I’ve been a fan of Ray Kurzweil for a while. The dude is just wicked smart and presents idea that are well worth hearing, even if you don’t necessarily agree. But with Watson dominating Jeopardy last week, Kurweil’s ideas are back in the news and making the mainstream media rounds.

TIME magazine just did a story that is pretty WOW reading, I’d say, considering how immense the year 2045 might be to humanity.

Essentially, lots of big ideas get tossed around about the impact of technology. Quotes like this are everywhere:

“…thus, the first ultraintelligent machine [man creates] is the last invention that man need ever make.”

Take a moment for if the Singularity is really near, then why do I/we even need to bother with so much of what currently concerns me/us?

The more I think about it, the more I believe there is a fallacy embedded inside that which is being connoted when we refer to today’s kids as digital natives.

The term presumes that these kids are born with the skills they need to aptly navigate the digital world simply because, well… they were born into a digital age.

But when a kid, for example, doesn’t discern that there is a credibility gap between news which is being reported by Perez Hilton and the BBC I think the assumption that kids today know how to well-navigate the score of tech tools at their disposal flies out the window.

If anything, teachers are more important than ever… not less. After all, we teach about little things such as “veracity in journalism”.

I’d say there is an analogy to be drawn to fire here. Fire can cook your food, warm your house and so on. But used improperly/carelessly/recklessly fire will also burn down your home.

Technology is, as we are seeing, becoming somewhat like that. I mean the explosion of cyber-bullying is a fitting example. Sure, social networking is many, many positive things – yet clearly, it has its dangers as well. And just because a kid is a “digital native” it does not mean that they automatically know how to navigate these dangers. Perhaps, they might even be more at risk as a result of the hubris they demonstrate when not thinking things through (such as the pictures they post of themselves or of one another online, through sexting, and so on) when they leap into the word of using these new tools.

The false connotations inside the term “digital natives” might need a bit more scrutiny. Being able to merely pull the trigger of a gun does not by default mean that one can be said to know how to operate a weapon.

I am hosting a free webinar tomorrow in conjunction with eSchool News on how to sensibly incorporate technologies and new literacies in the classroom. Sneak peek hint: It’s all about the writing!

Like a thousand people have already signed up.

Here’s a bit of what I plan to cover:

• Understanding why the bells and whistles of technology will not replace the need for students to critically read, write and think

• Seeing how cutting edge tech tools can (and should) coexist side-by-side with projects that can be done by candlelight.

• Recognizing that successfully incorporating technology in today’s classroom BEGINS WITH THE WRITING!

• Getting comfortable with the idea that technology is evolving at such a rapid pace that there is no more “keeping up”.

• Re-conceptualizing our methodologies so that we can allow students to demonstrate their full capabilities without unnecessarily holding them back simply because we, the educators, do not have the same technological abilities that they, the students, possess.

FYI, if you are interested, click here. Should be good stuff. (Note: if you can’t make the time, they are going to post it so you’ll still have a chance if your schedule collides.)

I am not sure why more attention was not paid to the news that the federal gov is trying to re-shape assessment… AWAY FROM BUBBLE TESTING. That’s right, the game of assessment overhaul is afoot.

For me, this brings up bittersweet feelings.

I loathe the bubble tests and think they stink. I’ve said so a zillion times over. I also abhor the fact that those who make the bubble tests have been feeding us the company line that “we offer penetrating, objective insight into our nation’s classrooms” when really bubble testing has more shortcomings than Tiger Woods has mistresses.

However, I will be sad to see them go as well. Why? For the same reason that so many late night comics were sad to see George Dubya Bush leave the White House.

There is just so much professional mileage I have been able to glean out of mocking bubble tests that really, what’s going to fill my comedic gap?

Michelle Rhee? Hmm… not much humor there.

Arne Duncan? Not self-righteous enough to make for a sustainable target of perennial funny-bone tickling.

Mindless administrators who act like they know what they are doing when really, it’s clear to all of us that they don’t have a clue? Sure, but more than enough admins are actually quite good at their jobs so the bulls-eye isn’t always that big or that fair.

And whenever I stereotype people, I always strive to be fair.

Well, lucky for me that the bubble tests will be in full effect this year… even though as Mr. Duncan says…

The No. 1 complaint of teachers has been that “bubble tests pressure teachers to teach to a test that doesn’t measure what really matters.”

Hmm… where have I heard that before?

Bubble Tests, I am gonna miss ya.

Recently, I perused the top MOST VIEWED stories on the website of the Los Angeles Time. Here’s what they were…

1. Nigeria’s shaky balance of power takes a hit as new president is sworn in
2. Legislation proposed to raise maximum fines on U.S. auto industry for violating safety rules
3. Grisly Corvette crash in Van Nuys; 4 killed
4. Death sentence for gunman in 2008 Mumbai attack
5. Russian warship opens fire, takes oil tanker back from pirates
6. Russian warship opens fire, takes oil tanker back from pirates
7. Gunman sentenced to hang for Mumbai attack that killed 166
8. Mumbai gunman sentenced to death
9. Russian special forces rappel onto oil tanker, arrest pirates
10. Widow is overwhelmed by grief

And what do they all have in common?

Fear. Or tragedy. Pain and hurt. Blood.

What’s that old news saying: “If it bleeds, it leads!”

But this was the MOST VIEWED section, not the section the editors chose to highlight – these were the stories the viewers most frequently selected to read.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Which came first, the disproportionate amount of “news” stories that are rooted in negativity or the people’s mass desire to read “news” stories that are rooted in negativity?

I am often aggravated that I do not hear more good stories about all the fine work teachers are doing on the news. But when educators screw up, they splash it as far and as wide as they can.

Once, a journalist explained this to me by telling me, “It’s not news when you do your job; it’s news when you don’t.”

Cause that is, after all, what it certainly seems the people want to read.

So the ning business is finally going to morph into a real business and stop allowing people to use their goodies without paying for them.

Wow, brings up a whole host of stuff when it comes to writing in the online world.

Is the sale of ad space really expected to power the entire forward progress of the whole world wide web? I don’t think so. Then again, if ning doesn’t give it away free first and foremost, do they grow into the company they now are? And if they now start to charge, how many nings fold up and think, “Well, it was good while it lasted”?

Is this what the next stage of the internet looks like? People give away items at no charge until they become apparently worth something, and then they start to charge for their services and people fold up their tents and drift off to the next latest and greatest thing. (You know, the one that people can use free of charge until enough people start using it to make these folks see “gold in dem dar hills” whereby the model changes to a fee based-structure… and everyone then flees again… and on and on and on?)

Jim Burke said… People need to wake up to the idea that they cannot expect companies to be non-profits. We have grown increasingly addicted to the idea that everything should be free, that we should have to pay for nothing. That is not sustainable.

Indeed. But as soon as Twitter starts charging me per tweet, I think I am gone.

And I think they know this… which is why they do not charge me for tweeting. Which is why so many millions of folks do tweet.

But charge even one dollar a month and, “Nah, I am not so sure it’s worth it” creeps into my consciousness. I mean there are so many other free things I can do on the web, with mobile technology and so on, that, on second thought, Nah, I just don’t think so.

The fact is, most human beings pretty much do not like paying for things that were once free. We feel ripped off. (Even if they are actually worth the money.)

If once upon a time you charged me, and you raised the price, then hey, I get that. But if was free and now you want money for it… that doesn’t really compute so well. I mean “I think I only wanted it because it was free anyway,” is what I tell myself. Then I move on.

And on the flip side, people tend to more highly value that which actually costs them more. Look at the diamond industry. DeBeers is absolutely brilliant in the way that they make us believe diamonds are precious stones worth X amount of dollars. And by controlling 85% of all the diamonds on the planet (they have vaults and vaults and vaults of them locked away so that they can manage world wide inventory and empower all these diamond dealers to say, “but they are rare and precious”) they create the illusion of high value – and the reality of high price – in the mind of buyers.

And we buy it.

Engagement rings, earrings, and so on. “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend.”

Hook, line and sinker, we drank the Kool-Aid on that one.

But NY Times news? I think the cat is outta the bag on that one. Sure, some will buy it – older folks who grew up indoctrinated into the “fine journalism” being offered will stay the course. (They also have more disposable income.) But now, news and commentary are free… and if the NY Times wants to start charging for what they originally gave away online, heck, I’ll go to the Wash Post or L.A. Times or BBC and so on.

Heck, the Huffington Post will go out and scavenge the free news for me. And they are not alone.

And if they all decide to charge at the same time, they are gambling with their very existence… cause there is no guarantee to say enough people will pay to keep them afloat.

Are they willing to risk bankruptcy? Do they really want to know if they call our bluff and insist on charging us that we are actually going to pony up cash for their goods versus simply seeking another source for our news and bail out on them?

TIME magazine charges. Newsweek doesn’t. Is there enough of a difference that I buy TIME? Right now, not really.

The Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety, Hollywood’s Trade Magazines, got it right. They charged for content right away (after giving away small teasers.) People were used to paying for print, they immediately got used to paying for online from the get-go and now, they more or less, seamlessly transitioned to the online journalism world.

Right now, newspapers don’t really have the guts to pull the “free” plug because they know if they do, we might not come back to them and prove them obsolete. (It’s any business’s darkest fear – to recognize that the world can get along just fine without them and have the world recognize that.

Of course, all of the newspapers are hoping Apple and the Kindle will help to save their butts… but ESPN.com does sports for me and the AP wire still provides news and Joe down the block blogs about the tree root situation plaguing the local sidewalks on my street and the idea of one-stop news shopping is something that is already dead to many of us anyway. (Like textbooks providing one-size-fits-all curriculum – that ship has SAILED!)

I get my news from 15 sources, not one and until all 15 charge, I can live with only 14.

So, I won’t get to read Friedman. But if enough people stop reading Friedman, he’s going to try and deliver content to his audience another way… or else he stops being Friedman and someone else’s voice will rise up to replace his. Books still make sense. (I want to read the writing of the folks I want to read: Stephanie Meyers, Stephen King, they could publish on toilet paper and people would read it by the roll.) Newspapers don’t. Magazines… they seem to be on an edge. Can’t call it one way or the other yet.

Ultimately, I am completely at a loss for how this will all work out but I do feel that it sure would be hard to get people to start paying for my blog now that I have been giving it away at no charge for a year and a half.

Most of them would probably say, “Hasta la Vista… it was good while it lasted but I am onto other things.”

Real businesses know customers value what they pay for much more than they value what is free.

Like the dot.com bubble, so is the Free bubble.

The book FREE proposed that free was the way of the business future – at least to get a foot in the door. Actually, I think the real way of the business future is to 1) provide something excellent and 2) charge for it right out of the gate.

People will always pay for quality and if you are giving it away at no charge, how much is it really worth anyway?

Nings seem to have blown it if they want to charge. Someone else is gonna fill their void if they do because most people will not pay for the same thing they used to get at no charge. They will pay for something new, better, enhanced and so on.

Nings aren’t proposing that. There is no Ning II that’s a platinum version they will be selling. Ning just wants money now… and I am not sure how many folks are gonna roll with that.

However, I would chip in a buck to keep this ning alive. And if we all did, maybe the ning folks would let us keep rolling, huh?

A-HA!! I finally figured out when the madness of NCLB will end. Now I am not sure I know how to to do the math properly, but I think it works out to something like this:

There are 26 letters in the alphabet. If you multiply 26 x 26 that means there are 676 possible two-letter combinations of acronyms to which they can ascribe names of punch-drunk policy.

This means that once NCLB hit the 677th clownish matter of educational legislation that requires an acronym, the system shuts down and we, the teachers are freed from this buffoonish dungeon.

Unfortunately, NCLB is a 4-letter acronym which means that they actually have 456,976 potential matters of acronym-al policy to work through before we are all free. (26 x 26 x 26 x 26). There’s good news and bad news in that.

The bad news: we still have a few hundred thousand more clodhopper mandates to work through before we are off this preposterous hook.

The worse news: sometimes they use 5 letter acronyms so we’re gonna have to multiply it again by another 26.

The good news… well, there ain’t much because I think they’ll start incorporating numbers once they recognize this flaw in the system… so just like the web gave birth to web 2. so too, will we one day be faced with NCLB 1.5 — it’ll try to be twice as good but it’ll fall half as short.

The only guarantee: it’ll be 1.5 times as maddening. Cubed! (That’s 3.375 times as loony if you multiply 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5. — which is really the only guarantee in the whole post.)

See, this is why my students need to be readers who can apply text-to-world critical thinking to our classroom and the world at large.

Take for example, the inimitable actor Woody Harrelson, most famous for being Woody on Cheers but also pretty well known for a heck of a lot of other quite solid — and not so solid — movies he’s done.

White Man Can’t Jump… big thumbs up!

Money Train… big thumbs down!

Anyway, Woody admits getting into a physical confrontation with a paparazzi a few days ago. But he had a good reason. And I quote…

“I quite understandably mistook [the photographer] for a zombie.”

Yep, he really said this. And he also said this…

“I wrapped a movie called ‘Zombieland,’ in which I was constantly under assault by zombies, then flew to New York, still very much in character,” Harrelson said in a statement issued Friday by his publicist.

Niiiicce!

Now if my students were actual readers of the news — any news; The NY Times, The AP wire, FOX or MTV (those last 2 are kinda the same) — they could build a text-to-world connection that could easily get them out of their homework for the night.

I mean if I had a kid come into my class and tell me that “…while scouring the Washington Post for the latest political insight into world economic fiduciary policy they ran across this brief but salient human interest story about Woody Harrelson and then — whodda thunk it — alien zombies ate their HW assignement and there was simply no way Mr. Alan that it could ever be replaced.

And so, I should give them full credit yet not require to see the actual work.”

I’d go for it.

Text-to-World connections. If only our kids could see how valuable what we perpetually advise really could be to their lives.