Archive Page 2

Reincarnating an Old Laptop as a Fridge Computer

My wife and I are heavy users of laptops in the kitchen. We frequently choose recipes from the web, and then refer to them on our laptops when cooking. The problem is that when our laptops are on the counter, they take up valuable space and they can get awfully dirty. Being an certified MIT computer science nerd, I wondered, is there a better way?

I set out to take an old laptop that we no longer use and give it a new life as a fridge-mounted kitchen computer. I nicknamed it the iFridge. It worked like a charm! Have a look at the picture below. We use our iFridge not only to look up recipes on Epicurious, but we also stream Pandora, and have a few weather/news widgets to keep us up-to-date.

For those interested in more technical details in case you want to do-it-yourself, here is a rough step-by-step:

  • Started with an old Compaq Evo n410c. It was so old it couldn’t run any recent version of Windows. Basically, it was waiting for the junkyard. However, it had the benefit of being a very slim device.
  • Installed Ubuntu Linux. There was a lot of fiddling necessary with the kernel to get it to support the non-standard WiFi card that is built into the laptop, but I’ll spare you those details. The good new is that with Linux, this laptop is quite zippy!
  • Installed Firefox. The goal was to have the device be completely “cloud-powered” so I’d never have to worry about updating miscellaneous software. I also installed the SpeedDial extension to enable quick launches from the Firefox home screen.
  • Configured SpeedDial with shortcuts to Epicurious, AllRecipes, and MyRecipes. Also added shortcuts to Pandora and Hulu (there’s nothing like watching the Daily Show to kill time while waiting for water to boil). Also configured a couple weather and news widgets.
  • Mounted the laptop to the fridge. Since our fridge door isn’t magnetic (oddly enough), I opted to use a sling design to mount the laptop. I used two interlinked ribbons, one that went around the top edge of the door, and the other which went around the waist of the laptop. Due to the subtle curve of the fridge door, the laptop actually hugs the door quite tightly. Even when the fridge is opened or closed! Lastly, I concealed the power cord underneath the ribbon and traced it around the hinge towards the outlet. That way you can’t even see the cord and it doesn’t interfere with the motion of the door.
  • Enjoyed! Our iFridge has undoubtedly changed the way we cook in the kitchen. We have all the internet’s food knowledge (as well as its entertainment) on demand and in a convenient spot.

I urge everybody out there who has an old laptop to consider reincarnating their device as an iFridge.

Why Philosophers Make Formidable Entrepreneurs

In my many meetings with fellow tech entrepreneurs, I’ve noticed that very few actually have a technology background. Even more surprising, I’ve found that a disproportionate number of them (especially the successful ones) majored in philosophy in college. It got me thinking, why is it that so many excellent tech entrepreneurs were originally philosophers?

Just to name a few of these folks so you get the picture, there’s Amol Sarva (Peek), Ken Reisman (TLists), Damon Horowitz (Aardvark), Patrick Byrne (Overstock), Josh Snyder (Treeline Labs), and of course Chris Dixon (Hunch). And that’s just off the top of my head!

Quite an impressive bunch! I’ve come up with a few hypotheses on how philosophy training makes entrepreneurs like these so formidable:

  • Philosophers seek to structure the world. So when confronted with all of the uncertainty and turbulence of a startup, they are able to structure a sensible plan that their teams can execute.
  • Philosophers are deeply analytical. Rather than run their businesses on pure gut instinct, they look for evidence. By applying their analytical powers, they are able to reduce business risk.
  • Philosophers strive to find deeper truths. To hire the best people for your team, you need a compelling vision. Philosophers try to identify these deeper truths, and they articulate them to attract the best talent.
  • Philosophers like to argue. Intense debate is a central feature of most philosophy classes. This gives philosophers an abundance of confidence in their points of view, which helps them raise money from investors.
  • Philosophers aren’t afraid of risk. After all, they chose to study philosophy in school! Anybody who goes into a field knowing there are no job opportunities must love taking a gamble.

Reading over my list, I almost wish I had studied philosophy as an undergrad! If you are still in school and want to be a tech entrepreneur, maybe it’s time to head on over to the philosophy department….

A Platform for Collaborative Citizen Science

I maintain an idea journal that has far more concepts for innovations than I will ever have the time to implement. Rather than letting them gather dust, I’m starting a new series on my blog called “iWant”, which is similar in spirit to Y-Combinator’s RFS. Each installment of “iWant” will describe an idea that I hope someone will pick up and bring into the world.

Please “steal” these ideas. They are provided free of charge, though acknowledgment is always appreciated. As any entrepreneur knows, ideas are a dime a dozen. Hats off to anyone who puts in the sweat and tears necessary to execute any of these concepts!

So without further adieu, here is the first installment of “iWant!”:

Citizen Science

I am downright bullish on the future of “Citizen Science“. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept, Citizen Science is a term for describing when ordinary people get together to collaboratively solve scientific challenges. Oftentimes, the people are in geographically disbursed areas and use the internet to coordinate their actions.

The reason I think this is such a promising method of inquiry is that it solves two big problems in one fell swoop:

* Citizen Science breathes new life into the way we learn and teach science.  Too much of science education is based upon learning dry facts as if they were gospel. The true beauty of science lies in observation and experimentation. Collaborative science projects can get kids (and their parents) excited about science again.

* Citizen Science enables an entirely new class of scientific discoveries. Many scientific investigations require a greater volume of data than any one person can collect, or require observations from more locations than any one person can visit. By using a distributed network of people to help out with these experiments, Citizen Science can prevail.

The Vision

I believe that Citizen Science could become a major force in both discovery and education if an online community existed that coordinated this kind of collaborative research. It would be an online platform where each week people could login to see a project on which they could help (kind of like a “Woot for Science”). The website would lead them through the process of how to complete their part of the task. Finally, the platform would facilitate the collection of data from everybody, and assemble it into a single coherent data set that the community could analyze and discuss.

Who knows what discoveries would emerge! Project possibilities are abundant. If there were a critical mass of people who participated, just think of the kinds of science that would suddenly be feasible:

* Entomology. My friend John Forkan imagines the community could create a crowdsourced directory of bugs across the world. Each participant would catalogue a handful of bugs. This would lead not only to an interesting directory, but also interesting maps of where bugs live. Plus, people could compare the kinds of bugs in their location with those of people in other locations, thereby learning about taxonomy and evolution.

* Genetics. With the price of genome sequencing falling exponentially, it may not be long before amateurs can get together and sequence the genomes of almost any creature. Just like the Human Genome Project, each participant would get a small snippet of the DNA. Using a home electrophoresis kit, perhaps they could sequence their small region of the genome. Put them together, and you have the entire genome.

* Astronomy. Amateurs have forever been hunting for comets. But what could you do if you could get thousands of amateurs together for one night? You could choose a small region of the sky, break it up into tiny sectors, and farm out observation of each sector to a participant. When people have spotted a possible comet candidate, they could interact with others in real-time to try to confirm their sightings. How fun would that be to do on Twitter?

I’m sure almost every scientist out there could take an important problem in their field and think of ways to break it down into small pieces that ordinary citizens can help solve.

The Product

To be an effective coordinator of Citizen Science, the online platform would need to facilitate several activities:

* Selection. Each week, the community needs to select a new project on which to collaborate. This could be done by voting, or through an editorial process. To keep focus, at any one time, there should only be one active project on which the community is working.

* Instruction. The service needs to assemble simple instructional materials (ideally a video) to teach people the main concepts they need to know when carrying out their part of the science project. Perhaps even this video could be user-submitted.

* Assignment. The platform needs to make it simple to carve up the project into small chunks and assign them to the right participants. The system should support decomposing projects in several standard ways, such as geographically or temporally.

* Collection. Whether people are uploading videos, contributing pictures, or filling out forms, it needs to be really easy for people to put their data into the system. To start, perhaps the platform could leverage other existing services, such as Google Docs.

* Analysis. This step is the most interesting and requires the most thought. The system needs to help people analyze the contributed data and discuss the implications. Visualization software, statistical tools, and well-moderated forums might well be worth integrating.

The Revenue

Charging for participation in this community would be a non-starter. We’d need as many people as possible to get involved. Therefore, a more promising revenue model is to sell various equipment or kits that participants might need to complete their tasks.

I imagine that most of the projects will require some kind of apparatus. Bird-watching tasks might require binoculars; meteorology tasks might require barometers; microbiology tasks might require petri dishes. Selling these items (either directly or through a Groupon-like referral model) could bring in enough revenue to support the platform.

The Team

I have dispensed with describing the “market” or other details of the economics of this idea because it’s not at all clear that it would be a big opportunity financially. So rather than a scrappy little startup taking this on in order to build a big business, here are a couple of alternative organizations that might instead be well-suited to execute this idea:

* Lab Equipment or Hobby Kit Companies. These organizations could use the platform to promote the sales of their equipment. Since many of them already have relationships with science teachers at schools, they could recruit entire classrooms to be the early participants of the platform. It would be a brilliant complementary service for their existing products. Edmund Scientific and Thames & Kosmos, are you listening?

* Science Museums or University Outreach Offices. These organizations have it in their mission to teach the public about science. As such, they would be perfect to take on the construction of this platform. Through their membership, they already have relationships with science-interested amateurs, who could be the initial participants. I’d love to see the Boston Museum of Science, the American Museum of Natural History, the Exploratorium, or the Maryland Science Center launch this idea!

If you’ve made it this far, I hope you are excited enough to take this idea and run with it. Even if you are a single person and you’re not sure how you could help, just register your interest in the comments. Maybe if enough people chime in, you could form a team to make this idea a reality. I’ll keep my fingers crossed. In the words of Up, “Adventure is Out There!”

The Promise of Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Biology is one of the most exciting frontiers of applied science. It aspires to put the “engineering” in the field of genetic engineering. Rather than manipulating DNA in a haphazard manner, synthetic biologists seek to introduce the rigor of engineering to this process. The result, it is hoped, will be the ability to more quickly and more robustly create novel types of biological organisms that can be useful to society.
Want to clean up toxic waste? Why not design a new kind of bacteria that eats the waste and produces fuel? Want to manufacture furniture more simply? Why not design a new kind of tree that grows into the shape of a table? Want to create a more efficient solar panel? Why not redesign plant cells to scale up the process of photosynthesis? The possibilities literally are as boundless as human imagination.
The field is exciting enough that I need to split my thoughts into two posts. This post will provide some background on the field. My next post will detail some of my hands-on experiences.
Pioneers
Two of the pioneers of synthetic biology are Drew Endy and Tom Knight. While Drew Endy’s story has been well-covered in the press, I’ve never met him. But I do know Tom Knight, who is one of the most respected research scientists in MIT’s computer science department. (Incidentally, Tom is the father of James Knight, one of my buddies from undergrad at MIT and every bit as brilliant as his father.)
At about the time I was in my final years of undergrad at MIT (i.e., the turn of the millennium), Tom was in the midst of changing his research focus. He sat in on many of the introductory biology classes and started building a wet lab within the engineering department. As such, he brought an engineer’s perspective to the field of genetics.
Principles
Tom and his collaborators were struck by how inefficient genetic engineering was back in those days. Almost in a one-off manner, researchers would try to assemble from scratch the DNA for new organisms. Tom realized that if he could introduce a few simple engineering principles to this process, he could help the field move much more quickly and robustly.
The most important of those principles was the concept of “interchangeability”. When engineers are designing new devices, they seldom start from scratch. Instead, they use a standard set of interchangeable parts that they can order from catalogs. If you are building a chair, you use standard screws. You don’t design your own screws from scratch. By having a set of standard parts that can be used in conjunction with each other, it is possible build devices faster and more reliably.
Breakthrough Bricks
So that is what Tom Knight and Drew Endy set out to build: a standard set of interchangeable biological parts. Each biological “part” is a DNA sequence that performs one specific useful function, like inverting or measuring signals. To build a biological machine, all you’d need to do is chain together the right parts, just like building Lego creations from those little bricks. They embraced this Lego analogy and called their DNA sequences “BioBricks“.
They could have stopped there, but these guys think big. Rather than designing all of the BioBricks themselves, they wanted to spur massive innovation. So they made their catalog “open source” and allowed anybody to contribute. The result is the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, which at last count contains hundreds, if not thousands, of parts.
What this means is that anybody in the world– even high school students with limited expertise– can apply their creativity in building biological machines. All they need to do is chain together the appropriate BioBricks. If they need a new brick along the way, they can invent one and contribute it to the catalog for all to share. An annual competition, called the International Genetically Engineering Machine competition (iGEM), challenges teams to do exactly that. It has been a smashing success and is growing by leaps and bounds.
Policy Perils
Given the relative ease for amateurs to use the tools of synthetic biology, it is not surprising that the field is raising a few eyebrows in policy circles. People worry that not all of the molecular machines that synthetic biologists design would be so benign. What if a lunatic wanted to engineer a superbug that is capable of inflicting immense harm? Theoretically, the same tools that give rise to helpful synthetic organisms could also give rise to harmful ones.
These concerns are not unwarranted. I expect that in the not too distant future, we will see regulations that aim to curtail the risk of nefarious synthetic biology. Some researchers may be worried that government regulation is likely to have a chilling effect on beneficial innovations in the field. While that is definitely possible, the regulations are likely to be much more favorable so long as researchers start discussing policy solutions immediately. For regulators to make smart decisions, they need to be as educated as possible. And that education must start immediately. The worst thing the field can do is to hide from potential regulation, hoping that it never materializes. Because it is inevitable.
Opportunities
Whenever there is a useful branch of science where the barriers to innovate are collapsing, startups are sure to thrive. If it is not obvious, there are countless billion dollar opportunities for startups in this space. After all, simple bacteria, thanks to their resilience and their propensity to reproduce, are the most efficient factories in the known universe. By reformulating their DNA, you can theoretically “program” them to produce almost any organic substance you want. Synthetic Biology has the promise to revolutionize countless industries, from manufacturing, to agriculture, to energy, to medicine.
The ecosystem for startups to succeed in this burgeoning field couldn’t be more ripe. There is a steady flow of talent streaming out of bioengineering departments. There is more than a critical mass of venture capital firms, like Musea Ventures, targeting this space. And there are hordes of pharmaceuticals, materials, and energy companies impatiently waiting to buy out startups that can demonstrate useful innovations.
My friends, this is the PC industry in the 1970′s! The technology exists in research labs. It is simple and cheap enough that amateur clubs are active. And the markets are well-known. I can’t wait to see what emerges.

The Power Law of Talent

Any company that rejects a potential hire for being “overqualified” is diving inevitably towards mediocrity.

Many times in my career, I’ve had the misfortune (fortune?) of being declined for a job for the stated reason of being “overqualified”. Each time, it baffled me. I won’t reveal who some of these companies were, because I don’t wish to embarrass them, but suffice it to say that many were leaders in their respective industries. Why on Earth would a company close their doors to good people?

Some companies claim that they simply don’t have the budget to hire someone of higher skill. While this may be a valid excuse for small companies who are truly short on capital, no large company should ever voice this rationale.

After all, people are a company’s most precious resource. They are the source of all growth. Talent as it relates to growth obeys a power law: The top 5% of the people in your company really do contribute at least 50% of the value, especially in innovation-driven industries. By spending an additional 5% on compensation to get a few extra exceptional people, a company has the potential to grow 50% more quickly.

When Ken and I started Pluribo, we firmly committed ourselves to this philosophy. We engaged in serious talks with two candidates who were outstanding and possibly even “overqualified” for our immediate needs. Yet we were willing to pay them a salary far above ours and to give them outsized portions of the company’s equity. We knew that having the smartest people could cost us more in the short-term, but would multiply our chance of success in the long-run.

So when a talented person comes knocking on your door, you should bend over backwards to find a place for them in your organization. Even if you can’t find a position for them in your immediate group, shop them around to another group within your organization. If you don’t have the money to pay them at their market rate, offer them what you can. Who knows, they might love your mission enough to take it. But whatever you do, don’t let them get away.

« Previous PageNext Page »


Hello

Welcome to the blog of Samidh Chakrabarti, which revolves around the topic of innovation (from technology to entrepreneurship to policy), sprinkled with ample doses of et cetera.

Tweets @samidh

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.