Tomorrow kite enthusiasts from around the country will converge on the National Mall for the 41st annual Smithsonian Kite Festival. Kite makers can can test their creations in a contest with rules and regulations you would expect in the nation’s capital:

By order of the Federal Aviation Administration, the weight of a kite must not exceed 5 pounds and altitude of flight must not exceed 500 feet. When informed that a Presidential helicopter is approaching, all kites must be pulled down immediately, and not re-flown until the all-clear announcement.

Kites have been a pastime since 3,500 years when they were invented in China. There is also some evidence that Malaysia, Indonesia and South Pacific islands developed kites for a more practical purpose: fishing. This clever technology mashup - still practiced today - enabled them to reach fish in shallows where there boats could not.

But fisherman weren’t the only ones to recognize the utility of kites - so did surfers. Kite surfing, also known as kite boarding, powers surfers through and above the water with a large inflatable kite usually attached to the user by a harness. Although the sport is only 13 years old, there are now more than 200,000 kite surfers around the world.

And if you’re more likely to pilot a large boat rather than a surfboard, you can just attach a Sky Sails to your ship. Cheaper than retrofitting large ships with sails and masts, these enormous kites can help reduce energy costs by taking advantage of ocean surface winds.

While the average five & dime kite is lucky to use all 500 feet of its discount cotton string, more serious kite enthusiasts upped the ante a few years ago. They started with a kite 30 feet in width, tethered it to a 3 inch thick Kevlar line and flew it to a record-setting height of 13,500 feet - more than two and a half miles in the atmosphere.

But recent research into using kites as a renewable energy source would shatter that world record.

Environmentalists were quick to hail wind turbines as a viable alternative to our reliance on fossil fuels, but bird lovers hated them. It seems that Don Quixote’s giants were swatting down some of their favorite feathered friends. So why not build the windmills farther from the ground?

Indeed there are several companies considering this. Treehugger reported that a Canadian company called Magenn has invented a wind-powered generator that is a cross between a kite and a helium balloon. Held aloft by helium 1000 feet in the air, winds cause the Magnus effect where “rotation increases, lift increases, drag will be minimized because of reduced leaning, and stability increases.” Electricity generated by these floating turbines is then sent to the ground via an electrical line.

Another idea takes windmills and attaches kites. The Italian company Kite Wind Generator uses kites 1000 meters in the troposhere that “are anchored to a revolving structure on a vertical axis, analogous to a giant merry-go-round, which conveys the energy… (to a) power-plant.”

And if kites pulling a merry-go-round isn’t innovative enough, imagine if Thomas Edison invented a kite today. Recent research proposed that flying electric generators (FEGs) could harness kinetic energy in jet stream winds. These winds more than six miles above the surface of the earth produce up to 100 times more energy than winds on the ground. According to the Washington Post, “just tapping into 1 percent of the energy in high altitude winds would be enough to power all of civilization.”

Of course, if none of these other kite-based solutions solve U.S. energy problems, President Bush can just go fly his What Would Jesus Do? kite.

.

Washington D.C. Public Library Case Study

Washington DC’s 37% rate of functional adult illiteracy reflects one of the most underfunded and underutilized library systems in the country. In 2004, former DC Mayor Anthony Williams launched a task force in 2004 to examine the DC Public Library (DCPL). In November 2006 the Mayor’s Task Force Report was released, envisioning that:

“Revitalized libraries will offer fresh collections of current books and media, useful standard publications, multilingual materials, GED and SAT practice books, historic documents and records, pertinent online databases, and digital content.”

Unfortunately, listing digital content last is symbolic of the vision for DC libraries. In the 370 page Technical Report, e-books are mentioned only seven times in reference to the future of DCPL collections. Here some of the few excerpts that lay out technology vision for the DCPL in 2010 and beyond:

“[Page 21]: The library should license digital content and make it available to registered borrowers whether they are in the library or using the collection from their home. E-books, digital audiobooks, videos-on-demand, and other digital content should be available for downloading to a customer’s personal computer, PDA,or MP3 player. …

[Page 60]: A ‘virtual branch’ is fast becoming a necessary facility for successful public libraries serving large populations. … A virtual branch can be a full-service location for searching licensed electronic databases, getting answers through an interactive reference service, downloading digital books and audiovisual content, using learning software, and participating in online programs such as presentations and discussions about books and topics of current interest. Also, items in the library’s physical collections can be reserved and, when available, shipped to the user – with any fees charged to the user’s account or credit card.”

It all sounds pretty high tech until you hit on idea of shipping books around the city. In any case, if you’ve lived in DC for long, the vision of a virtual branch probably sounds like science fiction. In fact, the 2010 vision for the DCPL is based on technology that has been used in public libraries around the country for years.
.

Playing Catch Up

Several companies including NetLibrary, Overdrive, and Ebrary already have partnerships with public libraries around the world. All three offer a system for libraries to purchase e-books and popular audio book titles, though the technology is not cheap. NetLibrary has a rather shocking price structure. According to LibraryJournal.com:

“NetLibrary… now with more than 100,000 titles, has maintained its one book–one user access model. The company offers two primary purchase models based on title-by-title selection: libraries can subscribe to an ebook by paying the list price of the book, plus an annual access fee of 15 percent of the list price, or libraries can ‘own’ an ebook by paying the list price plus a one-time access fee of 55 percent of the list price.”

Unfortunately, the lack of a significant discount for subscriptions will encourage libraries to purchase e-books. If the library purchases a title, e-catalogs lose many of the advantages of digitization. For example, if econo-star Steven Levitt is heading to Seattle to talk about Freakonomics and 100 people want to read his e-book at the same time, they’ll have to wait. The King County Library System can only lend out 5 of his e-books at a time. E-books are made of 1s an 0s, not hardwoods and glue, so why not simply pay the publisher every time the virtual book is checked out?

Although the NetLibrary subscription model is extortionary, subscription e-books are the ideal model for libraries. E-books require few human resources: three weeks after you check out an e-book, it is automatically “returns” itself to the library by deleting itself (spooky, eh?). A subscription service ensures that libraries pay publishers only when e-books are checked out, so no dollars are wasted on lonely, unread books sitting on dusty shelves. Best of all, 10 of your best friends can check out a copy of the e-book at the same time, eliminating excuses in your book club.

While a subscription service might seem to favor the publishers of bestsellers, it also provides increased exposure to authors of obscure or out-of print books - the so-called long tail. If libraries pay only when e-books are loaned, then there is no reason to limit the size of their virtual catalog. A proper e-book subscription service that costs a public library no upfront fees also reduces guesswork in collections management, enabling a smooth transition in budgeting for a dedicated e-library.
.

Leapfrog: DC Should Pursue the First True Virtual Public Library System

DC Public Libraries suffer from several problems that make them an ideal test case for launching a real virtual library: huge deferred maintenance costs, an aging central library, and a population disillusioned by years of neglect to local libraries.

DCPL is too far behind the technology curve to play catch up. Instead they should leapfrog technologies. Statastic proposes that new DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and DCPL Director Ginnie Cooper consider a bold experiment in virtual collections.

The DCPL should start phasing out the acquisition of new paper books in 2008, with the goal of e-books making up no less than 90% of new acquisitions 2013. By 2017, the DCPL should have digitized 90% of its existing collection and sold the millions of hardback books in its stacks to help generate revenue. This will reduce required square footage - and overhead costs - of neighborhood libraries, eliminate the frustration of missing books, and create more space for the computer terminals that are sorely lacking.

.

Advantages to the DC Virtual Library

One of the most obvious advantages to a virtual library is the 24-hour access to books that might otherwise be checked out or unavailable. It could also expand the size of the DCPL available collection from 2.7 million volumes to as many as 32 million - every title in the WorldCat system. More titles mean more attention from residents, which increases reading and circulation.

In a city with 17% of its residents and 30% of its children living in poverty, it might seem that DC is not well-suited for e-books. After all, how would someone living in poverty afford a $300 e-reader? And how would they download a book with access to the Internet? Statastic expects the prices of e-readers featuring e-ink to drop to less than $75 within 5 years (we already have $100 laptops), and less than $40 by 2017.

Under this plan, the DCPL would phase in heavily subsidized or free e-readers for every low income DC resident. Children could also use these e-readers in the public schools where textbooks are in such short supply making it impossible to assign homework from textbooks. And assigning a hot new technology like e-readers to under-privileged citizens might just spark their interest in reading.

With the advent of Google Books, do we need a virtual public library? Many DC residents with their own e-readers and home Internet access will soon have access to millions of Google e-books. But the digital divide is real and if public libraries aren’t centrally involved in digitization of books, the gap will widen. As the high-income, early adopters turn toward e-books, wealthy taxpayers might see less value in funding the DC Public Library System (if this is even possible). This would exacerbate already grave funding shortfalls, leaving an underclass with an ignored and outmoded library system.

.

E-book Public Library Budget

Free e-readers, millions of e-books… sounds expensive, doesn’t it? Actually it could save taxpayers millions of dollars. The DCPL proposed budget for 2007 is $43 million, of which $19 million is for reference and library collection services. Facilities make up another $9.4 million. All three of these categories will have enormous savings if transitioned to an e-books catalog:

• 1. Book Sale: Bound books would be liquidated, with proceeds dedicated to digitizing rare books and subscription to an e-books catalog.
• 2. Deferred Maintenance: Neighborhood libraries that have been already been closed or that suffer from huge deferred maintenance costs would be sold and replaced by an increased number of smaller, leaner e-libraries that offer better neighborhood access to computer workstations, distribution of e-reader and training and reading programs. Neighborhoods with little Internet access would be served by DCPL e-book kiosks (more on this below).
• 3. Staff reductions: With fewer books to re-shelve and a 24 hour virtual library online, collections and maintenance staff could be reduced. As D.C. Library Renaissance Project Director Robin Diener recently commented: “We have evidence of incredible abuses — people who work for [the library] and draw a salary and rarely come to work. It’s a no-work culture.”
• 4. Private Partners: The DCPL should pursue technology partners such as Google or Yahoo which will be naturally be drawn to the cutting edge, high-profile project of digitizing the library system of the nation’s capital.
• 5. Private & Public Grants: The DCPL’s innovative virtual library experiment will also attract attention from major donors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as federal grants.

By 2017 when the DC Virtual Library System is in place, there will be some new expenses (2007 dollars):

• 1. New Staff: Tech savvy staff capable of managing a virtual catalog and training patrons on the use of e-books, e-readers, and online catalogs. The new, more expensive staff hired will be offset by staff reductions due to reduced maintenance and collections services (e.g. re-shelving). Reference librarians will still be necessary, though they may take on new roles dispensing valuable advice through online forums. It’s even easy to imagine 24 hour access to an online librarian.
• 2. Subsidized E-readers: Assume that students would be issued e-readers at school. The DCPL would purchase e-readers for any adult with a household income of less than $35,000 per year. Nearly one-third, or about 184,000, DC residents would qualify for free e-readers. If new e-readers are issued every 2 years and the price of e-readers averages $40 in 2017 (it is more likely to be about $15 to $20), it would cost the city about $3.7 million annually to supply free e-readers. Other ways to help defray these costs are to require a deposit or small co-payments from those above the poverty line.
• 3. E-book Subscriptions: Circulation in all DC public libraries is about 1.1 million books. If the DCPL can reach a circulation rate similar to Seattle’s, residents would be checking out 6 million e-books per year, or about 1 book per month for every reading-age citizen. If the DCPL cut a deal with publishers to pay $2 for every book checked out from its libraries, it would cost the DCPL $12 million per year to maintain its e-book collection.
• 4. E-book Kiosks: For residents in neighborhoods with limited home Internet access, DCPL could provide e-book kiosks near public areas like schools or community centers. Pre-distributed e-readers would have RFID technology that identifies the DCPL account. The customer would simply touch the e-reader to kisok to log in. After selecting a title, the user holds the e-reader next to the kiosk for a free wireless download of the e-book. Installation and maintenance could be covered by corporate advertising on the outside of the kiosk.

The total new expenses of subsidized e-readers plus e-book subscriptions is equal to about $15.6 million. Compare this to the $19 million being spent on collections and references this year alone.

It’s important to remember that not all books, documents and historical will be digitized, so there will be still be a need for a central library, whether it is the renovated Martin Luther King, Jr. Library in downtown DC or the new one proposed by the DC Mayor. Either of the central library proposals are would cost about $275 million according to city estimates. Statastic doesn’t prefer one proposal over another, but it is imperative to rethink the needs of a central library with e-books as the heart of the collection.

.

Unknowns and Opportunities

There are two unknowns in creating the world’s first truly digital library: 1) are publishers willing to negotiate lower e-books subscription rates, and 2) will the DCPL create its own e-book collection or outsource it?

One major pre-condition for this proposal to succeed is that subscription e-book prices must be negotiated downward. Publishers and authors must be made to understand that low-priced e-book “rentals” in public libraries will increase readership. Publishers will sell higher volumes of e-books, and they can count on a reliable revenue stream.

It is not cost effective for the DCPL to digitize its collection from scratch. Google has already inserted themselves into the e-book value chain and Google is far and away the leader in the number of titles digitized. In fact, Google may be the only corporate partner for creating a virtual public library. According to Jeffrey Toobin in this week’s New Yorker, because of publishers’ lawsuits against Google, they might be the last company to digitize the world’s books:

Google’s advantage may well be cemented if the company settles its lawsuits with the publishers and authors. … [Lawrence Lessig , Professor at Stanford Law School said], “The publishers will get more than the law entitles them to, because Google needs to get this case behind it. And the settlement will create a huge barrier for any new entrants in this field.”

Google will complete digitization of the 6 million books at the University of Michigan by 2010 - the same target year for the DCPL’s modernization. The DCPL should approach Google immediately to negotiate a partnership for the DC Virtual Library.

Are DC residents feeling lucky?

.

If e-books have been a commercial flop thus far, then how do Americans access books? In 2004-2005 we were divided equally between purchasing 2.3 billion books and checking out 2.4 billion books from libraries. Libraries remain a critical steward of our world’s knowledge. But even as the world wide web has made information more global, most libraries remain local in their focus.

For librarians, it must seem that the web has turned information gathering on its head. The Internet is a heady young fellow, self-obsessed, self-referential, and unflinchingly modern in its focus (see right). Libraries house history, centuries of wisdom buried deep in stacks, and even deeper in the un-searchable text of yellowing book pages. So how can libraries remain relevant?

Let’s first examine the mission of public libraries versus the mission of major search engines. The following excerpts are from the mission statements of several major libraries and a certain web giant - see if you can distinguish between them (hover over or click the link for the answers):

A. “Helping people advance knowledge to enrich lives”

B. “…to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

C. “…to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations.”

D. “…collecting, cataloging, and conserving books and other materials…. to serve as a great storehouse of knowledge… and to function as an integral part of a fabric of information and learning that stretches across the nation and the world.”

E. “…to create a comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalog of all books in all languages that helps users discover new books and publishers discover new readers.”

.

Private Sector Libraries

Clearly the missions of Google (and other search engines) are converging with those of the leading libraries. Google recognized this as an opportunity and launched the Google Library Project in late 2004. The project started with five major library partners, but has since extended to 11 libraries in three countries. Google is digitizing the contents of prestigious libraries such as Harvard, Stanford and Oxford, increasing access to tens of millions of unique books that were once accessible only to a small, elite group.

Google spends between $10 and $30 for every book it scans. The entire project, which will span at least a decade, will only cost Google the equivalent of its 4th quarter profits in 2006. Not a bad investment for the web giant.

Google has already made these books available on its Google Book Search, a fascinating portal that for the first time in human history opens up rare and not-so-rare books to anyone in the world. Not only are these books are fully text searchable, Google has recently announced an integration with Google Maps, making librarians, technologists and Google-philes giddy. No more leafing through musty books to find a quote or location.

Google’s Library Project is distinctive from several others such as the Open Content Alliance sponsored by Yahoo and Microsoft because Google is barreling ahead and scanning copyrighted texts. This has not only provoked lawsuits, but more importantly, it has also provided a necessary impetus to publishers and libraries to address the issue of how to manage copyrighted books in the digital era.

Google Book Search allows full text search for copyrighted works by simply telling you that the terms you searched for are in the book. Google then provides a tantalizing “snippet view” of the text as if it was torn right from the page. If you want to read the whole book online, however, you’ll have to wait. Rather than selling the e-book, Google paradoxically directs you to amazon.com which will happily mail you a hardback in 5 to 7 days for $21.95.

This is about to change dramatically. On January 21, 2007, Google announced to the Times of London that it would launch an e-book service. Details are murky, but it seems likely that users will be able to purchase all or part of copyrighted books. I can only reiterate that pricing matters. With e-books, publishers can increase the exposure of previously obscure books and eliminate publishing costs. Ideally, this will increase profit margins and create significant savings for consumers. Because digitized books are easily divided, e-books could lead to a new model of micropayments enabling consumers to purchase only what they need, be it a chapter, a paragraph, or even just a quote.

.

Public Library Reactions

Google’s mission is not without its critics. Jean-Noël Jeanneney, president of France’s Bibliothèque Nationale wrote a plaintive book called Google And the Myth of Universal Knowledge warning of Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism and the risk of market-driven libraries:

“As anyone who uses Google knows, what is intrinsic to all the information it provides is hierarchization. Even if there are many pages of results, the searcher rarely goes beyond the first few. …The profit motive will necessarily promote one product over another.”

As long as there have been publishers with a marketing budget, there have been attempts to woo readers. And while the psychological effect of publishers’ advertising cannot be stopped at the door of library, our French friend would like to see it diminished.

There is some merit to this view, but not much. Libraries and library science will continue to weigh market forces against intellectual ones, but this new digital medium should not be made the culprit. If a library were to license, buy, or rent the contents Google’s digital library, couldn’t they simply reorganize it in a neutral, intellectualized way that would make even Mr. Dewey Decimal proud? Or should the public libraries simply create their own digital library system from scratch?

.

Public Library Initiatives

Most libraries do see the upside to digitizing their libraries or they wouldn’t be working with Google. In fact, Google recently gave a $3 million grant to the Library of Congress for its World Digital Library Project in conjunction with UNESCO. The project is focused on improving web access to rare materials that, “…are physically stored in geographically dispersed locations, and which, when brought together with other collections through cross-national and cross-cultural multilingual search and browse capabilities, will yield new knowledge and insights.”

The World Digital Library may sound ambitious, but its scope is much more limited than that of Google Books. It will focus primarily on the long end of the tail: rare cultural treasures that most of us don’t use, rather than popular literature that most of us check out from our local libraries.

So we have the ivory tower approach and the commercial approach. Caught in the middle are the libraries that most Americans use.

Is Google the only answer? To be sure, they have a massive head start (see statastic below). In a decade they may have more books in their digital collection than any library system on earth. But if there is true intellectual concern about the earth’s largest library being in the hands of a profit-driven company, why not launch a public initiative? Can the U.S. government even afford it?

It’s all about priorities. If the U.S. government decided to scan and digitize every one of the 65 million books on earth, it would only cost about $2 billion. That’s less than we are spending for one week in Iraq, and it’s less than kids (I presume it’s kids) are paying for cell phone ring tones each year. We can afford it; so far, we just haven’t chosen to.

Even if the public sector did spend resources digitizing, libraries would face copyright issues. Tomorrow I will look at that as well as e-books initiatives at local libraries. And later this week, a case study that imagines the The DC Public Library in 2017.

.

.

.

Sources and assumptions: Google has not disclosed the number of books it is digitizing or its timeline for completing the project. Early in the project Google claimed that it would scan 3,000 books per day. This figure was used for the low estimate. The high estimate was based on expanded date searches (1500 to 2007) on Google Books that returned about 4.5 million books. This was extrapolated back to the beginning of the project to find the scan rate, which was then used to project the high estimate. Statastic believes that the high estimate is probably more accurate because the 3,000 books per day figure referred to a contract with only the University of California library system. The fact that Google continues to add libraries to the project indicates that Google is likely to accelerate the scanning rate.

With the advent of e-ink and e-paper, the only thing missing is the electronic content: e-books. E-books offer several clear advantages over print media: students able to tote all of their textbooks back and forth to classes in one 7 ounce e-reader; traveling the world with detailed guidebooks and foreign language dictionaries for dozens of countries; the ability to store hundreds of your favorite books in a tiny urban apartment; and finally, the potential to revolutionize libraries around the world (more on that tomorrow).

Many analysts agreed that e-books would revolutionize publishing. In 2000, Accenture predicted that e-books would make up 10% of the book market by 2005. Unfortunately, e-books didn’t live up to their great expectations. In fact, e-books only made up .07% of the 2.3 billion books sold in 2005: less than 1 of every 1200 books sold was in electronic format. Moreover, sales of e-books were flat between 2004 and 2005.

So why has the public rejected the digitization of print media? One problem is that, unlike CDs, there is no way to digitize your current library of paperbacks. E-books and e-readers also present the classic chicken and egg conundrum. Without most titles available in e-book form, expensive e-readers lose their appeal. And without flashy new e-readers to energize consumers (as iPod did for digital music), publishers are naturally less willing to commit to the new format.

Some of that may be changing: Apple’s new iPhone is making bloggers like Booksquare all tingly:

“…the iPhone could either kill the nascent e-reader business or take it to new levels. We’ve been saying just about forever that the problem with dedicated e-reader is the fact that the consumer isn’t seeking a device that does only one thing. With its “smart” orientation features, the iPhone could usher in the mass market e-book era.”

Even as Apple might revitalize the market, if they insist on Digital Rights Management (DRM) as they do in the music market, they may undermine their potential success. Just as Apple iTunes makes it difficult to share digital music downloads with friends, some e-book sellers impose similar restrictions. That makes the paperbacks more attractive than DRM-controlled e-books: you bought it, you can share it with friends. Not so with DRM e-books.

Traditional publishing houses are also delusional when it comes to pricing e-books. If you want to read Tom Sawyer’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example, you can buy the Penguin Classic paperback for $5.95, or for a modest 10% discount, you can download the same Penguin Classic from ereader.com.

But consider this: Copyrights on many classic titles have entered public domain. This means that almost everything written before 1923 in the United States is free to use.

In the past, Penguin Classics made profit by reprinting classic titles that would otherwise be unavailable.The Internet changes the equation. Take away the public’s need for the printing press, and e-books would seemingly be a major threat to Penguin Classics.

Fear not, for lovers of classics there is good news: Project Gutenberg has taken the Wikipedia approach to sharing e-books in the public domain. With 20,000 free e-books in their catalog - including Huck Finn - Project Gutenberg claimed more than 2 million downloads last month. Contrast this with the 1.7 million e-books sold in all of 2005 and we see once again that consumers of e-books are extremely price sensitive. (More on price sensitivity in music here.)

And the pricing premium for e-books isn’t restricted to the classics. Jimmy Carter’s bestseller, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is actually cheaper in hardback at amazon.com ($16.20) than the e-book version at ereader.com or fictionwise.com ($16.99).

Publishers seem wedded to the paper publishing business model. This antiquated pricing model is bad for consumers and worse for the environment. If the 2.3 billion paper books sold in 2005 had been e-books, we would have saved more than 7 million trees. Until publishers drop prices and loosen Digital Rights Management restrictions, the convenience and sensibility of e-books may remain a pipe dream.

But what if our public libraries could help revolutionize the e-book market? More on that soon.

.

Sources: Statastic research, Accenture, International Digital Publishing Forum

In May, 2006 the MIT Media Lab unveiled its first working prototype of the $100 laptop. The non-profit One Laptop per Child (OLPC) was spun out of the Media Lab to manage the design. The result is small, brightly-colored and rugged laptop that may cost as much as $140. Designed to the specifications of the world’s poorest children, they are the great hope for narrowing the global digital divide.

Before they ship the final product in 2007, OLPC will pilot prototypes in the six countries listed in the chart below. The plan is for the governments of developing nations to purchase millions of these laptops and distribute them to children through their schools.

While I applaud the goal of providing an ultra-affordable laptop to the bottom of the pyramid market, I do worry about the re-sale of these high-value items. OLPC has eventual plans to create a secondary market for the sale of $100 laptops in developed world. From the OLPC FAQs:

Will OLPC spin-off a commercial subsidiary?

The idea is that a commercial subsidiary could manufacture and sell a variation of the OLPC in the developed world. These units would be marked up so that there would be a significant profit which can be plowed into providing more units in countries who cannot afford the full cost of one million machines.

The discussions around this have talked about a retail price of 3× the cost price of the units.

$100 in Nigeria is the equal to nearly two months income. To give Americans a sense of how much $100 is to the average Nigerian, imagine sending your 8 year old to school with a $6,000 laptop. Now imagine living in a country with an epidemic of corruption, in a shanty with no electricity or running water. If laptops were selling for $300 in developed nations, it would provide a strong, and unfortunate, incentive for Nigerian parents to sell their children’s laptops.

Leapfrogging technologies is a worthy goal, but OLPC has to make sure that the social institutions in their target markets can support the landing. They must concentrate as hard on issues such as corruption and cyclical poverty as they do on the design of motherboard and screen brightness. We’ve seen before with the example of SCANWATER that good technology will fail without first addressing underlying problems.
.

Sources: Statastic research, Wikipedia, IMF

Notes: PPP was not used because the calculation expresses $100 in an approximated nominal US income per capita. The statastic was calculated by dividing the nominal GDP per capita in these 7 countries by $100. That percentage was then multiplied by the nominal GDP per capita of the United States.

Access to potable water remains one of the most enduring problems around the world. Today more than 1 billion people do not have access to improved drinking water sources. This leads to 1.6 million deaths from diarrhea each year, the vast majority occurring in children younger than 5.

Multilateral development agencies have been working for decades to improve this situation. Early water projects were well-intentioned engineering gifts. The SCANWATER project, for example, simply installed gas-powered water towers on the highest hills around Cameroon. Because these projects didn’t develop local capacity to train technicians or to collect money for expensive maintenance, most of these water towers rapidly fell into disrepair.

So the key to sustainability is access, simplicity, good design and minimal maintenance. Two promising products are the Playpump and LifeStraw. As you can probably guess from the compound names, these products combine simple existing concepts with water sanitation development goals.

PlayPump is a water pump powered by children who play on a merry-go-round. The pumps are often located near
primary schools to take advantage of abundant free “labor.” Many primary schools in Sub-Saharan Africa have more than 100 students per class, so classes are taught in shifts. During this downtime, children can play on the merry go round ensuring a regular supply of water.

The PlayPump also takes advantage of the demographics that characterize developing nations, where half the population is under the age of fifteen.

In villages where girls are most often assigned the chore of fetching water, the PlayPump has the potential to reduce the distances walked for clean water, increasing the likelihood that girls can go to school.

Playpumps cost about $5000 each and can produce up to 1400 liters (370 gallons) per hour, enough water for 2,500 people. The water towers also can accomodate up to four billboard advertisements, two of which are normally reserved for public health messages, and two for revenue generation that provides for maintenance expenses. Currently a South African company is installing them with some help from the World Bank.

The second product is LifeStraw, which is produced by the Danish company Vestergaard-Frandsen. The LifeStraw is basically a lightweight handheld filtration device that can be worn around the neck. Any time someone need a sip of water, they can use this device to automatically filter out contaminants. The LifeStraw doesn’t require any spare parts, and it lasts for about one year or 700 liters. They retail in the developing world for $6, or about 1.6 cents per day. The company that produces LifeStraw has ambitious sales goals. The creator, Torben Vestergaard-Frandsen, said that, “We will be disappointed, if we do not sell at least 10 million LifeStraw a year.”

At less than a cent per liter of water filtered, LifeStraw is competitive with other water filtration systems in the developing world. That cost should come down as they ramp up production and realize economies of scale.

And lest you get the idea of ordering a LifeStraw for your homeland security kit or for camping, it’s still being reviewed by the EPA, so it’s not yet available in the U.S. One other caveat: it does not protect against Giardia, a nasty little parasite that Statastico really recommends avoiding.

What other ideas are waiting to be combined into a life-saving innovation? How about an electrical generator powered by soccer players? A playground slide that doubles as solar power? With more than 1 billion people around the world without access to clean water, invention is indeed the mother of necessity.

Sources: Statastic research, WHO, United Nations

Today the New Economics Foundation ranked Vanuatu the happiest place on earth. To their credit, the innovative Happy Planet Index (HPI) tries to takes into account how well humans turn their resources into what economists like to call “utility” (or “happiness” to the rest of us).

The winner has a great location to be sure, and something in common with others in the top ten happiest countries: massive inequality. Most of the top fifteen happiest countries were in near the bottom of income inquality as measured by the Gini coefficient. You’d think that those folks would’ve noticed the disparity, but perhaps this is a new type of underclass that is just too busy “convert(ing) the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens.”

.

*Notes: World Rank in Income Equality is based on the Gini Index available for 124 countries as ranked in the 2005 United Nations Human Development Report. Additional sources were used for Vanuatu, St. Lucia, and the Grenadines. No data was available for Dominica (#4 HPI) or Cuba (#6 HPI).

People all over the world love beer. Some like beer made by monks, some prefer their watery domestics. Yes, most American beer is a bit pale and tasteless, but Americans seem to know what they’re doing when it comes to packing a lot of alcohol into as few calories as possible.

So to celebrate Friday, Statastic is providing you with a guide to beers that give you the best bang for your… belly. Bear in mind that alcohol content varies by state, especially if you’re living in Utah. This is also a limited sample as alcohol content and caloric data for beer is tough to come by.

Statastic’s Beer List may not help you avoid a beer belly – that’s apparently genetic – but it does provide a headstart for your weekend. The results? With the available data, Sam Adams Triple Bock is the champion. Of the beers you’re more likely to find in your grocery store or local bar, Michelob Ultra, Coors Aspen Edge and the great tasting, less filling Miller Lite are all promising. And if advertising is as accurate as I suspect it is, cracking open a cold Keystone Light is a surefire way to fill your hot tub with supermodels. Supermodels love watery domestics, especially when they only have 100 calories and 4.2% alcohol.

Cheers!
Statastico

All beer calories and alcohol content provided by RealBeer.com
Except: ^Calorie-count.com and CalorieKing.com
**Askmen.com