

Brooks Brothers, J. Press, Arrow, Hathaway and Gant—these are Ivy eternals. Chipp, an offshoot of J. Press, would expand and popularize the "Go to Hell" look, a mix of bright colors normally considered outside the masculine palette—coral, yellow, mint—and constituting a casual smack at the status quo. Ivy-style clothes need not come at great expense; they need not be new; but they must hit the ineffable balance between carefree, careless and correct. I have never forgotten the scorn of a young man commenting on Nantucket Reds that weren't bought at Murray's in Nantucket. They would never fade to the proper shade of shrimp pink and so they were impostors—"not our sort of people" pants. Getting the uniform wrong locks you out of the tribe.

But getting it right can lock you in. Of all the outfits in the show, the one with the most resonance is the gray flannel suit. "It was arguably the most important Ivy style look," we are told, "worn by men not only during college but also after, in business." The suit is surrounded by ebullient patchwork and madras blazers, which makes it all the more poignant, profound. Immortalized in Sloan Wilson's novel "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit," a 1955 classic that tore into the postwar corporate culture, the dark-gray suit became a symbol of conformist striving, of life tamped down on its way to the top. There is almost always a point at which the owner of privileges becomes owned by those privileges.

Near the end of his life, I interviewed Bill Blass about his experience designing stewardess uniforms for American Airlines. It was not a fond memory for him. Blass found it hard to get the committee of women to agree on anything because, he felt, women don't really want to wear uniforms. Men were different. "It's always been my contention," he said, "that men are happiest in uniforms." The uniforms of Ivy style are very happy indeed, tailored for the sheltered pleasures of young adulthood: competing, winning, drinking. No wonder they have such staying power. The gray flannel suit, however, is a different kind of uniform. Suddenly the world is borne in—companies, agencies, governments—and the soul is at risk. It shadows and deepens the show.

Ms. Jacobs is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, where she has written extensively on fashion history.

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn

BG Jeffrey A. Sinclair Charged With Forcible Sodomy, Adultery cc @jessicascott09

Jeffrey A. Sinclair, U.S. Army General, Charged With Forcible Sodomy, Adultery

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — An Army brigadier general who served five combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan has been charged with forcible sodomy, multiple counts of adultery and having inappropriate relationships with several female subordinates, two U.S. defense officials said Wednesday.

The defense officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide details on the case.

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair faces possible courts martial on charges that include forced sex, wrongful sexual conduct, violating an order, possessing pornography and alcohol while deployed, and misusing a government travel charge card and filing fraudulent claims.

Sinclair, who served as deputy commander in charge of logistics and support for the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan, was sent home in May because of the allegations, the officials said. Since he returned to the U.S., Sinclair has been assigned as a special assistant to the commanding general of 18th Airborne Corps. Often when general officers are under investigation they are temporarily assigned as special assistants to more senior officers or commanders.

The charges were announced at a brief press conference Wednesday at Fort Bragg, the sprawling U.S. Army base in North Carolina that is home to the 82nd Airborne. After reading a prepared statement, base spokesman Col. Kevin Arata refused to take questions. Reporters were told all questions would have to be made in writing and that no response was likely to come until the following day.

Sinclair was informed of the charges on Monday but has not been placed under arrest. The next step will be an Article 32 investigation, including a preliminary hearing to determine if the matter should go to trial. No date has been set for the hearing, which Arata said would be open to the public.

It was not clear if Sinclair had an attorney, and a phone listing found for him was disconnected.

Sinclair had arrived in Afghanistan for his deployment in September 2011, but had been serving as the division's deputy commander since July 2010.

Sinclair, a trained paratrooper who has been in the Army for 27 years, was serving his third deployment to Afghanistan. He had also served two tours in Iraq, as well as a tour in the first Gulf war.

It's rare for an Army general to face court martial. There have been only two cases in recent years.

Earlier this year, Army Brig. Gen. Roger Duff pleaded guilty to charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, wearing unauthorized awards or ribbons and making a false official statement. He was sentenced to two months confinement and dismissal from the military. Under a pre-trial agreement, only the dismissal may be imposed. The case is still pending, said Army spokesman George Wright.

Prior to that, Maj. Gen. David Hale pleaded guilty to seven counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of making a false statement, also in connection with adultery. He was fined $10,000 and was ordered to retire at the reduced rank of brigadier general, Wright said.

___

Baldor reported from Washington.

___

Follow AP writer Michael Biesecker at twitter.com/mbieseck

Also on HuffPost:

Cash for iPad Classic Clunkers: Singing the $AAPL iOS 6 Blues

PCMag.com
My original iPad runs perfectly on 5.1.1, this is pretty bad form, AAPL.

Singing the Apple iOS 6 Blues

Apple iOS 6 sounds pretty schway, doesn't it? It doesn’t arrive until the fall, but I'm already looking forward to sampling Siri's new capabilities, exploring the extent of the integrated Facebook functionality, and experimenting with the very intriguing PassBook app. I mean, what's not to like?

Plenty. Mainly because my iPad won't be able to run the damn thing.

Apple iOS 6, you see, is compatible with a select group of devices—the iPhone 3GS (and higher), iPad 2 (and higher), and the fourth-generation iPod touch and up. I'm a proud iPad owner—that's right “iPad” owner, not iPad 2 or new iPad. The original. I plopped down $499 in mid-2010 to take a chance on the new computing form factor. I dug it. And I still do. I just wasn't ready for Apple to stop supporting it only two years later.

I can hear the world’s smallest violin playing in the distance. Put it away, please. I knew the risks—I've seen friends endure similar pains with suddenly “outdated” iPhones, but this is the first time this has happened to me. There was a time when being an early adopter meant dealing with bugs and companies' missteps, but you were fairly certain that your device would be relevant for more than 24 months. Now it means that a company won’t acknowledge your existence unless you plan to upgrade to new hardware in two year’s time. If that company is Apple, that is. And it’s quite vexing.

I'm sure there's a neglected Android user shaking his or her head at my discontent. “At least your device got some updates!” is the likely sentiment coming from the camp that’s still waiting for Ice Cream Sandwich to drip across the Android landscape. I can understand why these words may elicit nothing more than a smirk—Apple devices receive regular updates that aren't stymied by carriers' whims, handset manufacturers' decisions, or the way the wind blows on a particular day. I recognize that. I respect any Android user's gripe—you're lucky if your device gets one update, whereas I've downloaded every update that has rolled out for the iPad until now. I'm with you brothers and sisters. But that doesn't mean that I can accept that my two-year-old iPad is retirement-worthy in Apple's eyes. The latest and greatest iOS features are something my iPad will not see unless I purchase a new slate. How does the relatively ancient iPhone 3GS (2009!) get iOS 6, but the original iPad does not?

The inner conspiracy theorist speculates that this is Apple’s not too subtle method to get people off of older hardware and back into Apple Stores. But, maybe, just maybe, the hardware is incapable of handling iOS 6. My iPad ran a hair slower after updating to iOS5—there's a chance that iOS 6's magic may be too much for the O.G. slate. Talk on Apple Support Communities forums speak of the original iPad's A5 processor and 256MB of RAM being unable to properly power iOS 6. I’m certain that the haxorz community will explore that issue, because Apple is certain to stay tight-lipped.

I want iOS 6's new features. They're sexy beasts, but I refuse to drop another half-a-grand to get them (and there's no way I can Craigslist my current iPad for that much cash). So I’ll stick with Apple iOS 5.1.1, Flipboard, Slacker, and other non-demanding apps that run smoothly on my old, clunker of a tablet which I now dub "iPad Classic."

President Obama, how about a cash-for-tablet initiative, eh?

For more, see 92 New Features in Apple's iOS 6 and the WWDC slideshow below.


For the top stories in tech, follow us on Twitter at @PCMag.

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn

Variable pricing is #bigdata at work: Fleeced by Fees When You Travel? cc @mgranovsky

Fleeced by Fees When You Travel?

FEE to hold your airline reservation for a few days: $20. Peak air-travel surcharge: $47. Rental car GPS: $13 a day. Beach chaise longue: $20 a day. Resort fee: $25 a day.

Your carefully planned vacation budget? Out the window. We have all learned by now that the travel industry loves a surcharge, and most of us have adapted accordingly. On planes we bring our own headphones, snacks, pillow, blanket. At hotels we know not to drink the pricey bottled water in the room. Fine. For anyone taking a trip in 2012, certain perks might seem like legitimate extras.

But as I peruse some of my latest bills, the à la carte add-ons do not feel like small pleasures; they feel like things that ought to be included in the basic price. More to the point: they feel like sneaky ways to pluck a few more dollars from my pocket.

In the last few months I’ve unwittingly paid for newspapers plopped outside my Starwood hotel-room door (review your bill before you check out) and rental-car fees with vague, perplexing names like “airport concession recovery” and “facility charge.” And I have been taken aback by fees for hotel beach chairs, umbrellas and parking. These were on top of fees I knowingly paid for preferred seating on planes, in-flight Internet, changing tickets and simply printing boarding passes.

The growing list of add-on fees would be comical were they not at our expense. There are now charges for reservations, cancellations, boarding early, departing early, holding bags, checking bags and using the gym, the business center and the safe in your room. And thanks to the latest high-tech minibars, you cannot even touch an Almond Joy to read the calorie count without a charge on your bill (along with a “restocking” fee).

Some fees are mandatory; you must learn to factor them into your vacation budget. Others are optional. And then there are the charges that you’re welcome to opt out of — if you can figure out that you’ve been billed for them in the first place.

A record $1.85 billion in fees and surcharges was collected last year for hotels alone (up from $1.2 billion in 2000), according to Bjorn Hanson, divisional dean of the Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Management at New York University. He expects that figure to climb to $1.95 billion in 2012.

Airlines, meanwhile, collected more than $3.3 billion in baggage fees and more than $2.3 billion in reservation cancellation and change fees last year, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Rental car companies and cruise ships also take a share, with extra charges for child seats and navigation systems, as well as certain onboard snacks, activities and excursions.

“There is this increasing feeling of a shakedown,” said Jonathan Turley, who, as a leading expert on constitutional and tort law, frequently travels for work. Mr. Turley said he actually laughed during a recent visit to the Waldorf-Astoria when he was told that it would cost him $15 a day for Wi-Fi on one device, say an iPad, plus $15 for each additional device. “Then you go across town to the Days Inn and they have Wi-Fi for free,” he said. “As someone who teaches law and economics you expect to have some predictable market response to this need, and it’s actually flipped. You get a higher level of these services at lower-end hotels.”

And don’t get him started about plane tickets, which he likens to tickets at Disney World. “You pay this upfront cost, but then you find out that everything in the park is designed to eke out a little bit more of your money,” said Mr. Turley, 51, who thinks the travel industry is actively trying to lower consumer expectations by charging separately for even the most basic services. “I get the feeling that the airline industry is really waiting for my generation to die,” he said. “We’re the cranky, loud ones because we have a higher expectation. Every day, fewer people remember what it used to be like.”

Added fees and surcharges emerged as an industry practice in the late 1990s with resort fees that claimed to be for things like beach towels and housekeeping, then spread to airlines, cruise lines and car rental companies. Hotel fees, for one, are highly profitable and, according to Mr. Hanson, have increased every year except for the periods following the economic downturns in 2001 and 2008 when lodging demand declined. Despite the fees, hotel rates “are still not back to 2007 levels,” Mr. Hanson said, adding that going forward, the industry will most likely focus on raising room prices because ultimately it’s more profitable than fees.

But fees continue to give airlines a boost. Fuel surcharges have risen nearly twice as fast as oil prices since April 2011, according to a study by Carlson Wagonlit Travel, a travel management company. Take Spirit Airlines, which in November plans to raise its fee range for carry-on bags to $35 to $40, up from $30 to $35.

And the menu of fees is only growing. EasyJet, the no-frills European airline that currently doesn’t assign seats, in November will begin charging £3 to £12 (about $4.75 to $19 at $1.58 to the pound) to select a particular seat. This summer US Airways began offering a $19.99 premium entree for economy passengers flying internationally.

Even cruise lines are adding fees, among them Carnival Cruises, which is in the midst of a pilot program that, for $49.95, will allow everyone in your stateroom to board the ship early.

Yet many obligatory charges are easy to miss and hard to understand. In January, Department of Transportation regulations took effect requiring airlines and ticket agents to “include all mandatory taxes and fees in published airfares.” Baggage fees must also be disclosed.

In July, the department fined Travelocity $180,000 for violating the rule on full-fare advertising “by failing to include fuel surcharges and other fees in advertised airfares.” That same month the department fined TripAdvisor $80,000 for violating the rules on full-fare advertising (and for failing to disclose that flights were being operated under code-sharing agreements).

And last month, a class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court, claiming that up until late last year, Spirit Airlines actively misrepresented fares booked by its customers by unbundling certain fees, including something it calls a “passenger usage fee” that can be avoided only by purchasing tickets at Spirit’s airport counters.

Robert C. Josefsberg and Katherine Ezell of the Podhurst Orseck firm in Miami, lawyers for the plaintiffs, said that since filing the suit, hundreds of passengers have contacted them to say that they thought they had bought the lowest fares available yet ended up paying more because the passenger usage fee adds $17.98 to $33.98 to a round-trip flight.

“It’s fairly insulting,” Mr. Josefsberg said. “You want to put your head out the window and scream ‘I’m not going to take it anymore. ”

Alicia Jao, vice president of Travel Media at NerdWallet, a Web site that offers personal-finance and credit-card advice, said that from 2008 to 2011 the fee generated $142 million for Spirit.

A spokeswoman for Spirit said in a statement that the airline believes the suit’s claims “are without merit” and that it “intends to defend the case.”

Hotels are also coming under fire. When visiting the Hilton Garden Inn Sonoma County Airport last year, Rodney Harmon received a copy of USA Today that he claims not to have wanted or read, yet he was charged 75 cents. Last year, the Arnold Law Firm of Sacramento filed a class-action lawsuit against the “Hilton Family of Hotels” on behalf of Mr. Harmon and other Hilton guests who, according to the lawsuit, have “unwittingly purchased newspapers they reasonably believed and understood to be without charge” because the fee was printed inside the paper room-card holder in “extremely small font which is difficult to notice or read.”

DESPITE lawsuits and customer complaints, fees continue to pop up on bills, and they are becoming increasingly harder to withdraw. “The hotels have become very good at responding to guest complaints,” said Mr. Hanson, also the founder and former leader of the global hospitality and leisure industry practice for PricewaterhouseCoopers. “The idea is not to say ‘No,’ but the answer is ‘No.’ ”

He said hotels are training employees on how to handle guests who object to fees by first repeating their objection with something like “Oh, I understand you were surprised by the minibar restocking fee,” and then adhering to a script that involves explaining to the guest why the charge is necessary.

“Guests should not expect to prevail in those negotiations the way they might have a few years ago,” Mr. Hanson said.

Disappointing customers is a risky move, though. People who feel duped are more angry and less likely to return to the offending company, according to research by Vicki Morwitz, a marketing professor at New York University Stern School of Business who has studied consumer responses to what’s known as drip pricing by airlines and rental car agencies. “You can’t win over a consumer by misleading a consumer,” she said. “You’re going to lose by negative word of mouth.”

EVEN the name of a fee matters, which is why consumer psychologists think companies devise intentionally vague names like “service charge” and “resort fee.”

“It makes it a little more palatable,” said Ravi Dhar, director of the Center for Customer Insights at the Yale School of Management and a psychology professor at Yale, explaining that a resort fee suggests you are getting something above and beyond a mere hotel experience. “They must be doing something special,” he said. Of course now that many people have figured out that a resort fee is often little more than a couple of bottles of water and a beach towel, they find it irritating. “If you start breaking it down,” Mr. Dhar said, “people will be more upset.”

The size of the fee is also significant. If it is a small percentage of the base price, psychologically it doesn’t matter, he said. He cited the $2.50 fee he recently incurred on top of a $90 Broadway show ticket. But the bigger the ratio, the bigger the annoyance.

Transparency is essential, too. Did the hotel or airline clearly state the charges upfront or did consumers perceive the charges as deceptive? “If they know what these charges are upfront and they walk into it with their eyes open, they feel a lot better,” said Angela Y. Lee, a marketing professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. “This clarity in communication is really important.”

That includes making sure that travelers understand when they are paying a fee and when they are paying a tax, and why. For instance, Ms. Morwitz said, many consumers think that the so-called “concession recovery fee” seen on some airport rental car bills is, despite the name, a tax. But it’s really the rental company’s way of covering the additional cost of being in an airport, she said, “and they pass part of that cost along to consumers.”

Wrong assumptions by travelers can also magnify frustrations. For example, Mr. Hanson said people often think that pricing is somewhat uniform across a hotel chain: if you stay at a Sheraton in one area of a city, the fees and surcharges should be similar to those at the Sheraton in different part of the same city, right?

Wrong. Charges can vary from hotel to hotel, depending on the guidelines set forth by each general manager.

WHILE no one wants to pay more, some experts contend there is nonetheless an upside to all these fees. Consumers who choose not to pay a fee for a carry-on or to buy a bag of peanuts pay less, rather than having to subsidize those passengers who clog the overhead bins and don’t bring their own snacks. It’s analogous to being at a fancy dinner, Mr. Dhar said, and being told that you have to split the bill equally even though you didn’t drink any of the wine. Shouldn’t you pay less because you consumed less?

As someone who barely finishes a glass of wine while the rest of the table orders another bottle, I understand. But at the moment, passengers who travel light do not receive substantial discounts. When a standard airplane seat is so small and uncomfortable that anyone a little taller or heavier than average has to pay for a seat with more legroom just to get through the flight, that fee seems unfair.

Indeed, for many passengers, being nickeled-and-dimed diminishes the joy of the journey.

“I used to like to fly,” Mr. Turley said. But he explained that doing so nowadays calls to mind certain extraterrestrial swindlers. “Now I feel like I’m in a ‘Star Trek’ episode,” he said, “and I’m being hosted by the Ferengi.”

Fee (Drip), Fee (Drip), Fee (Drip): How to Stay Dry

To avoid being surprised by fees, read the fine print when making reservations, especially when using online travel companies like Hotwire and Travelocity. Renting a car? Find out if your hotel charges for parking, which can add another $25 or so a day. While some fees are optional, they might be for things you want. Here’s how to get them for less.

FEE: OVERWEIGHT OR CHECKED BAGS

WORKAROUND: Wear your necessities. Seriously: Scottevest’s Transformer Jacket ($160) has 20 pockets designed to accommodate your water bottle, iPad, camera. There are even pockets through which you can control your iPhone. Or buy what you need (sunscreen, umbrella, sweatshirt) at your destination.

FEE: CHANGING AN AIRLINE TICKET

WORKAROUND: New Department of Transportation regulations enable passengers to cancel a reservation without penalty for up to 24 hours after it is made as long as the reservation is made at least a week before the flight’s departure date. And remember: sometimes it’s cheaper to buy a new ticket than to change one.

FEE: RENTAL CAR SEAT FOR CHILDREN AND NAVIGATION SYSTEM

WORKAROUND: Bring your own car seat, which airlines often gate-check free. Use an iPhone or an app for navigation.

FEE: BEACH CHAIRS AND UMBRELLAS

WORKAROUND: Buy them at a local drugstore, or pack an old sheet and use it as a beach blanket. Make another guest’s day by giving away the gear when you leave.

FEE: AIRPORT RENTAL CAR “CONCESSION RECOVERY FEE”

WORKAROUND: If the fee is more than a shuttle or taxi ride to another location, rent the car at a nonairport location.

FEE: HOTEL INTERNET ACCESS

WORKAROUND: Hotels that charge for Wi-Fi in the rooms sometimes provide it free in public spaces. Take your work to the lobby or pool, even a nearby coffee shop.

Data Scientist: The Sexiest Job of the 21st Century @hbr cc @brianthamm

Data Scientist: The Sexiest Job of the 21st Century


Artwork: Tamar Cohen, Andrew J Buboltz, 2011, silk screen on a page from a high school yearbook, 8.5" x 12"

When Jonathan Goldman arrived for work in June 2006 at LinkedIn, the business networking site, the place still felt like a start-up. The company had just under 8 million accounts, and the number was growing quickly as existing members invited their friends and colleagues to join. But users weren’t seeking out connections with the people who were already on the site at the rate executives had expected. Something was apparently missing in the social experience. As one LinkedIn manager put it, “It was like arriving at a conference reception and realizing you don’t know anyone. So you just stand in the corner sipping your drink—and you probably leave early.”

Goldman, a PhD in physics from Stanford, was intrigued by the linking he did see going on and by the richness of the user profiles. It all made for messy data and unwieldy analysis, but as he began exploring people’s connections, he started to see possibilities. He began forming theories, testing hunches, and finding patterns that allowed him to predict whose networks a given profile would land in. He could imagine that new features capitalizing on the heuristics he was developing might provide value to users. But LinkedIn’s engineering team, caught up in the challenges of scaling up the site, seemed uninterested. Some colleagues were openly dismissive of Goldman’s ideas. Why would users need LinkedIn to figure out their networks for them? The site already had an address book importer that could pull in all a member’s connections.

Luckily, Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s cofounder and CEO at the time (now its executive chairman), had faith in the power of analytics because of his experiences at PayPal, and he had granted Goldman a high degree of autonomy. For one thing, he had given Goldman a way to circumvent the traditional product release cycle by publishing small modules in the form of ads on the site’s most popular pages.

Through one such module, Goldman started to test what would happen if you presented users with names of people they hadn’t yet connected with but seemed likely to know—for example, people who had shared their tenures at schools and workplaces. He did this by ginning up a custom ad that displayed the three best new matches for each user based on the background entered in his or her LinkedIn profile. Within days it was obvious that something remarkable was taking place. The click-through rate on those ads was the highest ever seen. Goldman continued to refine how the suggestions were generated, incorporating networking ideas such as “triangle closing”—the notion that if you know Larry and Sue, there’s a good chance that Larry and Sue know each other. Goldman and his team also got the action required to respond to a suggestion down to one click.

It didn’t take long for LinkedIn’s top managers to recognize a good idea and make it a standard feature. That’s when things really took off. “People You May Know” ads achieved a click-through rate 30% higher than the rate obtained by other prompts to visit more pages on the site. They generated millions of new page views. Thanks to this one feature, LinkedIn’s growth trajectory shifted significantly upward.

A New Breed

Goldman is a good example of a new key player in organizations: the “data scientist.” It’s a high-ranking professional with the training and curiosity to make discoveries in the world of big data. The title has been around for only a few years. (It was coined in 2008 by one of us, D.J. Patil, and Jeff Hammerbacher, then the respective leads of data and analytics efforts at LinkedIn and Facebook.) But thousands of data scientists are already working at both start-ups and well-established companies. Their sudden appearance on the business scene reflects the fact that companies are now wrestling with information that comes in varieties and volumes never encountered before. If your organization stores multiple petabytes of data, if the information most critical to your business resides in forms other than rows and columns of numbers, or if answering your biggest question would involve a “mashup” of several analytical efforts, you’ve got a big data opportunity.

Much of the current enthusiasm for big data focuses on technologies that make taming it possible, including Hadoop (the most widely used framework for distributed file system processing) and related open-source tools, cloud computing, and data visualization. While those are important breakthroughs, at least as important are the people with the skill set (and the mind-set) to put them to good use. On this front, demand has raced ahead of supply. Indeed, the shortage of data scientists is becoming a serious constraint in some sectors. Greylock Partners, an early-stage venture firm that has backed companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Palo Alto Networks, and Workday, is worried enough about the tight labor pool that it has built its own specialized recruiting team to channel talent to businesses in its portfolio. “Once they have data,” says Dan Portillo, who leads that team, “they really need people who can manage it and find insights in it.”

Who Are These People?

If capitalizing on big data depends on hiring scarce data scientists, then the challenge for managers is to learn how to identify that talent, attract it to an enterprise, and make it productive. None of those tasks is as straightforward as it is with other, established organizational roles. Start with the fact that there are no university programs offering degrees in data science. There is also little consensus on where the role fits in an organization, how data scientists can add the most value, and how their performance should be measured.

The first step in filling the need for data scientists, therefore, is to understand what they do in businesses. Then ask, What skills do they need? And what fields are those skills most readily found in?

More than anything, what data scientists do is make discoveries while swimming in data. It’s their preferred method of navigating the world around them. At ease in the digital realm, they are able to bring structure to large quantities of formless data and make analysis possible. They identify rich data sources, join them with other, potentially incomplete data sources, and clean the resulting set. In a competitive landscape where challenges keep changing and data never stop flowing, data scientists help decision makers shift from ad hoc analysis to an ongoing conversation with data.

Data scientists realize that they face technical limitations, but they don’t allow that to bog down their search for novel solutions. As they make discoveries, they communicate what they’ve learned and suggest its implications for new business directions. Often they are creative in displaying information visually and making the patterns they find clear and compelling. They advise executives and product managers on the implications of the data for products, processes, and decisions.

Given the nascent state of their trade, it often falls to data scientists to fashion their own tools and even conduct academic-style research. Yahoo, one of the firms that employed a group of data scientists early on, was instrumental in developing Hadoop. Facebook’s data team created the language Hive for programming Hadoop projects. Many other data scientists, especially at data-driven companies such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, eBay, LinkedIn, and Twitter, have added to and refined the tool kit.

What kind of person does all this? What abilities make a data scientist successful? Think of him or her as a hybrid of data hacker, analyst, communicator, and trusted adviser. The combination is extremely powerful—and rare.

Data scientists’ most basic, universal skill is the ability to write code. This may be less true in five years’ time, when many more people will have the title “data scientist” on their business cards. More enduring will be the need for data scientists to communicate in language that all their stakeholders understand—and to demonstrate the special skills involved in storytelling with data, whether verbally, visually, or—ideally—both.

But we would say the dominant trait among data scientists is an intense curiosity—a desire to go beneath the surface of a problem, find the questions at its heart, and distill them into a very clear set of hypotheses that can be tested. This often entails the associative thinking that characterizes the most creative scientists in any field. For example, we know of a data scientist studying a fraud problem who realized that it was analogous to a type of DNA sequencing problem. By bringing together those disparate worlds, he and his team were able to craft a solution that dramatically reduced fraud losses.

Perhaps it’s becoming clear why the word “scientist” fits this emerging role. Experimental physicists, for example, also have to design equipment, gather data, conduct multiple experiments, and communicate their results. Thus, companies looking for people who can work with complex data have had good luck recruiting among those with educational and work backgrounds in the physical or social sciences. Some of the best and brightest data scientists are PhDs in esoteric fields like ecology and systems biology. George Roumeliotis, the head of a data science team at Intuit in Silicon Valley, holds a doctorate in astrophysics. A little less surprisingly, many of the data scientists working in business today were formally trained in computer science, math, or economics. They can emerge from any field that has a strong data and computational focus.

It’s important to keep that image of the scientist in mind—because the word “data” might easily send a search for talent down the wrong path. As Portillo told us, “The traditional backgrounds of people you saw 10 to 15 years ago just don’t cut it these days.” A quantitative analyst can be great at analyzing data but not at subduing a mass of unstructured data and getting it into a form in which it can be analyzed. A data management expert might be great at generating and organizing data in structured form but not at turning unstructured data into structured data—and also not at actually analyzing the data. And while people without strong social skills might thrive in traditional data professions, data scientists must have such skills to be effective.

Roumeliotis was clear with us that he doesn’t hire on the basis of statistical or analytical capabilities. He begins his search for data scientists by asking candidates if they can develop prototypes in a mainstream programming language such as Java. Roumeliotis seeks both a skill set—a solid foundation in math, statistics, probability, and computer science—and certain habits of mind. He wants people with a feel for business issues and empathy for customers. Then, he says, he builds on all that with on-the-job training and an occasional course in a particular technology.

Several universities are planning to launch data science programs, and existing programs in analytics, such as the Master of Science in Analytics program at North Carolina State, are busy adding big data exercises and coursework. Some companies are also trying to develop their own data scientists. After acquiring the big data firm Greenplum, EMC decided that the availability of data scientists would be a gating factor in its own—and customers’—exploitation of big data. So its Education Services division launched a data science and big data analytics training and certification program. EMC makes the program available to both employees and customers, and some of its graduates are already working on internal big data initiatives.

As educational offerings proliferate, the pipeline of talent should expand. Vendors of big data technologies are also working to make them easier to use. In the meantime one data scientist has come up with a creative approach to closing the gap. The Insight Data Science Fellows Program, a postdoctoral fellowship designed by Jake Klamka (a high-energy physicist by training), takes scientists from academia and in six weeks prepares them to succeed as data scientists. The program combines mentoring by data experts from local companies (such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and LinkedIn) with exposure to actual big data challenges. Originally aiming for 10 fellows, Klamka wound up accepting 30, from an applicant pool numbering more than 200. More organizations are now lining up to participate. “The demand from companies has been phenomenal,” Klamka told us. “They just can’t get this kind of high-quality talent.”

Why Would a Data Scientist Want to Work Here?

Even as the ranks of data scientists swell, competition for top talent will remain fierce. Expect candidates to size up employment opportunities on the basis of how interesting the big data challenges are. As one of them commented, “If we wanted to work with structured data, we’d be on Wall Street.” Given that today’s most qualified prospects come from nonbusiness backgrounds, hiring managers may need to figure out how to paint an exciting picture of the potential for breakthroughs that their problems offer.

Pay will of course be a factor. A good data scientist will have many doors open to him or her, and salaries will be bid upward. Several data scientists working at start-ups commented that they’d demanded and got large stock option packages. Even for someone accepting a position for other reasons, compensation signals a level of respect and the value the role is expected to add to the business. But our informal survey of the priorities of data scientists revealed something more fundamentally important. They want to be “on the bridge.” The reference is to the 1960s television show Star Trek, in which the starship captain James Kirk relies heavily on data supplied by Mr. Spock. Data scientists want to be in the thick of a developing situation, with real-time awareness of the evolving set of choices it presents.

Considering the difficulty of finding and keeping data scientists, one would think that a good strategy would involve hiring them as consultants. Most consulting firms have yet to assemble many of them. Even the largest firms, such as Accenture, Deloitte, and IBM Global Services, are in the early stages of leading big data projects for their clients. The skills of the data scientists they do have on staff are mainly being applied to more-conventional quantitative analysis problems. Offshore analytics services firms, such as Mu Sigma, might be the ones to make the first major inroads with data scientists.

But the data scientists we’ve spoken with say they want to build things, not just give advice to a decision maker. One described being a consultant as “the dead zone—all you get to do is tell someone else what the analyses say they should do.” By creating solutions that work, they can have more impact and leave their marks as pioneers of their profession.

Care and Feeding

Data scientists don’t do well on a short leash. They should have the freedom to experiment and explore possibilities. That said, they need close relationships with the rest of the business. The most important ties for them to forge are with executives in charge of products and services rather than with people overseeing business functions. As the story of Jonathan Goldman illustrates, their greatest opportunity to add value is not in creating reports or presentations for senior executives but in innovating with customer-facing products and processes.

LinkedIn isn’t the only company to use data scientists to generate ideas for products, features, and value-adding services. At Intuit data scientists are asked to develop insights for small-business customers and consumers and report to a new senior vice president of big data, social design, and marketing. GE is already using data science to optimize the service contracts and maintenance intervals for industrial products. Google, of course, uses data scientists to refine its core search and ad-serving algorithms. Zynga uses data scientists to optimize the game experience for both long-term engagement and revenue. Netflix created the well-known Netflix Prize, given to the data science team that developed the best way to improve the company’s movie recommendation system. The test-preparation firm Kaplan uses its data scientists to uncover effective learning strategies.

There is, however, a potential downside to having people with sophisticated skills in a fast-evolving field spend their time among general management colleagues. They’ll have less interaction with similar specialists, which they need to keep their skills sharp and their tool kit state-of-the-art. Data scientists have to connect with communities of practice, either within large firms or externally. New conferences and informal associations are springing up to support collaboration and technology sharing, and companies should encourage scientists to become involved in them with the understanding that “more water in the harbor floats all boats.”

Data scientists tend to be more motivated, too, when more is expected of them. The challenges of accessing and structuring big data sometimes leave little time or energy for sophisticated analytics involving prediction or optimization. Yet if executives make it clear that simple reports are not enough, data scientists will devote more effort to advanced analytics. Big data shouldn’t equal “small math.”

The Hot Job of the Decade

Hal Varian, the chief economist at Google, is known to have said, “The sexy job in the next 10 years will be statisticians. People think I’m joking, but who would’ve guessed that computer engineers would’ve been the sexy job of the 1990s?”

If “sexy” means having rare qualities that are much in demand, data scientists are already there. They are difficult and expensive to hire and, given the very competitive market for their services, difficult to retain. There simply aren’t a lot of people with their combination of scientific background and computational and analytical skills.

Data scientists today are akin to Wall Street “quants” of the 1980s and 1990s. In those days people with backgrounds in physics and math streamed to investment banks and hedge funds, where they could devise entirely new algorithms and data strategies. Then a variety of universities developed master’s programs in financial engineering, which churned out a second generation of talent that was more accessible to mainstream firms. The pattern was repeated later in the 1990s with search engineers, whose rarefied skills soon came to be taught in computer science programs.

One question raised by this is whether some firms would be wise to wait until that second generation of data scientists emerges, and the candidates are more numerous, less expensive, and easier to vet and assimilate in a business setting. Why not leave the trouble of hunting down and domesticating exotic talent to the big data start-ups and to firms like GE and Walmart, whose aggressive strategies require them to be at the forefront?

The problem with that reasoning is that the advance of big data shows no signs of slowing. If companies sit out this trend’s early days for lack of talent, they risk falling behind as competitors and channel partners gain nearly unassailable advantages. Think of big data as an epic wave gathering now, starting to crest. If you want to catch it, you need people who can surf.

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn

"Getting to Yes" my favorite book on negotiation. RIP Roger Fisher

Roger Fisher

HE MIGHT be an academic—40 years on the faculty of Harvard Law School—but Roger Fisher was really a fixer. He would relax by mending the plumbing, or laying brick terraces at the summer house he loved in Martha’s Vineyard. But that was tiddler stuff. At breakfast he would scan the New York Times, looking for bigger problems he could fix: arms control, hostage-taking, the Middle East. Over dinner the conversation would be sorting out Vietnam, or ending the war in El Salvador. At his 80th birthday party, most other guests gone, he was found deep in a discussion of peace between Arabs and Israelis.

As long as there were disputes in the world and energy in his body, he was going to help resolve them. If it needed a letter to a head of state, he would send it. If it needed him on the next flight to Moscow or Tokyo, he would catch it. People didn’t have to invite him in. He would go anyway, tall, slim and smiling, and slip into action behind the scenes. With that sunny confidence he always had, he knew he could make the world better. And so did others: J.K. Galbraith remarked that if he knew Mr Fisher was on to a problem, it always eased his conscience.

Mr Fisher had a system. He outlined it with William Ury in his book “Getting to Yes” (1981), which sold 3m copies; he also taught it to students, especially, from 1979, through his Harvard Negotiation Project. Like all good tools, it got better with use. In any negotiation, he wrote—even with terrorists—it was vital to separate the people from the problem; to focus on the underlying interests of both sides, rather than stake out unwavering positions; and to explore all possible options before making a decision. The parties should try to build a rapport, check each other out, even just by shaking hands or eating together. Each should “listen actively”, as he always did, to what the other was saying. They should recognise the emotions on either side, from a longing for security to a craving for status. And they should try to get inside each other’s heads.

That was the theory, and Mr Fisher delighted to put it into practice. At the Geneva summit of 1985, for example, Ronald Reagan on his advice did not confront Mikhail Gorbachev, but sat by a roaring fire with him while they exchanged ideas. More summits followed. A border war between Peru and Ecuador was nipped in the bud when Mr Fisher advised the president of Ecuador (once a pupil of his) to sit on a sofa with the Peruvian president, and look at a map with him. Interviewing President Nasser of Egypt in 1970, Mr Fisher asked him how Golda Meir, then Israel’s prime minister, would be regarded at home if she agreed to all his demands. “Boy, would she have a problem!” Nasser laughed. He then grew thoughtful, having briefly seen their dispute from her point of view.

The Middle East, which caused him personal grief, also brought his most public success. His principles were used all through the Camp David negotiations of 1978, from the brainstorming over Jimmy Carter’s draft of an agreement (23 rewrites) to the moment when Mr Carter presented Menachem Begin, the Israeli leader, with signed pictures dedicated, by name, to each of Begin’s grandchildren. Deeply affected, Begin began to talk about his family. The accords were signed that day.

He had his failures. As a Pentagon adviser in the 1960s he suggested several “yesable propositions” to put to the North Vietnamese; Robert McNamara listened, but not the military brass. In 1967 he had fun trying to nurse the tiny, dusty island of Anguilla to independent statehood, but the experiment was overturned. South Africa possibly satisfied him most: the Afrikaner cabinet and ANC officials, trained separately by him in negotiation workshops, agreeing to end apartheid without resorting to violence.

Lessons from the souk

Mr Fisher’s motivation was as clear as his writing. He hated war. His own service had been as a weather reconnaissance officer; in the course of it he had lost his room-mate and many college friends. He had also flown often over Japan, harmless morning flights which the Japanese, pre-Hiroshima, had fatally learned to ignore. All those deaths weighed on him.

More light-heartedly, he grew up as one of six children, preferring to strike bargains rather than land a punch. Later on, still bargain-minded, he would stroll the souks of Damascus or Jerusalem, looking to expand his collection of ancient weights. Every one of those pieces represented a tough negotiation successfully concluded. For those who found his principles too idealistic, he could point to age-old haggling tricks he also recommended: pretending not to be interested, refusing to react to pressure, being prepared to walk away.

His most pleasing bargain, though, was the one he made to get his lot on the Vineyard. There he built a glass and shingle house right between the pounding ocean and Watcha Pond, where ospreys nested. When he first found the place, the owner refused to part with the few acres he needed. He would sell him only the whole property, 60 acres or so, which cost too much. But Mr Fisher called in friends, they all clubbed together, the deal was agreed; and he spent 50 glorious summers there, in just the sort of sweet, wise, negotiated peace he always wished for the world.

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn

Winklevoss Twins of Facebook Fame Return to Invest in SumZero cc @scottshedd @Lisa03755

WSJ.com</a>

The Return of Facebook's Winklevoss Twins

By JOHN JANNARONE

[image]Philip Montgomery for The Wall Street Journal

Cameron Winklevoss, left, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra en route to SumZero's Manhattan offices.

The Winklevoss twins lost the biggest social-network showdown ever when their rival, Mark Zuckerberg, walked away with Facebook. Now they are trying again—with a social network for professional investors.

Flush with at least $65 million from the settlement of a legal battle with Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc., FB +6.21% Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss are backing fellow Harvard alumnus Divya Narendra, their ally in the Facebook fight, in the investment website. The Winklevosses have put $1 million into SumZero, which was founded by Mr. Narendra and another Harvard alum Aalap Mahadevia, in 2008.

"The band is back together," Tyler Winklevoss said over lunch at Manhattan's Ace Hotel with his brother Cameron and Mr. Narendra.

The Winklevosses and Mr. Narendra became famous courtesy of the 2010 film "The Social Network," which chronicled the founding of Facebook and legal disputes between Mr. Zuckerberg and his early collaborators.

In person, the twins are more soft spoken than their counterparts in the movie. One brother would often finish the other's thoughts as they each dined on chargrilled lamb burgers.

In December 2002, the twins and Mr. Narendra convened in a dorm room during their junior year to discuss Harvard Connection, an idea for a social network. The name was later changed to ConnectU, a site they hired Mr. Zuckerberg to help design in late 2003. Early in 2004, Mr. Zuckerberg formed Facebook and subsequently parted ways with the group, sparking a battle over ownership rights to what became a social-media giant.

Until last year, the twins' lives were almost entirely consumed by the litigation and a different kind of battle: a quest for victory as Olympic rowers.

Both came to an end last year. Last December, the twins decided not to make a run for the London Games. They also reached a final settlement that included cash and stock in Facebook. The settlement reportedly awarded the twins $20 million in cash and $45 million of private Facebook stock at a time when the company was valued at $15 billion. (Today, Facebook has a market capitalization of $47.1 billion. Including restricted stock units and options granted to employees, its market cap is $60.3 billion, down from $104 billion at the time of its IPO.)

The twins declined to discuss the terms of the settlement.

In February the brothers formed Winklevoss Capital as a vehicle to invest their personal wealth. Their first investment in June was SumZero, which brings together investors to share trading ideas and research.

SumZero.com has parallels with the first versions of Facebook. For one, Mr. Narendra believes the key to ensuring high-quality ideas was exclusivity. The site allows investors to become members only if they work on the "buy side." SumZero defines that group as investment professionals at hedge funds, mutual funds, and private-equity firms. Analysts from the "sell side" such as Wall Street banks aren't allowed.

"We're offering the site as an alternative to sell-side research," Mr. Narendra said. The site offers a weekly newsletter available to anyone but asks users for permission before placing their material in it.

The appeal for members is the chance to read ideas from other investors, but also to spread the word about investments they already have.

The four-year-old site has about 7,500 members, and Mr. Narendra says he continues to review each application personally, rejecting about 75% of them. Even the Winklevoss twins weren't given access to the site before they become part owners of it.

Tyler likens the concept to the early days of Facebook, when only people with ".edu" email addresses from certain universities were eligible to join. "It's the same check," he says.

The site also requires that members regularly submit trading ideas to maintain access to material posted by others. Members who don't submit an idea for six months lose access to the database, but can get it back if they post a new one. The site also lets users follow one another and set up alerts for material posted about stocks they track.

While these members use the site free, SumZero sells limited access to outside investors, who pay $129 per month for a small number of investment ideas that Mr. Narendra chooses after getting permission from their authors.

Longer term, Mr. Narendra may charge large institutions for access so they can seek out talented buy-side investors to manage money. Some big institutions may also be willing to pay for the right to view research without submitting ideas.

Mr. Narendra said the site experimented with advertisements, but he thought they cheapened the user experience.

The Winklevosses plan to be more than passive investors. SumZero will move into their Manhattan office space near Madison Square Park when it opens in October, allowing them to work with Mr. Narendra frequently. "We want to get involved and really roll up our sleeves," Tyler Winklevoss said.

"We always saw ourselves in careers as entrepreneurs or angels," said Cameron. "My favorite toy as a kid was Legos. I loved building things, and that's what we're doing with SumZero."

Write to John Jannarone at john.jannarone@wsj.com

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn

#BigData Gets Own Photo Album #hfobd @greenplum @lizoneal

Big Data Gets Its Own Photo Album

September 13, 2012, 6:00 am
By STEVE LOHR

Rick Smolan, the photographer and impresario of media projects, has tackled all sorts of big subjects over the years, from countries (“A Day in the Life of Australia” in 1981) to drinking water (“Blue Planet Run” in 2007). He typically recruits about 100 photographers for each, and their work is crafted into classy coffee-table books of striking photographs and short essays.

But Mr. Smolan concedes that his current venture has been “by far the most challenging project we’ve done.”

Small wonder, given his target: Big Data.

John Guttag, left, and Collin Stultz developed software that sifts discarded data from heart-monitoring machines looking for signs that patients are at high risk for a second heart attack.Jason Grow/The Human Face of Big DataJohn Guttag, left, and Collin Stultz developed software that sifts discarded data from heart-monitoring machines looking for signs that patients are at high risk for a second heart attack.

Massive rivers of digital information are a snooze, visually. Yet that is the narrow, literal-minded view. Mr. Smolan’s new project, “The Human Face of Big Data,” which is being formally announced on Thursday, focuses on how data, smart software, sensors and computing are opening the door to all sorts of new uses in science, business, health, energy and water conservation. And the pictures are mostly of the people doing that work or those being affected.

In these digital times, the book is only one part of the Big Data project. Later this month, on Sept. 25, a software application for iPhones and Android phones will be released. The idea is to get as many people from around the world as possible to use the application.

The program will be able to collect data on travel and movement (through the smartphone’s GPS and accelerometer), food (take a picture and shortly after the program identifies the food, including estimates of calories and fat content) and attitudes (the user answers questions posed by the app). The data will be fed into a “Measure Our World” database, and people can see how their habits and attitudes compare with others by, say, where a person lives, gender and age.

Later, on Nov. 8, a Big Data-related program for students, in collaboration with TEDYouth, will get under way. When the book is released on Nov. 20, some 10,000 copies will be delivered by Federal Express to influential people around the world, Mr. Smolan said. It’s an eclectic group, including President Obama; Carmelita Jeter, the Olympic sprinter; Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue; Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress; and Jiang Jiemin, chairman of PetroChina. For the less influential who are not getting free copies, the price will be $50, with a portion of the proceeds going to charity.

An iPad application, based on the book but including interactive features, will come soon after. And a documentary film, scheduled for next year, is planned.

Mr. Smolan said he got interested in doing a Big Data project because friends in Silicon Valley were talking about the growing abundance of Internet-era data and its potential. At first, he said, such conversations struck him as “hot air and buzzwords.” But the more he listened, the more he became convinced something significant was happening. “It reminded me of the early days of the Internet,” Mr. Smolan said. “Cyberspace was the buzzword then. But soon you started to see that things were taking off.”

Big Data technology, Mr. Smolan said, makes it possible to measure things as never before in real time. The result, he said, could someday be a “planetary nervous system.” And guesswork and projections will give way to knowledge, and better decisions and policy-making. Low-cost sensors, real-time data collection, high-speed processing and data-visualization tools, he said, might mean “people could not deny global warming because you could see it happening right in front of you on the screen.”

Shwetak Patel developed technology that measures energy and water use in homes.Peter Menzel/The Human Face of Big DataShwetak Patel developed technology that measures energy and water use in homes.

Mr. Smolan visited recently to offer a glimpse of what will be in “The Human Face of Big Data” and the imaginative photo composition involved in bringing technical subjects to life. One photograph shows Shwetak Patel, an assistant professor at the University of Washington, who has developed technology that measures energy and water use in homes; with wireless sensors and clever software to determine what appliances and gadgets in a home use the most electricity and water, the software suggests ways to conserve — information delivered graphically on an iPad. The photo shows young Mr. Patel in the backyard of his cousin’s house in Hayward, Calif., with his cousin’s family, surrounded by what looks to be every single appliance, digital device, faucet and toilet in the household.

Another photo illustrates software technology that captures previously discarded data from heart-monitoring electrocardiogram machines. The software program sifts the data, looking for subtle heart abnormalities that identify patients that are at high risk of suffering a second heart attack within a year. The photo shows two M.I.T. scientists, John Guttag and Collin Stultz, who developed the technology, standing in a small mountain of paper, which is 10 hours of printout data from an E.K.G. machine.

Michael Cogliantry/The Human Face of Big DataA. J. Jacobs enlisted all kinds of sensors in pursuit of a healthier lifestyle.

Still another photo accompanies an essay by A.J. Jacobs, an author and journalist, who enlisted all kinds of sensors, including Fitbit for movement and Zeo Sleep Manager, in pursuit of a healthier lifestyle. “I crave maximum data about myself,” Mr. Jacobs writes. “I am a quantification fiend.” Mr. Jacobs has already written a book on his quest, “Drop Dead Healthy,” published earlier this year. His picture, which also appears on the inside cover his book, shows Mr. Jacobs sporting his devices and other visual props, holding a barbell in one hand and a head of broccoli in the other.

EMC, the data storage giant, is the main sponsor of “The Human Face of Big Data.” Jeremy Burton, EMC’s chief marketing officer, first met Mr. Smolan more than a year ago. The introduction came from an EMC board member, and Mr. Burton agreed to meet Mr. Smolan for coffee for a half-hour in Burlingame, Calif. Mr. Burton figured the obligatory meeting would soon be over, but it lasted two and a half hours — “the longest cup of coffee I’ve ever had,” he said.

EMC is in the business of Big Data. And Mr. Smolan’s approach seemed original and appealing to Mr. Burton. “Let’s face it, most of the discussion of Big Data is a geekfest — people talking about Hadoop and other technical tools,” Mr. Burton said. “Rick Smolan wanted to focus on how Big Data is affecting humanity.”

Typically, Mr. Smolan tries to line up a handful of sponsors for his projects. But Mr. Burton decided that EMC would be almost the sole backer of the project (FedEx is contributing the delivery of the 10,000 books on the publication day).

EMC, Mr. Burton said, had no editorial control and the cost was “a big chunk of change,” a multimillion-dollar expenditure. “It is a risk, but the elements of the project from the book to the iPad application seem really cool,” he said. “And we’ll get the halo effect.”

Stephen.Bates | +1 202 730-9760
mobile.short.typos

Confessions of a Former Republican | The American Conservative

Confessions of a Former Republican

I used to be a serious Republican, moderate and business-oriented, who planned for a public-service career in Republican politics. But I am a Republican no longer.

There’s an old joke we Republicans used to tell that goes something like this: “If you’re young and not a Democrat, you’re heartless. If you grow up and you’re not a Republican, you’re stupid.” These days, my old friends and associates no doubt consider me the butt of that joke. But I look on my “stupidity” somewhat differently. After all, my real education only began when I was 30 years old.

This is the story of how in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and later in Iraq, I discovered that what I believed to be the full spectrum of reality was just a small slice of it and how that discovery knocked down my Republican worldview.

I always imagined that I was full of heart, but it turned out that I was oblivious. Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society’s “losers” had somehow earned their desserts. As I came to recognize that poverty is not earned or chosen or deserved, and that our use of force is far less precise than I had believed, I realized with a shock that I had effectively viewed whole swaths of the country and the world as second-class people.

No longer oblivious, I couldn’t remain in today’s Republican Party, not unless I embraced an individualism that was even more heartless than the one I had previously accepted. The more I learned about reality, the more I started to care about people as people, and my values shifted. Had I always known what I know today, it would have been clear that there hasn’t been a place for me in the Republican Party since the Free Soil days of Abe Lincoln.

Where I Came From

I grew up in a rich, white suburb north of Chicago populated by moderate, business-oriented Republicans. Once upon a time, we would have been calledRockefeller Republicans. Today we would be called liberal Republicans or slurred by the Right as “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs).

We believed in competition and the free market, in bootstraps and personal responsibility, in equality of opportunity, not outcomes. We were financial conservatives who wanted less government. We believed in noblesse oblige, for we saw ourselves as part of a natural aristocracy, even if we hadn’t been born into it. We sided with management over labor and saw unions as a scourge. We hated racism and loved Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., particularly his dream that his children would “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We worried about the rise of the Religious Right and its social-conservative litmus tests. We were tough on crime, tough on national enemies. We believed in business, full stop.

I intended to run for office on just such a platform someday. In the meantime, I founded the Republican club at my high school, knocked on doors and collected signatures with my father, volunteered on campaigns, socialized at fundraisers, and interned for Senator John McCain and Congressman Denny Hastert when he was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay’s chief deputy.

We went to mainstream colleges–the more elite the better–but lamented their domination by liberal professors, and I did my best to tune out their liberal views. I joined the Republican clubs and the Federalist Society, and I read theWall Street Journal and the Economist rather the New York Times. George Will was a voice in the wilderness, Rush Limbaugh an occasional (sometimes guilty) pleasure.

Left Behind By the Party

In January 2001, I was one of thousands of Americans who braved the cold rain to attend and cheer George W. Bush’s inauguration. After eight years hating “Slick Willie,” it felt good to have a Republican back in the White House. But I knew that he wasn’t one of our guys. We had been McCain fans, and even if we liked the compassionate bit of Bush’s conservatism, we didn’t care for his religiosity or his social politics.

Bush won a lot of us over with his hawkish response to 9/11, but he lost me with the Iraq War. Weren’t we still busy in Afghanistan? I didn’t see the urgency.

By then, I was at the Justice Department, working in an office that handled litigation related to what was officially called the Global War on Terror (or GWOT). My office was tasked with opposing petitions for habeas corpus brought by Guantánamo detainees who claimed that they were being held indefinitely without charge. The government’s position struck me as an abdication of a core Republican value: protecting the “procedural” rights found in the Bill of Rights. Sure, habeas corpus had been waived in wartime before, but it seemed to me that waiving it here reduced us to the terrorists’ level. Besides, since acts of terrorism were crimes, why not prosecute them? I refused to work on those cases.

With the Abu Ghraib pictures, my disappointment turned to rage. The America I believed in didn’t torture people.

I couldn’t avoid GWOT work. I was forced to read reams of allegations of torture, sexual abuse, and cover-ups in our war zones to give the White House a heads-up in case any of made it into the news cycle.

I was so mad that I voted for Kerry out of spite.

How I Learned to Start Worrying

I might still have stuck it out as a frustrated liberal Republican, knowing that the wealthy business core of the party still pulled a few strings and people like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe remained in the Senate–if only because the idea of voting for Democrats by choice made me feel uncomfortable. (It would have been so… gauche.) Then came Hurricane Katrina. In New Orleans, I learned that it wasn’t just the Bush administration that was flawed but my worldview itself.

I had fallen in love with New Orleans during a post-law-school year spent in Louisiana clerking for a federal judge, and the Bush administration’s callous (non-)response to the storm broke my heart. I wanted to help out, but I didn’t fly helicopters or know how to do anything useful in a disaster, so just I sat glued to the coverage and fumed–until FEMA asked federal employees to volunteer to help. I jumped at the chance.

Soon, I was involved with a task force trying to rebuild (and reform) the city’s criminal justice system. Growing up hating racism, I was appalled but not very surprised to find overt racism and the obvious use of racist code words by officials in the Deep South.

Then something tiny happened that pried open my eyes to the less obvious forms of racism and the hurdles the poor face when they try to climb the economic ladder. It happened on an official visit to a school in a suburb of New Orleans that served kids who had gotten kicked out of every other school around. I was investigating what types of services were available to the young people who were showing up in juvenile hall and seemed to be headed toward the proverbial life of crime.

My tour guide mentioned that parents were required to participate in some school programs. One of these was a field trip to a sit-down restaurant.

This stopped me in my tracks. I thought: What kind of a lame field trip is that?

It turned out that none of the families had ever been to a sit-down restaurant before. The teachers had to instruct parents and students alike how to order off a menu, how to calculate the tip.

I was stunned.

Starting To See

That night, I told my roommates about the crazy thing I had heard that day. Apparently there were people out there who had never been to something as basic as a real restaurant. Who knew?

One of my roommates wasn’t surprised. He worked at a local bank branch that required two forms of ID to open an account. Lots of people came in who had only one or none at all.

I was flooded with questions: There are adults who have no ID? And no bank accounts? Who are these people? How do they vote? How do they live? Is there an entire off-the-grid alternate universe out there?

From then on, I started to notice a lot more reality. I noticed that the criminal justice system treats minorities differently in subtle as well as not-so-subtle ways, and that many of the people who were getting swept up by the system came from this underclass that I knew so little about. Lingering for months in lock-up for misdemeanors, getting pressed against the hood and frisked during routine traffic stops, being pulled over in white neighborhoods for “driving while black”: these are things that never happen to people in my world. Not having experienced it, I had always assumed that government force was only used against guilty people. (Maybe that’s why we middle-class white people collectively freak out at TSA airport pat-downs.)

I dove into the research literature to try to figure out what was going on. It turned out that everything I was “discovering” had been hiding in plain sight and had been named: aversive racism, institutional racism, disparate impact and disparate treatment, structural poverty, neighborhood redlining, the “trial tax,” the “poverty tax,” and on and on. Having grown up obsessed with race (welfare and affirmative action were our bêtes noirs), I wondered why I had never heard of any of these concepts.

Was it to protect our Republican version of “individual responsibility”? That notion is fundamental to the liberal Republican worldview. “Bootstrapping” and “equality of opportunity, not outcomes” make perfect sense if you assume, as I did, that people who hadn’t risen into my world simply hadn’t worked hard enough, or wanted it badly enough, or had simply failed. But I had assumed that bootstrapping required about as much as it took to get yourself promoted from junior varsity to varsity. It turns out that it’s more like pulling yourself up from tee-ball to the World Series. Sure, some people do it, but they’re the exceptions, the outliers, the Olympians.

The enormity of the advantages I had always enjoyed started to truly sink in. Everyone begins life thinking that his or her normal is the normal. For the first time, I found myself paying attention to broken eggs rather than making omelets. Up until then, I hadn’t really seen most Americans as living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping, loving, dreaming, hurting people. My values shifted–from an individualistic celebration of success (that involved dividing the world into the morally deserving and the undeserving) to an interest in people as people.

How I Learned to Stop Loving the Bombs

In order to learn more–and to secure my membership in what Karl Rove sneeringly called the “reality-based community”–I joined a social science research institute. There I was slowly disabused of layer after layer of myth and received wisdom, and it hurt. Perhaps nothing hurt more than to see just how far my patriotic, Republican conception of U.S. martial power–what it’s for, how it’s used–diverged from the reality of our wars.

Lots of Republicans grow up hawks. I certainly did. My sense of what it meant to be an American was linked to my belief that from 1776 to WWII, and even from the 1991 Gulf War to Kosovo and Afghanistan, the American military had been dedicated to birthing freedom and democracy in the world, while dispensing a tough and precise global justice.

To me, military service represented the perfect combination of public service, honor, heroism, glory, promotion, meaning, and coolness. As a child, I couldn’t get enough of the military: toys and models, movies and cartoons, fat books with technical pictures of manly fighter planes and ships and submarines. We went to air shows whenever we could, and with the advent of cable, I begged my parents to sign up so that the Discovery Channel could bring those shows right into our den. Just after we got it, the first Gulf War kicked off, and CNN provided my afterschool entertainment for weeks.

As I got older, I studied Civil War military history and memory. (I would eventually edit a book of letters by Union Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.) I thought I knew a lot about war; even if Sherman was right that “war is hell,” it was frequently necessary, we did it well, and–whatever those misinformed peaceniks said–we made the world a better place.

But then I went to a war zone.

I was deployed to Baghdad as part of a team of RAND Corporation researchers to help the detainee operations command figure out several thorny policy issues. My task was to figure out why we were sort-of-protecting and sort-of-detaining an Iranian dissident group on Washington’s terrorist list.

It got ugly fast. Just after my first meal on base, there was a rumble of explosions, and an alarm started screaming INCOMING! INCOMING! INCOMING! Two people were killed and dozens injured, right outside the chow hall where I had been standing minutes earlier.

This was the “surge” period in 2007 when, I was told, insurgent attacks came less frequently than before, but the sounds of war seemed constant to me. The rat-tat-tat of small arms fire just across the “wire.” Controlled detonations of insurgent duds. Dual patrolling Blackhawks overhead. And every few mornings, a fresh rain of insurgent rockets and mortars.

Always alert, always nervous, I was only in Iraq for three and a half weeks, and never close to actual combat; and yet the experience gave me many of the symptoms of PTSD.  It turns out that it doesn’t take much.

That made me wonder how the Iraqis took it. From overhead I saw that the once teeming city of Baghdad was now a desert of desolate neighborhoods and empty shopping streets, bomb craters in the middle of soccer fields and in the roofs of schools. Millions displaced.

Our nation-building efforts reeked of post-Katrina organizational incompetence. People were assigned the wrong roles–“Why am I building a radio station? This isn’t what I do.  I blow things up…”–and given no advance training or guidance. Outgoing leaders didn’t overlap with their successors, so what they had learned would be lost, leaving each wheel to be partially reinvented again. Precious few contracts went to Iraqis. It was driving people out of our military.

This incompetence had profound human costs. Of the 26,000 people we were detaining in Iraq, as many as two-thirds were innocent–wrong place, wrong time–or, poor and desperate, had worked with insurgent groups for cash, not out of an ideological commitment. Aware of this, the military wanted to release thousands of them, but they didn’t know who was who; they only knew that being detained and interrogated made even the innocents dangerously angry. That anger trickled down to family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. It was about as good an in-kind donation as the U.S. could have made to insurgent recruitment–aside from invading in the first place.

So much for surgical precision and winning hearts and minds. I had grown up believing that we were more careful in our use of force, that we only punished those who deserved punishment. But in just a few weeks in Iraq, it became apparent that what we were doing to the Iraqis, as well as to our own people, was inexcusable.

Today, I wonder if Mitt Romney drones on about not apologizing for America because he, like the former version of me, simply isn’t aware of the U.S. ever doing anything that might demand an apology. Then again, no one wants to feel like a bad person, and there’s no need to apologize if you are oblivious to the harms done in your name–calling the occasional ones you notice collateral damage (“stuff happens”)–or if you believe that American force is always applied righteously in a world that is justly divided into winners and losers.

A Painful Transition

An old saw has it that no one profits from talking about politics or religion. I think I finally understand what it means. We see different realities, different worlds. If you and I take in different slices of reality, chances are that we aren’t talking about the same things. I think this explains much of modern American political dialogue.

My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their “just” desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn’t actually work that way. I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into “creat[ing] our own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains why study after study shows–examples herehere, and here–that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

Waking up to a fuller spectrum of reality has proved long and painful. I had to question all my assumptions, unlearn so much of what I had learned. I came to understand why we Republicans thought people on the Left always seemed to be screeching angrily (because we refused to open our eyes to the damage we caused or blamed the victims) and why they never seemed to have any solutions to offer (because those weren’t mentioned in the media we read or watched).

My transition has significantly strained my relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues. It is deeply upsetting to walk on thin ice where there used to be solid, common ground. I wish they, too, would come to see a fuller spectrum of reality, but I know from experience how hard that can be when your worldview won’t let you.

No one wants to feel like a dupe.  It is embarrassing to come out in public and admit that I was so miseducated when so much reality is out there in plain sight in neighborhoods I avoided, in journals I hadn’t heard of, in books by authors I had refused to read. (So I take courage from the people who have done so before me like Andrew Bacevich.)

Many people see the wider spectrum of reality because they grew up on the receiving end.  As a retired African-American general in the Marine Corps said to me after I told him my story, “No one has to explain institutional racism to a black man.”

Others do because they grew up in families that simply got it. I married a woman who grew up in such a family, for whom all of my hard-earned, painful “discoveries” are old news. Each time I pull another layer of wool off my eyes and feel another surge of anger, she gives me a predictable series of looks. The first one more or less says, “Duh, obviously.” The second is sympathetic, a recognition of the pain that comes with dismantling my flawed worldview. The third is concerned: “Do people actually think that?”

Yes, they do.

Jeremiah Goulka was formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, a recovery worker in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice. Follow him on Twitter @jeremiahgoulka.

Stephen.Bates | +1 202 730-9760
mobile.short.typos

Big Data in Your Blood - NYTimes.com @greenplum @lizoneal

NYTimes.com

Big Data in Your Blood

By QUENTIN HARDY
"Stretchable electronics" will be able to measure heart rate, brain activity, body temperature and hydration levels.“Stretchable electronics” will be able to measure heart rate, brain activity, body temperature and hydration levels.

Very soon, we will see inside ourselves like never before, with wearable, even internal , sensors that monitor even our most intimate biological processes. It is likely to happen even before we figure out the etiquette and laws around sharing this knowledge.

Already products like the Nike+ FuelBand and the Fitbit wireless monitor track our daily activity, taking note of our steps and calories burned. The idea is to help meet an exercise regimen, perhaps lose some weight. The real-world results are uneven. For sure, though, people are building up big individual databases about themselves over increasingly long periods of time. So are the companies that sell these products, which store that data.

That is barely the start. Later this year, a Boston-based company called MC10 will offer the first of several “stretchable electronics” products that can be put on things like shirts and shoes, worn as temporary tattoos or installed in the body. These will be capable of measuring not just heart rate, the company says, but brain activity, body temperature and hydration levels. Another company, called Proteus, will begin a pilot program in Britain for a “Digital Health Feedback System” that combines both wearable technologies and microchips the size of a sand grain that ride a pill right through you. Powered by your stomach fluids, it emits a signal picked up by an external sensor, capturing vital data. Another firm, Sano Intelligence, is looking at micro needle sensors on skin patches as a way of deriving continuous information about the bloodstream.

Make no mistake about these companies’ ambitions. “Ultimately, we see ourselves as a part of the healthcare ecosystem,” Amar Kendale, MC10’s VP of market strategy and development, said in an e-mail. In this future, he wrote, “data will need to be shared seamlessly between customers, providers, and payers in order to reduce heathcare costs and simultaneously deliver the best possible care.” Proteus hopes to use anonymized data from its customers to understand health patterns over an entire population, presumably to revolutionize medicine.

Those are not just lofty goals; they make a lot of sense. If this kind of information exists for a lot of people, it is arguably folly to not look for larger trends and patterns. And not just in things like your electrolyte count, because overlays of age, educational level, geography and other demographic factors could yield valuable insights. The essence of the Big Data age is the diversity of data sets combined in novel ways.

What is missing is much of a sense of what this is worth, and what it may cost, and the terms under which we’ll turn our data into a product. Nike and Fitbit already log a lot of personal data, and it is not clear what, if anything, they plan to do with it.

Nike acknowledged an e-mail asking for details about its plans, but did not get back after that. The software license for Nike+ does say that “Nike+ Product Software may include software that collects information about how you use your Nike+ Product,” but has no further details about what this means. Fitbit did not respond to e-mails.

Proteus says its customers will own their data and may share it, but must also grant the company permission to use it for product development and the cultivation of its data sets. As Mr. Kendale stated, MC10 sees data sharing between people and companies as something of a necessity.

For those of you troubled by Facebook claiming the right to know whether you like cats when you sign up, this is probably a significantly bigger deal. Others may not care, or even see themselves as actors in a global project to understand ourselves as never before. What may be troubling to all, however, is the haphazard way these new behaviors will be captured and determined. There are likely to be different strategies depending on company, country of use and whether the product is looking as something regulated, like a drug, or open, like a heart rate.

Those legal and corporate distinctions, of course, were all developed in a world where we weren’t able to see so much of each other, or deduce one behavior by crunching the data from several other sources.

There are also movements to use this data in entirely new ways, for patient-generated medical research. Linda Avey, who co-founded the personal genetics company 23andMe is now working on a start-up called Curious, which should be live by the middle of next year. Her idea is to get people with difficult to pin down conditions like chronic fatigue, lupus or fibromyalgia to share information about themselves. This could include the biological data from devices, but also things like how well they slept, what they ate and when they got pain. Collectively, this could lead to evidence about how behavior and biology conjure these states.

“All of the devices that are coming on the market will shuffle their data into different environments,” she said. “They are starting to realize that they can’t just be the keeper for that.” She hopes the companies will allow for common sharing of the individual data, leading to a kind of open source branch of medicine. So far, she said, few if any have committed to that.

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn