SadokOnline.com

Open Letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt

// November 16th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // Business, Philosophy, Technology

Dear Eric,

It is only with respect and awe that I can express my appreciation in regards to all the various technological improvements that you brought into our lives in a way that is changing the way we live in a very fundamental way. I am so glad to see that you are not limiting yourself to the internet, but that you are bringing your problem solving skills to areas that many wouldn’t even dare challenge.

While most of the focus on the mobile market is about the competition you have against Apple, I clearly understand that for you Android is simply a platform enabling you to bring the innovation you have done for the web to our daily lives in a more personal and intimate way. Given the mobile OS options already in the market were not nearly robust enough for your standards and the iOS being closed your only option was to build your own. I can also understand your focus on reach over standardization. But I think you have tip toed your way around the question about OS fragmentation.

You are saying that applications will work seamlessly across all android devices but you know that this is simply not true. As long as you distribute the OS as open source and allow mobile device makers to modify it to their likes, fragmentation is inescapable. I believe that this will eventually frustrate developers AND users that will not find the same experience or application support from device to device.

I am a big advocate for open source but Android is a Google brand and it carries the weight of big expectations. I do believe that forcing certain standards and limitations on what mobile hardware developers can modify and still call their system Android would at least allow users to make their choices in a more informed manner. Only making the Android brand an approved by Google stamp can give you the platform you are dreaming about and therefore I would suggest you control at least the use of it. By allowing every piece of cheap hardware junk ride on the Android wave, you are not only jeopardizing the trust that the users have on your brand but you are also allowing opportunist approaches to defraud the end consumer which has no idea on how to judge hardware quality and therefore finds refuge in seeing your logo on it for his economical decision.

I am not suggesting closing the usage of the Android OS source itself, but to limit the use of the brand Android. or “based on Android”. This implies that you build an approval process based on various quality criteria (software AND hardware) before allowing anybody to put your logo on their devices.

You also mentioned that society sociopolitical views are limiting the development of technology in many ways. Wasn’t this always the case ? Didn’t the same fear try to stop many geniuses throughout history? When you said that is not google’s job to decide what is acceptable by society not only you betrayed me, but you have betrayed science and humanity! When did society know what was acceptable? During the inquisition? Galileo? Newton? Einstein? Tesla?

It IS Google’s job to decide what SHOULD be acceptable for society and fight for it! If any of the big innovators ever approached society the way you had, we would never be where we are today. We owe, YOU owe them everything you are today just because they said NO to what society thought was acceptable and forced them to open their eyes.

Please reconsider your position. You are in a place where you really can make a big difference, use every bit of that power to push society for the better.

Best Regards

Sadok Kohen
“In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable”

Interfacing with the Human API: the Search for Meaning 2.0

// November 9th, 2010 // No Comments » // Philosophy, Technology

It is very popular lately to build open applications, allowing other developers to build new functionality on top of your services, allowing diverse services to talk to each other, to interact in ways that were never possible before.

When you import your contacts from gmail or your email application into facebook for example, you are using an API (an application programming interface), it is like a plug to that particular piece of software, and trough that plug there are things you can do like sync, communicate, transfer, control… and many more actions.

The API as a concept developed at an incredible speed from very primitive structures (import/export) to complete functional frameworks making every piece of software infinitely more useful and complete (facebook connect).

Today we can walk into a location knowing who among our friends are close by (foursquare, places). Communicate with them singularly or “shout” with the hope someone will listen (status updates, facebook, twitter). We can challenge other friends at a game of poker or finding out that our classmate from junior high is also playing and he is way ahead of us (zynga, playfish + facebook connect). We can aggregate news from each website without even browsing to them (RSS, google reader, netvibes) and share what we find interesting with our various communities (facebook, twitter, youube, reddit, digg), making that particular piece of information that normally would be lost if not picked up by the mass medias go viral. We can discover music by following what the crowd is listening to (last.fm, pandora, ping, spotify). We can have access to famous people unbiased thoughts directly from them (twitter). What we write or what we read leaves a mark, every opinion matters (blogosphere, google).

We can do all of the above, in several different ways, using very different applications and interfaces, all trough access to each services API.

But if you thing about it what are this services really providing? Isn’t everything that I listed connected to a social behavior?

Mark Zuckerberg designed facebook modelling the interactions of university students, observing them and putting into a hierarchy their actions, understanding what made them tick. Twitter tapped into the vanity of the human intellect, making everybody believe that what they are doing or thinking is meaningful enough to communicate. Foursquare not only made the regular trip to the coffee shop a rewarding one, as a dog trainer does with treats but it tapped into how lonely people really feel and made everybody feel closer on a map.

The whole “social” web is based on what Aristotle discovered in the 390 BC:

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

Every application out there is interacting with a universal API, the Human API of this “social animal”. In order to be successful an application needs to make the best use of it. The good thing is that it is Open Source, the tricky part is that there is no documentation or manual, that is why you just need to get it right, that is the only key to success.

So my first question into evaluating a venture is: does it really tap into the human API? Does it make use of all the key functionalities? Does it do this with ease or is it using a lot of resources ? Lets not forget that the Human API has its rules, we just don’t know them, we are not sure how many calls we can make per second/day/month, we are not sure what is the correct communication protocol, we are not sure about language and we are not sure about the time table for certain functions. We need to guess all of that, or derive from previous experiences, and the venture that does, takes off…

Who would have thought that all of us in the web community were at the heart really social engineers?

In an interview Zuckerberg said: “We build things because we simply like to build”, I think I know why: we like to build things because we want to understand how everything really works! The more we build the more this API will be documented, the more documented the more we will understand and evolve our applications. This is the real beauty of Open Source…

It is the Search for Meaning 2.0

Sadok Kohen
“In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable”

Why censorship is democratic and doesn’t need to be!

// October 4th, 2010 // No Comments » // Philosophy

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

The key word in this definition is “objectionable” which means: “Undesired, Offensive”. So it is very clear by definition that “censorship” cannot be an objective role as what is  “undesired” or “offensive” can only be “subjective”.

Censorship’s reason to exist is actually an act of cavalry, protecting the weak from harm. You would not want your kids to be exposed to violence and porn during day time would you ? For the skeptical I could take the examples to the extreme such as bestiality or many other images that you wouldn’t like to see but even giving this example is so difficult, the level of tolerance each one of us have is so different then one another.  Then let’s admit it, objective censorship is impossible.

What is that determines the amount of censoring needed ? I believe there are two major drivers that act as one: Fear or Trust. You either fear that your subjects will be harmed by being exposed to certain events or you trust that they are strong enough to handle themselves and separate the good from the bad.

So as parents subjectively decide to censor what “they” think might be harmful to their kids, governments in the same fashion censor what “they” think could be harmful to “their” people. Or so we’d like to think…

But there is a thin line omitted in the dictionary and it is the part asking the question: “Objectionable for whom?!”. Do we really always censor some things that are harmful “to our subjects” or we sometimes do it to protect “ourselves” ?

There is a huge difference if you are not letting your daughter out on a date because you are afraid for her life or becouse you are afraid “you” will have a difficult time handling it.

There is another word for the kind of censoring that is not afraid for the subject but is afraid for the self and that is called: oppression!

The worst acts against humanity were made under the pretense of cavalry and high purpose of protecting the weak. The same reason why we want our subjects to feel weak is to be able to control (oppress) them with ease.

“If you are a bad boy/girl Santa’s not going to give you a gift”, “if you run like that you are going to fall”, “if you don’t stop sucking your tumb it might fall off”. As innocent as this lies may seem they set the grounds for bigger lies.

If this is how we learn to raise our kids, how are governments supposed to raise their people ? If it is ok to lie to our children just because we don’t want to find a better way to communicate or we decided somehow not to trust them, and we often decide to lie to them just to be able to do what is good “for us” then why do we expect our governments to act differently ? The government in a democracy represents its voters after all, what can be more democratic then that?!

Our society reflects who we really are, it simply takes all the little hidden defects we have inside and puts them out there for us to see, and hopefully understand that the real problem is not out there, but here, inside.

Oppressors can only become oppresses…

A Man Cannot Hide!

// September 8th, 2010 // 2 Comments » // Philosophy

I recently had a revelation, maybe one of the most important i ever had in my life. I can see much more clearly now and I felt the urge to share it often, this is a start. One sentence in a recent book I read (School for Gods) was saying:

A Man Cannot Hide ~ The Dreamer

But what does it mean? We have so externalized somehow our self from our surroundings that most of our daily events are experienced as  “outside” events. This is the status quo, the universe observed as an alien, from the limited capacity of the human body.

How about the million choices, feelings, movements we almost unconsciously make every instant? We are the master of an infinite number of cells connected into an intertwined network of neurons, controlled directly by our mind.

Our mind though has a multi-personality disorder. One persona is the unconscious, the underground, hiding place of all orphan acts and emotions: all beggars, muggers, thieves, rapists, druggies, poor and hungry live there. This are the emotions that take over our feelings and rotary controls the minute that we stop to be aware.

How would you expect a world controlled by this bunch to reflect into your being: a state of fear, scarcity, violence, loneliness and depression. Sounds familiar?

There are some that let the thugs run the show while others like the swindlers better: acting, masterfully creating a con world around themselves. Some let the victims run the show, some the lazy, some the corrupt, there are many faces to this world, many sleazy characters…

And EVERY MAN knows for himself about EVERY SINGLE ONE of this monsters, he knows them by name, he knows in the bottom of his heart that all this creatures are his bastard children left on the street with the hope that they would go away… But there is no place to go, and no where to hide: A Man, therefore, Cannot Hide!

While everything we do consciously shines and flourishes inside us into a beautiful garden, every neglected act or feeling that is not under the influence of our shining aware mind, is left orphan to rot inside us.

And our world, what we call our external world, is the direct reflection of this two worlds overlapped. Whoever controls our inner world commands every event happening on the outside and we ARE the only God of our inner world, therefore the only God of our outside world as well.

The choice is ours to go and reclaim every orphan from the dark pits of our soul, and don’t be mistaken, we have all the necessary resources to take care of each one of them, the energy source is infinite, once you understand how to tap into it.

All the distractions we created to forget about this hidden world are feeble gestures to justify our cruel and flawed livelihood, gestures of desperation, gestures to be found in every orphan mind craving for love and craving to be owned by their true father.

Don’t try to hide, a man cannot. Its never as awful as it seems. Its never too hard, its never too late. Its now, and that’s all there is…

Sadok Kohen
“In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable”

The Art of the Debate

// June 9th, 2010 // No Comments » // Philosophy

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. ~Joseph Joubert

An idea is where it all begins, then comes the opinion, then the choice and finally the action: this is the process of life.

Debate is “how” Adam and Eve ate the apple, the choice is the “why” the did it, the opinion is the flirting with the snake and the Idea is God…

The Idea

An Idea is at first shapeless, its a patch of light floating true thin air. Our thoughts try to sculpt it and define it but most of the time, specially for the important ones, the process never ends.

What is tricky about an Idea is that as any form of creation can carry different meanings, different messages, different perspectives according to the way it is perceived.

This is the hardest part: in order to understand an idea we should give up the notion that understanding it is possible at all. Let me elaborate: an Idea is a perpetual living organism and can only be caught in the moments that surrounds the perception of it, therefore it changes according to time, place, surroundings and most importantly the “thoughts of the beholders”.

So just in order to have some sort of security, we tend to transform Idea’s into “knowledge”, knowledge though by nature is such an insecure entity that immediately sets deep roots settling itself to becoming “Prejudice” and the Idea dies.

The only way to keep an Idea alive is to perpetually reshape it with debate and discourse.

The Opinion

Its comes very natural to any human being to form an opinion. Its a chemical process very similar to connecting dots. You would be surprised though to see how many unique shapes could be formed connecting the same dots…

The trouble is that in many cases we jump immediately into connecting the dots, without first understanding where they are coming from, what they represent, what is their context. This is why many times we express opinions based on Ideas that are quite different from the ones we have at hand.

Taking the time to understand first what is it that needs so desperately to be “opinionized” is crucial if any kind of progress in understanding [the moment] is the desired outcome.

So now that we have our shaped opinion in our hands we need to play with it. To play with it we put it into a battle field and let it run amok other opinions, sometimes teaming up and fighting others, sometimes cornered and beaten up, sometimes crushed into pieces.

The beauty of the opinion is that it bears the soul of a phoenix, if the opinion burns itself and understands that needs to die, it is reborn from its ashes into a stronger more beautiful bird capable of spreading its wings and capable to have a higher view of the whole field.

This is also a never ending game, there are no breaks, some could sit on the bench for a while but by nature should always accept to join the game if called for. When an opinion is ready to leave the game it means its ready to go on a mission, and I will come to the mission right next.

Retiring an opinion should never be an option. If we do, very similarly to an understood idea, the opinion intensifies and hardens into a heavy stone that we need to carry around.

The Choice

The choice is when an opinion decides to leave the play ground and join a mission,

The Choice is an Opinion with a Sense of Purpose.

It will be challenged and will be put to the test trough various adventures and experiences. This is where the opinion dresses up and gets ready to have some face time with the material universe, what we need to understand is that there are endless journeys to be experienced and there is no death, only development. If a choice understands to have failed, it decides to dress down and return to the playground in order to reshape itself into a new opinion, collecting though within, the experience it gained in the process of loosing.

The Choice is what we live for, its the essence life.

The Action

The action is the awareness of our choices, its the experience of the Idea. Its the world surrounding us, the world we experience trough our senses. This is where our choices come to life and struggle trough the fabrics of the universe and put to the test itself (The Choice), its motivation (The Opinion) and its understanding (The Idea).

The Debate

So what is really the debate ? The debate is what shapes an Idea. Is what connects the dots, and disconnects, and connects again. Its the game that is played in the field, its what keeps alive the game, what makes the journey worth leaving. The debate is what makes choices grow into statements or into experience. Its what gives you the power to move forward and prevents you to stall.

If the choice is the reason we are alive, the debate is the energy that powers it all.

and The Debate shall never end…

Sadok Kohen
In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable.

The Right to Vote

// June 9th, 2010 // 4 Comments » // Philosophy

One of the biggest problems with democracy the way its run today is who gets to vote?

I think that having a say on any matter should be something to earn. How can anybody vote without first understanding what is it that is debated. Shouldn’t at least the voter prove that he has at least a level of understanding that would allow him to?

I am not saying only doctors should vote on health care for example, i am saying that whoever wishes to have a say in the matter should prove that he knows enough of the current policies, the options around, the different opinions with their reasoning and then be allowed to vote.

Can you imagine a courthouse where each jury member is allowed to come as it may, ask for brief summaries about the court case at random from somebody in the courtroom and then give his vote based on that? How is this different from the way politics are run today?

Sadly well informed citizens have equal influence to the clueless and politicians ride on that.

Plato said:

Philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize

But it takes a philosopher to vote for a philosopher king so this is my quote:

philosophers [must] become VOTERS…or those now called VOTERS [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize

Sadok Kohen
In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable