Articles written by Yelena Shlifer
Brain Circulation: How high skill immigration makes everyone better off
The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive?
Why women avoid Computer Science
Brain Circulation: How high skill immigration makes everyone better off
In her article, “How high skill immigration makes everyone better off“, AnnaLee Saxenian emphasizes that immigration policy debate must be expanded to include the evolving relationship between immigrants, trade, and economic development in the global economy. At the present moment, this debate focuses primarily on the extent to which immigrant professionals replace native workers. In her article, she points out that most people mistakenly think that movement of skill and talent must benefit only one country at the expense of the other. However, the “brain circulation” that takes place actually benefits both sides by advancing the economy in the United States as well as establishing transnational communities that link the United States economy to the economies of distant regions.
In this country, debates over the immigration of scientists and engineers focus on the extent to which foreign professionals displace native workers. This opposition is based on the notion that admission of foreign professionals lowers earnings of American workers they compete against. The effect on earnings from this competition would discourage some Americans from becoming engineers or other professionals. Meanwhile, the other countries view the immigration of highly skilled workers as a significant economic loss or “brain drain” that deprives their economies of the highly skilled workforce. Yet the immigration of workers is not a “zero sum game”, meaning that it benefits both the sending country and the receiving one. In the case of immigration of the workforce to the United States foreign scientists and engineers are starting hundreds of new businesses thus generating jobs and wealth for the overall economy. In addition, the “brain drain” may be giving way to the accelerating process of “brain circulation” as immigrants who have studied and worked in the United States return to their home countries to take advantage of promising opportunities. Moreover, many of the immigrants who remain in the United States are playing a major role in linking businesses in their home countries to those in the America. In addition, they establish local and long distance networks of professional and associational activities that facilitate information exchange, job search assistance, access to the capital and managerial expertise. This in turn accelerates the globalization of labor markets and enhances opportunities for entrepreneurship, investment, and trade both in the United States and other countries. The article also points out that restricting the immigration of skilled workers, could have a far-reaching consequences for economic development, affecting not only the supply of skilled professionals but also the rate of entrepreneurship, the level of international investment and trade, and overall economic growth.
In his article “Many More Skilled Immigrants”, Gary Becker also argues that it is necessary to greatly increase the admission of highly skilled professionals from other countries. He points out that foreign immigrants tend to undertake employment in the fields that are not attracting many Americans. In addition they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech which has become a back bone of the well-performing American economy. Becker also points out that, highly skilled professionals earn more than average workers and thus contribute disproportionately to tax revenue. They are also considerably younger than average, so they are net contributors to social security revenue as well. He also pinpoints that if America would not accept the greatly increased numbers of foreign professionals, they will remain at home and compete against the US through the outsourcing of highly skilled engineering, research, and other such activities.
In overall, the US would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens, and in this way contribute to American productivity, culture and tax revenues, rather than having them compete from their countries of origin.
Bibliography
“Many More Skilled Immigrants”, Becker-Posner Blog, Accessed February 03, 2005.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/10/many_more_skill.html
AnnaLee Saxenian, “Brain Circulation: How High-skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off”, Bookings Review (2002), pp 28-31.
The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive?
In the article “The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive?” Matt Ritchel discusses the role technology plays in the life of the average person and how it relates to a concept known as multitasking. In our society, a lot of technological inventions made human life easier and more dynamic. The invention of computers, television, internet, wireless networks and cell phones allowed people to instantly exchange and access information. However, besides its benefits, the abundance of data has created a phenomenon known as “cognitive overload” or simply multitasking that has been shown to cause negative effects on people. Numerous researches were conducted and it was shown that multitasking leads to stress, decreased attention span and diminishing productivity.
It was also shown that multitasking leads to addiction as people are constantly stimulated by new messages from various sources and as a result spend most of their time concentrating on various tasks instead of focusing on one. According to Dr. Hallowell and psychiatrist John Ratey people who multitask “become more frustrated with long term projects, thrive on the stress of constant fixes of information and physically crave the bursts of stimulation from checking e-mail or voice mail or answering the phone” (Richtel 80)
Although some people may think that multitasking is a good thing, striving to accomplish more than one thing at once actually prolongs the time to effectively complete each task. According to the psychology professor David E. Mayer, “People who switch back and forth between tasks, like exchanging e-mail and writing a report, may spend 50 percent more time on these tasks than if they work on them separately, completing one before starting the other.” (Richtel 80).
The article “Meet the Life Hackers” written by Clive Thomson, discusses a research conducted by Mary Czerwinski and Gloria Mark on the subject of multitasking and its impact on workers’ productivity. Gloria Mark, a scientist of human computer interactions, performed her 1000 hour study on employees of two high tech firms. She found out that “Each employee spent only 11 minutes on any given project before being interrupted and whisked off to do something else. What's more, each 11-minute project was itself fragmented into even shorter three-minute tasks, like answering e-mail messages, reading a Web page or working on a spreadsheet. And each time a worker was distracted from a task, it would take, on average, 25 minutes to return to that task.”(Thomson 1)
Mary Czerwinski, an expert in interruption science, noticed that the layout of computers contributes to interruption as well. In one of her experiments, she installed software that tracks all actions performed by computer users while completing certain tasks on a computer screen. She found out that “On average, they juggled eight different windows at the same time- a few e-mail messages, maybe a Web page or two and a Power point document. More astonishing, they would spend barely 20 seconds looking at one window before flipping to another.” (Thomson 3). According to her, this constant shifting that creates a lot of distraction is primarily due to the little viewing space that a computer screen offers. In her other experiment she showed that bigger computer screens significantly improve worker’s productivity. A few approaches were taken by Czerwinski to devise special tools in order to maximize screen space.
Gloria Mark also speculates that computers and machines must deliver messages only at optimum moments, particularly when our brains are relaxed and not overwhelmed by a surge of information. To answer this problem, one of the Microsoft employees, Eric Herowitz has been devising networks equipped with artificial intelligence. His early prototypes work by observing and recording human behavioral patterns. These recorded patterns are then used to predict future behavior and thus deliver message at the appropriate time.
New research and development in the field of human computer interactions lead some experts to believe that the basic design of e-mail programs, messaging and computers needs to change so “each tool would work like a personal butler-tiptoeing around us when things are hectic and barging in only when our crises have passed.”.( Thomson 6).
Bibliography
“Meet the Life Hackers”, Clive Thomson, October 16, 2005. New York Times, Accessed February 24, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/magazine/16guru.html
Matt Richtel, “The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive”, New York Times (July 6, 2003),
Why women avoid Computer Science
In the article “Why women avoid Computer Science”, Paul De Palma gives a few reasons due to which the number of women in computing field has declined over the past decade. These include the ill defined nature of computing, the difficulty level of computer science, and the tinker factor. An author of the article also presents a number of solutions to attract women to this field as well.
Paul De Palma speculates that women have always been drawn to the field of mathematics. Since 1970s, women received almost 40% in undergraduate degrees in this field. If the mathematics is the base of computing, then why do women generally avoid this field of study? He answers this question by stating that nature of computer science is ill defined in the sense that it is presented as overly difficult and mainly attracts people who enjoy taking things apart. It is the men who are usually given credit for building first microcomputer and other computing systems, such as Basic interpreter build by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in the mid-1970s. In overall, it is men rather than women, who are more fascinated with studying the nature of non living objects, such as air planes, cars and other technology related vehicles. Since not many women enjoy tinkering, or inquiring into the nature of technological objects, author attributes this to one of the reasons for the declining number of women in the technology related professions.
The other factor is primarily due to the difficulty level of computer science. Although computing is built on mathematics and logic, it incorporates many levels of gadgetry upon its base, which makes it overly difficult. Growing number of software packages, overly complex interfaces and text editors all form a sort of shell that covers the basis of computing. This in turn discourages women, who do not like to tinker but instead forms a tinkerer’s paradise for men.
In order to attract more women to the computing field, Paul De Palma presents a number of solutions. First, multiple layers of gadgetry composed of complex interfaces and software packages must be removed or simplified in order to uncover the logical and mathematical base of computing. Second, programming assignment must be simplified to resemble problems given in mathematical courses. Finally, women must be taught to write programs and recognize logic patterns instead of learning how to “search the Web, use a word processor, install an operating system, or God help us, play computer games.” (De Palma 105). If all these circumstances will be met, an author believes that women, who are generally attracted to the field of mathematics, will be attracted to the field of computing as well.
In the related article “Fewer Women Find Their Way Into Tech”, Bob Mook writes about the organization known as National Center for Women and Information Technology or NCWIT. This organization presents a few reasons on the subject of declining number of women in technology fields. They see the problem rooted in the high school and middle school along with the common misperception that computing and math are not women friendly disciplines.
Lucy Sanders, CEO of NCWIT speculates that computing was always seen as a male dominated discipline. This common misconception coupled with the belief that computing field is a dull and uninteresting profession that requires long hours of programming in solitude also contributes to the declining number of women in computing field. Sanders points out that good programmer does not sit in front of the computer all day long but instead tries to gain understanding of the problem by working with other people. In particular, Sanders wants educators, counselors and businesses to emphasize that technology is not a dull profession, but an exciting and creative discipline that is deployed in such industries as sports and fashion.
In addition, “The perception that cost-cutting tech employers are sending hundreds of jobs overseas also might discourage many young people in the United States from exploring tech careers” (Mook 1). However, Sanders worries that if the number of women will continue to decline in technology fields, companies will have no other choice besides turning to offshore labor.
A number of steps have been already taken by NCWIT to attract women into computer related professions. The organization has launched a number of public service announcements promoting the tech industry to young women. It has also brought its message to the corporations, educators, and guidance counselors on the national level.
Bibliography
“Fewer women find their way into tech”, Bob Mook, August 12, 2005. The Denver Business Journal, Accessed March 10, 2006.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2005/08/15/story2.html?page=1
Paul De Palma “Why women avoid computer science”, Communications of the ACM (June, 2001), pp. 27-29.
In the article "Humanoid Robots", Rodney Brooks discusses the growing role robotic contraptions play in our everyday lives. The concept of robots dates as far back as 7,000 years, when first clay figures began to appear in China and Europe. Around 3,000 years ago, Egyptians designed the first mechanical statues that were controlled by operators. Leonardo Da Vinci was first to design a humanoid robot which unfortunately was never constructed. In 18th century, French and Swiss watchmakers invented a number of robots that simulated human body and gaze movements.
The era of sophisticated robots began in 1970s, when Hirokazu Kato built a first robot that could “walk a few steps on two legs, grasp simple objects with its two hands, and carry out some primitive speech interaction with people”. (Brooks 1). His next design involved a robot that actually played a piano. An integrated video system build into robot’s head allowed him to read musical notes and play accordingly.
The next stage of robotics development began with a Humanoid Robotics team at MIT that started to design humanoid robots as a “tool for understanding humans” (Brooks 2). Their early plans were based on the concept that human behavior is shaped by the past experiences, which includes social interactions with surrounding environment and people. In order to study these aspects of social interaction, the development of Kismet robot took place. Kismet’s design included a number of systems that allowed him to interact and respond to the environment around him. Active vision system allowed this robot to see and track moving objects as well as estimate the gaze direction of the person in front of it. Moreover, Kismet was able to express its internal emotional state through facial expressions and prosody in its voice.
Today, a number of domestic robots such as lawn moving and home floor cleaning robots already made their way into the market. Still, there is still plenty of research that needs to be done on the subject of human – robot interaction, before the first robot that can actually interpret human behavior can be safely placed in our homes. However, with the rapid progress in the robotics development that takes place today, an author hopes that “robots will be common in people’s lives by the middle of the century if not significantly earlier.” (Brooks 5)
In the article called “The New Breed of Soldier: Robots with guns”, Steven Komarow discusses a new set of military robots being developed for battlefield. Initially, the pentagon focused on developing air-based robots such as Predator drones which operate by remote control and shoot Hellfire Missiles at their targets. However, the more recent risks from roadside bombs and terrorist ambushes spurred the development of new ground and sea-based robots that will enable soldiers to stay in safe areas while attacking an enemy. These are being developed by the General Dynamics Robotics Systems and include robots that “can enter the building, look for an enemy and send back a map of the interior.” (Komarow 1) Another example is the Mobile Detection Assessment Response System, which is a vehicle intended to patrol surrounding areas. Self driving convoy trucks are also being developed. These will employ a satellite guided systems that will allow them to plan their own routes and go around roadblocks. In addition to all these developments, new versions of Talon robots are being upgraded and tested by pentagon. For the past several years, these kinds of robots were used to handle mines and to clear dangerous ammunition. Now they are being upgraded to carry remotely controlled machine guns and rocket launchers. Also, much larger robot weapons have entered the testing stage. These include “ a tank-like, 1600 pound vehicle called the Gladiator, which can fire a variety of guns, tear gas or almost anything else that fits” (Komarow, 2). According to Scott Myers, a president of General Dynamic Robotic Systems, in the future robotic development may take the warfare to the next level, as robots will be designed to decide for themselves when to fire and at whom. He states that it’s hard enough for a human to distinguish between friend and foe and we are a long way from building a fully automated robot that will not pose a threat to our own soldiers.
Bibliography
“The new breed of soldier: Robots with guns”, Steven Komarow, April 14, 2006. USA Today, Accessed April 15, 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-04-13-robot-soldiers_x.htm
Rodney Brooks, “Humanoid Robots”, Communications of the ACM (March, 2002)
In the article “Spam Wars”, Wendy Grossman discusses how email spam affects Internet users and its implications on the email system. Email spam is a subset of spam that involves sending nearly identical messages to thousands of recipients. The main reason people send spam messages that flood individual's mailbox is to advertise their products. The reason why people use spam instead of other advertising options is because the costs are minimum. “There are no printing costs, minimum telecommunication costs and almost no labor costs, and no publisher reviewing the content of your add.” (Grossman 2)
Spamming however is considered to be an illegal action that violates the Acceptable Use Policy of almost all Internet Service Providers, and can lead to the termination of the sender's account. At the time when spam originated on the Internet, people were enraged that their private space usually accessible only by known individuals is now being invaded by unknown parties. Today however, this issue has grown into a more serious problem that makes email systems unusable. Many e-mail services have limits on the amount of mail an individual can have in his mailbox, and with that space filled up with spam, wanted mail gets bounced off.
There are several ways for spammers to get e-mail addresses. The most common method involves harvesting e-mail addresses from Usenet or Web. Another method called dictionary attack involves “sending an identical messages to endless combination of letters at a single domain, hoping some will get through to valid users.” (Grosman 2).
Another method that spammers use involves a type of a virus called Trojan that turns a particular computer into zombie that sends out spam messages without the acknowledgment of its user.
There are however few measures being taken to combat spam. These fall into three categories: technical, economic and legal. Technical solutions involve filtering the junk mail out of the stream of email. A number of Internet Service Providers offer filtering services for their customers that work by either letting a user to filter spam himself or allowing to mark certain types of spam to filter automatically into a different location. Certain economic solutions have been proposed that involve email users paying fees for the mail that needs to be send. Government has also enactedsome anti-spam legislation policies. A few of these involve “require spam to include labels, opt-out instructions, and physical addresses.” (Grossman 3)
In the article called “Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail” Saul Hansell writes about America Online and Yahoo adapting a new email system that would involve payments from companies that want to send email to AOL and Yahoo subscribers. These companies say that by adapting this system they will be able to filter out legitimate mail and cut down on junk email, since only those mail messages that were paid for will be allowed to reach an individual's mailbox. The rest of the email would be either completelly blocked or filtered out by going through advanced spam filters. Critics however say, that these two companies “risk alienating both their users and companies that send mail. The system will apply not only to mass mailings but also to individual commercial messages like order confirmations from online stores and customized low-fare notices from airlines.” (Hansell 1). As for companies that will be required to make payments, some will comply but others will object to being held to ransom. This may lead to AOL and Yahoo users to switch to a different Internet provider.
The system that AOL and Yahoo are planning to implement will be provided by Goodmail Systems, a company in Mountain View California. This system will collect all electronic postage and verify the identity of the sender. This system have already been tested by a few companies, including American Red Cross and New York Times. Although this system proved to work out well, a few objections were raised by companies that specialize in sending mass marketing e-mails to the people who request it. These companies assert that although AOL will benefit from using this system by earning a significant amount of money from postage sales, in overall it will be “ bad for the industry and bad for consumers. A lot of e-mailers won't be able to afford it.” (Hansell 2). AOL however, states that by implementing this system, it will rid their users from not only email spam but also from a more trouble some problem that have recently taken place. Phishing, a method of email spam, is becoming increasingly popular among spammers. This method involves sending “messages that appear to be from a bank or an online payment service that seeks to fool recipients into divulging their passwords or credit card numbers. “ (Hansell 2). By implementing this system, AOL will insure that this dangerous type of email will be avoided.
Bibliography
“Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail”, Saul Hansell, February 5, 2006. New York Times, Accessed April 1, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html
Wendy Grossmanl, “The Spam Wars”, Reason Magazine (November 6, 2003)