Learning to listen: technology and poor communities

A Sri Lankan robotics scientist is leading an effort to get technology working for poor communities around the world, reports Waleed Al-Shobakky

[Published on SciDev.net, Jan 20, 2006]

Bernadine Dias, a Sri Lankan-born scientist based at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), United States, admits she "wears many hats". Her main focus is robotics, but she also devotes a lot of time promoting innovative ways of using technology in poor communities.

In 2004, Dias founded an initiative called TechBridgeWorld to forge collaborations between CMU and developing communities around the world, including poor neighbourhoods in the United States.

Dias believes this kind of relationship benefits both partners: university staff and students learn about the real needs of the world's poor, while communities gain skills and access to technology.

Ongoing TechBridgeWorld projects are using technology to improve healthcare in Haiti and to teach English in Ghana. And when Dias moved to Qatar last year to teach in the robotics department of 'CMU-Q', her university's recently launched local branch, she took TechBridgeWorld with her.

Working on robotics at the Qatar branch of CMU

As well as introducing the initiative to Qatar, Dias plans to use the country as a springboard to expand into developing communities in Asia and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Working on robotics at the Qatar branch of CMU, says Dias, is an attempt to rectify what she sees as a common misconception: the tendency for consultants and experts to assume that technology that works in the West will also work well for communities elsewhere. From personal experience, Dias believes the notion is misguided.

"Because I grew up in Sri Lanka, I know about experts who have flown in and stayed at five-star hotels for a month, used all the money and come up with solutions that had no relevance at all," she told Gulf Times, a Qatari newspaper, in September 2005.

Dias says this mindset leads to Western products, developed to meet the needs of "a sliver of the world's population", being shipped to communities in developing countries who have not been asked about what they need.

Communicate and collaborate

Dias stresses two reasons why it is important to listen to local communities and develop partnerships with non-governmental organisations. "First, which is obvious, you can't design a solution without grasping the problem — in technology or in any other discipline," she says.

"Secondly, several developing communities have been around for so long, and they managed to live in synch with their environments. We need to learn more about this, not only when designing technology solutions for these communities, but for designing technology solutions in general."

One of TechBridgeWorld's early efforts that highlighted the importance and feasibility of getting local institutions involved was a pilot project in Ghana's capital, Accra. One of Dias's students, Ayorkor Mills-Tettey, went there to see how schoolchildren in poor neighbourhoods would respond to and interact with an automated, English-language, reading tutor developed at CMU. The computer programme works by correcting students reading stories aloud in English if they mispronounce words.

Ghana-born Mills-Tettey needed little more than a laptop and eight headsets. In Accra, she quickly found an Internet café willing to let a group of students use its computers for about an hour a day for the project.

She then visited the nearest school and offered to set the project up there. Returning the following day, she found that the head teacher had arranged a meeting of the students' parents to explain the project to them and have them sign consent forms.

The children soon learnt how to use the automated tutor

"It was amazing," recalls Dias. "All the roadblocks that people said we were going to face were just gone."

Most of the children had never touched a computer before, yet learned to use the programme in 15 minutes. They grasped it not by sitting through the accompanying tutorial but when Mills-Tetty read it out to them. Her familiar accent served her well.

"The students loved it, and people were so excited. Here was a new way of getting students interested in reading English, a new way to alleviate the problem of not having enough well-trained teachers," says Dias. TechBridgeWorld is now collaborating with a Ghanaian non-governmental organisation to run the same project, but with more students and for six months, to get more concrete results.

Dias thinks the project could address the problem of the lack of well-trained English teachers in the Middle East too, pointing out that for the project to succeed, whenever it is put to work for a new community, attention should be paid to the delicate differences that distinguish communities, even in the same region.

Moving mountains

Healthcare is another focus for TechBridgeWorld, which is exploring a low-cost project to digitally connect well-equipped hospitals in cities to distant, rural clinics that lack resources. The Albert Schweitzer hospital in Deschappelles, Haiti, is one example.

Connecting the hospital to health centres scattered in mountains eight hours away, could save villagers from having to make daunting and laborious journeys to see a doctor. Digital photos of patients in rural clinics would be sent over the Internet to better-trained physicians in the main hospital, who could then decide whether a disease is benign or serious and whether it warrants quick action.

"We would not need these digital cameras to work 24 hours per day, just one or two hours daily to take all the photos for accurate diagnosis," says Dias.

Dias, who witnessed the impact of the Indian Ocean tsunami while visiting family in Sri Lanka in 2004, is also working on disaster relief, with the aim of developing robot-human rescue teams. Yet with all her projects and plans, Dias believes technology has a long way to go before it can really deliver to poor communities.

"Technology has yet to mature. It's still unreliable," she says, giving the example of computer software that performs differently depending on which operating system the computer uses.

She believes that it is only when technology is reasonably reliable that we can use it more courageously in risky endeavours such as landmine detection. "We're starting to witness signs of maturity, though," she adds.

Dias also thinks that awareness is slowly growing of the need for technology providers, particularly multinational companies, to encourage people in poor communities to become financially independent entrepreneurs, not simply consumers or charity-dependent people caught up in cycles of need.

The Indian professor C.K. Prahalad, a management guru at the US-based University of Michigan, led the call for change in his 2004 book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. The book received much praise from Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and, through the Gates Foundation, a major supporter of science and technology for development.

Dias says listening to poor communities is crucial to ensuring that technologies provided are appropriate of CMU

Dias, too, is enthusiastic. For her, the core of the book's importance is that it invites the business sector to recognise what Prahalad calls "markets at the bottom of the pyramid", and build new products accordingly.

Dias believes that designing technological products specifically tailored to the needs of poor communities is no mean feat. It takes a great deal of creativity and discipline — listening to what communities need.

However, some companies have taken a simpler route to make their products more accessible. In September 2004, Microsoft released in Thailand a low-price, 'watered down' version of its Windows operating system, named Starter Edition.

Generally, the product was not praised by analysts and commentators, but Dias thinks this is not what matters ultimately: "it all comes down to what people in these communities want and can use. If these versions of products are useful to a community, and that community plans to make good use of it, then it is great that they are able to get access to the products... You don't always need the most hi-tech or expensive solutions."

Under the umbrella of TechBridgeWorld, two new courses – both focused on technology consulting for communities, particularly poor ones – will be introduced to undergraduate students at CMU-Q's school of computer science. As ever, they uphold Dias's belief in mutuality when it comes to encounters between the West and the developing world.

As she says: "The most important thing students and faculty walk away with from these courses is the realisation that you can't be an expert on everything, and that you need to listen to, and learn from, your partners in local communities."

Related links: TechBridgeWorld CMU's Medical Robotics Technology Center (MRTC) CMU's Medical Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Haiti Photo Credit: TechBridgeWorld

IT Depends

Information technology has trickled down to the little guys, forcing them to think through purchases carefully

By Waleed Al-Shobakky [Published in Business
Today Egypt magazine, Sep 2004]

Some technological products are so ubiquitous that we can’t imagine how the world would go on without them. Microsoft Word, for instance, is used by almost everybody on the globe. When the application was first released, it made word processing easier, and granted the companies that adopted it the advantage of higher productivity. So, at the time, investing in the Microsoft Office package was considered a strategic investment in pursuit of creating a competitive advantage.

But the wide adoption of Microsoft Word that ensued neutralized the advantage. Even though we continue to ‘invest’ in Word by buying more recent versions, we no longer consider this as a way of sustaining the competitive advantage, but rather as another cost of doing business.

This is the premise of Nicolas Carr’s recent provocative book, “Does IT Matter: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage.” Formerly an editor-at-large of Harvard Business Review and currently an IT consultant, Carr argues that as IT, including both hardware and software, “has become more powerful, more standardized and more affordable, it has been transformed from a proprietary technology that companies can use to gain an edge over their rivals into an infrastructural technology that is shared by all competitors.”

The author urges executives to assume a new perspective concerning the role of IT in creating a competitive advantage. IT, in Carr’s view, is following the same path of previous technologies like rail, telegraph and electricity. Gradually, the prices of these technologies dropped, and small businesses were able to adopt them. Ultimately, exclusive proprietary and infrastructural technology became available to all. With this in mind, the author argues that the role of IT in creating an advantage to companies as it is advertised by IT producers and vendors is misleading and extravagantly hyped.

Citing many examples, the author shows that companies like Wal-Mart (the giant supermarket chain) and Dell (the PC and consumer electronics producer) that adopted IT ahead of all the competitors of their industries have achieved an enviable advantage. However, he promptly emphasizes that in both cases IT was not the strategy that created the competitive advantage. It was rather the inherent efficiency in the operations of Wal-Mart and the build-to-order model of Dell that truly created the advantage.

Yet, with IT infrastructure reaching its maturity, Carr argues, it still may not be wise for executives to try racing ahead of everybody else in adopting IT.

This is mainly for two reasons. Firstly, even though there’s been an overwhelming amount of investment in IT, you may not be able to tell with any certainty whether it has paid off or not. Secondly, the first-mover strategy is risky. The author cites FedEx versus UPS. When FedEx introduced the logistics management systems in the 1980s, UPS was criticized as being a “technological slowpoke.” But when UPS rolled out its logistics systems in the late 1990s, more advanced and cheaper than those of FedEx, customers started to switch to UPS.

Finally, Carr rolls out a “manifesto” for IT users: spend less; follow, don’t lead; innovate when risks are low; and finally, focus more on vulnerabilities than opportunities.

ولادة عقول الحواسيب

ولادة عقول الحواسيب: كيف بزغت أنظمة التشغيل؟

مجلة العربي (الكويت)، نوفمبر 2005 [العنوان المنشور للمقال: ولادة عقول الكمبيوتر]

مع الانتشار غير المحدود للحواسيب، مهم أن نتعرف على تلك البرامج المخبوءة التي تحول الماكينات الساكنة إلى حواسيب هائلة الإمكانيات؛ ونقصد أنظمة التشغيل وأشهرها ويندوز ولينوكس.

ونظام التشغيل برنامج يدير ويتحكم في المكونات المادية للحاسوب (العتاد الحاسوبي hardware). هذا إضافة إلى تيسير التفاعل بين مستخدم الحاسوب والبرامج العاملة على نظام التشغيل ذلك، كبرامج معالجة النصوص (مثل "ورد" Word) أو متصفحات الإنترنت أو مشغلات الموسيقى والأفلام. ونستطيع القول أنه بإضافة المعطيات البشرية لمستخدم الحاسوب إلى نظام التشغيل، فإن هذين العنصرين يكونان معا العقل لذلك الحاسوب، ويكون جسمه هو العتاد؛ المُكوّن من معالج (processor) وشاشة ولوحة مركزية وقرص التخزين الصلب وغيرها من المكونات.

وكلمة "برنامج" تعني في لغة الحواسيب مجموعة من الأوامر التي يصممها أو يكتبها مبرمج. ويتوقف عدد الأوامر على الوظيفة التي يقوم بها البرنامج. فمثلا، برنامج معالجة النصوص يحوي بالطبع عددا أكبر من الأوامر الموجودة في برنامج لضبط الوقت. وببساطة، لكل برنامج واجهتان: واحدة تتعامل مع نظام التشغيل أو مع المكونات المادية للحاسوب، وأخرى يتعامل معها مستخدم الحاسوب.

وأكثر أنظمة التشغيل شيوعا هو "ويندوز" الذي طورته شركة مايكروسوفت؛ أكبر شركة برمجيات في العالم، ويعمل على حوالي 94% من الحواسيب الشخصية على الأرض. ويأتي بعده نظام تشغيل لينوكس ويعمل على حوالي 3-4%. ثم ماك أو إس-إكس من شركة آبل للحواسيب والذي يعمل على حوالي 2-3% من الحواسيب عالميا. أما في مجال الحواسيب الخادمة في الشركات (servers)، وهي أسرع من نظائرها الشخصية في معالجة البيانات والسعة التخزينية، فيستحوذ ويندوز على حوالي 53%، وبعده لينوكس بحوالي 23%، أما النسبة الباقية فتتقاسمها أنظمة تشغيل سولاريس (وطورته شركة صن مايكروسيستمز) ويونكس وأنظمة أقل شهرة مثل نظام بيركلي الحر (FreeBSD). وهذه التقديرات جميعها وفقا لعام 2004. (راجع مقال "تايتانك بلا قرصنة" الملحق العلمي يوليو/تموز 2005 حول المصدر المفتوح ولينوكس)

قبل أنظمة التشغيل، كان على كل مستخدم للحاسوب أن يحمل البرنامج الذي سيستخدمه بنفسه، ثم يزيله بعد ذلك ليتيح الفرصة لمستخدمين آخرين. وكان ذلك يستدعي في كثير من الأحيان أن يُعاد توصيل المكونات المادية للحاسوب بصورة مختلفة لتلائم وظائف كل برنامج على حدة.

بدايات عديدة

وثمة عدة بدايات للتأريخ لأنظمة التشغيل. لعل أكثرها اتصالا بخط التطور الذي استمر بعد ذلك هي لحظة تطوير الدكتور جاري كيندول لنظام تشغيل سي بي/إم (CP/M) من شركة ديجيتال ريسيرش في السبعينيات الذي حقق نجاحا كبيرا بمقاييس تلك الأيام؛ إذ بيعت منه حوالي 600 ألف نسخة. أغرى ذلك شركة آي.بي.إم (IBM) للدخول في ذلك المضمار. وكانت قد بدأت بالفعل في إنتاج الحواسيب منذ أوائل الخمسينيات، ولكن بغير نظام تشغيل.

بحثت آي.بي.إم عن شركة تطور نظام تشغيل ليتم دمجه في حواسيبها ويحمل علامتها التجارية. وقاد البحث إلى اللقاء بشركة صغيرة ناشئة اسمها مايكروسوفت أسسها المبرمجان الشابان بيل جيتس وبول ألان، وكان منتَج الشركة حتى ذلك الوقت مجرد نسخة من لغة البرمجة "بيسك" (BASIC) متوافقة وداعمة لحاسوب ألتير الذي طوره المهندس الفذ "إد روبرتس". لم يكن منتج مايكروسوفت نظام تشغيل، ولكن مؤسسي الشركة أقنعا آي.بي.إم أنهما سيتمكنان من الاتفاق مع كيندول لترخيص استخدام نظام التشغيل الذي طوره للعمل على حواسيب آي.بي.إم. ولكن هذا الاتفاق لم يتم نتيجة كثرة مطالب زوجة كيندول (!) فأقنعت مايكروسوفت آي.بي.إم بأنها ستجد حلا لذلك. فقامت بشراء حقوق استخدام نظام تشغيل اسمه كيو/دوس (Q/DOS) من شركة سياتل لمنتجات الحواسيب مقابل 50 ألف دولار، وغيرت اسمه إلى "بي سي دوس" (PC DOS). وظهر أول حاسوب شخصي من آي.بي.إم، واسمه أكورن، محملا ب"بي سي دوس" عام 1981. ولم تكن واجهة نظام التشغيل أكثر من شاشة عليها خطوط من النصوص. وليؤدي المستخدم ما يريد عليه أن يكتب الأوامر في صورة نصوص أيضا. ولم يكن بالإمكان أداء أكثر من وظيفة آنياً.

ولكن آبي.بي.إم سرعان ما رغبت في الاستئثار لنفسها بالكعكة كاملة: المكونات المادية ونظام التشغيل. فبدأت في تطوير نظام تشغيل آخر هو أو إس 2 بعيدا عن شراكتها مع مايكروسوفت. وفي ذات الوقت، كانت الأخيرة قد بدأت تطلب من الشركات التي تشتري ترخيص تحميل نظام "دوس" على حواسيبها، مثل آي.بي.إم وكومباك، أن لا تغير اسمه. فيظل "مايكروسوفت دوس" (MS DOS) أيا كان منتِج الحاسوب. أدى هذان العاملان إلى انفصام الشراكة التي جمعت بين آي.بي.إم ومايكروسوفت. وكان ذلك عام 1984.

آبل وواجهة المستخدم المبتكرة

في ذات العام، 1984، طرحت شركة آبل جهاز "ماكنتوش"؛ وهو حاسوب يأتي محملا بنظام تشغيله. وكان نظام التشغيل ذاك جديدا في نوعه. إذ كان يستخدم للمرة الأولى أسلوب واجهة المستخدم الجرافيكية أو المطبوعة (GUI) التي تتيح للمستخدمين أن يتعاملوا مع الحاسوب باستخدام الفأرة (التي اخترعها عام 1964 العالم دوجلاس إنجلبارت) والأيقونات. كما أتاح ماكنتوش إجراء أكثر من وظيفة بصورة آنية، وإن كان ذلك بصورة بدائية. والمفارقة هنا أن أسلوب واجهة المستخدم الجرافيكية والذي بسط بصورة فارقة من استخدام الحواسيب لم يكن من بنات أفكار مطوري الشركة، وإنما اخترعه باحثو شركة "زيروكس" الأمريكية. ولكن أحد هؤلاء الباحثين دعا ستيف جوبز، أحد مؤسسي آبل، إلى زيارة مختبر الشركة البحثي الشهير في كاليفورنيا أواخر عام 1979 متفاخرا بإنجازات شركته (!). وما إن عاد جوبز من هذه الزيارة حتى طلب من مهندسي شركته أن يعكفوا على تطوير نظام مماثل لواجهة المستخدم، وقد كان ذلك أحد أسباب نجاح الشركة التي أسست عام 1976. وكانت آبل قد طرحت إصدارين من الحواسيب في النصف الثاني من السبعينيات ولكنهما أخفقا تجارياً.

بظهور "ماكنتوش" أدرك بيل جيتس أن المستقبل سيكون من حظ هذه الفئة الجديدة من أنظمة التشغيل ذات الواجهات الجذابة والبسيطة. فطرحت مايكروسوفت عام 1985 الإصدار الأول لنظام تشغيل "ويندوز". وكما يشير اسم الإصدار (والذي يعني "نوافذ" باللغة العربية) فإن النظام الجديد يتيح أداء أكثر من وظيفة بصورة آنية عبر تشغيل أكثر من برنامج، كل في نافذة منفصلة.

ولاحقت آبل مايكروسوفت في المحاكم بدعوى تقليد نظام ماكنتوش، ولكن رُفضت الدعوى. وواصلت مايكروسوفت تطوير "ويندوز" بنجاح هائل، فأصدرت عام 1990 الإصدار الثالث (Windows 3.0) وفي أغسطس 1995 إصدار ويندوز 95 بضجة إعلانية مهولة، ثم ويندوز 98 عام 1998، ثم إصداري 2000 والألفية (ME) عام 2000، ثم إصدار إكس بي (XP) الحالي عام 2001. ويُنتظر أن تطرح الشركة الإصدار القادم والذي يحمل اسم "لونج هورن" بنهاية عام 2006.

أما في آبل، فقد أرغمت الشركة ستيف جوبز على الاستقالة منها عام 1986، ثم تعثرت لسنوات عدة إلى أن دعي جوبز لقيادتها مرة أخرى عام 1997 فسارع بتطوير جيل جديد من نظام التشغيل هو ماك أو إس إكس يعتمد على نظام تشغيل بيركلي (BSD) وطرح إصداره الأول عام 2001. ثم أتبعه بأربعة تحديثات كان آخرها تايجر في أبريل الماضي. وقد وصف بيل جوي، أحد أساطين البرمجة الأوائل في جامعة كاليفورنيا والعالم الرئيس سابقا بشركة صن، وصف نظام أو إس إكس بأنه أفضل نظام تشغيل على وجه الأرض حاليا.

لينوكس للجميع

وفي حلبة المنافسة، هناك أيضا نظام "لينوكس" الذي يختلف أسلوب تطويره جذريا عن سابقيه. فبينما يتم إخفاء الشيفرة التي كتب بها كل من نظامي تشغيل ويندوز وماك، فإن شيفرة لينوكس متاحة للجميع ليطوروها ويغيروها ويبنوا عليها. فنظام لينوكس ثمرة جهود تطوعية لآلاف المبرمجين من حول العالم. وقوة لينوكس حتى الآن جلية في الحواسيب الخادمة أكثر من الحواسيب الشخصية، وإن كان مطوروه يأملون أنه بطرح إصدار ويندوز "لونج هورن"، وما يتبع ذلك من تكاليف إضافية لشراء النظام وتحديث المكونات المادية، فربما يرى المستخدمون لينوكس المجاني بديلا أكثر جاذبية.

وكان نظام تشغيل ويندوز إكس بي قد تعرض لانتقادات شديدة نتيجة الثغرات الأمنية التي مكنت قراصنة الحواسيب من تدمير أو تعطيل ملايين الحواسيب المرتبطة بشبكة الإنترنت بالفيروسات وبرامج التجسس وغيرها من برامج القرصنة خلال السنوات القليلة الماضية. بينما لم يتعرض مستخدمو أنظمة التشغيل الأخرى، مثل لينوكس وماك، لهذه المشكلات. وربما يعود ذلك لعاملين: أولا أن انعدام المنافسة تقريبا أمام ويندوز في حلبة الحواسيب الشخصية قد جعل مايكروسوفت أقل انتباها للتدقيق في خلو منتجاتها من الثغرات الأمنية. وثانيا أن الانتشار المحدود نسبيا لنظامي لينوكس وماك لا يمثل إغراء لقراصنة الحواسيب ليصمموا فيروسات خصيصا لهما، بالمقارنة بويندوز هائل الانتشار.

ويُعزى قسط من نجاح "ويندوز" الكبير إلى السياسة التي انتهجتها مايكرسوفت بترخيص نظام تشغيلها لعدد كبير من مصنعي الحواسيب (مثل دِل وهيوليت باكارد وإيسر، بل وآي.بي.إم نفسها)، بحيث يعمل نظام التشغيل على شتى أنواع الحواسيب (ومؤخرا الهواتف النقالة وحواسيب الجيب أيضا). وينتهج نفس السياسة مطورو نظام لينوكس في توفيقه للعمل مع شتى أنواع الحواسيب. أما شركة آبل فتصر أن يعمل نظام تشغيلها على حواسيب آبل فحسب.

وليد الشوبكي

من محركات الوقود لمحركات البحث

مجلة العربي (الكويت)، أغسطس 2005 [العنوان المنشور في مجلة العربي: محركات بحث وبليونيرات شبان]

حققت محركات البحث على الإنترنت هائل النجاح والأرباح لكونها الوسائل الأولى لمساعدة المستخدم للوصول لما يريد وسط محيط الشبكة العالمية.

في 19 أغسطس 2004 طرحت شركة "جوجل"، محرك البحث الشهير على الإنترنت، أسهمها للاكتتاب العام في بورصة "ناسدك" الأمريكية، وبلغت قيمة سهم الشركة في أول أيام التداول 100 دولار أمريكي. مما جعل التقييم المالي للشركة يتخطى الـ 20 مليار دولار، وهو ما يفوق التقييم المالي لشركة جنرال موتورز للسيارات. وفي أوائل فبراير هذا العام كان سهم جوجل في ارتفاعه المستمر بحيث قفز بتقييم الشركة – التي أسست عام 1998 – لحوالي 55 مليار دولار، وهو ما يفوق التقييم المالي لشركتي جنرال موتورز وفورد مجتمعتين. أي أن محركات البحث على الإنترنت فاقت في الأرباح – ببون شاسع – محركات الوقود! فما هي محركات البحث؟ وكيف آلت إلى ذلك المجد؟

محركات البحث على الإنترنت مواقع على الشبكة العالمية تقدم لزائريها إمكانية العثور على ما يريدون من معلومات. ومحركات البحث كثيرة، مثل جوجل (google.com) وياهو (yahoo.com) و"آسك جيفز" (askjeeves.com). فمثلا، لو أنك تريد الاطلاع على النسخة الإلكترونية لمجلة العربي، ولا تعرف عنوانها على شبكة الإنترنت، فتستطيع أن تكتب "مجلة العربي" في خانة البحث على أي من محركات البحث آنفة الذكر، وستأتي لك نتائج البحث بموقع مجلة العربي إضافة إلى الصفحات المنشورة على الإنترنت التي ورد بها ذكر المجلة. وثمة إضافات جديدة لمحركات البحث تتيح للمستخدم إمكانية تضييق مجال البحث عن كلمة معينة، فيختار مثلا أن يتم البحث بين ملفات الصور، أو ملفات المواد الصوتية والمرئية أو ضمن الأخبار الجارية فحسب، وهكذا.

تطور سريع

قطعت محركات البحث شوطا تطوريا قصيرا – ولكنه هائل السرعة – منذ البدايات الأولى عام 1990، إلى أن صارت أسرع التطبيقات نموا وتحقيقا للأرباح في القطاع التكنولوجي مع دوران أعوام الألفية الثالثة. وهو الأمر الذي شجع عمالقة قطاع التكنولوجيا عالميا على ولوج هذه الحلبة. شركة مايكروسوفت، مثلا، استثمرت ما يربو على 150 مليون دولار لتطوير محرك بحث متطور طرحته للاستخدام التجريبي في يناير/كانون الثاني الماضي (http://beta.search.msn.com)، وطرحت شركة أمازون، أشهر موقع لبيع الكتب والتجزئة على الإنترنت، محرك بحث (A9.com) منفصل عن موقع الشركة الأم في مايو 2004.

وبنظرة على تاريخ تطور محركات البحث سنلمح الدور الكبير الذي لعبته الجامعات في دفق الحياة سريعا في هذا النوع من التطبيقات التكنولوجية. وهي تشبه في ذلك تكنولوجيا الإنترنت نفسها التي بدأت كمشروع لدى وزارة الدفاع ثم أتيحت عام 1969 للجامعات لتطورها وتبني عليها، ثم انتقلت بعد ذلك من نطاق الجامعات إلى النطاق العام (العالمي) مع بدايات التسعينيات بعد أن نالها قسط كبير من التطوير.

ترجع الجذور الأولى لمحركات البحث الحديثة إلى تطبيق "آركي" (Archie) الذي طوره عام 1990 الطالب آلان إمتيدج من جامعة ماكجيل بكندا. في ذلك الوقت، كانت تكنولوجيا الإنترنت قيد الاستخدام (ويعني ذلك وجود معايير لاتصال الحواسيب بعضها ببعض)، أما تكنولوجيا الشبكة العنكبوتية العالمية للمعلومات (World Wide Web)، والتي تعني وجود معايير أو بروتوكولات لتبادل الملفات بشتى أنواعها، من ملفات نصوص وصور وصوت وبرامج، فكانت لا تزال قيد التطوير بواسطة المبرمج الفذ تيم برنرز لي.

قبل تطبيق "آركي" كانت الطريقة الوحيدة لتخزين واسترجاع الملفات هي عن طريق بروتوكول أو معيار لتناقل الملفات يطلق عليه اختصارا (FTP)، وكانت الوسيلة الوحيدة للحصول على أحد الملفات على شبكة الإنترنت (التي كانت متاحة بصورة رئيسة بين الجامعات الأمريكية والكندية) هي أن تعرف أن الملف المطلوب موجود بالفعل، وأن تعرف عنوانه، ثم 'تطلبه' باستخدام معيار (FTP). وبوصول تطبيق "آركي" تغير كل هذا، لأنه كان يقوم للمرة الأولى بالبحث على الحواسيب المرتبطة بالشبكة ليحصل على عناوين الملفات المخزنة على هذه الحواسيب ثم يقارنها بالكلمة (أو الكلمات) التي يبحث عنها المستخدم.

الأسلاف الأولى

وفي أبريل 1991، طور الشاب مارك ماكاهيل من جامعة مينيسوتا تطبيق "جوفر" القادر على البحث في عناوين المستندات (documents) وليس الملفات (files) وحدها. وفي عام 1992 طور باحثون من جامعة نيفادا الأمريكية أحد الأسلاف الأولى لمحركات البحث، وهو تطبيق "فيرونيكا"، وكان يقوم بالبحث خلال ملفات النصوص المخزنة على الحواسيب المرتبطة بالشبكة بصورة كاملة، وليس عناوينها فحسب. ثم تلاه تطبيق "جاجهيد" عام 1993، ويماثل "فيرونيكا" وظيفيا وإن حظي بالتفضيل لدى المستخدمين. وفي يونيو من نفس العام طور الطالب ماثيو جراي – من معهد ماساتشوستس للتكنولوجيا – طوّاف شبكة الإنترنت (Wanderer)، ويعتبر أول محرك بحث حقيقي، لأنه أول تطبيق يستخدم البرامج الروبوتية في تصنيف وفهرسة (indexing) محتويات الشبكة، إضافة إلى عناوين المواقع (URLs) على الشبكة أيضا. وكلمة "روبوتية" يجب أن لا تختلط بالروبوتات المعدنية التي شاهدناها في الأفلام السينمائية، وإنما تشير إلى تلك البرامج التي تقوم بوظائف معينة بصورة متكررة وسريعة لا يمكن أن يقوم بها البشر. وقد استخدمت هذه البرامج أول ما استخدمت في محركات البحث حتى تقوم بفهرسة ما يضاف من صفحات لشبكة الإنترنت بصورة دائمة.

وحقق مفهوم البرامج الروبوتية نجاحا تمثل في وجود 3 محركات بحث تعتمد على هذه التكنولوجيا بنهاية عام 1993: جامب ستيشن، ودودة الشبكة العالمية وRBSE. وخلال نفس العام، كان ستة طلبة من جامعة ستانفورد الأمريكية يعملون على مشروع بحثي اسمه "أركيتكست" وهو مشروع محرك بحث يستخدم للمرة الأولى التحليل الإحصائي للعلاقات بين الكلمات لتحقيق نتائج أفضل في البحث. وتمكن مطورو هذا المشروع من الحصول على دعم مالي من ممولي وادي السيليكون وأصبح اسمه، واسمه الشركة القائمة عليه، "إكسايت" (Excite.com) التي حققت شهرة واسعة خلال النصف الثاني من التسعينيات الماضية.

بزوغ ياهو

وفي عام 1994 طور ديفيد فيلو وجيري يانج، وكانا وقتها يدرسان لنيل شهادة الدكتوراه في جامعة ستانفورد، دليلا للصفحات المفضلة لديهما على الإنترنت، ثم أضافا إلى ذلك الدليل إمكانية البحث في موضوعاته المختلفة عندما وجدا إقبالا من المستخدمين على زيارة موقعهما، وغيرا اسمه إلى "ياهو"، الذي لا يزال يحظى بنجاح كبير وتفضيل من مستخدمي الإنترنت حول العالم. وفي نفس العام، 1994، أطلق الباحث برايان بنكرتون من جامعة واشنطن محرك بحث "وب كرولر"، وكان يعتمد على برامج روبوتية أكثر تطورا، استفادت منها عدة محركات بحث دشنت في العام التالي مثل إنفوسيك ولايكوس الشهير وأوبن تكست. ومحرك لايكوس نفسه بدأ أيضا كمشروع بحثي للدكتور مايكل مولدن بجامعة كارنيجي ميلون الأمريكية أواسط عام 1994.

وشهد عام 1995 أيضا إطلاق محرك البحث الشهير "ألتا فيستا" (altavista.com)، وكان حينها الأكثر سرعة بين منافسيه. كما أنه أتاح إمكانية البحث ضمن نطاقات مختلفة، كالبحث عن ملفات الصور أو مواد الفيديو. وكذلك كان أول محرك بحث يستخدم المعالجة الطبيعية للغة في الإتيان بنتائج البحث. فمثلا، عندما تكتب في خانة البحث: "ما هي عاصمة إسبانيا؟" فستأتي في صدر نتائج البحث الإجابة: مدريد، إضافة إلى الصفحات التي تحوي الكلمات المكونة للسؤال. وقد طورت شركة مايكروسوفت من هذه الخاصية في محركها البحثي (MSN) الذي طرحته أوائل العام الحالي (2005). وفي نفس العام، 1995، طور إريك سلبورج (الطالب بجامعة واشنطن) محرك البحث "ميتا كرولر"، وهو الأول من نوعه الذي يأتي بنتائجه من خلال تجميع نتائج البحث من عدة محركات بحث مشهورة، ولكن لم ينجح هذا المفهوم نتيجة عدم تعاون محركات البحث الأخرى مع "ميتا كرولر".

ثم جوجل ...

وفي عام 1996 طرح الدكتور إريك برور والطالب بول جوتيير (من جامعة كاليفورنيا) محرك البحث "إنكتومي" بنسخة أكثر تطورا من البرامج الروبوتية الطوافة (أسموها HotBot). وأطلقت عام 1997 محركات بحث عدة أهمها "آسك جيفز" و"فاست"؛ وهي شركة نرويجية. وفي العام التالي طرح سيرجي برين ولاري بيدج، وكانا حينها طالبي دكتوراه بجامعة استانفورد، محرك بحث جوجل، الذي بزت شهرته كل سابقيه ومعاصريه، باعتباره أكثر محركات البحث قدرة على التنقيب في مليارات الصفحات على الإنترنت وغربلتها للحصول على المعلومات التي طلبها المستخدم. وتعتمد تكنولوجيا البحث على جوجل على إعطاء قيمة لكل صفحة على الشبكة العالمية وفقا لعدد الصفحات المرتبطة بها (وذلك باعتبار أن كل صفحة على الإنترنت مرتبطة بصفحة أخرى على الأقل)، وحيث تحصل الصفحات التي تحظى بأكبر قدر من الوصلات أو الروابط المؤدية إليها بأكبر تقييم، ومن ثم فإنها تأتي في صدر نتائج البحث. وأدت هذه الطريقة المبتكرة إلى جعل جوجل محرك البحث الذي يأتي بأفضل النتائج، ويحظى بتفضيل ملايين المستخدمين حول العالم، حيث يقدر عدد مستخدميه في الثانية الواحدة بحوالي 1000 مستخدم.

وخلال رحلة تطور تقنيات محركات البحث، زاد عدد الحواسيب المرتبطة بالشبكة العالمية بصورة جبارة، وتزايد بالتالي حجم الملفات المتاحة في الفضاء الإلكتروني بصورة مماثلة، وقد أدت هذه الضخامة في حجم البيانات والمعلومات المتاحة على الشبكة العالمية إلى نتيجتين: أولا، أهمية الترقي الدائم في تقنيات محركات البحث لتمكين المستخدم من الوصول لما يريد في هذه "المكتبة" الهائلة. وثانيا، أن مستخدمي الإنترنت صاروا يبدؤون أي تعامل لهم مع الشبكة العالمية من خلال محركات البحث. فسواء كان غرضك التعلم أو الترفيه أو حتى قتل الوقت فإن المكان الأكفأ للبداية هو خانة البحث، لترتد إليك النتائج مصنفة ومرتبة في الموضوع الذي أردت، بعد أن كانت مبعثرة في الفضاء الإلكتروني بغير رابط، ومن ثم بغير قيمة.

وأدت هذه الأهمية المحورية لمحركات البحث، باعتبارها نقاط الانطلاق في تعامل معظم المستخدمين مع الإنترنت، إلى جعل محركات البحث أهم وسيط إعلاني على الإنترنت مما أدى بدوره إلى تصاعد قيم أسهم وأرباح محركات البحث مثل جوجل وياهو.

وليد الشوبكي

[مصدر الصورة: www.cdweb.com]

Newspapers in the Googlespace

[Waleed Al-Shobakky; published on IslamOnline.net, Oct 17, 07]

It is good news—for now—that Google is pushing major newspapers to open up their vaults.

With no fanfare the New York Times pulled the plug on its TimesSelect program this last September. Through TimesSelect, launched in October 2005, the Times started charging readers (who were not subscribers to the print edition) for access to some sections of the online edition, particularly that of opinion columns. Clearly, the objective was to capitalize on the New York Times’ fame as one of the world's best news papers to generate revenues through its online presence.

That was a fair thing to do. Why did the Times shut it down then?

The way the Times explained the closure implies it probably had to. In a short note, the Times cited “significant alterations in the online landscape” over the period TimesSelect was in operation that made it in the best interest of the New York Times readers and “brand” to grant full online access to all readers. Most important among those alterations was the fact that “[r]eaders increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources.”

Loyalty Crisis

While other factors were named, it is rather obvious that search engines—particularly Google—were the main reason behind this shift of direction. Reading between the lines of the statement, we find that the eminent newspaper is acknowledging that most of its online readership does not have particular loyalty to the Times. The new audience, the Times found out, is composed of Web-wanderers (or “googlers”) who use Google and other search engines as their gateway to information on the Web, rather than rely on a number of trusted Web sites.

The massive adoption of Google and its competitors as the universal homepages, or starting points, in every Web experience indeed has significant implications. One of them is that names or “brands” in the cyberspace may not be able to retain the value traditionally attached to them.

And Wikipedia (the free collaborative encyclopedia) is a case in point. Wikipedia is the emblem of Web volunteerism. Its entries (now in more than 104 languages) are contributions from anonymous users, rather than accredited experts. But because they are open to search engines to recall and display, they have a higher likelihood of ranking higher on result pages than, say, those of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which are hidden behind subscription walls.

Over the past two years it became rather the norm that whatever you are “googling” about (eighteenth-century musician Nicolo Paganini, Geneva Conventions or the irritable bowel syndrome), a Wikipedia entry will very likely show among the top five search results. That indicates that so many people have “linked” to the Wikipedia entry more than to other Web pages carrying the keyword you are searching about.

After all, Google’s algorithm, PageRank, works by assigning value to pages based on the number of links they receive. The value of each link, in turn, is determined by the value of the page from which it originates. A link from the Washington Post, therefore, carries far more value than one from, say, my own blog site. So when a Wikipedia entry ranks high on Google’s result pages, it is a translation of the number and weight of links that forward readers to the open-to-all encyclopedia.

Web Extinction

The proven efficiency of the PageRank in getting relevant results engendered a new habit of mind—the perception that “if it does not show on Google’s result pages it probably does not exist.” This of course is far from true. Google cannot, for instance, display pages from the subscription-protected content of newspapers and archive databases, which is an incredibly vast amount of information.

The rise of Google therefore presented content providers (particularly newspapers) with this existential puzzle: eliminate the subscription shields (and lose an important revenue stream) or the alternative is Web irrelevance and extinction.

On September 19 the New York Times grudgingly and unceremoniously yielded to the first option. The paper went even further and started offering free access to its archives from 1987 and on to the present. Before introducing TimesSelect, access to the archive was limited to seven days back.

To be sure, it is good news to have more of the Times’ high quality journalism available for more readers. Yet that development may also be a silver lining of a growing cloud. That is, thanks to Google and company, more and more newspapers find it difficult to reap returns on their property (good journalism and deserved reputation). It should come as no big surprise Philip Meyer’s prediction in his book The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age that newspapers will be extinct in the United States by 2043.

The Cyberspace and the Googlespace

Newspapers that open up their formerly protected content do not do this as a sign of hopelessness. In doing this they seek to continue to figure favorably—that is, among the top results— on result pages of search engines and hence more readers to their articles and Web site. That in turn would attract more advertisers.

And the biggest advertising company in the world today is none other than Google itself. Its revenues for this year are expected to be $11.5 billion—up 58% from last year’s.

Google places its “contextual ads” to related articles on Web sites of all stripes, whether of a reputed newspaper or a personal blog. Through its AdSense program, Google serves as the mediator between advertisers and content providers, no matter how small or how big.

It in fact is so common today to find Google’s quintessential text ad links on almost every site you visit. And here is how it works: an advertiser would specify one or more keywords, say, “Nokia accessories”. Whenever these keywords show on Web sites participating in the AdSense program, an automatic ad link to the “nokia accessories” advertiser will appear on the same page. The advertising revenues are shared between the content provider, on whose site the ad link appears, and Google.

Google’s AdSense has provided a source of income to the otherwise obscure small-time content providers, such as personal Web sites that offer reviews of consumer electronics, or sites of hobby-centered communities. Before Google these sites would not be sustainable.

Here lies Google’s paradoxical effect. Whereas it dulls the value of reputed content providers (by serving as almost the ultimate gateway to their content), it affords a lifeline to hobbyist and amateur content providers by making them available to Google users.

For Google, the quality of content on those small sites is no issue. What matters is whether they are able to attract a large enough number of users—and therefore more clicks on ad links—and more inward links, which would translate into higher ranking on search result pages.

“[Google’s] market lead,” a recent New York Times report on Google’s share price rising past $600 maintained, “is so large that advertisers tailor their technology to work best on Google ad networks, and Web publishers design their sites to best pull in more Google users.”

It could be argued therefore that Google’s engine is inherently biased for quantity. This does not automatically mean a bias against quality—but oftentimes this is the end result. As noted above, Wikipedia, a natural Google darling, ranks higher on Google’s engine than the subscription-only, expert-generated and edited Encyclopedia Britannica.

Google’s predominance thus promotes a culture that “venerates the amateur and distrusts the professional” as Nicholas Carr, former senior editor of the Harvard Business Review, wrote in a different context.

How, or whether it is possible, to avert this tide is a matter worth public debate. And as we enthusiastically embrace Google’s new technology offerings, we need to be aware of the consequences of its becoming our “auto-pilot” search engine, to quote a Chicago Tribune commentator. Unsurprisingly, the Economist Sep 1 issue’s cover story—which shed light on Google’s sprawling power—carried this uneasy title: Who is afraid of Google?

The Rise of Middle East Technology Parks

A feature article on the Science and Development Network -- SciDev.Net. Oct 3, 2007

The rapid growth of technology parks in the Arab world has so far created more expectations than outcomes, reports Waleed Al-Shobakky.

[In the photo, right, Eulian Roberts, CEO of QSTP. Source: QSTP]

It is "parking" time in the Middle East. Over the past few years, technology parks have been sprouting up all over the region: from Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia in the north, to Kuwait, Oman and Qatar in the east.

Recognising that their natural resources, particularly oil, are being fast depleted, and looking to emulate the success stories of technology parks in Asia, Europe and North America in creating jobs and successful businesses, countries like Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have constructed as many as seven or eight parks.

But as the ranks swell, the question remains: will technology parks be able to prove their worth?

Good reasons

The concept of gathering together businesses with similar interests in one place is now a region-wide movement in the Middle East, but different reasons lie behind each country's decision to join the bandwagon.

For instance, to the oil-wealthy Gulf states, science and technology parks are tools for diversifying the economy in preparation for the post-oil times.
For the less-endowed countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, technology parks seem to be a way out of poverty — with high potential returns without the need for prohibitively high investments.

The successful parks of India and Malaysia look particularly appealing to these countries. This may explain why Middle Eastern governments have established a total of 30 technology parks dedicated to information and communication technology (ICT) alone, according to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). There are also 15 biotechnology parks, and 12 dedicated to advanced engineering.

Indeed, the buzz surrounding technology parks in the region, says Eulian Roberts, chief executive officer of Qatar Science and Technology Park (QSTP), is coming from what policymakers see happening elsewhere — namely the technology parks' ability to foster a country's economy, without necessarily relying on natural resources.

And there is research to back this up. A study from the United Kingdom's Science Park Association, says Roberts, found that companies located inside technology parks stand a better chance of gaining funds and support — and hence success — than their counterparts outside.

Technology parks are also thought to help initiate synergy with academic institutions. "They encourage productive R&D in academia and provide a mechanism to commercialise this research," says Omar Hamarneh, director of iPARK, Jordan's government-run institution mandated with supporting technology start-ups.

A focus problem

But the near consensus over the validity of establishing technology parks erodes when it comes to deciding what to do with them.

One view, as articulated by Tarek Elabbady, director of the Microsoft Innovation Centre in Egypt, is that technology parks should focus on supporting the "most rewarding industries," in terms of either monetary returns or jobs.

Elabbady says high-population countries like Egypt can make the most of technology parks by channelling their energy into the most rewarding job-creating sectors, such as agriculture and textiles. To that end, research and development activities could focus on areas such as bioinformatics and fertilizers.

Another view is that a technology park should be employed as an instrument to augment the economic gains from a country's existing natural resources, says QSTP's Roberts.

For a country with a small population such as Qatar, Roberts explains, technology parks can be a way to generate wealth through intellectual capital — for example, through development of specialised fuel formulas for the aeronautic industry and more environment-friendly energy solutions — rather than relying solely on the direct exploitation of natural resources like oil.

Besides the intellectual capital gains, science and technology parks can also bring about "human capital" gains. They could attract expatriates back from Europe and the United States and stem the brain drain, says Mikko Suonenlahti, a Finnish venture capitalist who runs the two new technology funds of the QSTP.

And beyond that, Egypt's Smart Village, like its counterparts in the region, is starting to attract foreign entrepreneurs and executives to set up their own companies.

Indeed, the current zeal for technology parks has put entrepreneurs in a good position. Governments and technology park authorities in the region try to outbid each other in offering incentives (such as tax holidays, access to venture capital and unrestricted movement of labour, equipment and merchandise) to attract entrepreneurial talents, both from within the region and from outside.

To some, such as Suonenlahti, "competition is always good," because the free movement of talents and venture capital in the region will lead to the best allocation of resources, and best outcomes.

Competition vs. integration

To others, such as Elabbady, competition at this stage should give way to integration that is based on specialisation. That view probably stems from a curious dilemma in the Arab world: countries that are rich in human resources (like Egypt and Turkey) are often poor in resources, and vice versa — as is the case in the Gulf.

result is either a technology park rich in human capital but poor in infrastructure and facilities, or one with good resources but a limited (and hence highly expensive) talent pool.

One consequence is that countries with similar economies — such as the Gulf States, with their reliance on oil — look set to compete for the same big clients in the hydrocarbon sector. Everyone is talking about specialisation in the long term. But it seems that little has been done to that effect.

QSTP's Roberts says that specialisation is surely the road ahead; but the nascence of almost all technology parks in the region makes them hold their bets as to what to specialise in, until areas of specialisation emerge naturally, in response to market realities. QSTP, for example, has among its targeted sectors aircraft operations, environmental technology, gas and petrochemicals and ICT.

Tarek Elabbady sees the situation differently. He says most technology parks in the Arab world are not focused, spreading their already limited resources on widely diverse activities.

The state of science and technology today, he says, would reward most those with focus on a certain discipline — such as what Singapore is trying to do in biotechnology, South Korea in electronics, or Taiwan in microchips.

Elabbady also believes that many of the science and technology parks in the Arab world have practically no entry criteria and are in essence real estate development projects with just a tiny research and development component.

Attempting to be everything to everyone, Elabbady says, could help technology parks get quick returns in the short term by attracting multinational and large national companies. But this approach, he adds, robs technology parks of any significant future potential, particularly in local capacity building.

On the other hand, Ahmed Naim, sales and marketing director at the Smart Village, says that the traditional boundaries between different research fields — such as information technology, media and communication technologies — are no longer relevant. And this is why such a diverse range of companies do business at the village.

Should the lack of specialisation then be a reason for concern? Adhip Chaudhuri, economics professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, says no.

In the oil-rich Gulf, he says, specialisation will happen sooner or later because the growing demand on oil serves as an incentive for companies to come and set up shop here in search for niche markets or innovative products.

Not the panacea

Whether diversity is good or bad for science and technology parks may not be certain. What is certain is that what those parks have achieved so far in the Middle East is not much in terms of patents granted or technology companies listed on international stock markets.

In spite of this, euphoric reports, particularly from state-run media, have already started portraying technology parks as a magic entry pass into the league of developed countries.

"We sometimes get carried away by the excitement and lose sight of the goals and how we are going to get to them," says Microsoft's Elabbady.
To counter this, adjusting expectation is necessary.

Eulian Roberts says that policymakers and the public alike need to be reminded that technology parks are not the panacea for the knowledge economy. They are rather "one important instrument that can focus effort and resources and deliver visible results".

Nevertheless, technology parks are already sending a positive message about the region into the larger world. Says the Smart Village's Naim, "The mere presence of technology parks in Egypt and other countries is gradually changing the desert-and-camels stereotypes about the region."

A Broader Cautionary Tale in the Skype Outage

[Waleed Al-Shobakky; published on IslamOnline.net]

Now that the dust has settled and the uproar has faded, what can we learn from the mid-August Skype outage? (Hint: A unipolar operating system world may have unforeseen weaknesses, and Microsoft is perhaps the least to blame.)

First, what happened? Skype, the most widely used Internet phone service (free to use from PC to PC) went black on August 16, 2007. (Arak)

Now almost a household name, Skype is not merely a "chat" service for teens with plenty of time to spare. Over the past few years, Skype-in and Skype-out services that afford calls to regular land-line and mobile phones at much lower rates have already lured many businesses away from traditional telecoms.

The two-day service collapse affected thousands of businesses. Not surprisingly, the outage invited outrage.

Skype — a company eBay acquired late in 2005 for US$2.6 billion — did not respond fast. Initially they kept mum about the reasons for the service meltdown. When they spoke, they were not terribly convincing. There was talk of the impact of Windows patch prompting a massive reboot wave that the Skype software could not handle.

Always on the lookout for chances to embarrass the software giant, the anti-Microsoft camp was quick to heap yet more of their criticism on what they consider Microsoft's release-prematurely-and-patch-along-the-way model. As a result, the Skype team quickly refined their earlier statement by stressing that the Windows patch may have "triggered" the bug but was not the cause for the bug or the outage.

True, but misleading.

The Windows patch in its own right is not responsible for the Skype outage. But the desktop world's inexplicable reliance on a single operating system — Windows — is probably the real culprit.

To understand why, we need to recall how Skype works. It utilizes the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology in which voice is transmitted as packets of data, similar to how e-mail works, with encoding and decoding happening at the two ends of the call, or the two user PCs.

The unique thing about Skype is that it largely does not have its own central servers (for routing calls and the like). Thanks to intelligent peer-to-peer network software, they harness each user PC as a node in the network. With every new user PC added, therefore, the network grows and the service (voice) quality improves.

At any point in time you log onto the Skype network, chances are you will find about seven million users online. In other words, you will be logged to a seven-million-node-strong network (possibly several times larger than Google's). The Skype founders had clearly honed their "distributed-network" model in their earlier project: the controversial Kazaa file-sharing network.

The Hypothetical Is Real

The peer-to-peer design of Skype has been, quite deservedly, touted as revolutionarily efficient. Instead of building a network that depends entirely on central servers, with costly hardware investments, you leave it to the software to connect together a network of nodes composed of the users' own PCs. And you offer the service almost free.

But a little, seemingly theoretical, question remained. How would the network function if all its users, for some reason, logged out en masse?

The hypothetical, it turned out, was real. And the answer to the question came on August 16. Users did not conspire to bring Skype down; they had to disappear from the network with the obligatory reboot after installing the Windows patch. The peer-to-peer design was put to test. And it failed (in the Skype-speak, it was only a glitch).

But before we rush to conclusions, one basic idea must be duly emphasized. This outage would not have appeared had we had a world with a variety of desktop operating system options. And it would be too simplistic to just label Microsoft as evil for this situation.

It is rather too unwise of governments, particularly in the US and Europe, to fail to see this limitation and its possible consequences. Needless to say, this does not mean that those governments should crack down on Microsoft, though this is what the EU competition court seems to be doing now. They should rather think more seriously about financing, through venture capital, and spearheading alternative desktop operating system projects.

What can be the incentive for governments to invest in operating system projects? Harnessing the collective computing power of user computers could prove crucial in affording more free and useful services, such as Skype, in both the developed and developing nations. Its potential, however, remains vulnerable as the next patch looms.

New Dimension to Old Controversy

The Skype sudden blackout indeed adds a new dimension to the long-standing controversy around Microsoft, the world's largest software company. However, this time around it is not the expensive Microsoft products versus inexpensive products from others. Nor is it closed-source versus open-source code (as in Windows operating system versus Linux). It is rather about the simple fact that a world dependent almost solely on a single computing platform is likely too vulnerable.

A technology sector with a Windows-only option is like how the world economy would be had we had, say, a Citibank-only global banking sector. There is the obvious vulnerability of not having backup or plan-B options. And there is the stifling effect a unipolar operating system world may impose on creative concepts that depend for their resilience on multi-colored networks, such as the distributed network of Skype.

Microsoft is probably the least to blame for that. And the market dynamics may not be too helpful. After all, as Microsoft grew larger — using monopolistic practices or not — it became increasingly difficult for smaller companies to compete with it. It, therefore, is incumbent on governments to step in where the market has quite failed.

Bridging the medical research gulf

Published on ScienceBusiness.net| August 9, 2007
Waleed Al-Shobakky in Cairo, Egypt [In the photo a computer-generated image of Sidra]

What price excellence? Qatar’s Sidra Medical and Research Centre has $7.9 billion to build a world class institution. But is money enough to bridge the gap?

Of the six Gulf States, Qatar ranks second to last in size. But in investment in science and research, by contrast, the small emirate has recently become second to none -even outspending its much larger Middle Eastern neighbours, including Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Iran.

Qatar's newest research initiative embodies one of the tiny state's grandest ambitions yet. Sidra, a 382-bed medical and research facility with a whopping $7.9-billion endowment, is being set up in partnership with the Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (WCMC-Q) to be a regional hub of high-quality healthcare, education and research.

The leaders of Qatar and the masterminds behind Sidra estimate that the centre's abundant research money and its research agenda - focusing on cutting-edge and highly fashionable fields such as stem cells and genomics - will attract top research talents from around the world. Among the targets are pools of Arab scientists in the North American and European diasporas who wish to return to the region to be closer to home.

If things go as planned, this otherwise obscure Gulf emirate, could in a very short time be competing with the world's medical research titans, says WCMC-Q's vice dean, Javaid Sheikh.

Low base, high bar

Javaid Sheikh's enthusiasm for his new job is palpable. In an interview for Al-Jazeera satellite television channel (yet to be aired), he says that as WCMC-Q's vice dean for research he can convince the world’s best researchers to come to Qatar to do their research on genomics and stem cells.

Prof Sheikh, fresh in Qatar from Stanford University, also believes that in a handful of years, Qatar will be able to compete against countries with far deeper roots in medical research, in Europe and North America. Medical science, he says, is at a unique juncture when you can bring research to new quarters, like Qatar, and be able to compete with the best in the world within five years.

Certainly the terms used to describe the project when it was first unveiled last March underline the state’s ambitions: “Sidra will achieve the highest international standards in patient care, teaching and research.”

It may be hard to envisage how Qatar can reach such a pinnacle. After all, the country, like its Gulf neighbours, is resource-rich, but research-poor. So Qatar has set out to make the contrast in that reality less glaring.

Daniel Bergin, Sidra's executive project director, recognises that to attract the manpower necessary to achieve its goals the new centre has to have some unique features,

The trump card is the US$7.9 billion endowment - the largest of any medical centre anywhere. Bergin says that Qatar Foundation’s stupendous endowment will, “ensure, in large part, the continuation of vital clinical and translational research to be conducted at Sidra."

The second attraction of Sidra, says the centre's chief, is its affiliation with the medical school of the Ivy-League Cornell University, “which will cement [the centre's] place among the most prestigious medical and research institutions in the world.”

Cornell is one of the Western universities to have opened branch campuses in Doha's Education City at the invitation of (and with generous sponsorship from) the Qatar Foundation, the institution which spearheads Qatar's education and research projects.

Among the other schools hosted at the 25,000 acre campus are Carnegie Mellon University's business and computer science schools; Texas A&M School of Engineering and Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. [For more on this, see A tale of two sheikdoms].

Yet another unique feature of Sidra, Bergin adds, is that it, “will be one of the most technologically advanced medical centres in the world, perhaps the first truly all-digital facility.”

Also, with Cesar Pelli as its design architect, Sidra is an, “aesthetically beautiful place that will combine the look and feel of a luxury hotel with the high quality services of a world-class hospital,” says Bergin.

Building the capacity

Sidra's triple mission of education, research and patient care is inspired by the mission of its renowned partner medical college, says Daniel Alonso, WCMC-Q's dean, in a yet-to-be-aired interview with Al-Jazeera. This last academic year the school, which started in 2002, has graduated its first class. Once Sidra is in operation, it, along with Hamad Medical Corporation, will be the place where the WCMC-Q graduates continue their training both as clinicians and researchers.

For the time being, however, efforts are underway to lure top-notch research talents to Qatar from, "wherever we can get them," says Prof Alonso.

Top researchers are needed, to fill the ranks in the three main areas, or "pillars" of Sidra’s research programme. These pillars, according to Sidra's Bergin, are pregnancy health and infertility; developmental and preventative health; and women's health.

Under these broad pillars several sub-categories will be addressed, such as maternal and infant health in all phases of pregnancy and ways of reducing genetically based abnormalities; prevention and control of juvenile diabetes; and diseases that afflict adult women and have a high incidence of morbidity and mortality.

Those research areas, Bergin adds, will be supported by three core sciences and technologies: functional and anatomical imaging; stem cells; and genetics, genomics and proteomics. He would not, however, name the sources of the stem cell lines to be used.

It is hoped that attracting world-class researchers to Qatar will fuel the development of home grown talent. Prof Sheikh recognises that the ultimate aim is to extend the roots of scientific research into the otherwise alien soil of Qatar, or as he expresses it, "to make research part of the [Qatari] culture."

To this end, the WCMC-Q, is to start an "ambitious" research programme this coming fall, targeting the "total span" of research disciplines, including basic research, clinical research and translational research. "All of this is going to be done here in Qatar over the coming five years." In parallel, Prof Alonso adds, the school is going to recruit a large number of scientists to "begin laboratories here in Doha, and the goal is to establish research capacity here."

Will they come?

Prof Alonso believes that Qatar offers an attractive combination: a country that has made significant investments in research and education and renowned educational institutions. True, that combination could attract serious researchers. But, still, the day when scientists flock to Qatar may not yet be around the corner.

That reality has already manifested itself in the fact that some of Education City branch campuses are reportedly having a difficult time trying to get faculty from the "main campuses" to teach in Doha. Along with the fact that research in Qatar is just starting to get off the ground, the political instability in the Middle East is clearly taking its toll, contributing to the general perception that it is a research-averse region.

Because of this, Prof Alonso says that Qatar's new found interest in science and research could be particularly appealing to Arab scientists in Europe and North America who grew up in the region or have their families here. The large number of Arab scientists who came to Qatar to attend the government-sponsored Founding Conference for Expatriate Arab Scientists in April 2006 may actually serve as a testimony to this.

Though Qatar's "combination" may prove attractive, its position is not unrivalled. In August 2006, Imperial College in London partnered with the government of Abu Dhabi to launch the Imperial College London Diabetes Centre (ICLD) in the wealthiest of the seven emirates that compose the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The mandate of ICLD includes carrying out "world-class research [on] why diabetes occurs at such high levels in the [UAE]," according to the ICLD web site. The incidence of diabetes in the UAE is estimated to be the highest in the world, affecting about 25 percent of all adults.

Saudi Arabia too is no stranger to partnerships with Western universities. As far back as 1976, the biggest Gulf State invited Loma Linda University (LLU) of Southern California to offer the first American health degree programme in the Middle East. Other Saudi hospitals, such as Dallah Hospital, now have venture capital arms that operate directly from the Silicon Valley and have FDA-approved medical devices in the world markets.

Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia have clearly taken different routes in modernising their healthcare and medical research infrastructure. What they have in common is their recognition of the need to provide higher-quality healthcare to their peoples, and the need to look west to achieve that. After all, notes WCMC-Q's research vice dean, education is about exposure.

"Here we train our students on the methods and subject matter as in the New York campus, so the results will be the same," he says.