Should people be restricted in online media?

Fire in the stove cooks while fire in the roof kills

Should there be regulations to maintain a proper interaction in the web or should the statusquo be maintained? How many of us realize that they could be prosecuted if they write illegal content on a blog or even on an Orkut community or even an "anonymous" Wikipedia entry? If you are a girl and someone puts slanderous content with nude/objectionable pics in an online media, and totally screws up your life should the person doing intentionally or as a prank be let scot-free? If you are a lawmaker and you are seeing terrorists use online forums to recruit and commit crimes against your innocent people what should you do? As terrorists and gullible teenagers utilize the Internet for a lot of criminal activities how should the conventional society respond? Finally, has Internet made the world a better place?

This is one of the question that I was asking myself for a while and I had couple of posts in draft that were later discarded. Let me put more thoughts into this. Our conventional society has done a lot of adhoc things to stop this Internet menace but things are not enough. they either restrict too many things or lets too many things.

Consider the conventional society:
There is a minimum age for driving & drinking, there are processes for obtaining licence and only those who are qualified can drive, for getting a gun you need to be qualified, you can drive only in left/right depending on the country you are driving in, if you insult someone publicly in writing or speech you could be prosecuted for libel or slander, if you kill someone you are jailed or put to death....

When we don't have problems with conventional society having so many rules and regulations that help us mostly though gives some minor nuisance, and is a must for orderliness in the society. How much of those controls exist in the highly powerful online mediums? This is particularly important as young kids write blogs, go to social networking sites and do all sort of activities without even realising the rules of conventional society and a lot of people get burnt. They don't realize that if you create a malicious profile in social networking sites like Orkut intentionally slenderizing people, you could be prosecuted in various jurisdictions including India, China, Brazil and US. This is like giving fully loaded Machine guns to kids and punishing them when they accidentally hit the trigger. The fault lies in the society that had allowed the kids to have accessed the tool in the first place.

Internet like any powerful tool of nature has to be put in place and accessed properly to get real benefits out of it. Fire in the stove cooks while fire in the roof kills. But, I'm appalled to the lack of much regulations and education regarding preventing its misuse. No doubt, the revolution occurred too quickly for lawmakers to take decisive action. A similar process occurred in the world a hundred years ago, when automobile was invented and every tom-dick-and-harry started driving. The result was disastrous and nations quickly responded by issuing driving licences. We need similar things for the online media, lest it gets totally out of control.

Reputed service providers like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have to take first steps and steer the direction for the community and the public should maintain a list of sites that voluntarily implements the steps and block the access to the rest from the corporate domain, parental control list etc. I use the term Internet account to mean the combo package offered by Google, Yahoo, etc that lets a range of services including email, chat, photo sharing, blogging, social networking, etc.

Some of the essential standards are:
1. Provide options for special Internet accounts with proper identification: Currently anybody (including Osama Bin Laden) could open email/blog/social networking account. This has to be slowly moved to a situation where only real persons with provable records and identification should be able to open accounts. In other words, if you need to obtain a Google account (for Blogger, Orkut...) or equivalent Yahoo and Passport accounts, you should be able to produce atleast one identification from the conventional society: Drivers licence, Credit card number, Passport number etc. This is one of the first steps in controlling spam and malicious mails, apart from reducing a lot of different spoofing and other crimes on the net. Though, it is not a cure-all medicine, it will make a lot of people think twice before they could do all those stupid blunders under the guise of anonymity.

2. Ensure licensing in accounts: Schools must start an internet education program and only those have passed them should be allowed to create internet entities including email & blogging. There must be such education and test programs across the society and the individuals wanting to access the specific tools must be able to pass a small exam that makes them liable to their crime. So, if you are kid sending a death threat by email to the President, or insult a person in a blog or create a malicious Orkut account or vandalize a Wikipedia entry you know its consequences. It might even be as bad as killing someone with a jigsaw. If we can suitable have drivers licence program for hundreds of millions of drivers across the world, I don't think why it will be more hard to create education and testing program for hundreds of millions of Internet users in the world.

There are few other steps that could be done for a better internet world, but these alone could make a good start and enable to contain the current anarchy. Initially enforcing them would be hard, but schools & governments should work with internet tool providers like Google and Yahoo to create such standards and punish those companies that don't follow the standards. A lot of governments are very concerned with Internet security and thus, most of the world will agree to those standards and only companies adhering to those standards will be permitted in a lot of school & office campuses. Eventually other companies will start implementing the standards and once most of the major providers of email, news, social networking & blogging join the common standards platform, ISPs could be pressurized to blockade everyone else, and eventually from our ISPs we will get only those websites & content that have proper legal standings. And things like Verisign standards can be extended for many other websites too. And after a while, such international conventions can be agreed upon and all these Internet content will come under the purview of the international law, instead of the current fragmented jurisdictions. And those countries and networks that don't agree can be permanently blockaded from the Internet.

The goal is to bring every Internet user, website or an Internet entity under laws and procedures of the conventional society. Like, how the world agreed upon that killing without a cause is a crime internationally, internet laws should be international standards and it will end the anarchy in the Internet world and pave the world for a better future.

World moving toward mediocrity

This is one topic that is troubling me for the last few years. Is the world moving towards mediocrity? Every era had its share of great persons in every field and the process of producing the greats kept on getting accelerated ever since 15th century. People like da Vinci, Newton, Keppler, Bismark, Adam Smith, Shakesphere... kept on arising in various fields and created various fields and revolutionized the entire society.

By the dawn of 20th century the process was in extreme speed. The world was seeing doyens like Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Neils Bohr, Alan M. Turing, Richard Feynman, Marie Curie, Max Plank, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Swami Vivekananda, Wright Brothers, Marconi, Edison, von Neumann and Claude Shannon.

But, can you name any living person now or any person born in our era (after 1930) who could belong to this hall of fame, of the world greats?

The world during the period of 1870 to 1930 saw so many inventions and breakthroughs. Extrordinary breakthroughs in Physics came in the form of Quantum theory, Electromagnetic theory, electricity, radio transimission, Semiconductors, Superconductivity, Radioactivity and Relativity (... I cant recount every great thing) and great inventions came in the form of telephone, radio, x-rays, electric motors, automobiles, airplanes, microwaves, movies.... How many great things have we invented in our era?

Where do we get to see physists like Einstein, Bohr, Marie Curie, Linus Pauling, Nichol Tesla, Feynmann and Mathematicians like Kurt Godel, Ramanujam, David Hilbert, Max Plank, Turing, Claude Shannon, in the current era? Where do we get the great economists like Keynes and Fisher or psychologists like Freud? Can you name atleast one great inventor of current time, whose work could be compared with Edison or Bell or Wright Brothers or Neumann? Why didnt we have such great persons in our era? Why the flame of the greats got almost extinguished by the 1960's? If we ask a person in 1940 about the list of top 10 all-time great physists, the list would countain atleast half from their own time. But, what about now? Can you name atleast one current physist who could be placed in the all-time list?

How many great breakthroughs in Computer Science are brought after its first 20 years? We are using almost the same model of Turing and most of the concepts (right from databases to algorithms to networks) are just refined, polished and engineered, but nothing revolutionarily new is produced that is comparable to the works of the first 20 years. Why didnt we do much in space sciences after 1960's and why didnt we produce any great airplane in the last 40 years?

In the previous era, world saw extrordinary leaders in the form of Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, Gandhi, Nehru, Mao, Hilter and Stalin (the last two are criminals against humanity) who commanded uncomparable control over their regions. There were extraordinary literary persons like Emerson, Mark Twain, Ayn Rand and Bernard Shaw.... There were these uncomparable aggressive businessmen like Herny Ford, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Alfred P. Sloan (the man who broughtup General Motors) . Where are their successors?

While we should expect the process of producing great things should have accelerated in the last 70 years, with the revolutions in communication and transportaion and globalization, it is dissapointingly low. I suspect that there is something that is fundamentally wrong. The great instituitions like MIT, Princeton, Cornell and Stanford are no longer producing great things that can change humanity. The papers are more of engineering improvements than revolutionizing things. The professors produce more of good works than extraordinary breakthroughs.

Fundamentally, there is an enormous pressure to perform. Students have to worry about careers, PhD candidates have to worry about graduating, professors have to worry about tenures and later a decent publication career. And this produces the fear that acts against the guts to produce something new. If a physics student proposes for something like a work of general theory of relativity or if a computer science student produces a new computing model, it will most probably be rejected and the admission committee or later the professor might advice the guy to work towards more ahievable goals. And the student might not have guts to go further and work against all odds and might even quit researching.

Thus, we are caught in a circle of mediocrity and we need great force to break this cycle. For this to happen, the current era people have to realize that history would call us the era of mediocrity and to avoid that we need to do something revolutionary.

The beauty of Computational Science

My main interest lies in Computational Science (after all, we dont call astronomy as telescopic science or chemistry as test-tube science, then why do we call the study of computation by the dry word called computer science. We are supposed to study computation and its scientific model and dont bother about the creation of the tool called computer). I'm a die-hard fan of it, ever since I had my first Computational science class in my 8th grade. I believe that one of the greatest human work after fire and wheel lies in the invention of this field. How could I make such a preposturous statement?

Computational Science fundamentally changed how we live, work and think. It brought a new world, a world that obeys more of Discrete Math than Physics. Once, we interface a physical world element into this Mathworld, we can do a whole lot of things. We can play with time, we can play with space and we can defy gravity and so many of the physical laws!!! We can test nuclear bombs, simulate flights, design machines.... everything in this Mathworld. Thus, humans have created a new world, in the process of creating Computational science. The process of moving from physcial world to Mathematical world is not well appreciated by most people. In fact, this non-realization itself is a success of Computational science.

I believe that there are only two fields of research now: 1. How to bring the real world into Mathematical world, which is the duty of physicsts, economists, engineers.... and 2. How to play in this Math world, which is the duty of Computational Scientists?

I've heard so many people say that Computational Science need not be learnt by methodical means, and they could study by attending some non-regular courses, by offering institutes. They believe that learning C or Java or software engineering makes one, a computer scientist.

If you know to hold a brush and put colors, can you paint like Da Vinci? If you know alphabets from A to Z, can you write something like the Shakespheare's Julius Caeser? If you can clean a telescope, can you immediately become an astronomer like Galileo? Then, how can you become a Computational Scientist, just by learning a language or coding an application. Computational Scientist is a way of thought, a feeling and a way of life. It lies in the beauty of Math and philosophy. It lies in the beauty of a state transition. It is as beautiful as theoratical physics, as action-packed as organic chemistry and as elegant as Mathematics.

It is an absolute pity that students of Computational Science are not taught the beauty of this great field. Instead of dwelling in the beauty of its state, logic and information and various organization theories, people are just taught a whole bunch of languages, a lot of systems, and worst, some packages. They tarnish the whole image of computer science.

I believe that the universities should separate the beautiful core Computational Science and name it as Computational Sciences and jealously guard it from Systems, engineering and Software sciences concepts. Let us hope to see one day, Computational Sciences taught to us.