Less is More

17 歲那年剛從美國回台灣，就遇到生命中第一個較大的挫折：下飛機兩週後去考聯考，結果 7 科總分才 150，連繳志願卡的最低門檻180分都沒有。對從小就被父母灌輸，讀到研究所畢業才是正途的我來說，第一次發現生命的軌跡，似乎不如原先預期。

當時面臨的一個問題是：是否要繼續？但捫心自問，我對「讀書考試」其實沒有太大的興趣或能力。對我來說，那是痛苦又事倍功半的事。因此開始想：為何我要讀大學？而不是做自己更感興趣的程式設計？當時的主要答案是：因為有學位才有好工作，也才會有好收入。

我又問自己，若賺不到所謂的「好收入」會如何？發現答案是：那就有很多東西無法買或擁有：無法買車子、無法買房子、也可能無法過「好的生活」。我問的最後一個問題是：那介於擁有車子、房子、好的生活，和做自己喜歡的事，該選擇哪一個呢？

我發現，如果我可以不需要車子、房子、和好的生活，那就不一定要有好工作、好收入，也就不一定要讀大學，或為了進大學，去做自己不感興趣的事。我還是可以去讀大學，但那會是一種「選擇」，而非一種「不得不」。我可以花大部分 (若非所有) 的時間，做自己喜歡及想做的事，讓自己更快樂。

我 17 歲那年，發現一個道理：若我每個月只需不到一萬元台幣就可生活，那我就不需要為了錢，去做任何我不想做的事。我也可以擁有，選擇要做什麼事的自由。我發現這種「選擇的自由」對我來說更為重要，所以從那時起至今，我每月的花費都在一萬上下。

我後來發現，因為這個選擇，我可以在很多時候，做出很多人無法做的選擇。也可以在很多時候，仍然忠於自己的初衷，繼續做著自己喜歡做、及想要做的事，而非受制於外在。

後來因緣際會，我還是進了研究所。不過第一次和指導老師會面時，就表示自己「只想做研究，不打算畢業」。因為不打算畢業，所以我把許多畢業要求，都盡量延後，而專注在真正重要的研究上。也不須因擔心無法畢業，而強迫自己做一些只是為了滿足老師或制度要求，而「不得不」去做的事。

不過也因為有機會專注在最核心的事務，後來在實驗室只待三年，就達到主要的畢業要求了。

這個原則，在自己開始有小孩後，覺得也很適用。許多父母會覺得，現在養小孩要花許多錢，因此「不得不」要多賺點錢，「不得不」在外面長時間工作，也「不得不」做很多自己雖不情願，但「不得不」做的事。

我對小孩的期望很簡單：就是「健康、快樂」。至於教育，只要會「聽說讀寫、加減乘除」即可。我發現，若把期望降到最低，要花的錢、要煩的心，可以少很多。不但自己負擔較低、壓力較低、也有較多時間陪家人小孩，甚至自己來帶小孩。

道理其實很簡單，也是老生常談：降低要求就容易滿足及快樂。知足常樂、無欲則剛。

直到很最近我才知道，原來有個名人，每個月也花不到一萬台幣，看來實踐這個概念的，的確較有機會獲得自由。

價值與價格

昨天老婆生日，一起推著嬰兒車到我家旁，新開的義式小館晚餐。

這家餐廳剛開，還在「試營運」。先前問過可否做素食 (因老婆和我都是茹素者)，前幾天朋友吃過也推薦。基於好奇，也基於想給開店的年青人一些鼓勵，老婆和我都想去嘗看看。

其實這一區已有些餐廳，附近更早也開有義式料理，不過我們吃過後不感到特別，就沒再拜訪。這次也是想看看，這家店是否有機會做起來。

早在未開張前，路過就常看到店門前的小圓桌，擺滿著飲料，旁邊坐著兩三個年輕人，邊討論邊喝飲料，似乎在規劃什麼。時而抱頭、時而思索，一看就是為了某個夢想準備創業的樣子 (簡單、灑脫、而隨興)。他們似乎不太在意周遭人的眼光，而埋首於自己的規劃。當時也在想，不知他們是玩真的，或只是年青一時的創業衝動，想一圓開店的夢。對創業的艱難卻未必了解，或抱有羅曼蒂克的想法。

就這樣我們來到這家店。點了一盤麵、一碗沙拉、及一盤薯條。吃過第一口，老婆就告訴我：「我覺得這家店會做起來」。我也同意。

因為店面不大，我們坐的 1F 吧台沒幾個位子。不過一坐就發現花瓣一般的燈光從上投在桌前，頗有特色。店內的擺設和空氣中慵懶的義式歌曲，的確有在國外用餐之感。食物部分，沙拉的醬料配得入口，手調的紅茶有淡淡的薄荷味 (調茶的男生，就站在前方吧台工作，很不好意思的聽我讚美)。麵除了造型佳，口感和調味亦是大飯店水準。

我和老婆因此有個愉快的晚餐，女兒也很乖的沒怎麼吵鬧，略為哄哄就安靜，似也 enjoy 這家餐廳的氣氛。而這過程中，至少又來了三組客人，到樓上座位用餐。

結帳時和看似老闆的年青人小聊。他看來很年青，才從學校畢業。問他為何選在這邊開店？他答因為想先試練團隊的能力和默契，不想一開始就做太大或宣傳。另一側較明顯的店面租金也較貴，因此先挑這面較小、不明顯的位置。我再問他是否以附近住戶為客群 (因附近是大批的住宅大樓，有許多住戶)。他的答案讓我驚訝：不是，是希望做到外地客人，因食物好吃才過來，甚至是專程慕名而來。客群因此未必是附近住戶。他們的價格雖較貴 (一份麵約 200-300 元)，但用的材料也相對較好，較有品質。

聽了他的說明，可以感到老闆的雄心，也看出一種或許在年青一代老闆間，將要普及的思維：我們帶來的是「價值」，而非「價格」。你來用餐，是因為我們的東西真正好吃，有這個價值，而不是因為我們離你較近、或東西比較便宜。

記得先前讀PaulGraham 的創業文章時看過：餐廳競爭很激烈，很多都活不到一年。但食物棒的餐廳似乎總會成功：就算餐廳很貴、很擠、很吵、很暗、很遠... 甚至服務很差，人們還是會持續來。當然你可以用些花招，讓普通的食物亦吸引到顧客，但這樣其實風險較高。比較簡單的作法是：直接把食物弄好吃一點。

這家店已得到我和我老婆「覺得好吃」的評價，希望他們可以做起來。這家名叫「咕咕義小餐館」(Bistro Good Good Eat) 的店，至少從名字看來，已抓到一個精要：要「好好吃」才行。

聽說讀寫、加減乘除

女兒最近剛滿兩個月，和老婆決定先自己帶看看，暫不請褓姆。這在我和老婆都有全職工作，又無父母協助下，最近還蠻忙碌的。

不過有個感覺是：自己生的小孩，總要自己「負責」:) 在台灣很習慣 out-sourcing，例如吃飯可以 out-source (外食)，學習可以 out-source (補習)，申請學校可以 out-source (代辦)，當然養小孩也是可以 out-source (保姆)。自己雖無法免俗，常常外食。不過總覺得有些事該自己來，才能真正體會其中的快樂 (或辛酸)。不然人生縱使過去，不免有些白活。

也會和友人聊到小孩未來的教育，怎麼教，讀什麼學校等的。我都會分享一下自己的看法。引起的反應，若非驚訝，就是感到不可思議。

我會說：我家小孩未來的 formal education (正式教育)，只要學會「聽說讀寫、加減乘除」就結束了，剩下的隨她自己發揮，想做什麼就去做什麼。任何額外的學習，除非是她自己要求的，不然我們不會主動給。甚至若需要錢，部分也要自己想辦法。我老婆這時就會再補充：只要她品性良好，健康快樂就好了 (真是慈愛的媽媽 :)。

我這樣的想法，部分根據個人成長經驗，部分來自他人的啟發。

其實從小到大，我和學校體制一直不太「相容」。小學在台灣雖還算愉快，但作業總是最後才做。大學則是一連串的災難 (對我和學校皆然)：前後考過三次聯考、一次轉學考、從同間學校拿過三張退學通知、研究所換過三次指導教授，一次也差點要被踢出去，...。

也一直覺得：大部分自己感到有用的學習，都是自學來的。包括怎樣寫程式，怎樣與人互動、怎樣teamwork... 等等。令人尊敬的老師雖還是有，但負面教材式的老師不幸的居多。

我老婆的話，雖然已在大學任教了，她會的實用數學，大概只有小學程度。我的話，雖然已要靠程式專業來生活，但學校學的多數東西，早就都還給老師了。

一次機緣聽到瑟谷小學的模式 (中文版：瑟谷傳奇)：基本概念是：此間「學校」沒有任何制式課程，所有的大孩小孩，都是基於興趣，自己去找想做的事。可以是玩 (某生每天上學，除了釣魚外啥事都不做，一連好幾年)，可以是學 (有人去廚房和廚師學怎樣做菜、或找懂的人學數學)、也可以是做事 (自己辦拍賣會籌款去旅行)。裡面的學生，雖然不一定知道今天在學校會做什麼，但一定知道自己感興趣的是什麼，將來要做什麼。

一位學生因為對「死亡」著迷，不僅閱讀大量書籍，到臨近大學參與解剖課，離開後也開了家成功的殯儀館。一群學生，因為主動想學，在六週內把美國小學六年的數學都學完了。這個故事被另位數學老師聽到後，覺得十分合理：因為數學並不難，難的是通常學者無心。

我得到的啟發是：人只要是做自己感興趣、想做的事，就一定會做得很好。

所以，「聽說讀寫、加減乘除」是最基本的工具。工具齊備，就可自己去探索世界，享受人生這個旅程了。

祝我家妹妹，這趟旅程愉快! :)

創業及資本主義的「秘密」

最近在閱讀 PayPal 創辦人 Peter Thiel 今年 (2012) 開始在 Stanford 開設的 CS183: Startup 隨堂筆記，收獲頗豐。先前對 Peter 認識不多，不過讀過這些筆記後，對這位前輩深感尊敬，也覺得他除了創業有成，亦是位思考深刻的思想家。

Peter 本身的背景是法律，原本差點就要被選當聯邦法官。但因命運的安排，法官沒當成去了金融圈，幾年後因看上 Internet 上的付費商機而創辦 PayPal。

這份筆記記錄 Peter 對創業、矽谷、及資本主義發展的種種觀察及理論，也挑戰許多我們對創業一些常有的「誤會」，相當推薦所有對創業感興趣的人一讀。不過這邊我先挑個蠻有趣的概念來分享。

簡單說，Peter 認為每個 startup (或成功的企業) 背後都代表這一個「秘密」(secret)。何謂「秘密」? 就是雖然是真理 (truth)，卻很少人知道、或認同的事情。舉例來說，Google 成立時已有數家公司在做 search，包括 Yahoo, AltaVista, Lycos 等。Yahoo 對此業務甚至不太重視，因為覺得已經沒太大改善空間了。不過 Google 知道一件別人未注意的事：透過網頁間的關聯來搜尋，會比單純比對頁面關鍵字更有效。他們證實了這個作法，也建了家典範公司。

這是所謂的 natural secret (自然法則秘密)。除此之外，另一種是 human secret (人為秘密)，就是基於某些理由，持有者不方便或不願透露的。一個有趣的「人為秘密」是競爭的價值。多數人可能會覺得資本主義的本質就是「競爭」，有競爭才有效率、進步。培養自己的諸多能力，高人一等，才有「競爭力」，也才會成功。

但或許，競爭對產生價值，甚至其本身的價值，可能根本被高估了 (over-rated)。簡單來說，當一個市場是經濟學中的完全競爭狀態時，一切都以最透明有效率的方式運作，利潤是最微薄的，只有「工錢」可賺。反之，在一個獨佔或寡佔的市場，賣方通常可自訂價格，其超額利潤不僅存在，也較豐厚。因此，以創業來看，第一個問題可能不是：「要怎樣才能打敗競爭者？」而是「什麼市場獲利可期，但根本還沒人做？」這樣才有機會帶來最佳獲利。

有趣的是，這個「秘密」不被人知，部分原因是已經在獨佔或寡佔市場的高獲利公司，通常會大叫著競爭激烈，讓別人以為這邊有可怕的競爭，而不想或不敢進入 (達到他們繼續獨佔的效果)；而處在競爭激烈中的低獲利公司，為了和對手做出區別，通常會大叫著他們是最獨特的：有獨特的商業模式、獨特的產品、獨特的客群..，導致聽者以為就是因在這種低競爭的市場，才獲利不良。

Peter 的建議因此是，若要創業，該問自己：「什麼重要的真理，很少人會同意你？」("What important truth do very few people agree with you on?") 而商業版的說法就是：「什麼有價值的公司，沒有人在建立？」("What valuable company is nobody building?")

身為資本主義下的成功者及第一手觀察者，Peter 有頗多經驗及見解。不過這類的資訊或知識，通常只在同業或朋友間分享。他願意跑到 Stanford 開課並公開他的觀察，是非常難得的。這邊要感謝他的分享，及把這堂課內容記錄下的學生 Blake Masters。

市府補助申請感想

前兩天去了台北市政府對我們申請的「產業發展獎勵補助計劃」做報告，頗有感觸。雖說是十分感謝委員最後的支持，及承辦單位極力想協助我們的心，但還是感到許多挫折。

這個補助基本上就是：針對在台北市設立的公司，可提出 proposal 來申請研發相關的補助。政府最多可出到一半，最高到 300 萬的總經費。算是補助非貸款，所以不用還給政府。對小型公司來說，不無小補。先前也因這樣，所以合作的「意門科技」有去申請。

前陣子亦有朋友感興趣，想問我如何申請，過程如何。而我的建議，從那時到現在仍然是：可以的話盡量不要，過程相當辛苦，且可能要付出許多成本在行政事務上，有時多到讓你無暇專注在最核心的研發或經營上。

其實這個計劃立意良善，若執行妥當應可協助許多新創公司，度過最艱難的草創期。但問題在哪呢？負責計劃執行的人員其實都很 nice, 也很幫忙。而審查的委員，也盡心盡力的在把關，希望政府的錢沒亂花，而花的錢可產生效益。大家都在做該做的事，但感覺仍事倍功半。

若說最核心的問題，應該算是「制度設計不良」。

怎麼說呢？首先就是要提出申請，要先產生厚厚一本的申請書，光是產生，就可用到一個全職人力一兩個月 (我們是用了數月慢慢產生的)。這也是為何有專門的顧問公司會協助公司申請，且生意很好。審查過後，光是 copy 就要 7 份 (對那些樹真是過意不去)，而後續的會計記錄、工作時數登記 (對軟體公司來說非常不適用)、研發記錄簿 (希望看到每天寫、且有研發人員、主管的簽名)... 厚厚一疊的 paperwork。

審查過程中，我們很大的挫折是：委員根本無法了解我們在做什麼。當然這一部分和我們的報告能力不足，無法有效傳遞主要價值有關。不過有種感覺是，因是學術界背景，除了對產業現況不見得熟悉外 (但還是要盡責的給予批評和質疑)，對創業過程的艱辛和困難處，也大概無相關經驗可感同深受的了解。因此可能會用對中大型公司的制度、營運規模、及產業契合度，來要求一個新創公司。

其實新創公司 (startup) 本身，就是還在摸索中的一個暫時性組織 (“a startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model” – Steve Blank)。包括產品、營運模式、客戶，可能都還不明確，還在找出一條生路。可能也還沒生意上門，處在燒錢階段。此階段最重要的事，就是去嘗試、試誤、鎖定主要客群、了解他們需求，並解決他們的問題。因此，探索過程中的失誤、延遲、轉向，其實都在所難免。

但對在穩定公務體系的人來說，這種動態的改變可能很難去了解及體會。因此會有諸多質疑及不解。也會不了解為何太多的 paperwork, 審查點、查核、報告，其實不僅對進度沒有實質幫助、反而可能會害慘了 startup, 花費僅有的少數資源在非核心活動上。

這也很難去怪執行的人員，因為他們也是從自己的角度，盡己所能的做好該做的事。所以較有機會的是：雙方要多對彼此的 model (新創公司對公務體系, 及公務體系對新創公司) 有意願去了解、學習、改善、及調整。事情才有改善的可能。

希望未來十年後，我們會看到一個 much more start-up friendly 的環境。:)

Why We Must Succeed

Yesterday I attended a newly formed Taiwanese forum to discuss and study a particular game technology. Participants include both students and industry professionals who've used the technology. The presentation (the first in a series to come), was given by a grad student, who, although did not understand all the details of the materials (as he had no practical experience with the technology), still demonstrated his efforts to understand, which I could tell from his presentation. Afterward, the industry participants exchange a few name cards and left, while I continued to talk with the students (as we all came from the same school / lab) and later had dinner together. During dinner, we talked about the game technology, their current situations at school, what their expectations for the future, among others. The dinner ended with me encouraging them to do the right software, so they can retire before 30. I also mentioned that the study now would be a good opportunity to learn and establish their technical expertise.

Although I had a busy day, I was unable to sleep for hours (to my surprise), and had a strange (but strong) sense that I must succeed at our start-up effort. I could not tell why at the time, but this morning after getting up, it just hit me: we need more success stories of young entrepreneurs who can retire before 30, and help the world to become a better place.

In the profession of software, because replication is easy, if you make it right, in no time will it be copied and used by millions of people, creating impacts and fortunes to its creator. The Google Guys (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) created Google when they were 25; Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both founded their companies in early 20s; John Carmack founded id software and started the whole First-Person Shooter (FPS) game genre before he was 20. While the stories are all amazing and told countlessly worldwide, the main characters are all Americans, and few similar stories exist elsewhere.

I'm not here to talk about why stories like this only happen in America, but would like to raise the point that we need more stories like this outside of America. Why is that? Because this will help the world to become a better place.

Two things happened at yesterday's events sort of irritated me, the first was the lack of interest of the industry participants to talk with the students, or get familiar with them after the formal meeting. Apparently there was no private social events afterward, except my dinner with the students. The second thing was the lack of courage or willingness from the students to change the world and get themselves retire before they turn 30. And somehow I felt the two are connected.

As publicly known, among Google's initial funding was one check of US$ 100,000 given by Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, before the company Google was even formed (they registered the company partially so the check can be cashed). Among Facebook's early advisers, was Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster, who later became Facebook's president. Facebook also received its first funding from PayPal's co-founder Peter Thiel. Steve Jobs mentioned in his graduation speech at Stanford in 2008 that after he was kicked out from Apple, he met with David Packard (founder of HP) and Bob Noyce (founder of Intel) and tried to “apologize for screwing up so badly”. Obviously, he felt that he was responsible to live up to the support and expectation of the tech giants.

The moral of these stories is: success breeds success. People may become successful more easily if they've received good advice and help from others who've already walked the path. People will also be encouraged, and may indeed become more courageous, if they've received supports, or know that they can find such support if they need it. Most importantly, having faith that you will succeed may be the first step for any adventuring business. If you don't feel that you've got a chance or a shot at making it happen, you won't even make the first step. Yesterday, the problem with the professionals was that they somehow did not pass on their knowledge and experience to the younger, and the problem with the students was that they somehow did not feel that they have a chance (to make something great and retire before 30).

This phenomenon makes me uncomfortable, and I suspect that this may be why besides America, few other places have yet bred the type of tech success stories Americans enjoy. However, if the established or experienced, are willing to help the unestablished to succeed, or that the unestablished can see that success is indeed possible and thus are willing to take the first step. We might see more success stories, that will breed more successes.

And why having more successful entrepreneurs will make the world a better place? Because when you no longer need to worry about the livelihood of your family when you reach 30, your attention likely will turn elsewhere to find meanings in life, and helping others to succeed may be one of the most satisfying experiences. With more people who have crossed the hardship of starting a new enterprise, the more resources and experiences there will be to help others to start. Successful businesses ultimately are making something of value to the society and the people at large, so this too creates social values.

Luckily, I'm among the fortunate few who's not in America but still thinks that he has a shot. I hope that I can still remember to help others to succeed, in years to come.

Differences in Similarities, and Similarities in Differences

I was thinking of a very important question last night before sleep: will I keep repeating my mistakes, and tire myself to death without being effective, or will I rise from the repetition (輪迴) and start having a life that's incrementally accumulating (that is, I will learn to do new things, in new ways, even if still making mistakes, they will be new ones).

I came to think about these questions after spending a lot of frustrating time, doing repetitive and extra work, in order to get over another milestone of my life.

At the end of the thinking, it came to me that I wanted to become a Realized One (覺者), and for whom I can now understand why this may be important and a worthwhile goal to pursue (in the Buddhism tradition :). Because, regardless of whether reincarnation exists and whether we have a soul that's passable to the next life. Reincarnations and repetitions occur in many different forms in our daily life: we keep eating, sleeping, working, and may repeat certain cycles of working / spending / working / spending. People might even spend an entire life, without having any ideas why they're doing certain things, or how they have gone through life. I do not want to pass moral judgments on whether such ignorance is good or bad, because it's simply a personal choice to make. But if you can see past the repetition, you may find it more meaningful, and perhaps enlightened, if one could live on a path of growth and new experiences, instead of repetitive living, perhaps becoming more fulfilled, happy, and satisfied in the process.

What I realized waking up this morning was: for many people, four things are what they care about the most: How to live? (so to have enough food, shelter, etc. to survive) How to reproduce? (so to find a mate and form a family suitable to bear children) How to find happiness? (so to entertain one's self and keep one from boredom) and How to face Death? (so to have peace of mind and ease, when getting sick and old, and have a Nice End). (In Chinese, they would be: 如何生活? 如何繁衍? 如何快樂? 如何死亡?) For some, they might even ask the question: Where did I come from? And where should I go? (and we call these people the philosophers :) Most people are only concerned with the first four questions in daily life.

In answering these four, what I've found is that we have intentionally created a lot of repetitions in order to answer the four questions (for example, mass productions, broadcasting media, and restaurant franchise, which all allow lots of similar products / services be copied and made quickly, so to satisfy people's needs in a scalable way). Yet, once everything becomes common, people become bored and uneasy, and yarn for new and different experiences, or value things that are rare and never-before-seen. I thus came to suspect, that there's something inherently human, or perhaps even living, that tries to Seek Differences in Similarities, and Seek Similarities from Differences (同中求異, 異中求同). To find differences, because that will ensure new skills to carry us through different environments; to find similarities, because the essence of life is to make more copies, and sustain the existence of those copies. Abstracting similarities from differences allow us to copy more easily (this is the essence of mass production and franchises :).

It's actually an old Chinese saying, but what it essentially say in this context, is that the essence of life, may be to continue one's existence. This is how the copying and repetition comes. Single cell organisms basically reproduce by self-replications. However, life later evolved (at least on this Earth) to allow slight differences to occur in the offspring (via mutations and sexual reproductions). This has the advantages that as the environments are constantly changing, you are better off if your tools for living do not stay the same. Thus, if the environment suddenly favors or requires a different set of skills or abilities, some offspring of yours may still survive. So while copying is essentially what life tries to do (our DNA is 99.9%+ similar with our parents or other human beings), variations becomes an important tool too for life to evolve and thrive. I'm thus suspecting that this is why both aspects are important and dominant for human life even at the higher level: for many, most of the time we seek security, certainty, predictability, conformity, and we take comfort and ease from knowing them. This is all important and even programmed, and why repetitions, franchises, mass media or productions, are thriving so well in today's society. We simply make this simple and fundamental Life's Requirement, more profound and omnipresent at the higher level of our living. However, at the same time, endless repetitions may also be dangerous in the long run, because if we only always do things in a certain, similar way and never learn new abilities, when environments change or become hostile to the previous lifestyle, one may not survive or live well. And that's the value of new experiences or explorations.

We need both of course, too volatile and uncertain, life may become dangerous and end early. But if too uniform and repetitive, one may also lose the ability to adapt or adjust, when things change. So what is the right path? This is something that cannot be answered universally, but a decision each person can only make individually. Because each strategy to life has its merits and pitfalls, and only time and environment will tell which ones are 'currently' more successful than others, and of course, that changes too. As for me, I believe I would enjoy from less repetitions, and more new experiences. Even if I do make mistakes, I hope the mistakes are new and bigger ones, than those I've already had :)

On Economic Growth

Yesterday I had a great dinner with some tofu teriyaki (I'm a vegetarian). It was fun to see how the cook made the food in front of you. I enjoyed the meal, the process, and was fully satisfied at this interesting experience at the end. Part of the fulfillment also comes at the cheap price: the meal costs about USD $3 and included all-you-can-eat fried rice. On my way back on the bus, it came to me that this is the meaning of economic growth: on average, everyone in the society consumes more, but also becomes more skillful to produce more, so that everyone's consuming / producing ability increases. And when everyone's consumption / production increases, the economics grows.

So indeed economic growth can be seen as a form of progress: making more, having more, and consuming more. But is such thing always better? As some of the productions may do harm to environment or people? Or the exchange might be unfair / unlawful (labor exploitation, or extreme poverty / richness caused by unfair distribution) But then I realize this is a question of “what do you consume?” You can also consume spiritual / knowledge goods (which I do.. mostly) and lower your material production / consumption (to lessen the environmental impact). So the ills in modern societies may not be inherently the fault of economic growth (as protesters of WTO or G8 believe); but rather, what the society chooses to produce and consume. For example, if society chooses to spend resources and focus consumption / production on education, on social work, on caring for the sick / poor / old. Then there may still be quite some economic activity (more social workers and exchange of their productivity), but in a service fashion with minimal environmental impact. In fact, one may argue that the growth of service sector in developed nations, reflects our shifting needs from the material world to the mental / psychological, or even spiritual. So for my verdict, perhaps economic growth isn't inherently bad after all. From another point of view, growth is inevitable as humans always want to become more / have more / enjoy more, or become better at certain things. This pursuit is relentless and likely will never end. However, while 'growth' is unstoppable, I think we can choose in what aspect shall we grow: for material collection / production, or for other types of activities / services? (for example, do shopping in the virtual world instead of real-world shopping, invest in education / learning instead of buying bigger houses or furnitures).

If so, we might actually enjoy the benefits of growth, without having to cause harm or make permanent damages to the environment or other living beings in the process.

Let Social Works Become a Noble Form of Consumerism

This morning while jogging, I spotted a homeless sleeping by the river bank of my usual jog route. It was probably the first time I saw a homeless near the riverbank, to my recall, and so I was somewhat surprised, at how poverty seems to have grown to affect people in new places. It also reaffirms the widening gap between the rich and poor, reported in the news.

How to help the poor and needy (and I meant really help, not just giving them some temporary assistance), has been something on my mind for a long time. And as I try to understand poverty and solutions people have proposed (an excellent reading is Redesigning Distribution, where the concept of basic income is explained. The idea is that a monthly allowance for basic living should be given to all citizens as a basic right, much like public education, health case, and pension), a recurring theme in my discovery is that poverty does not have to be a permanent state in society, but rather, it relates much with 1) how much the society can make/produce, and 2) how those wealth/goods are being distributed. In fact, one view (and one that I personally subscribe to) holds that in modern societies where per capita income exceeds USD $10,000, the total amount of wealth produced by the society is enough to allow everyone to live a relatively secure and comfortable life, even with some people not working at all!

Why then? Does poverty still exist, and there are still extreme poverty, even in very well-developed nations such as U.S.? The simple reason would be the disproportional distribution of the wealth generated. It's quite common that wealth is concentrated on a small rich and powerful group of people, who accumulate and also decide how wealth should be allocated. Of course, in most modern societies, wealth is being generated and distributed via some form of market mechanism, which is probably the most efficient known form of wealth production and distribution. And then we have one of the three certainties in life: the tax system that also re-distributes wealth to make public works (roads, schools, hospitals) possible. But apparently, having a highly efficient market, or even a well-intention government, still does not solve the poverty problem, where some unfortunate souls are bound to suffer and not benefiting from either the market or the tax system. They either do not have enough skills or motivations to earn a good income in the job market, or are too shy or physically / mentally incapable to seek help from the government (let along the inherent ineffectiveness of governments).

It seems then, that until some form of basic income-like social security system can be put in place (which is another story, but even so, it'll remain a government-sponsored program with all the pitfalls and problems), the best hope for solving poverty remains with the private sector, at the hands of the people, or some willing members of the society.

There are numerous examples of how the private citizens, through the forms of non-government organizations (NGOs) or non-profit organizations (NPOs), have helped to improve social welfare. One well-known recent example is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has become the largest humanitarian organization on Earth in only a short few years, simply due to the commitments and managerial skills of its founders. During one trip to Australia, I talked with a IT professional next to me on the airplane, who told me that in Australia, because labor jobs are very well-paid, if a blue-collar worker is willing to work a few extra hours each week, he/she can earn even more than what he makes as a white-collar professional. This discussion let me to believe that poverty really is not an unsolvable problem, but something that directly relates to how a society chooses to spend its money. If the society accepts and ensures that wealth be more equally distributed, then we may bring better social welfare to everyone, as already happened in Australia.

So if we accept that poverty is caused by unequal distribution of wealth rather than the insufficient production of wealth, and we still wish to retain the current market economy and tax systems (assuming they won't change any time soon), how can we make wealth better distributed so that poverty may no longer exist?

One possibility is through higher taxation, especially from the well-to-do. But given the human nature of preserving wealth at our own hands, and the general distrust of government's transparency or efficiency, raising enough tax so that basic income can become universal may still take a long time. A more practical and feasible way seems to be the well-to-do people's own willingness to re-distribute. But how would this be possible?

The insight I had this morning was that all it takes is really a change in attitude and mindset. During my most recent trip to Japan, I was amazed at how expensive a piece of paper or cloth can cost, simply after some small thoughts and designs are put onto it. Obviously the material cost of the paper or cloth is not much. However, after adding a little artistic design, its price / value increases such that the affluent would still be willing to pay the higher price.

It's probably no secrets that the rich consumes / buys at a different level than ordinary citizens, and that people with different incomes have different spending patterns on the types of goods. For the rich and affluent, simple and basic material consumerism can no longer satisfy their needs and desires, so they seek higher-value products that could bring either atheistic enjoyment, pride, or social status to them (think of LV bags and brand products). Shopping or consuming no longer is a material activity, but a social, artistic, even spiritual one.

The change in attitude and mindset that we need thus is if the rich can see buying and spending for social welfare, is actually a noble, atheistic, and even spiritual thing to do. Instead of shopping for sports cars, luxury home and boats, jewelries and LV bags, if the rich can actually shop for, say, helping 50 kids in developing nations to go to school, or helping stray dogs and homeless a place to stay. Then our social welfare may be much improved, by simply consuming more of these Social Welfare Goods.

However, one important trick here is that these social works or social benefits, need to be packaged, branded, promoted, sold, and even be displayed (as trophies), just like any other existing consumer products. Because otherwise, the rich will not have access or ways to actually buy these products as consumers. This will take some experiments and quite some ingenuity. However, if it can be done (packaging and selling social welfare), then it may bring a much needed change to the landscape of social welfare or wealth distribution.

Just like sub-prime mortgage was creatively and ingeniously packaged as bonds to be divided and sold in global market (which subsequently caused the largest economic disaster in recent years), perhaps we need ways to package and sell social welfare services and products to the rich people in easily accessible and promotable forms. The key here is packaging and productizing, so that all the usual marketing stuff can be applied, except this time they are for the social welfare of the less fortunate members in our society.

I don't yet know the specifics of how this might be done, but it looks promising to bring changes to an issue that is as old as humanity.

The power of stories

This morning I woke up with a few interesting realizations about why stories are important and why games are important:

1. Stories shape our world. Everyone learns about how this world functions by one type of story or another. In each culture, there are usually tales & lores passed down from generations ago. In our daily life we hear stories from friends and relatives about who did what that bring out what results, and we would caution ourselves or improve our own behaviors based on them. In some way, perspectives, values, political or religious affinities are also certain types of stories (“God loves us all,” “bosses are manipulative,” “work hard and you'll be successful”). And we watch the events in the world go by to either reaffirm our existing theories/stories about the world, or sometimes, learn new ones. Some people have optimistic stories about life, people, or just about anything, while for others, they're always the victims of bad environment, bad people, or bad luck. Stories powerfully shape our understanding, and subsequently, actions in this world.
2. Stories define power balance. It might be argued that there are three types of people: story-generators, story-tellers, and story-listeners. Story-generators are the stories themselves, they are the contents and topics of the stories, their actions and deeds become what people will pass around and talk about. They're usually the heroes or villains in a story context. The retired soldier who bravely saved a man off the subway rail, the Internet start-up that made a big fortune, the dictator prosecuted by international court. Story-tellers are those who pass, re-make, or re-tell stories to others. In the old agricultural life, they might have been the elders in town who always attracted a gathering after dinner, telling distant tales. In today's societies, they're the news-reporters, film-makers, book-writers, and increasingly, I would say, the game-developers. Story-listeners are just about everyone else, the you and me who read the news at breakfast, watch the movies on weekends, or listen to a friend at work. It might be observed too, that many of the story-generators are the role-models or winners in society -- the rich, the powerful, the influential, or the inspiring. Many of the story-tellers also hold above-average income or power in our society (think about the money and fame of Hollywood actors/actresses, the power of the producers and directors, or the people involved in TV and news productions). While most of the story-listeners are consumers who spend their hard-earn cash to listen to or watch new stories in life, real or fictional.
3. Games are the new story-media. The oldest stories are being told in the oral tradition, and many stories are still delivered orally today, although story-telling has changed dramatically with the introduction of new technologies: newspapers, radios, TVs, and movies. But beginning in the 80s', a new and possibly unparalleled medium was born: computer and video games. While games come in different flavors, many types of games contain story-lines and character developments. As games are often both audio and visual, it makes them more approachable to stimulus-seeking people (especially the young). But most importantly, the participatory nature of games bring a new level of power and control never before seen in any story-telling medium, where the story-listener, for the first time, may also act, contribute, and decide, how the story will unfold. Although most game-stories are still linear, increasing trends made possible by new technologies are making games more non-linear, complex, life-like, engaging, and empowering. If seen as a new medium to story-telling, we might then be able to explain its natural appeal to people -- because we've always been interested and willing to listen or see a good story, now the chance to be the heroes? Wow! :)

So this brings up some interesting question: will democratizing game productions (developments, and distributions) tilt the power balance? Or put another way, what will happen if the power to create and distribute games, which may very well be the most powerful story-medium to-date, is being distributed to the masses?

Some analogies might be made with the movies and news industries. With the rising popularity of blogs and Internet, some may argue that news agencies no longer control the creations and distributions of news of interest. However, although camcorders allow just about anyone to make short videos, so far popular movies are still made by big-budget studios as opposed to small teams or individuals (but perhaps YouTube has changed somewhat of that?) So what happens if game creation and distribution tools are also accessible and affordable enough to anyone with interest? Can it be done? Will it be done? And what will that mean to the traditional power balance between the story-generators, story-tellers, and the story-listeners?

When Will 3D Cyberspace Be Ready?

I've been constantly pondering on the question of how a commonly usable 3D cyberspace might be created on the current Internet. There are of course many technical and social issues involved, but a pretty basic question is: can it be done at all?

My answer to that question now, is more towards the 'yes' (of course, how else will I make meaning out from my current existence. ;) Just a matter of to which degree. To answer this question in a more objective way, we will need to look at three basic factors: 1) can 3D graphics support the cyberspace we want to make? 2) is the processing power enough? And 3) do we have the sufficient bandwidth?

Considering the myriad of 3D games on the market today, the answer is definitely 'yes' to the first two questions. And consider the success of MMOG, the answer to 3) is also partially 'yes'. I put it as 'partial' because MMOG is not yet universally usable by the majority of computer users.

So what needs to be done to make 3D worlds more ubiquitous? It's fairly safe to say that, as long as all the 3D contents are on a user's computer, engaging 3D worlds can be generated without much problem, so the main issue really is, whether the 3D contents can be delivered to users computers, in real-time.

I have the following predication, about when 3D cyberspace will become common: it's when the amount of data necessary to generate an interactive scene at a given moment can be downloaded with a given bandwidth on the common user's computer.

To put that in perspective, a friend who's making game told me that, a simple 3D scene might require about 5MB of content to render, yet, most user's broadband is probably still in the 256kbps (32KB / sec) or less range. SecondLife (a social MMOG based on 3D streaming) currently uses only around 70-80 kbps on average, and 100kbps maximal for bandwidth, according to its CEO Philip Rosedale. Obviously we probably wouldn't need all 5MB all at once, but given a maximum of 100kbps of bandwidth, you still need around 400 seconds (that is, more than 5 minute) to download a 5MB content. But say for example, we would like to enter a new virtual world within 10 seconds, that makes our bandwidth requirement to be 4000kbps or 4Mbps. So in this secnario, the predication would be that when over 4Mbps of bandwidth becomes common, the infrastructure will then be ready for universal 3D cybersapce.

The average bandwidth in South Korea, last time I checked was mostly between 2-8 Mbps. So perhaps we aren't really that far off.

A theory for Fundamentalness

Today I had a new theory while thinking about some problems: that behind every problem, there are some fundamental issues/aspects that will be relevant to a wide number of other problems/issues.

The reason I thought of this idea, was that I've been thinking and trying to understand: why some research are considered as more important / influential than others?

Of course, there are some common-sense answers to this question, such as: the work is the first of its kind (field-setter); the result is applicable to a wide range of problems; it solves some long-standing, difficult issues; it provides a simple theory to complex phenomena that either explain the mechanism well, or allow us to make better predications, etc.

There's also the joke that, the importance of a scientific work is judged by whether your name is spelled with lower case letters as opposed to upper cases. For example, newton, joule, watts, etc. (they're the units for force, energy, and electricity).

Today, there are more metrics/tools for accessing the degree of influence/importance of one's research work, and one such tool is the number of citations to one's work, indicated by metrics such as the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the recently launched Google Scholar.

But upon closer examinations, one may find that this subject can be highly controversial and there are no simple or straightforward answers.

For one, while citation may indicate the interests or relevance of a work in the past few years or decades (since such data can be tracked by computers and databases). It will not indicate nor access the importance of a work in the coming years or decades, let alone the relevance of a work after a hundred years (the story of Mendel's chromosome theory should serve us well).

Citations might also indicate different aspects of importance, for example, SCI only indexes works that are of journal-quality papers, while Google Scholar attempts to find all references of a work available on the Internet. A famous P2P research work called Chord scores 35 citations in the 2004 SCI (which is relatively high, but works in other scientific fields have citation numbers run in the hundreds), yet its Google Scholar search result is very impressive (more than 2,500 citations, which is much higher than most scientific works). The difference is caused by the nature of computer science where most works are published in conferences/workshops as opposed to journals, and also that Google Scholar indexes not only papers published, but also that of master and PhD thesis, or technical reports. Plus the fact that computer science works have a higher likelihood of being available online and thus indexed by Google.

There's also the question of the definition of importance/relevance. While some importance are associated with fame (as in Einstein), other influential work are less well known (for example, the inventor/discoverer of laser is probably not very well-known by the public).

But I suspect that ultimately, importance, relevance, or influence is measured by how many people, or how long a period, does a work affect (of course, for people, one can also consider just the research people, or the population at large). In this sense, all the previously mentioned forms of importance / influence are broadly included (citations, fame, or range of applications)

If we can accept this loose definition for now, then the next question (at least for research people) becomes: how does one do important / relevant works?

Turing Award winner Richard Hamming had given some of his thoughts in a 1986 Bell Lab seminar "You and Your Research." But if importance is judged by how widely it is applicable to (in terms of people, duration, or tasks), then it will not be surprising to see that, in many, perhaps even all, daily problems or situations we face, there are certain aspects which a n existing important work is applicable or is in fact already applied.

Almost all of our modern home appliances, which help us to solve our daily problems, are the results of accumulations of research works and engineering efforts in the past. When we turn on the computer and browse the Internet, the underlying messages, protocols, encryptions, are all influential works done in the past, of which we're currently been influenced.

I therefore find it possible that, underlying perhaps all daily problems you face, there are some aspects or potentials that a solution (if it is not yet found) can in fact be quite influential and applicable to other problems as well.

We all know the story of Newton discovering the laws of gravity after an apple hit his head, or perhaps the story of the accidental discovery of penicillin.

Whether one actually pays attention to perhaps even the seemingly mundane/trivial problems or phenomena during a day and seeks to find some general solutions for it, is however, another issue.

Inevitability

Laws of classical physics describe how things will work in a mostly mechanical, deterministic way, absent of any unpredictability. Later theories of quantum physics make uncertainty a central aspect and concept in the physical reality they attempt to describe. For most people, the common sense is that the non-living behaves in more or less predictable fashion (like a rock falling), unless the system gets complicated (like weather). However, when living beings are in discussion (like humans), things become unpredictable again, especially with the behaviors of people.

However, macroeconomics and psychology have been attempting to draw theories/predications, even laws, on the human behaviors when they're considered collectively. The idea is that, while individual behaviors are difficult to predict, certain properties (or emergent properties) would arise when enough people are being considered. The same might also be said for the predications for physical matters (that is, while it's difficult to predict the movements of an atom, it is much more easier to predict the movement of rocks or planets, which are atoms collected in much larger quantity).

These are all well-known knowledge and views of modern day intellectuals (esp. scientists).

However, today I was pondering at the unpredictability of human behavior, and its association with free will. The issue at heart is: while individual behavior is hard to predict, I've also heard the seemingly reasonable observation that if something is technically feasible and doable, then it will eventually be made/created by man. In other words, as long as something is physically valid to do (not violating any physical laws), and there's a demand/incentive/wish by some people to do it, then it will happen, eventually. Eventuality is a key word here, indicating that certain wild ideas might not be realizable within the feasible timespan of an individual's life. However, that also means, in the long run, certain creations, if their occurrences will bring benefits to some individuals, then they will happen, no matter how difficult, how absurd, or how scary.

Some case in examples include the cloning of human beings, Star Trek-like teleporting of people to remote places (by first decomposing a person into bits of atoms), basement/garage labs capable of producing biological or nuclear weapons, or perhaps self-replicating intelligent machines that may one day replace humanity.

If, this view is true, that all things can be created, will be created eventually, then what does that mean for humanity, in the long run?

Or, perhaps due to the forces of free will, social and moral dynamics, humans will choose certain paths instead of others, will restrain themselves from doing certain destructive behaviors as opposed to performing them. Thus, in the long run, we will still be survivable.

This brings out the ultimate question that, is our future eventually fixed? Or maybe there are still different/alternative endings to the humanity story? If our ends are still open, what are the forces that will shape their directions? Or perhaps, despite all the illusions of free will and unpredictability, collective human behaviors are actually fairly predictable in the sense that we're on the path to more productions, consumptions, advanced technologies, and complexities, until perhaps one day, the entire race finally meets its end, as the Oracle in The Matrix once said: “everything that has a beginning, has an end?”

Social-phobia and Identities

A friend of mine was telling me the symptoms of being a social-phobic: difficulty in breathing, discomforts while being with a crowd. As a result, my friend usually acts as a quiet listener/observer when many people are around. Yet for my friend, it is not as difficult to express thoughts and communicate with people if these things are done over the Internet. This brings up an interesting experiment: if people with social-phobia in the real world could actually communicate and express themselves quite well in social virtual worlds such as Second Life, There, or perhaps even while playing in children-oriented virtual environments such as Disney's Toontown, then can they still be called social-phobics, or perhaps they are simply just unused to the physical aspects of human interactions, while being fully capable in engaging meaningful, perhaps even diverse modes of social interactions?

A bigger issue related to this question involves how we define ourselves and our relations with the world around us. Usually how we act, perform to expectations, or interact with others, depends not just on the external entities (people, animals, environments) involved, but also how we perceive ourselves at the moment: whether we're good or bad, pretty or ugly, smart or dumb, capable or ineffective, etc. In other words, what we do often can be the results of the interplay between our sense of identities and the external entities. It would not be surprising that once a different identity is assumed, behaviors can be dramatically different.

Yet, multiple identities are in fact not foreign to us. All of us have multiple identities at different times of the day, depending on who we're interacting with, what the social atmosphere is, or simply what moods we're having. What today's virtual worlds and related technologies offer, perhaps, are additional and more diverse ways to assume various identities and explore who we are in previously unavailable ways.

If my friend finds that social interactions in virtual worlds, perhaps even ones involving large crowds, are easily handled, we might then be able to look at other ways where traditionally undesirable personal or psychological traits, could in fact be given new meanings, with the help of new methods to explore our identities.

The Attraction of Virtual Environments

Recently I've been thinking about why computer-generated virtual environments hold such a big attraction to me.

A standard answer I've been giving out in the past few years has been “because I grew up with them.” I started to play computer games since a young age, and they were basically my childhood “toys” that defined much of the colors and joys in those early years. I was especially attracted to a number of graphic adventure games created by Sierra On-lines that focused on puzzle-solving and social interactions with computer characters. My fascination started from, and continues to be the fact that you could speak, interact, make friends with or enemies of those little computer characters living inside the virtual worlds.

This morning I had a new answer. It was also about seeking “freedom”: freedom from burdens, freedom from restrictions, and freedom from the reality. Much of what exists in our day-to-day life is about limitations and restrictions, of things we're either not allowed to do because of rules and regulations, or things we're unable to do due to lack of ability or resource. And yet, a large part of human efforts and endeavors has been to seek out and pursue the possible, or carry out and realize the potentials.

Perhaps that is why virtual environments have become more and more popular, and in some cases, addictive as well --- because it satisfies our imagination or wish to become more, more than what we usually can achieve with our little and insignificant real-world identities. Just by opening up a new game application, we can immediately assume alternative identities or suddenly transform into super-heroes. Computer games have enabled a new form of expression and a new way to explore our inner-selves that was not previously feasible or possible – it's a new type of freedom that we did not and could not have before.

However, is it really freedom? Or just escape from the reality? Or… in some way, there isn't really a distinction between the two? As freedom has always been about breaking, or transcending restrictions?

On Good and Evil

Good and Evil are the forever topics in history, life, and well, humanity. While discussions usually tend to move towards moral doctrines and judgments, I came to see it more and more as something fundamentally related to the properties of life.

I suppose that I’m a rationalist and naturalist, so I tend to seek natural explanations to everything I observe or experience, which of course, includes the issues of Good and Evil. If one makes an effort to understand what living beings are, one may agree that many forces exist to destroy the delicate state we describe as living. At the molecular level, living beings have rather organized structures that are prone to the destructive effects of radiation, mutation, or simply the second law of thermodynamics (which states that all things tend to become more chaotic over time). On a higher level, organisms are under the constant threats of sickness, predator, resource depletion, and factors that could easily change the state of being alive. At the society level, wars, inadequate social structures, anti-social behaviors, and aggressive foreign societies could also destroy the fabrics of the society and threaten the livelihoods of the people within. In short, it’s not an easy task for living things to stay living. In many ways, the existence of living organisms is indeed a miracle in this universe we are in.

And if we look closer, the concept of Good is often times associated with the living, the reproductive, the creative; while Evil is associated with the dead, the sterile, the destructive. This brings out a point: for living things, Good means to stay alive, and Evil is whatever that threatens the state of being alive.

So naturally, as living beings, we try very hard to side with Good in the fight against Evil. We try to remain alive for as much as we can, for as long as we can, as all other living beings do. In fact, this struggle probably began in Day One when the first proto-life came to exist on this Earth.

So hence the eternal struggle that we shall carry on with us, as we try to fight against all things Evil in the name of Good, for reasons most of the time, most of us do not quite understand why (however, a positive regard to Good just feels natural).

But this “why” isn’t too difficult to understand, and it can be understood without moral or supernatural explanations. Good is simply the essence of being alive, while Evil is otherwise.

In Search of Global Optimum

Many problems in science could be formulated as the search of global minimum (or maximum, but we only need to talk of one as the two are easily reversible). One such example is the protein folding problem where the goal is to find a 3D protein structure (given a 1D amino acid sequence) that has the lowest free energy. One can imagine such problem as trying to find the deepest valley in some rugged landscape, one spot at a time. Of course, the solution can be found when the size of the landscape is small, but becomes unsolvable when the landscape is vast. When it becomes unpractical to search everywhere for the optimum solution, heuristics that lead to ‘good enough’ solutions are often applied. However, one risks finding a solution that is only optimum locally instead of globally. Various methods that try to prevent the search from trapping in local minima have been devised, making it an active research area. I came to speculate recently, if our life were also like a search in such landscape, with the globally optimal solution as the “niche” best suited for a person. How many of us have actually hit that sweet spot, and how many of us are trapped in local minima? And how, if we may draw parallel from the search problem, can we utilize some heuristics to increase the chance at finding the global optimum solution?

The Arrogance of Intellect

Yesterday I went to National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) for Ph. D admission oral exam of the computer science (CS) department. By the end of it, I was disappointed, shocked, and had lost my respect for one of the professors.

The oral exam was divided into four 10-minute sections, each of which had a different focus and two professors doing the interview. My first section was on Motivation and Prospective Future Research. The young professors seemed impressed when I talked about my early research experience, my plan to build a massive simulator using peer-to-peer (P2P) computing, and the long-term goal to start up a company. That was the only section in which I felt my value as a person was appreciated.

The next two sections were on Mathematics and Information. I had been weak in math and unfamiliar with algorithm theory. So I had some difficult time answering even basic questions posed by the professors. I would be willing to take the responsibility myself, for not having studied enough the fundamentals in computing theory. However, I was unable to answer mostly because these algorithms or mathematics were unrelated to my present research, so I did not possess a good working knowledge. On the other hand, I was confident that I would be able to answer if they were relevant to my current research. However, one professor in the Mathematics section won my respect when he tried to rephrase several times the questions and provided guiding clues as to test the degree of my understanding as opposed to a simple yes/no of my ability. I could feel that he intended to teach and help a student, as opposed to intimidate or to embarrass.

The final section was on Master Thesis, in which the examinee had 5 minutes to explain his or her master thesis and 5 minutes to answer questions. Having devoted the last 2 years of my life on researching highly scalable virtual environment (VE) systems, published in the affiliated workshop of ACM SIGCOMM (one of the largest conferences in the field), and submitted a paper to IEEE Network Magazine (one of the leading journals in computer science, with an impact factor of 3.871 in 2003), I was confident of doing an interesting presentation to demonstrate my real strength: a project-based learner who has the interest and inclination to do serious and independent research.

However, much of what happened next shocked me, and I was puzzled for the rest of the day. I began the presentation by explaining that I intend to build scalable virtual environment system and defining the problem. But after I mentioned that I used P2P computing (a kind of novel networking method that has given birth to new applications used by millions of simultaneous users), the professors quickly denounced: “that’s absurd!” and “how is that possible?”

They began by saying it was “impossible” to synchronize the topology in such environment (which was in fact possible with proper control), questioning if I had done simulation or not (which I had), and asking why I made certain design decisions (which I had to admit that I probably did not answer well due to my slower response caused by the intimidation). One of the professors was opening and closing his eyes, leaning back and forth, to express his impatience as he listened to my explanations.

Then, as I explained that the topic was chosen because “P2P can potentially be more scalable than client-server architecture”, that professor quickly remarked: “P2P is the least scalable (emphasized by his tone) architecture in building large systems!”

I listened to his remark in shock, while trying to think of a response in panic. As the premise of my work was that P2P can be more scalable than client-server, if his comment was true, the value of my entire research would be invalidated. In fact, that seemed to be what the professors believed when the section ended, and their faces had the expression: “your research is ridiculous and absurd!” Though I had some diagrams in mind that might help to clarify, my time was up, and the professors wanted me out of the room, expressing no interest in listening to any further explanation.

As I walked out, it just came to me how pathetic the professor’s comment was -- not just the rudeness and unfriendliness of criticizing without an effort to understand, but because of the sheer and plain ignorance behind that comment. While P2P was, in the past, associated with a fully-connected architecture, which would not be scalable, during the past few years, research efforts from talented people have focused on building scalable P2P, where each node only connected to limited number of other nodes to avoid overloading any particular node. With the introduction of worldwide file-sharing P2P networks already used by millions of users, the scalability of P2P systems was obviously no longer questionable by any respectable researcher. A blanket statement such as “P2P is the least scalable architecture” only indicates a lack of knowledge and familiarity with recent P2P development and research during at least the past two or three years.

In some sense, what that professor did was not just insulting my intelligence and efforts, but disregarding the reviewers of my previous publication (in ACM SIGCOMM’s affiliated workshop), the authors of other similar publications (which appeared in leading conference such as INFOCOM), and the judgment of IEEE Network’s Editor-in-Chief, who sent the manuscript of my thesis’s work for outside peer review. Had my research idea been so absurd and worthless, it should have been turned down by the many experts who reviewed such works a long time ago.

When the two professors left the room for break, the other professor told me “he is the expert,” in the sense of telling me to get lost and stop wasting my time on dreaming on impossible designs. I could sense that they also questioned how my advisor had allowed me to graduate with such an “undoable” thesis topic.

I tried to contain my puzzlement over his statement, and learn of the name of this “expert professor.” The first thing I did after getting back was to search for this professor’s publications and works, to find out how come after two years of studying the scalability problem in virtual environments and conducting extensive survey on existing literatures in various fields, maintaining contacts with both academic and industrial people, that I have not even heard of this expert professor’s name.

And this was what I found: the “expert professor” had in indeed built a platform that was not well-publicized and on which no real system was built; yet he published not even one paper about this infinitely scalable platform (in the words of the promotional document). He co-authored numerous papers on various topics unrelated to virtual environment, but had not been a first author since 1995, the year he became a full-professor. Among journal articles he published recently, the 2003 JCR impact factors were between 0.2 and 0.5. In other words, he had not been academically active for the past 10 years and had not published in leading journals or conferences.

Probably not a big surprise, his platform used client-server architecture, which my work posed as inherently less scalable than P2P.

I felt humiliated, puzzled, and a bit sad at how things turned out. Certainly this “expert” professor had lost my respect, and the experience also changed my perception of NCTU’s CS department, the most prestigious engineering school in Taiwan, for assigning such professor to conduct important admission interviews. The professor was obviously a learned man, so his ignorance was likely not due to the lack of ability but something else – perhaps arrogance?

The Ultimate Simulator

This will be my first blog. I found this service after reading an article in Fortune magazine describing the war between Google and Bill Gates.

Yesterday I talked with two friends about the possibility to use peer-to-peer (P2P) computing for protein folding simulation. The idea was simple: connect large number of volunteer computers in a P2P fashion, and each node is responsible to model one atom in a protein molecule. As the simulation goes, each node would constantly discover neighboring atoms within a pre-specified radius and would communicate the most recent coordinates with those neighbors within the "interaction sphere".

One friend expressed concern about the potentially large amount of communication required to keep the various nodes synchronized, while the other friend thought the idea was "very interesting."

I, on the other hand, was just pondering on the intriguing possibility: if protein folding were to be simulated in the most parallel fashion, how much more can you get than each atom is simulated by ONE processor? And if such thing does work, wouldn't it be in effect, the ultimate simulator?