Podcasts about palo alto research center

In this episode, Tolga Kurtoglu, CEO of Leap AI offers a profound exploration of the imperative nature of a comprehensive validation process for startups, especially within the framework of a venture studio. He emphasises continual questioning over predetermined solutions, advocating for perseverance and dedication in pursuing entrepreneurial goals. The conversation delineates a meticulously structured five-stage validation journey, wherein startups progress from ideation to market readiness. This approach, underscores the fusion of innovative thinking with disciplined execution, epitomising the essence of entrepreneurial endeavours in today's dynamic business landscape. [00:17] - About Tolga Kurtoglu  Tolga is the Founding Partner and CEO of Leap AI. He is the former CEO of Palo Alto Research Center. He is a passionate advocate of responsible technology development. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tbcy/support

Economic policies are often gamed by individuals for personal benefit. In this episode, we explore how this gaming takes place and what economics can do about it. To do that, we're joined again by W. Brian Arthur, External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and Researcher at the Palo Alto Research Center, formerly Xerox PARC.    Connect: Simplifying Complexity on Twitter Sean Brady on Twitter Sean Brady on LinkedIn Brady Heywood website This show is produced in collaboration with Wavelength Creative. Visit wavelengthcreative.com for more information.

Imagine you have a bar that comfortably seats 60 people, but every week, 100 people have to decide whether or not they're going to go to the bar on any given night. If too many people go, then the bar is too crowded, and everyone has a miserable night. But if not enough people go, then that's a missed opportunity to go out. This is the basis of the El Farol problem, which asks us to consider how people make this decision. It's a beautifully simple problem that not only makes you think but also has profound implications. To help us through this problem, we're joined again by its inventor, W. Brian Arthur, External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and Researcher at Palo Alto Research Center. Brian's going to help us understand how this problem is more than just the story of a bar, but a problem that gives us an incredible insight into how the economy works.   Connect: Simplifying Complexity on Twitter Sean Brady on Twitter Sean Brady on LinkedIn Brady Heywood website This show is produced in collaboration with Wavelength Creative. Visit wavelengthcreative.com for more information.

One idea from the Palo Alto Research Center changed your computer, on THIS DAY, April 27th with Chris Conley.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intro: Steve Bandrowczak, the CEO of Xerox, an iconic company that got started all the way back in 1906 as a manufacturer of photo paper and is, of course, best known for pioneering the copy machine. Here in 2023, Xerox has moved well beyond paper. It now works with companies large and small to provide IT services: it optimizes workflows, manages data, automates parts of businesses, and yes, still fixes the printers. Steve insists there's still a lot in the world to print, and selling and servicing printers continues to be where Xerox begins its relationships with most customers. And fixing printers is getting high tech: Steve is excited about his new AR app that walks you through getting the copy machine working again so you don't have to wait for a technician to come fix it.  We also talked about the future of Xerox's legendary Palo Alto Research Center, or PARC, whether Xerox wants more consolidation, and we even spitball some ideas about how to get Gen Z excited about printers.  Links: John Visentin, Xerox C.E.O., Dies at 59 Xerox Ousts CEO In Deal With Icahn Carl Icahn Makes Case for Xerox-HP Union Xerox abandons $35 billion hostile bid for HP Apple Lisa: the ‘OK' Computer About PARC, a Xerox Company Transcript: https://www.theverge.com/e/23394156 Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. It was produced by Creighton DeSimone and Hadley Robinson and it was edited by Jackson Bierfeldt.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Our Editorial Director is Brooke Minters and our Executive Director is Eleanor Donovan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Folge #24 behandelt die Frage „Wie halten Unternehmen ihre Innovationskultur aufrecht?”. Zu Gast ist dazu Steve Bandrowczak – Chief Executive Officer von Xerox in Norwalk, USA. Steve leitet den Xerox-Konzern, der wie kaum ein anderes Unternehmen für Innovation steht: Wir alle kennen die Kopierer und Drucker – aber es gibt einige Fakten, die weniger bekannt sind: zum Beispiel, dass die grafische Benutzeroberfläche, die Maus als Eingabegerät, der Ethernet-Netzwerkstandard und der Laserdrucker von Xerox und dem von Xerox gegründeten Palo Alto Research Center erfunden wurden. Wer wäre als Gesprächspartner für das Thema Innovationskultur mehr geeignet als Steve? Uli, Markus und Steve diskutieren die Bedeutung von Innovationen und ihren strategischen Wert. Sie sprechen darüber, wie man Unternehmen organisatorisch aufstellt, um Innovationen erfolgreich zu machen und welche Bestandteile eine innovationsfreundliche Unternehmenskultur hat. Zur Sprache kommen nicht nur die Notwendigkeit einer schlanken und agilen Organisation mit Start-up-Mentalität, sondern auch Diversität, Inklusion und Zusammengehörigkeit als wesentliche Bausteine einer erfolgreichen Innovationskultur. Wer sich weiter informieren möchte, wird hier fündig: - Xerox Homepage: https://www.xerox.com - Die „Säulen der Innovation“ von Xerox: https://www.xerox.com/en-us/innovation - Palo Alto Research Center Homepage: https://www.parc.com Euer Feedback zur Folge und Vorschläge für Themen und Gäst:innen sind sehr willkommen! Vernetzt euch und diskutiert mit: - Steve Bandrowczak: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-bandrowczak-51866a4/ - Ulrich Irnich: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ulrichirnich/ - Markus Kuckertz: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markuskuckertz/ Mitwirkende - Hosts: Ulrich Irnich & Markus Kuckertz // Produktion: Daniel Sprügel & Sören Wahlers, Maniac Studios (https://maniacstudios.com) // Redaktion: Marcus Pawlik // Kommunikation & Community: Anna-Lena Sodies // Team behind the team: Sonja Uller © Digital Pacemaker Podcast 2023

In our last episode, we heard from W. Brian Arthur, who shared his journey in economics as he studied increasing returns. Now, Brian's going to take us to 1987, to a small meeting in the Rockies in Santa Fe. At this time, he was struggling to gain recognition for his work within the economics community, but it was when Brian went to what would become the Santa Fe Institute that things really kicked off. In this episode, you're going to hear again from W. Brain Arthur, External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and Researcher at Palo Alto Research Center, as he remembers the early days of the Santa Fe Institute. From the early meetings of economists, physicists, and a biologist that started it all, to an early model Brian built of a stock market that was unique to any models before it — because this model included booms and busts.   Connect: Simplifying Complexity on Twitter Sean Brady on Twitter Sean Brady on LinkedIn Brady Heywood website This show is produced in collaboration with Wavelength Creative. Visit wavelengthcreative.com for more information.

Mitchell Waldrop's 'Complexity' brought complexity science into the limelight with an account of the early days of the Santa Fe Institute. One of the people who appear in this book is W. Brian Arthur, the engineer turned economist who found economics unsatisfactory — because it treated the economy purely as a system in equilibrium when he knew it very obviously wasn't. In this episode, you'll hear from W. Brian Arthur, External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and Researcher at Palo Alto Research Center, as he explains his journey to understanding the economy as a non-equilibrium system, and his work on increasing returns. But what are increasing returns? Well in complexity terms, it's how positive feedback affects the economy.   Connect: Simplifying Complexity on Twitter Sean Brady on Twitter Sean Brady on LinkedIn Brady Heywood website This show is produced in collaboration with Wavelength Creative. Visit wavelengthcreative.com for more information.

What you'll learn in this episode: Why a growth mindset is the key to making effective change Andrew's tips for beating resistance and making changes stick Why lawyers need to adapt their professional approach to become effective coaches and mentors  How to choose the right executive coach What lawyers of all levels can expect to gain from coaching About Andrew Elowitt: Andrew Elowitt JD MBA PCC worked for over twenty years both in law firms and as the head of a corporate legal department before becoming a practice management consultant and professional certified coach. He is the Managing Director of New Actions LLC, a firm that specializes in talent, strategy and leadership development for law firms, businesses, and government agencies. His work focuses on the people side of legal practice: how lawyers manage, lead, thrive, change, and find satisfaction. He is regarded as an expert on the use of coaching and emotional, social and conversational intelligences in leading and managing legal organizations of all sizes. Andrew is a Fellow in the College of Law Practice Management, an International Coach Federation Professional Certified Coach, Vice Chair of the ABA Law Practice Division Publications Board, and founding member of its Lawyer Leadership and Management Board. He is the author of numerous articles and is regularly invited to conduct workshops and retreats for his clients and to present programs to bar associations. Additional Resources:  New Actions: www.newactions.com  Elowitt's LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/andrewelowitt  Transcript: Coaching is a powerful tool that can help lawyers in all stages of their careers become more effective leaders, mentors, and professionals. The legal industry has embraced coaching over the last 10 years, thanks in no small part to the work of Andrew Elowitt, founder of coaching firm New Actions and author of books “The Lawyer's Guide to Professional Coaching: Leadership, Mentoring, and Effectiveness” and “Lawyers as Managers: How to Be a Champion for Your Firm and Employees.” He joined the Law Firm Marketing Catalyst Podcast to talk about how lawyers can face and overcome their resistance to change; why a growth mindset is necessary for lasting transformation; and how lawyers should choose the right coach. Read the episode transcript here.  Sharon: Welcome to the Law Firm Marketing Catalyst Podcast. Today, my guest is Andrew Elowitt. Andrew is the managing director and founder of New Actions LLC. His firm provides high-level coaching, practice management consulting and retreat facilitation services to law firms and other professional service firms. He is a former lawyer and corporate executive. He's also an in-demand speaker. He is a very accomplished author who has been on the podcast before with one of this coauthors, Marcia Wasserman. We'll hear all about his journey today. Andrew, welcome to the program. Andrew: It's great to be back, Sharon. Sharon: It's great to have you. Thank you so much. Tell us about your journey. How did you get to where you are now? Andrew: I had been practicing law for 15 years, first in firms and then I went in-house. It wasn't something that hit me suddenly at 15 years. I realized I was a good lawyer and I was well-compensated, but my passion for the law, for legal practice, was ebbing. I wanted to do something more. I wasn't sure what it would be, but I definitely wanted to have a second act.  So, I got to that point 15 years in, like I said, and it was a matter of some awfully good luck. My best friend's weekend hiking buddy was a senior organizational development consultant who was putting on learning opportunities for an eclectic mix of people. I had known him socially, and I was introduced to him. I talked about what he was doing with the learning groups. He had a clinical psychologist, a college professor, an educational consultant, and a woman who did film editing and writing, so a lawyer in the mix made it all the more eclectic. Once I started that learning group, I was fascinated. It was like all the lights going on on the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center. I went, “This is so interesting. I want to do this.” Then I started to train, and I probably read more in those first two or three years that I was training with my mentor than I had practicing law in the prior 10 years.  Then I made the transition into doing organizational development consulting. We were working with a lot of tech companies in Silicon Valley. Over time, slowly, I started to pick up more professional services firm clients, lawyers, accountants. A lot of my friends from the legal world were now in managerial positions. We'd get together and they'd say, “Andrew, we're having this problem,” and I'd give them advice. After about six months, they said, “You know what? We'll pay to have you go into the firms and help us with these things.” I went, “Oh my gosh, there's a niche here.” So, I started working with lawyers then.  At that time, which was the early 2000s, coaching in the legal world was not well understood. People thought I was a life coach. They had all kinds of misgivings, and I had to overcome that initially in making the transition. At this point, coaching is very well known and respected and utilized, not fully utilized, but utilized in the legal profession. Sharon: Do you think that's more in California? When I talk to people in other areas of the country, they don't really know what coaching is. They're going, “Coaching, what's that?”  Andrew: Yeah, occasionally I get that. I don't think there's a big geographic difference anymore. Maybe on the coasts there's more understanding of coaching. The legal community has followed the business community. The business community was a much earlier adapter and user of coaching. You certainly saw that in the tech companies. One of the reasons why was because you had a lot of younger, relatively inexperienced managers coming in, and they needed help. Brilliant people, great subject matter experts, but they didn't know how to manage, especially managing people. That's one of the reasons why there was a lot of traction for coaching in tech centers, both on the west coast and the east coast.  Law has followed that, and I think it's a matter of what the business models are for businesses versus professional services firms. As you know, partners or senior attorneys have their producer/manager dilemma. They're the ones that are on the factory floor grinding out the equipment or the product. At the same time, they need to manage, but do they have the time? There's a built-in tension there. Do I step away from billable hours to do the work? Do I step away from client development to do the managerial piece? It's a built-in dilemma. You don't see that on the business side. On the business side, with the executives I work with, which is anywhere from 40% to 60% of my practice, they are managers. Their job is to manage the people that report to them and to collaborate with the people in their organizations. It's different than in law firms. Sharon: Law firms are their own animal. One of the ways is exactly what you're talking about. You have tension. What do you tell people who come and say, “I love the business side and I like client development, but I don't like the law. I don't like to write briefs. I don't like to read them. What can I do?” Andrew: First of all, that resonates with me because that was my feeling about the law. I know I was a good technician, but I much rather would have been negotiating. I think that's one of the reasons why I was happy going in-house. I got to be the client, and I was more involved in the business affairs of my organization.  For those people, I think it's great that they have wider interests. The people who like client development, they're the future rainmakers in a firm. The people who like doing the managerial piece are really important. Now, there's a problem because they may be very good at it, but firms are still slow in rewarding and incentivizing people to take on those managerial roles.  One thing we've seen in big law, the largest law firms in North America and around the world, is the emergence of professional managers. People that may or may not be lawyers are now doing the administration and the leading of firms. There can be challenges to that. In a lot of jurisdictions, you can't have nonlawyers, people that are not certified as lawyers, being equity holders in a law firm. That makes the compensation and incentivizing issue a lot more complicated, but I think we'll see more of a continuation in that direction. It's great to have people in firms that are interested, passionate, experienced and competent in management. It makes a big difference in the bottom line. Sharon: I had forgotten how it's become so professionalized on the business side in many ways. I can't remember; it'll come to me later. I was trying to remember when I was at Arthur Andersen. There was such a big dichotomy between fee earners, non-revenue generators and revenue generators. I always felt like, “What are you talking about? We bring in this much.”  Anyway, you said you were doing training in organizational development or coaching. Andrew: It started out with organizational development. That was the focus of our learning group. It was great for me. I was with people more senior than I in terms of work experience, not necessarily in terms of age. We started with a couple of learning groups in Los Angeles. Then my mentor, Don Rossmoore, got invited to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, PARC, to lead learning groups there, so we had other professionals and executive coaches that were in-house for Xerox. We had people from Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Sun. It was the whole list of tech companies. This is back in the 1990s. It fast-tracked me to have all those people available to learn from.  Our last learning groups morphed into a consulting group that was a bit informal. Very different from law firms, where everything is very structured. This was, “Do you have the availability? O.K., we'll work together on this engagement.” I learned a tremendous amount there. We were usually dealing with larger issues throughout an organization.  What I found in doing that was I loved the strategic part, the systems part of that, but it really comes down to implementation. When it comes down to implementing the changes we're recommending, that goes back to the individual. Often the individual executives and managers were having difficulty implementing the changes they knew they needed to make, including changes in the organization, changes in the team they were leading, or changes in themselves. It's the individual. That's where I really began the transition into coaching. I didn't think I was very good at it initially. I still feel that way. I had to unlearn a lot of qualities and approaches that made me a good lawyer, but not necessarily a good coach. For example, as a lawyer, you need to be prescriptive and directed. You're there to provide a solution. A client comes to you with a problem, then, “O.K., well, this is what you should do.” That doesn't necessarily work well when you're coaching. It's better to work more collaboratively with your coach-ee to help them come to their ideas and figure out what they need to do. I had to stop myself. I had to restrain myself from jumping to solutions and saying “Here's the roadmap. Here are steps one through five. Do them.” That was me at the beginning. I had to sit on my hands and zip my mouth and go, “I have some ideas about this, but I'd like to hear from you first. What do you think would be a good approach?” It's bringing them more into the picture.  That was one of the biggest and hardest changes for me, but I found I really liked working with executives. There's something about working with people one-on-one I found very satisfying, far more satisfying than working with people one-on-one in the legal capacity. I went in that direction with executives and lawyers and a few other service professionals from time to time, but I wouldn't identify myself in those positions. That's pretty much the journey that I took. Sharon: Do you find that you have to put on a different hat when you're working with a lawyer, and then another hat when you're working with an executive? Andrew: That's a great question. It depends on the lawyer and the executive. Sometimes I have to put on a different hat with the same person from one session to the next depending on where they're at. With lawyers, Sharon, it's usually a matter of the issues we're dealing with. On the executive side, it's pretty much pure management and leadership skills. Lately with the pandemic, resilience and finding a healthy work/life integration are huge, huge issues. For the last two or three years, that has been a theme in almost all of the coaching I've done.  On the legal side, it's different. It's not pure management and leadership. At the younger levels of an attorney's career, we're more often focused on issues of productivity, time management, work-flow management. They are on the receiving end of delegation and feedback, so a lot of it is helping them learn how to receive delegation and feedback and how to help them make the people giving them the feedback and delegation even better.  It's a sweeping generalization, but I think it's true that lawyers don't have a lot of formal training in managerial skills. Some who came to the law after working in another area may have that. Some who took management classes in college or grad school, they may have some familiarity. But basically, when it comes to people management, lawyers don't know a lot. They are replicating the ways they were managed, which means they may be using managerial and leadership approaches that are two generations old, which are not great with millennials and Gen Z.  So, a lot of is helping people learn how to manage.  Now, I said I started with people at the lower level. As you get higher, then it is learning those managerial skills, delegating, giving feedback. How do you hold the people that work with you accountable? How do you collaborate with other people? As you go further up, it becomes more client-facing, so it's about developing those client relationships. Then we get into business development. I'm not a business development specialist, but I'm very good at helping attorneys that have support for client development within their firm and may even have dedicated client development people.  They know what they should be doing, but they're not doing it. It's the classical example of the knowing-doing gap. This is something that's not unique to lawyers. There's something we know we should do, but do we get around to doing it? No. That can be the case with a lot of lawyers when it comes to business development. I'm very good at helping them understand what's holding them back. Typically, it's nothing external; it's nothing in the firm or the environment. It's something in them. We acknowledge what the inner obstacle is and we work past it and through it. I have a good record of getting them into gear and getting them developing clients.  Finally, when we get to partner-level, practice area heads and executive committee members, then it's a lot about leadership and management. That's where there's the most similarity to the business side or the executive side of my practice. Sharon: Do you work with people at all different levels, depending on where they are when they contact you or the firm brings you in? How does it work? Andrew: For firms, it's virtually all levels. Large firms will bring me in. I'll work with their professional development or talent development people. Most often, they have a high-potential associate and there may be a couple of things that they're struggling with. As I think most of your listeners will know, it's expensive to find new people and onboard and train them. You don't want to lose that human capital. So, coaching can be very helpful and cost-effective in helping those people overcome the problems they may be having.  It may be something like time management. You have an associate who's starting to trend late on their deliverables. It's the work they need to get to partners. It's overly simple to say, “Oh, they need to work harder and faster,” or something like that. It may be an issue—it often is—where they're not doing a good job of pushing back against the people giving them work. There are lot of people all over the world and there are a lot of associates. They're hesitant to say no to a partner when a partner hands them a piece of work. What they end up doing is overloading themselves because they are overly optimistic about what they can achieve in a given amount of time. So, helping them learn how to push back is a way of dealing the time management issue. Sharon: I can see how it would be very hard to say, “I don't have time,” or “No,” to a partner. That must be very, very hard. Andrew: There's a skill and art to it, a lot of finesse. With some partners even more finesse. Sharon: Is there resistance? It seems like there would be. Maybe I have an old image of it, but it seems like there would be people who say, “I don't need coaching,” or “I've failed if I have coaching. Andrew: Happily, there's less and less of that. That sense of failure, I don't run into that much anymore. Usually with younger associates, they may feel like, “I should know this. This is a flaw in me. I'm not doing a good job of this.” Often, they're their most severe critics, so I make it very clear to people I coach that I'm not there to fix them. Seldom am I dealing with somebody who really has a risk of being fired from a firm. It's usually developmental. Usually, they're worth investing in, and the firm is spending money to help them become more productive and a tighter part of the firm.  The one thing you did mention is that some people think, “I don't need coaching.” I'll initially talk to a prospective coach-ee—and this works on the executive side or the legal side. I qualify them, which sounds like turning them into objects, but it's coach-speak for talking to them to see if they're coachable. Not all people are. Most are very earnestly interested. They want the help. They're stuck. They don't know what to do, but they know they need to do something. Occasionally, you'll find somebody who points the finger at everybody else. They say, “I'm not the problem. It's their problem, if you could just help them.” That's not going to be a good coach-ee.  The other thing you look for is a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. People with a fixed mindset think, “This is all the intelligence I have, all the social skills I have. What you see is what you get. I'm not going to change. There's not a lot of room, if any room, for improvement.” Why spend time, energy, money on dealing with a person or trying to help a person who is saying, “This is where I am and I'm O.K. to be there”? There's no upside potential. You want people with a growth mindset who are curious, who are saying, “I want to learn how to do this.” It's a challenge. You want people who can say, “I've really messed up doing this. I can tell you about the last three failures I've had.” That level of self-awareness and candor makes for a great coach-ee. Sharon: I'm thinking there are some similarities. Sometimes a partner will say, “I know how to do it. I did it this way. They can learn how to do it this way.” Can that change? They may be resistant, or maybe they're not coachable. What do you think about that? Andrew: There's often a degree of resistance in making changes. There's a reason why we are the way are at a given moment. Often, it's because something has worked well for us in the past, and that's fine. It makes sense to me. It got you to where you are. Why change it? You don't want to take that risk. But that mindset ignores the fact that our world is changing really quickly.  Let's use the example of working virtually. There were people that said, “No, I only want to have face-to-face meetings.” This goes for coaches and their coaching sessions as well as clients and people in their firm. But the world changed, and all of a sudden, we got a lot better working virtually.  Sometimes you do run into people who are resistant. If you're coaching them, you can start to work with them on resistance. You can say, “I can see why this would work for you. I can see the track record. I'm curious. What do you imagine might happen if you tried doing this differently?” I will lay out a scenario of what different would look like. When you start to engage them in that conversation, that's where you listen and hear what their fears are, what their expectations are, why their fears may be justified. Often, they're not. They're thinking something horrible will happen, and you can say, “There is that risk, but here's the opportunity. What do you think?” So, you can subtly, gently shift them.  Sharon: It sounds like you have opened up people who were closed when you walked in. Andrew: Yes, all the time. Sharon: I know you went to the Institute of Management Coaching. Andrew: No, my training didn't include IMC. In terms of management training, I did get my MBA from Marshall School of Business at USC. The learning group supplemented a lot of that. A lot of it was self-study, but I also took workshops and got certified in Essential Facilitation. That was something I found extraordinarily helpful and is a big part of the work I do. There was also action science, which is, again, organizational development oriented. It helped me to understand the dynamics of organizations.  The other thing in terms of training was my coaching training. One thing about coaching that is very different from lawyering is how you become a lawyer. Typically, you're doing your undergraduate work; you're going to law school; you have to take the bar exam. There are a lot of steps, a lot of certifications, that help with quality control. On the complete other side of the picture, we have coaching. You want to be a coach? Go to your stationery store or big office supply place, get cards printed up that say “coach,” and you're a coach. There's very little in the way of, at least, governmental oversight. The last I checked, which was a few years ago, I think the only state that said anything about coaching in their laws was Colorado. It said that coaching is not considered a mental health profession, so it was excluding coaching. Nothing about what you have to do to be a coach.  So, it's incumbent upon coaches to get training. There are a few organizations that sanction training and offer certification. I'm an International Coach Federation Professional Certified Coach. Boy, is that a mouthful! ICF is probably the leading and most well-known organization for certifying coaches. It's not the only one anymore, but it is an effort to raise the standards of the profession and to make sure that people who are using coaches get somebody who knows what they're doing. Sharon: Did you have to take some training and go through at least one class? Or could you just send in your money? Andrew: That's a great question. There are some organizations where basically you're paying to be on an online list of certified coaches in the area. That exists. I shake my head in dismay about that. As far as I see it, you have to go through an approved training program. Mine was Newfield Network. It was a nine-month program. I think we met three times for three or four days in person. There was a lot of virtual work, albeit this was so long ago that it was by telephone in between. It was rigorous.  There are several good coaching programs. ICF approves them. They have lists of them. What we're seeing more of, both on the executive side and in law firms, is that they want people that are certified coaches. Certification of a coach doesn't necessarily mean they're the right coach for you or they're a great coach, but it does mean they've taken it seriously enough that they put time and effort into it. They know what they should be doing. Hopefully, they're also doing it.  Sharon: You've been a lawyer and an executive, but being a lawyer, I can see how that gives you so much of an advantage. I'm thinking about how many times we've had to write a press release and weren't exactly sure—we did know, but we're not lawyers. It gives you an advantage. Andrew: Yeah, it does help. Especially in the past, it helped a great deal. If you look at studies of lawyer personalities versus the general population, lawyers typically are slower to trust other people. It makes sense. It's not a bad quality to have considering how we need to protect our clients' interests. But I found that lawyers and administrators in law firms are very happy that I have a legal background.  There was this one moment relatively early in my career where I was sitting across a managing partner's desk. He was starting to explain to me realization rates, and I held up my hand and said, “It's O.K.” He stopped and went, “Oh, that's right. You've practiced.” His shoulders sank down a couple of inches, and he sat back in his chair and said, “That's so nice that I don't have to go through all that explanation.” Understanding the context of what goes on in a law firm helps a tremendous amount. So, that is good. With that said, not everybody has to have a legal background. But I think some of the most effective coaches I know do have that background. Sharon: I can see how that would make you very effective, especially being on the other side of the desk in any capacity. If you were a lawyer at one point, you know about doing the work and getting the work. There's a difference there. I love the name of your firm, New Actions. That's what all of this is about, right? Andrew: You nailed it, Sharon. Especially when I started the firm, there was, like I said, a limited understanding of what coaching was about. Coaching can be these wonderful dialogues and interesting conversations you have with a coach-ee. What you want to do is get results—at least, that's my philosophy—and the results are helping people make changes. Where they are doing is not satisfactory for some reason. They may be unclear about a direction. They may need new skills. They may have difficultly working with people in the system of their organization or getting past that knowing-doing gap we talked about. It could be all those things, but people have to start taking new actions to get new results, better results. That's where the name came from.  Sharon: Do you think results last? Maybe they try the new actions once or twice and say, “Oh, that's different,” but then they forget. Maybe I'm personalizing it. I'm thinking you forget.  Andrew: Yeah, as I said earlier, there's a reason why people do the things the way they do. It's easy for people to revert back. That's one of the problems we find with training in a business or a professional firm environment. I'm sure you experienced that in doing trainings with lawyers and seeing they've learned all this new stuff. They'll do it for a couple of months, but without reinforcement, people do start to revert back to old behaviors. The six-month mark is my ballpark estimate. I liken it to having taken a foreign language in high school. You don't take it in college. You don't go to that foreign country. You don't use the language. You lose it. It certainly happened with me. That is a problem.  The difference with coaching is there is a reinforcement. Sometimes we do spot coaching or laser coaching. It may be three sessions. When it's really short, we're probably dealing with a specific issue or problem, but most executive coaching goes for six months. That's our target area. Often, it may extend a little bit longer than that. In the first part of the coaching, you're understanding the person, why they're doing what they're doing. Then you move into what they could be doing differently. In the middle third—and this is very rough as to the time—they're practicing the new skills, the new behaviors. They're understanding what works for them and what doesn't. The last third is really more practice. It's integrating those skills so they become second nature, almost automatic. That's where what you learn in coaching can become sticky, if I can use that term. After you finish coaching, it's going to stick with you.  I was just thinking of this while on LinkedIn. A former coach-ee of mine posted that he got a promotion, and I sent him a congratulations. I got back a comment saying, “Thank you so much for your coaching. I'm still quoting you.” I coached him about four years ago. That was the kind of gratification I was talking about earlier, the difference between being a lawyer and being a coach. I don't remember what I said or what he's quoting, but it stuck with him. He's using it, and he's in a global world now. That made me very happy. I had a big smile for the rest of that day. Sharon: As a lawyer, when should I consider getting a coach? What would I be dealing with? What should I look for? Andrew: O.K., two different questions. Often, the lawyers I'm working with, their firms have contacted me or they've been instrumental. With that said, one positive trend I've seen is that younger lawyers are saying, “I would like a coach. I need a coach.” Lately a lot of them are saying, “I'm overwhelmed. I'm stressed. I have too much work for my ability to handle it. I need to get better organized.” They're initiating that. The first step for a lawyer at any stage of their career is that you're dissatisfied with the way things are. You may have a good idea of where that's coming from. You may sense, “I want to stop doing whatever I'm doing now,” but knowing what you want to stop doing is different from knowing what you need to be doing differently. The analogy or metaphor I use is think back to being on the playground. We had monkey bars, I think they were called. Those were the horizontal bars that went across. You grab one and then you swing to the next one. What you learned early on as a kid was that if you don't have some forward momentum, you get stuck. Then you would end up letting go and dropping to the ground. In making changes, you have to be able to release the hand that's on the back bar. Sometimes in coaching, it's unlearning what you were doing. If an attorney finds themselves in that position, that's where coaching might help. It's not a panacea. It's not perfect for everybody.  I'm a good coach, but I'm not the right coach for absolutely everybody. Rapport is very important. Fit is a very important thing. Typically, when I work with somebody, I qualify them and they're qualifying me. Do they want to work with me? It's important that you feel a degree of comfort with your coach. As I've gone on, I think you can be too comfortable with a coach. You want a coach who can challenge you and be honest with you and be able to say, “No, I'm not saying this,” or “No, I don't think is working for you,” or “Hey, it sounds like there's an internal contradiction in what you're saying to me.” A lot of coaching is helping people get past their blind spots. We all have blind spots. That's not a failure. I think it's wired into us. Having another person there, especially an experienced person who can help us see what those blind spots are once you recognize you have them, that opens up a lot of possibilities for taking new actions. Sharon: You mentioned in some writings that you've helped people with difficult conversations. There are a lot of difficult conversations. Can you give us some examples in law? Andrew: There are two conversations that come to mind. One I alluded to earlier, which is pushing back on partners. Just recently I co-presented at a professional development consortium summer conference. It was a program on helping passive and timid associates learn to push back and manage up. For all the talk about law firms being flat organizations—and it's true; they do have fewer layers than a lot of business organizations—they're still pretty hierarchical. Younger attorneys can be overly deferential and very uncomfortable in saying no or pushing back. It can be a lot of different things. I don't have the bandwidth to handle work, like I mentioned earlier. How do you say that?  This can especially be a problem if you have one associate who's getting work from multiple partners. Then it's like, “Well, I'd like to do your work, but I'm slammed.” That can be a difficult conversation for an associate. In helping them, one learns that they need to do that and it's O.K. for them to do that. Actually, if they're just a passive person who's not providing that information to the people who are giving them work, they're harming the firm, harming clients potentially, and definitely harming themselves. That is something that's come up a lot lately, at least enough that the presentation we did this summer was very well received and attended. It's something that professional development managers and directors in big law are hearing from their associates. That's one area.  The second difficult conversation is around feedback. This is difficult in a way because it's not done enough. Often, in the rush of doing tasks and taking care of client matters, lawyers don't hit the pause button and spend time with the people who report to them and give them feedback on how they did. I remember this when I was a lawyer. You would finish a transaction. Rarely did we have the time to do a debrief. What worked well? What didn't? “This was great what you did. It really moved us forward. This is what you could have done differently that would have helped. Next time, maybe you can do it.” Feedback conversations are often missing.  The other thing in feedback conversations is that they can be very top-down and done with a lack of curiosity about what was going on with the associate. Those conversations can take a more collaborative tone, become more of a dialogue, be less about the problem. “Here's the problem that came up on this case. We were slow in responding to every filing the opposition brought to us. Let's get curious about why that happened. What can we, not just associates, but all of us as a team do differently?” Those sorts of conversations.  The hardest ones, Sharon, are obviously the conversations between partners in terms of strategy, direction, and compensation. Those are given to be difficult, and I do get pulled in to help. I'm a facilitator in those. I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just trying to help people understand one another's perspective. What facts they're looking at, what their rationale is based on, trying to change it from a legal argument with pros, cons and who's going to win to more, “Let's look at the whole business of the law firm. Let's see what's good short-term and long-term for all of us, not just part of us.” Sharon: Each of these are very interesting scenarios. I give you credit for even being able to endure them, especially the first one. Covid probably changed this, but I do remember a partner saying, “What do they think evenings and weekends are for?” I always think of how partners would say, “This guy didn't make it in terms of client development. It was clear they weren't going to become a partner. I coached them out.” I always think about, “What did you say? How did you do that? Andrew: I'm not sure what coaching somebody out necessarily means. Let's stop here and think about lawyers as coaches. This is one of the things in my first book that I went into in some detail in one of the chapters. The skills for being a good lawyer, when you line them up against being a good coach, there's not a lot of overlap. Lawyers, to be good managers and leaders, they need to take off their lawyer hat at times. If they're coaching, which is a very potent, effective way of managing your people, you have to not approach it as lawyers.  For an example, as lawyers, we often ask closed-ended questions. We're getting to the facts. In coaching, open-ended questions are much better. You want to see where the conversation is going to go. You want to learn more about what's going on with the other person. In coaching, you also have to be listening very attentively, not thinking about, “What am I going to say in response to this?” Again, I'm going back to one of the shifts I had to make when I made the transition. As a lawyer, I'm thinking, “This is what I'm hearing from opposition. Now, how am I going to counter that argument? What am I going to say next? How do I want to navigate this conversation?” It's more oppositional in that way. You really do have to take off the lawyer hat at times to be effective. Sharon: Your first book, “Lawyers as Managers,” talks about that. Am I remembering that correctly? Andrew: That's the second book with Marcia Wasserman. The first one was “The Lawyer's Guide to Professional Coaching: Leadership, Mentoring, and Effectiveness.” That was, I think, back in 2012. It's available now. I think you can find used copies on Amazon. The ABA still has it as an e-book. Coaching in the last 10 years has certainly changed within law firms. At the time it was written, it was to help lawyers and firm administrators understand the potential of coaching. I'm happy to say I think that potential is increasingly realized. I wouldn't say my book is responsible for that solely. Absolutely not, but it was one piece that helped. In “Lawyers as Managers,” Marcia and I look at the role that lawyers need to take as people managers. Lawyers are generally good managers when it comes to technical aspects. You give a lawyer a spreadsheet, they're probably pretty good at dealing with it. Things like budgets. When you come to the more interpersonal stuff, like client development, lawyers aren't as good. When it comes to people management, there really was a lack of understanding.  Marcia originated the idea. We were at a meeting, and she said, “I'm looking for some materials on leadership and management for lawyers. Do you have any?” I said, “I have a few articles I've written for bar associations, but most of the stuff out there is general management and leadership. It's tailored for the executive committee, the business community.” A couple of months later, we had the same conversation. I said, “Marcia, we're going to have to write the book,” and she agreed. Little did she know what she was getting herself into. That, I will say, is the definitive book on people management for lawyers. Sharon: To end, can you tell us about one of the difficult conversations you've had? I don't know how many times I've stopped myself and just said, “I can't do it,” or “I'll go around it.” Andrew: I'll speak in general terms. Again, I'm going back to when I was first making the transition to coaching. I found a great deal of difficulty in having uncomfortable conversations where I had to deliver bad news. I had to tell somebody what they were doing was not working at all. It wasn't even neutral. It was really harming them and other people. In short, they were really messing up.  I was very gentle. I was bypassing. I was softening, diluting, sugar-coating messages that needed to be heard. I realized that I was playing nice. I didn't want to upset the other person. I didn't want to feel my own upset in doing this, so I wasn't providing value and the proof that they were making the changes they needed to make. This was maybe in my first two or three years of coaching, and I started to realize this isn't good. I was stuck and working with my coach at that time. I realized I had to let go of my personal discomfort if I was going to be more helpful to my clients, and I started to make the change. Now, I am honest. Sometimes people will say, “Can you predict or guarantee any results?” and I go, “No, absolutely not. Coaching at heart is a partnership. We're working together. I can't fix you. I can't wave a magic wand. It's on both of us. I'm here to help you, but just like I can't wear your clothes, I can't do everything for you. We're going to work together.” I do make three promises. One, I listen. I listen very attentively to what my coach-ees say and what they're not saying. The second thing is I am honest. I am very honest. I will not hold back in terms of what I'm hearing or the impact it's having on me. If a coach-ee is saying something and I'm not believing them, I'll say that. I need to. If I think something is B.S., it's the same thing. If I think they're fooling themselves, same thing. There are times where I have to deliver tough feedback.  The third promise is I'm compassionate. I don't beat people up in the process. I won't sugar-coat, dilute, or bypass. I deliver the message, but I understand they have feelings. In giving them this feedback, it may affect their emotions and their own identity as a person and a professional. I'm aware of it and sensitive to that, but I still get the message across. I figure that in the first two or three years of my coaching, I was sugar-coating. For the last 22 years, I think I have a good record of being straight with people and getting results. Sharon: Andrew, I'm sure you do get results. Thank you so much for being with us today. Andrew: It's been a pleasure. I've enjoyed it immensely. Thank you, Sharon.

ATDC is one of Georgia's critical startup ecosystem drivers and one of the leading accelerators in the nation. Founded in 1980, ATDC has a global reputation for fostering technological entrepreneurship. Forbes named ATDC to its list of “Incubators Changing the World” in 2010 and 2013, alongside Y Combinator and the Palo Alto Research Center. Get to know Director John Avery. We dive into the various stages of membership at the ATDC and which level may be most appropriate for your startup. John shares some of the ways the ATDC has positively impacted the burgeoning Georgia ecosystem and some ways you can help support innovation in our state.

#parc #xerox #braincomputerinterface #bci #neuralinterface #noninvasive #darpa #N3 Krishnan Thyagarajan is a Scientist at the Palo Alto Research Center, Inc. (PARC), a Xerox company, PARC is amongst the six companies that have been funded by DARPA for the "Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology "(N3) program to build a Non-Invasive brain-machine interface. His field of expertise lies in the physics and materials science of nanophotonic systems. he is engaged in applied electromagnetics research for applications including in the biomedical, clean energy, and optical devices sectors. His other areas of interest include biomimetic systems, energy harvesting and scavenging devices and augmented reality interfaces. Krishnan Spoke about Invasive & Non-Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces, the transformational potential of a neural interface in Healthcare, Work & the Future of Mankind plus the moral-ethical implications that will arise of a man-machine convergence. https://www.linkedin.com/in/krishnanthyagarajan/ https://www.parc.com/ To Buy Krishnan Thyagarajan's Book " Awaiting The End" Click Below https://www.amazon.com/Awaiting-End-Krishnan-Thyagarajan/dp/1600490085/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423761739&sr=1-1&keywords=awaiting+the+end Kindly Subscribe to CHANGE- I M POSSIBLE youtube channel www.youtube.com/ctipodcast

After successfully building, scaling, and exiting her fintech startup LoadHero, Kristin Slink moved across the country and joined the Advanced Technology Development Center as Fintech Catalyst. Founded in 1980, ATDC has developed a global reputation for fostering technological entrepreneurship. Forbes named ATDC to its list of “Incubators Changing the World” in 2010 and 2013, alongside Y Combinator and the Palo Alto Research Center. Hear Kristin elaborate on the numerous ways the ATDC supports not only Metro Atlanta founders, but founders across the state of Georgia.

Robert Taylor was one of the true pioneers in computer science. In many ways, he is the string (or glue) that connected the US governments era of supporting computer science through ARPA to innovations that came out of Xerox PARC and then to the work done at Digital Equipment Corporation's Systems Research Center. Those are three critical aspects of the history of computing and while Taylor didn't write any of the innovative code or develop any of the tools that came out of those three research environments, he saw people and projects worth funding and made sure the brilliant scientists got what they needed to get things done. The 31 years in computing that his stops represented were some of the most formative years for the young computing industry and his ability to inspire the advances that began with Vannevar Bush's 1945 article called “As We May Think” then ended with the explosion of the Internet across personal computers.  Bob Taylor inherited a world where computing was waking up to large crusty but finally fully digitized mainframes stuck to its eyes in the morning and went to bed the year Corel bought WordPerfect because PCs needed applications, the year the Pentium 200 MHz was released, the year Palm Pilot and eBay were founded, the year AOL started to show articles from the New York Times, the year IBM opened a we web shopping mall and the year the Internet reached 36 million people. Excite and Yahoo went public. Sometimes big, sometimes small, all of these can be traced back to Bob Taylor - kinda' how we can trace all actors to Kevin Bacon. But more like if Kevin Bacon found talent and helped them get started, by paying them during the early years of their careers…  How did Taylor end up as the glue for the young and budding computing research industry? Going from tween to teenager during World War II, he went to Southern Methodist University in 1948, when he was 16. He jumped into the US Naval Reserves during the Korean War and then got his masters in psychology at the University of Texas at Austin using the GI Bill. Many of those pioneers in computing in the 60s went to school on the GI Bill. It was a big deal across every aspect of American life at the time - paving the way to home ownership, college educations, and new careers in the trades. From there, he bounced around, taking classes in whatever interested him, before taking a job at Martin Marietta, helping design the MGM-31 Pershing and ended up at NASA where he discovered the emerging computer industry.  Taylor was working on projects for the Apollo program when he met JCR Licklider, known as the Johnny Appleseed of computing. Lick, as his friends called him, had written an article called Man-Computer Symbiosis in 1960 and had laid out a plan for computing that influenced many. One such person, was Taylor. And so it was in 1962 he began and in 1965 that he succeeded in recruiting Taylor away from NASA to take his place running ARPAs Information Processing Techniques Office, or IPTO.  Taylor had funded Douglas Engelbart's research on computer interactivity at Stanford Research Institute while at NASA. He continued to do so when he got to ARPA and that project resulted in the invention of the computer mouse and the Mother of All Demos, one of the most inspirational moments and a turning point in the history of computing.  They also funded a project to develop an operating system called Multics. This would be a two million dollar project run by General Electric, MIT, and Bell Labs. Run through Project MAC at MIT there were just too many cooks in the kitchen. Later, some of those Bell Labs cats would just do their own thing. Ken Thompson had worked on Multics and took the best and worst into account when he wrote the first lines of Unix and the B programming language, then one of the most important languages of all time, C.  Interactive graphical computing and operating systems were great but IPTO, and so Bob Taylor and team, would fund straight out of the pentagon, the ability for one computer to process information on another computer. Which is to say they wanted to network computers. It took a few years, but eventually they brought in Larry Roberts, and by late 1968 they'd awarded an RFQ to build a network to a company called Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) who would build Interface Message Processors, or IMPs. The IMPS would connect a number of sites and route traffic and the first one went online at UCLA in 1969 with additional sites coming on frequently over the next few years. That system would become ARPANET, the commonly accepted precursor to the Internet.  There was another networking project going on at the time that was also getting funding from ARPA as well as the Air Force, PLATO out of the University of Illinois. PLATO was meant for teaching and had begun in 1960, but by then they were on version IV, running on a CDC Cyber and the time sharing system hosted a number of courses, as they referred to programs. These included actual courseware, games, convent with audio and video, message boards, instant messaging, custom touch screen plasma displays, and the ability to dial into the system over lines, making the system another early network.  Then things get weird. Taylor is sent to Vietnam as a civilian, although his rank equivalent would be a brigadier general. He helped develop the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam. Battlefield operations and reporting were entering the computing era. Only problem is, while Taylor was a war veteran and had been deep in the defense research industry for his entire career, Vietnam was an incredibly unpopular war and seeing it first hand and getting pulled into the theater of war, had him ready to leave. This combined with interpersonal problems with Larry Roberts who was running the ARPA project by then over Taylor being his boss even without a PhD or direct research experience. And so Taylor joined a project ARPA had funded at the University of Utah and left ARPA.  There, he worked with Ivan Sutherland, who wrote Sketchpad and is known as the Father of Computer Graphics, until he got another offer. This time, from Xerox to go to their new Palo Alto Research Center, or PARC. One rising star in the computer research world was pretty against the idea of a centralized mainframe driven time sharing system. This was Alan Kay. In many ways, Kay was like Lick. And unlike the time sharing projects of the day, the Licklider and Kay inspiration was for dedicated cycles on processors. This meant personal computers.  The Mansfield Amendment in 1973 banned general research by defense agencies. This meant that ARPA funding started to dry up and the scientists working on those projects needed a new place to fund their playtime. Taylor was able to pick the best of the scientists he'd helped fund at ARPA. He helped bring in people from Stanford Research Institute, where they had been working on the oNLineSystem, or NLS.  This new Computer Science Laboratory landed people like Charles Thacker, David Boggs, Butler Lampson, and Bob Sproul and would develop the Xerox Alto, the inspiration for the Macintosh. The Alto though contributed the very ideas of overlapping windows, icons, menus, cut and paste, word processing. In fact, Charles Simonyi from PARC would work on Bravo before moving to Microsoft to spearhead Microsoft Word. Bob Metcalfe on that team was instrumental in developing Ethernet so workstations could communicate with ARPANET all over the growing campus-connected environments. Metcalfe would leave to form 3COM.  SuperPaint would be developed there and Alvy Ray Smith would go on to co-found Pixar, continuing the work begun by Richard Shoup.  They developed the Laser Printer, some of the ideas that ended up in TCP/IP, and the their research into page layout languages would end up with Chuck Geschke, John Warnock and others founding Adobe.  Kay would bring us the philosophy behind the DynaBook which decades later would effectively become the iPad. He would also develop Smalltalk with Dan Ingalls and Adele Goldberg, ushering in the era of object oriented programming.  They would do pioneering work on VLSI semiconductors, ubiquitous computing, and anything else to prepare the world to mass produce the technologies that ARPA had been spearheading for all those years. Xerox famously did not mass produce those technologies. And nor could they have cornered the market on all of them. The coming waves were far too big for one company alone.  And so it was that PARC, unable to bring the future to the masses fast enough to impact earnings per share, got a new director in 1983 and William Spencer was yet another of three bosses that Taylor clashed with. Some resented that he didn't have a PhD in a world where everyone else did. Others resented the close relationship he maintained with the teams. Either way, Taylor left PARC in 1983 and many of the scientists left with him.  It's both a curse and a blessing to learn more and more about our heroes. Taylor was one of the finest minds in the history of computing. His tenure at PARC certainly saw the a lot of innovation and one of the most innovative teams to have ever been assembled. But as many of us that have been put into a position of leadership, it's easy to get caught up in the politics. I am ashamed every time I look back and see examples of building political capital at the expense of a project or letting an interpersonal problem get in the way of the greater good for a team. But also, we're all human and the people that I've interviewed seem to match the accounts I've read in other books.  And so Taylor's final stop was Digital Equipment Corporation where he was hired to form their Systems Research Center in Palo Alto. They brought us the AltaVista search engine, the Firefly computer, Modula-3 and a few other advances. Taylor retired in 1996 and DEC was acquired by Compaq in 1998 and when they were acquired by HP the SRC would get merged with other labs at HP.  From ARPA to Xerox to Digital, Bob Taylor certainly left his mark on computing. He had a knack of seeing the forest through the trees and inspired engineering feats the world is still wrestling with how to bring to fruition. Raw, pure science. He died in 2017. He worked with some of the most brilliant people in the world at ARPA. He inspired passion, and sometimes drama in what Stanford's Donald Knuth called “the greatest by far team of computer scientists assembled in one organization.”  In his final email to his friends and former coworkers, he said “You did what they said could not be done, you created things that they could not see or imagine.” The Internet, the Personal Computer, the tech that would go on to become Microsoft Office, object oriented programming, laser printers, tablets, ubiquitous computing devices. So, he isn't exactly understating what they accomplished in a false sense of humility. I guess you can't do that often if you're going to inspire the way he did.  So feel free to abandon the pretense as well, and go inspire some innovation. Heck, who knows where the next wave will come from. But if we aren't working on it, it certainly won't come. Thank you so much and have a lovely, lovely day. We are so lucky to have you join us on yet another episode. 

TechSmith's SnagIt has one new feature for 2021 that justifies the cost of the update all by itself, but that feature is not alone. In Short Circuits: The annual Adobe Max conference attracted half a million attendees this year instead of the usual 15 thousand or so. • Most of us wish smart phones cost less, but we're willing to go into debt for them because they're considered essential by so many. How about some tips for saving money? In Spare Parts (only on the website): A free 47-page ebook by Wells Fargo Financial Advisors can help safeguard your computer and your finances. I have the download link. • The feds have filed suit against Google, complaining about monopolistic practices. • Twenty years ago: Xerox was in the process of spinning off the legendary Palo Alto Research Center, the organization that invented much of modern computing.

In Episode 4 Host, Michael Hanson speaks with noted economist and professor Dr. W. Brian Arthur on the show, discussing his book Complexity and the Economy. With a list of accomplishments too long to list—the 1990 Schumpeter Prize in Economics among them—Dr. Arthur's wide-ranging career spans numerous books and publications, over a decade teaching at Stanford, and currently he's an External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and a Visiting Researcher at the System Sciences Lab, at the Palo Alto Research Center for technology. He's not only a deep thinker, he's been a great ambassador. Part of that is the warmth and regard for real people in Dr. Arthur's work, you'll notice throughout the interview. You can read more about Dr. W Brian Arthur at http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/, and you can find his book Complexity and The Economy on Amazon.

Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Today we're going to cover a special moment in time. Picture this if you will. It's 1968. A collection of some 1,000 of the finest minds in computing is sitting in the audience of the San Francisco Civic Center. They're at a joint conference of the Association for Computing Machinery and the IEEE or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Fall Join Computer Conference in San Francisco. They're waiting to see the a session called A research center for augmenting human intellect. Many had read Vannevar Bush's “As We May Think” Atlantic article in 1946 that signified the turning point that inspired so many achievements over the previous 20 years. Many had witnessed the evolution from the mainframe to the transistorized computer to timesharing systems. The presenter for this session would be Douglas Carl Engelbart. ARPA had strongly recommended he come to finally make a public appearance. Director Bob Taylor in fact was somewhat adamant about it. The talk was six years in the making and ARPA and NASA were ready to see what they had been investing in. ARPA had funded his Augmentation Research Center Lab in SRI, or the Stanford Research Institute. The grad instigator J.C.R. Licklider had started the funding when ARPA was still called DARPA in 1963 based on a paper Engelbart published in 1962. But it had really been going since Engelbart got married in 1950 and realized computers could be used to improve human capabilities, to harness the collective intellect, to facilitate truly interactive computing and to ultimately make the world a better place. Englebart was 25. He'd been from Oregon where he got his Bachelors in 48 after serving in World War II as a radar tech. He then come to Berkely in 53 for is Masters, sating through 1955 to get his PhD. He ended up at Stanford's SRI. There, he hired people like Don Andrews, Bill Paxton, Bill English, and Jeff Rulifson. And today Engelbart was ready to show the world what his team had been working on. The computer was called the oNLine System, or NLS. Bill English would direct things onsite. Because check this out, not all presenters were onsite on that day in 1968. Instead, some were at ARC in Menlo Park, 30 miles away. To be able to communicate onsite they used two 1200 baud modems connecting over a leased line to their office. But they would also use two microwave links. And that was for something crazy: video. The lights went dark. The OnLine Computer was projected onto a 22 foot high screen using an Eidophor video projector. Bill English would flip the screen up as the lights dimmed. The audience was expecting a tall, thin man to come out to present. Instead, they saw Doug Englebart on the screen in front of them. The one behind the camera, filming Engelbart, was Stewart Russel Brand, the infamous editor of the Whole Earth Catalog. It seems Englebart was involved in more than just computers. But people destined to change the world have always travelled in the same circles I supposed. Englebart's face came up on the screen, streaming in from all those miles away. And the screen they would switch back and forth to. That was the Online System, or NLS for short. The camera would come in from above Englebart's back and the video would be transposed with the text being entered on the screen. This was already crazy. But when you could see where he was typing, there was something… well, extra. He was using a pointing device in his right hand. This was the first demo of a computer mouse Which he had applied for a patent for in 1967. He called it that because it had a tail which was the cabe that connected the wooden contraption to the computer. Light pens had been used up to this point, but it was the first demonstration of a mouse and the team had actually considered mounting it under the desk and using a knee to move the pointer.But they decided that would just be too big a gap for normal people to imagine and that the mouse would be simpler. Engelbart also used a device we might think of more like a macro pad today. It was modeled after piano keys. We'd later move this type of functionality onto the keyboard using various keystrokes, F keys, and a keyboard and in the case of Apple, command keys. He then opened a document on his screen. Now, people didn't do a lot of document editing in 1968. Really, computers were pretty much used for math at that point. At least, until that day. That document he opened. He used hyperlinks to access content. That was the first real demo of clickable hypertext. He also copied text in the document. And one of the most amazing aspects of the presentation was that you kinda' felt like he was only giving you a small peak into what he had. You see, before the demo, they thought he was crazy. Many were probably only there to see a colossal failure of a demo. But instead they saw pure magic. Inspiration. Innovation. They saw text highlighted. They saw windows on screens that could be resized. They saw the power of computer networking. Video conferencing. A stoic Engelbart was clearly pleased with his creation. Bill Paxton and Jeff Rulifson were on the other side, helping with some of the text work. His style worked well with the audience, and of course, it's easy to win over an audience when they have just been wowed by your tech. But more than that, his inspiration was so inspiring that you could feel it just watching the videos. All these decades later. can watching those videos. Engelbart and the team would receive a standing ovation. And to show it wasn't smoke and mirrors, ARC let people actually touch the systems and Engelbart took questions. Many people involved would later look back as though it was an unfinished work. And it was. Andy van Dam would later say Everybody was blown away and thought it was absolutely fantastic and nothing else happened. There was almost no further impact. People thought it was too far out and they were still working on their physical teletypes, hadn't even migrated to glass teletypes yet. But that's not really fair or telling the whole story. In 1969 we got the Mansfield Amendment - which slashed the military funding pure scientific research. After that, the budget was cut and the team began to disperse, as was happening with a lot of the government-backed research centers. Xerox was lucky enough to hire Bob Taylor, and many others immigrated to Xerox PARC, or Palo Alto Research Center, was able to take the concept and actually ship a device in 1973, although not as mass marketable yet as later devices would be. Xerox would ship the Alto in 1973. The Alto would be the machine that inspired the Mac and therefore Windows - so his ideas live on today. His own team got spun out of Stanford and sold, becoming Tymshare and then McDonnel Douglas. He continued to have more ideas but his concepts were rarely implemented at McDonnel Douglas so he finally left in 1986, starting the Bootstrapp Alliance, which he founded with his daughter. But he succeeded. He wanted to improve the plight of man and he did. Hypertext and movable screens directly influenced a young Alan Kay who was in the audience and was inspired to write Smalltalk. The Alto at Xerox also inspired Andy van Dam, who built the FRESS hypertext system based on many of the concepts from the talk as well. It also did multiple windows, version control on documents, intradocument hypertext linking, and more. But, it was hard to use. Users needed to know complex commands just to get into the GUI screens. He was also still really into minicomputers and timesharing, and kinda' missed that the microcomputer revolution was about to hit hard. The hardware hacker movement that was going on all over the country, but most concentrated in the Bay Area, was about to start the long process of putting a computer, and now mobile device, in every home in the world. WIth smaller and smaller and faster chips, the era of the microcomputer would transition into the era of the client and server. And that was the research we were transitioning to as we moved into the 80s. Charles Irby was a presentter as well, being a designer of NLS. He would go on to lead the user interface design work on the Xerox star before founding a company then moving on to VP of development for General Magic, a senior leader at SGI and then the leader of the engineering team that developed the Nintendo 64. Bob Sproull was in the audience watching all this and would go on to help design the Xerox Alto, the first laser printer, and write the Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics before becoming a professor at Conegie Mellon and then ending up helping create Sun Microsystems Laboratories, becoming the director and helping design asuynchronous processors. Butler Lampson was also there, a found of Xerox PARC, where the Alto was built and co-creator of Ethernet. Bill Paxton (not the actor) would join him at PARC and later go on to be an early founder of Adobe. In 2000, Engelbart would receive the National Medal of Technology for his work. He also He got the Turing Award in 1997, the Locelace Medal in 2001. He would never lose his belief in the collective intelligence. He wrote Boosting Our Collective IQ in 1995 and it has Englebart passed away in 2013. He will forever be known as the inventor of the mouse. But he gave us more. He wanted to augment the capabilities of humans, allowing us to do more, rather than replace us with machines. This was in contrast to SAIL and the MIT AI Lab where they were just doing research for the sake of research. The video of his talk is on YouTube, so click on the links in the show notes if you'd like to access it and learn more about such a great innovator. He may not have brought a mass produced system to market, but as with Vanevar Bush's article 20 years before, the research done is a turning point in history; a considerable milestone on the path to the gleaming world we now live in today. The NLS teaches us that while you might not achieve commercial success with years of research, if you are truly innovative, you might just change the world. Sometimes the two simply aren't mutually exclusive. And when you're working on a government grant, they really don't have to be. So until next time, dare to be bold. Dare to change the world, and thank you for tuning in to yet another episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We're so lucky to have you. Have a great day! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY

Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Todays episode is about the Xerox Alto. Close your eyes and… Wait, don't close your eyes if you're driving. Or on a bike. Or boating. Or… Nevermind, don't close your eyes But do use your imagination, and think of what it would be like if you opened your phone… Also don't open your phone while driving. But imagine opening your phone and ordering a pizza using a black screen with green text and no pictures. If that were the case, you probably wouldn't use an app to order a pizza. Without a graphical interface, or GUI, games wouldn't have such wide appeal. Without a GUI you wouldn't probably use a computer nearly as much. You might be happier, but we'll leave that topic to another podcast. Let's jump in our time machine and head back to 1973. The Allman Brothers stopped drinking mushroom tea long enough to release Ramblin' Man, Elton John put out Crocodile Rock, both Carpenters were still alive, and Free Bird was released by Lynard Skynyrd. Nixon was the president of the United States, and suspends offensive actions in North Vietnam, 5 days before being sworn into his second term as president. He wouldn't make it all four years of course because not long after, Watergate broke, and by the end of the year Nixon claimed “I'm not a crook”. The first handheld cell call is made by Martin Cooper, the World Trade Center opens, Secretariat wins the Belmont Stakes, Skylab 3 is launched, OJ was a running back instead of running from the police, being gay was removed from the DSM, and the Endangered Species Act was passed in the US. But many a researcher at the Palo Alto Research Center, known as Xerox Parc, probably didn't notice much of this as they were hard at work at doing something many people in Palo Alto talk about these days but rarely do: changing the world. In 1973, Xerox released the Alto, which had the first computer operating system designed from the ground up to support a GUI. It was inspired by the oN-Line System (or NLS for short), which had been designed by Douglas Engelbert of the Stanford Research Institute in the 60s on a DARPA grant. They'd spent a year developing it and that was the day to shine for Doublers Steward, John Ellenby, Bob Nishimura, and Abbey Silverstone. The Alto ran the Alto Executive operating system, had a 2.5 megabyte hard drive, ran with four 74181 MSI chips that ran at a 5.88 MHz clock speed and came with between 96 and 512 kiloBytes of memory. It came with a mouse, which had been designed by Engelbert for NLS. The Alto I ran a pilot of 30 and then an additional 90 were produced and sold before the Alto II was released. Over the course of 10 years, Xerox would sell 2000 more. Some of the programming concepts were borrowed from the Data General Nova, designed by Edson de Castro, a former DEC product manager responsible for the PDP-8. The Alto could run 16 cooperative, prioritized tasks. It was about the size of a mini refrigerator and had a CRTO on a swivel. It also came with an Ethernet connection, a keyboard, a three-button mouse a disk drive, and first a wheel mouse, later followed up with a ball mouse. That monitor was in portrait rather than the common landscape of later computers. You wrote software in BCPL and Mesa. It used raster graphics, came with a document editor, the Laurel email app, and gave us an actual multi-player video game. Oh, and a early graphics editor. And the first versions of Smalltalk - a language we'll do an upcoming episode on, ran on the Alto. 50 of these were donated to universities around the world in 1978, including Stanford, MIT, and Carnegie Mellon, inspiring a whole generation of computer scientists. One ended up in the White House. But perhaps the most important of the people that were inspired, was Steve Jobs, when he saw one at Xerox Parc, the inspiration for the first Mac. The sales numbers weren't off the charts though. Byte magazine said: It is unlikely that a person outside of the computer-science research community will ever be able to buy an Alto. They are not intended for commercial sale, but rather as development tools for Xerox, and so will not be mass-produced. What makes them worthy of mention is the fact that a large number of the personal computers of tomorrow will be designed with knowledge gained from the development of the Alto. The Alto was sold for $32,000 in 1979 money, or well over $100,000 today. So they were correct. $220,000,000 over 10 years is nothing. The Alto then begat the Xerox Star, which in 1981 killed the Alto and sold at half the price. But Xerox was once-bitten, twice shy. They'd introduced a machine to rival the DEC PDP-10 and didn't want to jump into this weird new PC business too far. If they had wanted to they might have released something somewhere between the Star and the Commodore VIC-20, which ran for about $300. Even after the success of the Apple II, which still paled in comparison to the business Xerox is most famous for: copiers. Imagine what they thought of the IBM PCs and Apple II, when they were a decade ahead of that? I've heard may say that with all of this technology being invented at Xerox, that they could have owned the IT industry. Sure, Apple went from $774,000 in 1977 to $118 million in 1980 but then CEO Peter McColough was more concerned about the loss of market share for copiers, which dipped from 65 to 46 percent at the time. Xerox revenues had gone from $1.6 billion dollars to $8 billion in the 70s. And there were 100,000 people working in that group! And in the 90s Xerox stock would later skyrocket up to $250/share! They invented Laser Printing, WYSIWYGs, the GUI, Ethernet, Object Oriented Programming, Ubiquitous computing with the PARCtab, networking over optical cables, data storage, and so so so much more. The interconnected world of today likely wouldn't be what it is without other people iterating on their contributions, but more specifically likely wouldn't be what it is if they had hoarded them. They made a modicum of money off most of these - and that money helped to fund further research, like hosting the first live streamed concert. Xerox still rakes in over $10 billion in a year in revenue and unlike many companies that went all-in on PCs or other innovations during the incredible 112 year run of Xerox, they're still doing pretty well. Commodore went bankrupt in 1994, 10 years after Dell was founded. Computing was changing so fast, who can blame Xerox? IBM was reinvented in the 80s because of the PC boom - but it also almost put them out of business. We'll certainly cover that in a future episode. I'm glad Xerox is still in business, still making solid products, and still researching all the things! So thank you to everyone at every level of Xerox, for all your organization has contributed over the years, including the Alto, which shaped how computers are used today. And thank YOU patient listeners, for tuning in to this episode of the History Of Computing Podcast. We hope you have a great day!

“The claim was 'isn't this wonderful that remote controls keep humans safe'. Now, all you have to do is recognise that this is referring only to certain humans. The assumption is the humans that matter are those who are involved in US military operations. And it completely  dehumanises the humans who are of course the objects, the targets of these weapon systems and it's really indicative of a much wider problem” In episode number 3 of our STS Series, Lucy Suchman, Professor of the anthropology of science and technology at Lancaster University, recipient of multiple awards including the 4S John Desmond Bernal Prize for Distinguished Contribution to the Field, and previously a Principal Scientist, manager and co-founder of the Work Practice and Technology Area at  Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, Chats with our own Jodie-Lee Trembath at the 4S conference in Sydney last year, which Lucy was President of in 2016 and 2017. They unpack the complex choreography between humans and machines, from an anthropological perspective, including what it means when someone says that using the photocopier is ‘too complicated' (I'm sure we've all had this frustrating moment), the fundamental differences between humans and AI, the ethical conundrums that Google has faced with drones and what is involved in STS for an anthropologist. QUOTES “I was really intrigued by this complaint that the machine was too complicated, and … what we need to do is start by understanding what people actually mean when they say it's too complicated? What are the experiences that they're really having that lead them to report that trouble?” “Differences between us and machines make it extremely difficult to create machines that are actually human-like” “In a way as an academic… and in a way as a US citizen…one of the things I do appreciate about the United States is that you can be pretty outspoken in your position. And relative to a lot of places in the world, you can do that safely.” “I think one of the things that draws a lot of us to STS is that it's very much an inter-discipline. So it's a field that brings together people who are interested in historical and contemporary and to a large extent critical … in the sense of questioning received assumptions in the worlds of science and technology” LINKS AND CITATIONS available on our website Music by Pete Dabro: dabro1.bandcamp.com Shownotes by Deanna Catto

Компании и их продукты способны изменить не только наш мир, но и само общество, что и делалось на протяжении последних пяти столетий. Эти 11 компаний сделали мир таким, каким мы знаем его сейчас. Хорошо у них получилось или плохо — решать вам: 1600 — Ост-Индская компания правила планетой Британская Ост-Индская компания контролировала половину мировой торговли, в основном доминируя на рынке специй. Среди других достижений — начало британской власти в Индии и опиумные войны в Китае. Результаты были по-настоящему историческими. Как пишет Asia Times: В 1700 году на Индию и Китай приходилось 47% мирового валового внутреннего продукта, тогда как на Европу — лишь 26%. К 1870 году ситуация кардинально поменялась. Азия упала до 29% мирового ВВП, а Западная Европа «допрыгнула» до 42%. За таким поворотом производственных масштабов в основном стоит Ост-Индская компания. Британская Ост-Индия также помогла формированию США. Британский парламент подписал чайный закон в 1773 году с целью избавиться от миллионов фунтов чая со складов компании, продав их американским колониям, где у Британии была монополия на продукт. Раздосадованные налогами, колонии оперативно устроили Бостонское чаепитие. Остальное вы знаете. 1853 — Лифтовая компания Otis сделала современные города возможными В 2008 году впервые в истории было отмечено, что основная масса людей проживает в городах. Как известно, чем гуще город населен, тем выше должны быть здания, а значит — им нужны лифты. Компания, которая сделала лифты безопасными, называлась Otis и была основана американским предпринимателем Элайджей Отитом. До изобретения Отиса, строения редко достигали высоты в семь этажей (лифты были слишком опасными для установки). Но именно лифт Отис сделал возможным строительство (и процветание) небоскреба — того самого, который изменил навсегда силуэты городов в XX и XXI веках. Благодаря Отису, крупнейшие современные города набиты небоскребами: Гонконг — 1268 Нью-Йорк — 595 Токио — 411 Чикаго — 293 Дубай — 249 Кстати, в самом высоком здании в мире, Бурдж-Халифа высотой в 828 метров, установлены лифты от Otis. 1870 — Standard Oil контролирует самый ценный ресурс в мире Джон Рокфеллер основал Standard Oil в 1870 году. Затем он стал самым богатым американцем в истории, чье состояние оценивалось в $440 миллиардов. Деньги пришли к нему благодаря монополии на самый ценный товар в мире. К 1880-м годам Standard Oil контролировала переработку, поставки и весь остальной процесс нефтяной промышленности. 15 мая 1911 года Верховный суд «разбил» Standard Oil на основании того, что мегакорпорация нарушила антитрестовый Акт Шермана. В результате распада получилось 34 отдельные компании, потомки которых включают в себя ExxonMobil, Chevron и ConocoPhillips. Это событие — большая веха в истории журналистики, так как разрушение корпорации было ускорено книгой журналистки-«разгребательницы грязи» Иды Тарбелл «История компании Standard Oil». 1877 — AT&T был единственным способом для звонков Спустя год после изобретения телефона (в 1876 году), Александр Грэхем Белл основал Bell Telephone Company. Вскоре ее приобрела American Telephone and Telegraph Company, которая известна как AT&T. Она стала монополией: если бы звонили куда-нибудь в 20 веке, то вполне возможно, что через AT&T. Компания стала центром американских телекоммуникаций, правя телефонной монополией до 1984 года, пока государство не раскололо компанию, как ранее Standard Oil. Потомков AT&T называют Baby Bells, откуда вышли Verizon, Bellsouth и Southwestern Bell. 1892 — в General Electric изобрели большую часть вашего дома Томас Эдисон и еще трое его партнеров основали General Electric в 1892 году. У Эдисона было много компаний и до этого; с помощью General Electric он смог соединить весь свой опыт в одно предприятие. В первой половине 20 века, General Electric трансформировал быт Америки. В 1905 году компания начала продавать тостеры и электрические плиты. В 1917 GE представил первые герметичные домашние холодильники. В 1930 — первую электрическую стиральную машину. В 1935 GE осветил первую ночную игру по бейсболу. В 1938 в компании придумали флюоресцентный ламы. В 1942 — первый американский реактивный двигатель, в 1954 — посудомоечную машину, в 1957 — первую атомную электростанцию. И, наконец, в 1958 году — открывашку для консервов. В общем и целом, большинство домашней утвари пришло к нам дома от GE. Такой уровень постоянных инноваций не имеет равных: GE является единственной компанией из оригинального Dow Jones Industrial Average (1896), которая до сих пор существует. 1903 — Ford Motor Company сделала всех водителями В 1896 году Генри Форд отправился в мастерскую за своим домом в Мичигане и построил свой первый автомобиль на бензиновом двигателе. В то время он работал инженером Edison Illuminating Company в Детройте. 16 июня 1903 года Генри Форд основал Ford Motor Company. Мистеру Форду мы обязаны двумя важными вещами. В 1908 году Форд представил миру Model T, воплотившую в жизнь его мечту создать машину, которую смог бы позволить себе средний класс. К 1918 году модель занимала половину американского рынка. С тех пор автоиндустрия соревновалась в создании самой лучшей машины эконом-класса. Еще один момент — Форд был пионером массового производства, используя сменные части и конвейер, что увеличило масштабы продукции. 1906 — в Xerox сделали компьютеры "дружественными" к пользователю Мы можем благодарить Xerox за девайсы, с которыми сейчас проводим уйму времени. Исследователи компании в Palo Alto Research Center придумали мышку, десктопный компьютер и графический пользовательский интерфейс, который освободил компьютеры от текста. Одним из крупнейших корпоративных провалов — лидеры Xerox не думали, что графический интерфейс сможет стать чем, то реально большим. Это позволило начинающим тогда Apple и Microsoft «выжать» из разработки все, что можно. Однако компания не особо унывает. Как пишет Арун Рао в «Истории Кремниевой долины»: И хотя Xerox никогда не коммерциализировала все чудесные технологии в PARC, компания заработала с них миллиарды и таким образом получила все деньги спустя некоторое время. 1927 — международные рейсы Pan American сделали перелеты модными Несмотря на то, что Pan American свернула деятельность в 1991 году, компания изменила мир и то, как происходит сообщение на этой планете. Когда Beatles захватили Америку, они спустились на землю штатов в JFK с рейса Pan Am 101. Джеймс Бонд летал Pan Am между Лондоном и Нью-Йорком (в Live and Let Die). Очевидно было и то, чье лого поместить на корабль, отправлявший туристов космос в фильме «2001: Космическая одиссея» 1968 года. В этом смысле Pan Am достигла того имиджа, которого сейчас активно пытается добиться Virgin. Роскошь была бизнес-практикой, как пишет Fortune — Pan Am всегда скупала первые выпуски новейших самолетов, вроде Boeing 707 и 747, что стимулировало производителей и делало Pan Am агрессивно элитными в глазах публики. 1955 — Макдональдс представил новый (и очень американский) способ питания У империи Рональда Макдональда почти 2 млн сотрудников, которые стругают бургеры 70 млн покупателям в день в 35 000 ресторанах по всему миру. За год они продают 13 миллиардов порций картошки-фри. Помимо возвеличивания фастфуда, Макдональдс стал сальным посланником американской культуры. Гамбургер — символ нашей культуры, а Макдональдс, конечно же, посол и маркетолог этой концепции. (Дэвид Хоган, профессор Heidelberg University, изучающий фастфуд) А еще он был отправной точкой для невероятно успешных людей, от Джефа Безоса до Рейчел Макадамс и Джея Лено (все они работали в Макдональдс). 1962 — Walmart изменил шоппинг Все эти Ашаны и другие гипермаркеты имеют один источник — Walmart. Сэм Уолтон открыл свой первый Walmart в Роджерсе, Арканзас, в 1962 году. За первый год прибыль составила $975 000. Всего за 17 лет Walmart достиг миллиардного объема продаж. В 1985 году Forbes назвал Уолтона богатейшим человеком Америки с состоянием $2,8 млрд. Когда он умер в 1992 году, он был #2 в списке богатейших людей, но уже не Америки, а мира. Доход Walmart тогда составлял $43 млрд в год. Сеть магазинов продолжала захватывать мир: 90% американцев живут в 15 минутах от Walmart, за час сеть зарабатывает $1,8 млн. По данным самой компании, сейчас у них 11000 точек продаж в 27 странах. Если бы Walmart был страной, то был бы на 25 месте в списке крупнейших экономик. 1996 — Google копается в мировой информации Google «родился» в 1996 году благодаря Ларри Пейджу и Сергею Брину в Стэнфорде. Сегодня Брин и Пейдж правят империей, которая определяет то, как мы ищем информацию, общаемся и что смотрим — и это только малая часть списка. Google правит интернет-поиском. Каждый месяц поисковик выполняет 114 млрд запросов. Он занимает 65% от мирового ранка, а каждый день у Google 500 млр раз спрашивают то, что никто еще никогда не спрашивал у поисковика. В сентябре прошлого года, Android перешел рубеж в 1 млрд активированных устройств. Всеми любимый YouTube поменял то, как мы сейчас смотрим видео — миллиард людей заходят на сайт каждый месяц, а в минуту на YouTube загружают 100 часов видеоряда.

During intense exercise—sprinting, for example—your body breaks down glucose and produces what's called lactate. That substance can build up faster than it can be further processed. If your idea of a workout is running to the refrigerator during commercials, you probably associate the lactate buildup with a burning in your muscles.But for well-conditioned athletes, excessive lactate means muscle fatigue and diminished performance. So athletes would like to know their actual lactate levels during training and competition. Blood tests are one way to measure lactate levels, but are not practical in the middle of a game or race. So a goal has been to find a way to measure lactate in saliva to monitor muscle endurance. Which researchers at Palo Alto Research Center, known as PARC, and the University of California, San Diego, say they've achieved.Working with flexible hybrid electronics group NextFlex, the team developed a flexible, plastic mouthguard laden with sensors that can continuously monitor lactate concentrations in saliva. The mouth guard's batteries are rechargeable wirelessly, and the device can use low-power Bluetooth to send information to smartphones, watches and other electronic devices. PARC scientists presented their work at the recent SEMI conference on electronics manufacturing in Monterey.PARC—which is part of Xerox and best known for its pioneering work in PCs, printing and computer networking in the 1970s—has demonstrated a fully-functional prototype mouthguard. Assuming they can get additional funding, they plan to make different types of mouthguards that can be worn during high-intensity sports like football, lacrosse and boxing to measure hydration levels as well as glucose and cortisol concentrations.With all this bodily information at hand, athletes and their coaches should be able to monitor fatigue and improve training regimens. Without breaking stride.—Larry Greenemeier(The above text is a transcript of this podcast) 

During intense exercise—sprinting, for example—your body breaks down glucose and produces what's called lactate. That substance can build up faster than it can be further processed. If your idea of a workout is running to the refrigerator during commercials, you probably associate the lactate buildup with a burning in your muscles.But for well-conditioned athletes, excessive lactate means muscle fatigue and diminished performance. So athletes would like to know their actual lactate levels during training and competition. Blood tests are one way to measure lactate levels, but are not practical in the middle of a game or race. So a goal has been to find a way to measure lactate in saliva to monitor muscle endurance. Which researchers at Palo Alto Research Center, known as PARC, and the University of California, San Diego, say they've achieved.Working with flexible hybrid electronics group NextFlex, the team developed a flexible, plastic mouthguard laden with sensors that can continuously monitor lactate concentrations in saliva. The mouth guard's batteries are rechargeable wirelessly, and the device can use low-power Bluetooth to send information to smartphones, watches and other electronic devices. PARC scientists presented their work at the recent SEMI conference on electronics manufacturing in Monterey.PARC—which is part of Xerox and best known for its pioneering work in PCs, printing and computer networking in the 1970s—has demonstrated a fully-functional prototype mouthguard. Assuming they can get additional funding, they plan to make different types of mouthguards that can be worn during high-intensity sports like football, lacrosse and boxing to measure hydration levels as well as glucose and cortisol concentrations.With all this bodily information at hand, athletes and their coaches should be able to monitor fatigue and improve training regimens. Without breaking stride.—Larry Greenemeier(The above text is a transcript of this podcast) 

Episode 1.04: Six million manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the U.S. since 2000, and you've probably heard economists and politicians say "those jobs aren't coming back." But that view isn't quite right. It doesn’t account for a cultural and technological revolution sweeping the United States—one that promises to redefine manufacturing, make it drastically more accessible, and create a ladder to new kinds of jobs for unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled workers alike. In this episode of Soonish, we visit TechShop, a maker space where craftspeople are using high-tech tools to come up with new products. We talk with a business strategist at the Xerox-owned Palo Alto Research Center, where programmers are inventing design software that can help people get their ideas to market faster. We tour 99Degrees, a company in an old Massachusetts mill town where one entrepreneur is creating a path to skilled high-tech employment for manual garment workers. And we meet Bill Taylor, an 88-year-old mechanical genius in Belmont, MA, who has an elaborate workshop in his basement and decades of perspective on the changing manufacturing scene in the U.S. The Soonish theme is by Graham Gordon Ramsay. Additional music by Lee Rosevere. For more background on this episode visit http://www.soonishpodcast.org/episodes/2017/2/22/104-future-factories-with-workers-built-in

Officials of the University of California Office of the President and the Director of the Palo Alto Research Center provide background on the purpose of the UC Carbon Slam 2016. Series: "Climate Solutions " [Science] [Show ID: 31049]

Officials of the University of California Office of the President and the Director of the Palo Alto Research Center provide background on the purpose of the UC Carbon Slam 2016. Series: "Climate Solutions " [Science] [Show ID: 31049]

In this interview, Sophie Vandebroek, Chief Technology Officer of Xerox and President of the Xerox Innovation Group, discusses World Class IT principle one, People, and principle four, IT-Business Partnerships. Some of the topics discussed include: Her roles as Chief Technology Officer of Xerox and as President of the Xerox Innovation Group The creation of strategy and interaction with customers that the team focuses on “Dreaming” sessions and the process of innovation at Xerox What skills are growing in demand at Xerox How the innovation and creative idea creation process are linked with the idea of fun Xerox’s path ahead to bringing more female talent into the technical ranks of the organization PARC (the Palo Alto Research Center) and its influence on the greater Xerox organization

Stephen Hoover, CEO of Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center, talks with Scientific American tech editor Larry Greenemeier about the revolution underway in machine learning, in which the machine eventually programs itself  

The Social Network Show welcomes Dr. Nick Yee to the May 19, 2014 episode. If you are an online gamer, you will find this show very interesting. Dr. Yee has done a tremendous amount of research on online gaming and gamers and shares some of the interesting behavior that he has found in online gamers. If you want to read more on his recent research, take a look at a recent article in Slate, "Virtual Worlds Are Real: Avatars have consequences offline. No wonder U.S. intelligence agencies are looking into them". For more than a decade, Dr. Nick Yee has studied online games and virtual worlds using a wide range of social science methods. His survey study of over 50,000 online gamers, the Daedalus Project, examined who these gamers are and why they play these games. At Stanford University and the Palo Alto Research Center, he used psychology experiments and large-scale data analysis to explore how our virtual and offline selves are related. Dr. Yee has over 40 peer-reviewed publications on virtual worlds and online games, and his work has been mentioned in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN International among other media outlets. He is the author of The Proteus Paradox: How Online Games and Virtual Worlds Change Us--And How They Don't and is currently a senior research scientist in Ubisoft's gamer behavior research group.  

Teresa Lunt who directs the computing science laboratory at the Palo Alto Research Center is involved in a wide range of activities including ubiquitous computing security and privacy and ethnography for organizational environments and technology design. During a talk with Knowledge at Wharton at the recent Future of Publishing Conference in New York she discussed a few of her current projects -- such as research into workplace efficiencies a study on mobile advertising and the creation of a rich media information service for a customer in Japan. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.