In a little under a half hour, Barack Obama will officially take his place as the country’s next POTUS. And while the event will be brimming with historic firsts for the country, the coverage contains plenty of firsts for the integration of technology, politics, and major events.
Sure, there’ll be some people who actually attend the event in person—around 2 million brave souls have packed into the Mall in frigid temperatures, with questionable bathroom status (for comparison, around 400,000 showed up for Bush’s first inauguration). But for the rest of the world that didn’t make it to D.C. for the party, there’s a veritable smorgasbord of real-time coverage and information all over the airwaves. For those who still watch TV, you can see Obama take the reins on any cable or broadcast news station, or watch live feeds online from CNN, MSNBC, and just about every other news source. Then there are the liveblogs and Twitters, ot to mention Facebook statuses which, according to CNN (which has partnered with Facebook to offer simultaneous Web viewing and status-updating), are being updated at around 2,000 updates per minute, and 3,000 comments per minute. Not to mention the conversation rampaging among the 4 million fans on Obama’s official Facebook page.
Text messaging the event is rampant as well, to the point where the CEO of EzTexting.com Shane Neman issued a press release saying he believes millions of text messages will be lost, on the level of New Year’s Eve.
So there you have it—500 different ways to find out what’s going on in D.C. And if you miss all of it, not to worry—the replays will show up on YouTube momentarily.
• The science of birds taking down a commercial plane—and how the danger could apply to NASA as well.
• “Scientific and legal integrity” to return to the EPA. And not a moment too soon.
• A ruckus brews over cookies at the White House—and we don’t mean the kind with sugar and sprinkles.
• Facebook graduates from a civil litigation tool to a crime-fighting tool.
• Recession? What recession? Pass the console.
• And not to spoil the pre-inaugural lovefest with bad news or anything, but that little salmonella outbreak has caused 2 more deaths, bringing the total to 5 dead and over 400 sickened.
• Happy Friday! Half the world’s population could face a global-warming-induced food crisis by 2100, according to a new study.
• And then there’s the floods…
• Need proof that evolution’s more than just a “theory”? Look no further.
• The fruit flies are back! And this time, it’s not just Palin dissing them.
• “Dear Obama: Please bring me cap and trade legislation this year.” A wish list from environmentalists.
• The U.S. isn’t the only tech sector getting slammed by the downturn.
• And now for a lesson in brutal honesty: How much does racism really bother you?
The tech world is literally (and virtually) beside itself over Obama’s announcement that he plans to appoint the first ever chief technology officer to oversee the full-fledged technologization (not actually a word, but it should be) of his administration. Today, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and entrepreneur Andrea Weckerle took to CNN to extol the president-elect’s decision and offer their advice for the fledgling CTO. Among their more interesting suggestions:
Ruthlessly modernize: Examine the technology used within the federal system and determine what is outdated, redundant and inadequate, then keep what works and expel what doesn’t. Examine procurement polices and demand they are in line with best practices. The results of this endeavor alone will save the federal government massive amounts of money…
Create openness of information: This will serve two important functions, namely allowing people to see what the government is doing, thus fostering accountability born of transparency, and also providing access to data that will inevitably inspire and support innovation and collaboration within the private sector. In this realm, the old adage from the free software movement of “release early, release often” is quite helpful…
(more…)
• Where have we seen this before? A President’s Guide to Science, in video form.
• A holy union of incentives and science: A car key that disables cell phones when the car is in use.
• Will the hordes of laid-off techies be driven to crime?
• All this carbon offsetting and greening is nice and all, but the elephant in the room is still coal.
• Any chemists want to weigh in on what type of drugs can be manufactured at home?
• When Madoff strikes, no sustainable food business is safe.
• And finally, the perfect Christmas medley: electronics meets art meets taut consumerist criticism.
Physicists, rejoice! (Even more!)
Science magazine is reporting that Obama has chosen to nominate physicist John Holdren as his science adviser. The well-credentialed and -bearded Holdren is currently a professor of environmental policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, as well as the director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. A top adviser to Obama’s campaign and world renowned expert on climate change, energy policy, and nuclear proliferation, Holdren is the second physicist to join the president-elect’s team, following Nobel Laureate Stephen Chu’s appointment as Secretary of Energy.
Related:
Cosmic Variance: Steven Chu Nominated to be Secretary of Energy
Image: AAAS
With the beatific cloud surrounding Obama’s win rapidly fading, one question finding its way into the public ear is whether or not the president-elect’s newly-won power might/could/will degrade the integrity he’s shown throughout his career. The idea certainly has precedent, with big names like Duke Cunningham and Ted Stevens offering textbook cases of Washington insiders squeezing every last drop of abuse from their power.
But does power really lead to a change in personal perspective and morality? Not necessarily, according to a study in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The researchers, led by Adam Galinsky of Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, found that “power tends to shield people from outside opinions, leaving them to rely more on their own insights”—which, when the leader is legitimately insightful, is a positive result.
The team based its findings on college students who’d been primed to feel either powerful or powerless, through techniques like completing sentences that included “power” words, such as “authority,” “executive” and “control,” or words unrelated to power, such as “automobile” and “envelope.” Each group was then given creative tasks, such as coming up with product names or drawing hypothetical aliens. In most cases, participants were shown examples beforehand. Those who had been “primed for power” presented “more unique ideas that bore no resemblance to examples given.”
All of which is well and good. But does it translate to presidential politics?
(more…)
How does President-Elect Obama love technology? Let us count the ways. Among the features the incoming administration is adding to its much-anticipated technology ramp-up is a video version of the weekly Democratic address. From now on, the president-elect will record the address on video, then his staff will upload it to none other than YouTube, as well as Obama’s Web site (for the first video, go here).
And fear not, technophiles—there’s more. From the Washington Post:
In addition to regularly videotaping the radio address, officials at the transition office say the Obama White House will also conduct online Q&As and video interviews. The goal, officials say, is to put a face on government. In the following weeks, for example, senior members of the transition team, various policy experts and choices for the Cabinet, among others, will record videos for Change.gov.
Of course, not all of this techno-political bonanza is 100 percent original: The current administration’s Web site “offers RSS feeds, podcasts and videos of press briefings,” while the “site’s Ask the White House page has featured regular online chats dating back to 2003.” Granted, it’s pretty safe to assume online video clips of Bush didn’t garner quite the same enthusiasm.
Related:
RB: Obama Blogs? President-Elect Launches Web Site, Embraces Internet
RB: Politicians v. Technology: Obama, McCain Battle the Internet
RB: Obama Changes His View (Or, at Least, His Web Site) On Technology
• Transition! Transition! (Insert music here). So here’s the question of the day: Will Obama create a National Energy Council?
• Just in time for winter: A complete history of the flu through the ages.
• The military fought the whales… and won.
• What, “Global Warming Poobah” was already taken? Gore offered (but turned down) job as White House “Climate Czar.”
• We can’t decide if this is heartening (drivers are being safe!) or mortally depressing: California air pollution kills more people per year than car crashes.
• A soldier-blogger gets his moment in the spotlight—though the real question is, what does he think of Trooptube?
After running the most technology-dominated presidential campaign in history, it’s only logical that Obama would keep the trend going into his new administration. And by all accounts, he has every intention of doing so: The Washington Post reports that the president-elect and his transition team are gearing up (pun fully intended) to “create the first truly ‘wired’ presidency.”
So far the major cyber-moves include consolidating the list of over 10 million supporter e-mail addresses gathered during the campaign, planning the transition of Obama’s 95-person “new media” campaign staff into an expanded White House operation, and biggest and flashiest of all, the launch of the president-to-be’s official Web site, change.gov. It’s self-billed as “your source for the latest news, events and announcements so that you can follow the setting up of the Obama administration,” and so far it contains a forum to share your election day stories, a newsfeed, and lo and behold, a blog! Take that, anti-blogites—if it’s good enough for Obama, it’s good enough for us.
So is this the era of the blogger-president? Can we expect Web cams in the Oval Office and Twitters from cabinet meetings?
(more…)
The new president-elect promises to usher in a “new era of scientific innovation” (of course, exactly how much funding that will entail/receive remains to be seen).
Alternative-energy industries, shrug off your wounds—there may yet be hope on the horizon.
Stem cell researchers, re-start your engines.
Another huge winner last night: The Internet.
Also consider it a huge win for academia: The president-elect, his vice president, and both their spouses have all worked in higher education.
The Senate and the House didn’t do so badly either.
And we hate to do this, but here’s the bad news.
Technology’s Top Ten Election Lows—and yeah, they’re pretty low.
Sarah Palin’s health is “excellent.” Her running mate’s, less so.
Stop the presses! Study shows that political candidates may actually tend to keep their promises.
The “Bradley Effect” may have been neither from Bradley nor an effect. Discuss.
The latest in media bias research asks: Is it possible to quantify a partisan slant?
As it turns out, being alive is not always a prerequisite for having your vote counted—and perhaps rightfully so.
And this from Russia Today: “Supporters would sell soul to see Obama.” Hey, the selling-something-intangible strategy worked so well with credit default swaps.
Chances are you’re not reading this, because you’re standing in some epic line at a polling place. Or maybe you’ve brought your iPhone, and you’re surfing the Web to pass the timed. Either way, the polls are jammed, lines are interminable across the country, and election officials, politicos, pundits, and just about everyone else are bracing themselves for the technological messes that are sure to ensue.
The good news, according to a recent report from Election Data Services, is that the number of ballots cast on electronic voting machines will drop today for the first time since DREs wormed their way into our lives. In the 2008 election, 32.6 percent of all ballots will be recorded on an electronic voting machine, compared to 37.6 percent in 2006.
Of course, 2006 wasn’t a presidential election year, particularly one with expected “record-shattering” turnouts. By comparison, 22 percent and 29.2 percent of votes were cast electronically in 2000 and 2004, respectively.
Then there’s the little matter of key swing states, including Ohio, Indiana, and Nevada—all of which are relying heavily on electronic voting machines.
(more…)
So, yeah, there’s this election tomorrow, in case you hadn’t heard. And if you need any more incentive to head to the polls, here it is: A study out of Scotland’s University of Edinburgh found that people with higher IQs voted more often, regardless of their occupation. The data came from a U.K. study begun in 1970 that has tracked the recent voting habits of about 17,200 people born that year.
They found that for every 15 IQ points above a score of 100, a participant was “38 percent more likely than average to have voted in the United Kingdom’s 2001 election.” In addition, “[p]eople who took part in a political meeting or rally in the last year, those who took part in a public demonstration, those who signed a petition, and those who were fairly or very interested in politics had higher mean intelligence test scores at age 10.”
But did IQ make any difference in which way people voted? Any mention of this question in the past has usually been enough to incite a frothing frenzy. Here’s how ABC News summarized the latest findings:
“Childhood intelligence is associated with…support for political ideologies that are based on ecological sustainability and social liberalism,” conclude the Intelligence study authors. For example, voters were 32 percent more likely to vote for the UK’s more left-wing Liberal party over the Conservative party for every 15 IQ points they scored above average as children. They were more likely to be tree-huggers too, voting more often for environment-oriented parties.
So the smarter you are, the more you like trees—we report, you decide.
Related:
RB: Election 2008: Everything You Need to Know to Avoid Being Disenfranchised
RB: Voting in America: Let the Pre-Game Mess Begin!
RB: Voting in America, Redux: You Can’t Vote Here, But You Can Vote in Space
Tomorrow, we vote. Estimates place the turnout at around 130 million or more, possibly the largest in American history. Of course, not everyone registered will necessarily be able to cast their ballot—and even uglier, not every ballot cast will necessarily be counted. Before you head to the polls tomorrow, here’s a list of all the facts you’ll need to ensure your vote doesn’t end up trapped forever in the bowels of the technology/Democratic leviathan.
Avoid being one of the 3 percent who cast ballots in error (and that’s without the machines messing up) by following these guidelines, compiled by researchers at the University of Maryland. (Hint: Beware the optical scanner.)
Last chance to check your registration! So far it’s been one of the biggest problems voters have faced at the polls.
Having trouble with your DRE or optical scan ballot? Look for a camera to document your woes: PBS and YouTube are joining forces to collect and stream user-generated video from polling places nationwide.
If there’s no video evidence, you can still exercise your right to protest crummy voting technology via the Internets.
Speaking of which, technology has enjoyed unprecedented domination over this election—which might continue into the next administration.
(more…)
