Given the number of colorful floppy disks attached to the Honda Civic at the Seattle Artcar Blowout, one question needs to be asked: Is a memory stick car soon to be created?

The artcar show is was part of this weekend’s Fremont Fair in Seattle - and before my family and I left Saturday, we walked around in search of some good-looking cars that have been given the tender, loving care that only artists can give to their creations.

And smiles came to our faces when we spotted the whimsical, colorful vehicles sitting in a parking lot.

Diskdrv caught my attention not only for the colorful, square-shaped disks that made an older Honda look, in a sense, like a dot-inspired painting but also for the details.

Yes, when I was younger, I never used the floppy disks that the artist attached to the hood – but my friend, Martin, and his family used them with their old IBM.

But when I was in high school and college, I used those smaller, plastic-covered floppy disks that are seen on the car’s bumper.

Man, I thought those disks were the coolest at the time. I even had a plastic box to hold all of those smaller floppy disks.

Keep in mind that my family once owned an Apple Lisa.

As for the car’s details?

Well, the car’s hubcaps and rear bumper have what appear to be AMD chips from the 1990s, as you see photographed below.

Some of the AMD chips actually have “1996″ stamped on them.

Let’s see, now. Where would that year fall on my Information in a Box timeline?

It’s the timeline I made last year so I could remember points in time and what type of technology or medium I used for news and information.

Yes, in 1996, I was fortunate enough to have been backpacking in China – and lugging an Apple PowerBook 520 laptop (yes, complete with floppy disks).

And in the Other Details Department: The car’s artist attached keyboard pieces around the windows.

In addition, this car is or once was able to park at the Ballard Health Club.

So, if you think about it, what you’re looking at is a combination of old-school high technology, artistic creativity, a fuel-efficient car and a nod to good exercising.

All great things, if you think about it as a whole or on an individual level.

Art Car Central, a blog, has a short interview with the maker of the car.

I wonder whether anyone who once owned one of those floppy disks has ever recognized it on the car and said to the artist: “Hey, that’s the disk I used in 1995!”

And on a closing note, I leave you with The Cars and their popular song about letting the good times roll.

Yes, after seeing the clip above, the only thing I’m waiting for is an actual online video game in which a person can go to Google maps (or some version of them), pick out a car and drive it (virtually) in a city just like this great video from Honest Directors.

Such a video game might actually exist. But you know, I’m a bit old school. I might be out of the loop.

Ah, yes: Google maps. You can do much with them these days. I actually still have paper maps of China, if you can believe that.

In fact, the whole online world has created a cavalcade (if you will) of online information that can inundate and wash over someone or something rather quickly.

A minor point: TechCrunch is certainly a leader in online news and blogging, especially with that AT&T news. But, um, the image used with this post is somewhat dated. I like the idea and understand it. I also like the old no matter what form it takes.

But the uniforms and equipment are much more modern. There’s also a huge push for more modern buildings – in some areas and in some cases, that has created, well, some discussions.

You know: Out with the old. In with the new. Or something like that.

I gotta run. And if I could merge reality with the imagined – or the layers and ideas between those two realms – I’d do so in a car which zooms down the street on Google maps.

Since I don’t get back to China as often as I’d like, I plan to watch construction, as projects develop, with the help of, yes, Google maps.

As a side note, I like color, too, especially the lucky color of red. And fun is good, as are serious topics.

The professionally-made videos tell a story as well as capture historic moments. Plus, there are plenty of videos from which to choose.

Am I talking about Vimeo? YouTube? Hulu? PBS? Network or cable news? National Geographic?

No, no, no, no, no, no.

To the online hip and especially Inside-the-Beltway types, just say – or rather type: WH.gov.

To the old-fashioned, spell it out: WhiteHouse.gov.

That’s right. It’s a site that relies on support from the unwitting generosity of U.S. taxpayers.

Just thinking about that reminds me that I’m sure one person will say: “Hey, I never wanted my tax money to be used in that way.”

All I can say is that budgeting and the federal government can be complex – and that respecting the budgetary wish of every single taxpayer can be, well, tricky.

WhiteHouse.gov, and as others have noted, make sure you type .gov, was once a site that we expected to be static with official emblems and portraits.

It was a place where the public might have felt connected to the Commander-in-Chief if the phone number for the switchboard operator was found easily or there was fast information on taking a tour.

It now has online chats, which incorporate Facebook, the president’s speeches and government officials discussing topics ”In Their Own Words.”

It’s kind of like a social media channel has merged with a television news station.

So, what are you interested in?

How about an interesting look at why President Barack Obama uses so many pens when he signs a bill into law?

I actually like that clip because I learned something about life outside the presidential spotlight, just as I gained new insight when I asked why the Supreme Court didn’t pursue a social media strategy such as the White House.

Keep in mind, when I wrote that post, the Supreme Court had a blue homepage. It’s now red and the site has been revamped.

There are serious, sobering topics, too, such as talks on financial reform, Wall Street, the Supreme Court and job creation.  But they are from the White House’s perspective.

In terms of U.S.  history and the presidency, the White House posted a video of a meeting with the late Civil Rights pioneer Dorothy Height. 

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is featured in a segment – “In Her Own Words” – about possibly ascending to the highest court in the country.

But absent in these White House videos are independent journalists – meaning that a company pays their salaries.

Yes, I know. Many people consider some in the White House press corps to be pesky, prone to asking horse-race style questions that might be more Inside-the-Beltway than applicable to the challenges facing average people in the country.

I know there can be sniping, griping and grumbling from press corps members.

But journalists – and I once was one – do try to hold elected and other government leaders to account. In many ways, we do well. In other ways, the learning curve remains.

Certainly, those who blog regularly – which I am now doing – can ask questions to hold leaders to account. They can break news. But just as any rookie journalist will tell you, there is a learning curve with everything.

Keep in mind that centuries ago, when the colonists looked to London for directives, there was no way to hold leaders to account.

I admit that a representative democracy means that a variety of people are allowed in the tent. By definition, then, you’re going to have brilliant questions as well as ones you might think are dopey. 

Also, as mainstream journalism in the United States has undergone a seismic shift in recent years – with cutbacks (and the recent news of Newsweek being put up for sale) - the rise of using online platforms to communicate directly with people has taken off.

Back when President George W. Bush lived in the White House, I thought media affairs and public outreach hit a new high with all of that elaborate stage setting and lighting.

Now, take for example, the White House online show called the “West Wing Week” – which is “your guide to everything happening” at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It’s not This Week, the ABC News show once hosted by David Brinkley, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson or George Stephanopoulos.

And it’s not the West Wing, that popular NBC drama about life inside the White House.

Some video clips do carry the quality that a documentary filmmaker was behind the work.

One example is footage of First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, touring earthquake-caused damage in Haiti.

Their visit certainly brought more attention to the need for relief efforts. But as any journalist will tell you, that video clip was, essentially, filter free.

As a side note, and for fans of Olympic athlete Apolo Ohno, you can watch him read “Green Eggs and Ham” at this year’s White House Easter egg roll.

The explosion, of sorts, of online videos posted on the White House’s Website comes at a time when some in the White House press corps feel that the president isn’t as accessible to them as compared to others.

POLITICO wrote about this tension recently, saying that some White House journalists feel that these government-produced videos are “gauzy.”

But, of course, they are no substitute for the good old-fashioned, shoe-leather journalism that involves asking questions (sometimes with a point and repeatedly).

Yes, the White House posted a video of the president answering questions from the White House press corps on an Air Force One flight.

I understand the White House perspective that incorrect stories – even if just partially wrong – can cause headaches and extra work.

I also am aware that government agencies, companies and individuals reserve the right to pick the best way they want to communicate with others.

But questions, especially ones from journalists or the public, asked on a regular basis matter.

In 2008, I had the opportunity to ask the Dalai Lama a question at a press conference during his visit to Seattle.

It essentially was: “Why do you think the Chinese government would be willing to do anything that you’re asking?”

His answer was nuance-filled, non-linear, informative, insightful, full of history - and probably one of the best ones that I’ve heard in my career of, well, asking questions.

I guess all of this points to a question that Stephen Colbert asked about the role of facts in society: Will people care about them?

Or in a related way, will people care if the facts that they receive in a given segment or interview only come from one perspective?

Oh, yes. Since I linked to the White House and its social media efforts, here’s what the Chinese Central Government has online and in English for President Hu Jintao. 

My thanks to Todd Bishop at TechFlash for posting this insightful TEDx chat last month by science-fiction author Greg Bear.

It involves the brain and thinking. And the questions and ideas that Bear raises do require some thought.

Does too much information – dare I ask it – need some type of editor or online guide or moderator? What should be off limits? When we talk about a free flow of information, what do we mean by that?

Speaking of information and monitoring, there are sensors that help police locate gunfire. In the future, the bicycle and camera might be redesigned. Journalists and cooks might come in new forms.

Also on TechFlash, John Cook posted an entry about the founder of TechCrunch moving to the Seattle area.

And the last time I typed the letters TED, it was about the Rhode Island School of Design president growing up in a tofu factory in Seattle’s International District.

The world’s party is happening in Shanghai – at Expo 2010.

And China’s “The Crown of the East” is turning heads at Expo 2010, which runs through the end of October.

Officials estimate 70 million people will attend. In many ways, the entire Expo 2010 symbolizes much of China – big, beautiful, complex, meaningful, modern, traditional and head-scratching.

In a nod to Fark, here’s a quick rundown of observations:

COLORFUL: Yahoo-branded Chinese websites go with colorful images, including fireworks.

BOUNTIFUL: Xinhua, China Daily and People’s Daily devote much space to Expo 2010. Xinhua’s online layout stands out.

PAVILION SEARCH: Find the one from your home country.

NOTEWORTHY: The Chinese government spent $45 billion on Expo 2010, reportedly more than the Beijing Olymics in 2008.

FACTOID: Last year, World Bank said it would invest $45 billion to speed up global economic recovery. Also, in 2009, FDIC asks U.S. banks to pay $45 billion to boost cash reserves.

GREENWORTHY: Chinese media report says Expo 2010 fireworks were free of smoke and milk boxes used for 2,000 seats for VIPS.

IMAGE WORTHY: Yahoo’s English site goes with nearly 200 photos of Expo 2010.

YUM: Xinhua offers special section – in English – on Shanghai snacks, including steamed bun with crab inside.

A JAVA COMPLAINT: French journalist asks for stronger-tasting coffee but says all is modern.

SHOPPER ALERT: Opportunities await, especially on Nanjing Road.

SHOPPER PROTECTION: Shanghai sends English-speaking attorneys to Expo 2010 to resolve consumer complaints (if they surface).

BUILDING WISE: Macau makes pavilion in shape of a jade rabbit, which in Chinese mythology stands in front of ”nantianmen” as its pronounced in Mandarin.

In the Monkey King, one of China’s most famous tales, “nantianmen” is the door leading to Heaven, separating life on Earth and an ever-lasting world.

Shanghai is home to White Rabbit candy (which has had a few problems in recent years).

CROSS-STRAITS WATCH: Chinese President Hu Jintao shakes hands and poses for photographs with Guomingdang officials, or KMT, from Taiwan.

NOTEWORTHY II: Apparently, first time in 40 years that Taiwan has participated in an Expo.

BUDGETWORTHY: Chinese officials said $45 billion makes for nice and simple event - budget could have been larger.

CUBA AT THE EXPO: Pavilion of U.S. neighbor reportedly will feature cigars and Cuban-style cocktails.

NORTH KOREA WATCH: If you can’t get into that country on a visa, you can walk to its pavilion.

COCA COLA PAVILION: It exists – with wind-proof metal blinds.

JAPANESE ROBOT: At least one, measuring 130 centimeters in height, will be on display in a Japanese industry pavilion (photograph is below).

CHINESE ROBOTS: The Shaanxi pavilion has robots depicting Emperor Xuanzong from the Tang Dynasty. Fast-foward to robots that can be journalists and can cook Chinese food.

USA PAVILION: It apparently received early good marks. The structure is pictured below.

PAVILION OF FUTURE: Artist’s rendition, pictured below, shows books. Hopefully, it includes the iPad or HP Slate.

VEHICLES OF THE FUTURE: GM is showcasing its new electric car, produced with a Shanghai partner, at Expo 2010. Images are from GM.

OLDER: In the 1990s, Chinese tourists flocked to Windows of the World in Shenzhen to see replicas of global monuments. Clearly, in many ways, Expo 2010 eclipses that theme park.

NATIONAL DAY 2010: Chinese citizens usually have a week-long vacation. They might head to Expo 2010.

WORTHY: Who says China doesn’t have fun things to do? China knows how to throw a world party.

AIRFARE: Hainan Airlines flies directly from Seattle to Beijing. 

SAD: The New York Times and other media outlets report attacks on school-age kids in China. Help needed.

THOUGHT INDUCER: The Gray Lady quotes U.S. architect in China as saying:

The Expo won’t make architectural history….But this is a more sustainable approach. The Water Cube is being eaten alive by acid rain.

SIDE NOTE: This incident in Houston doesn’t sound good.

LAST NOTE: Thanks for reading this post!

Researchers in China have designed a robotic wok - capable of serving hundreds of dishes. What about mapo tofu? That remains unclear, according to a Xinhua news article. Photo source: Xinhua

I’ve said this many times: I know there are serious topics in the world today.

But since I launched this blog last year, I’ve talked about how mapo tofu – and its spicy, sweat-inducing, numbing taste – is one of my favorite foods around.

With the right amounts of garlic, chili and Sichuan peppercorn, your cold can be down on the ground in minutes.

And robots? Well, robots have found new popularity – thanks to the online world’s ability to connect homosapiens with mechanical discoveries.

Now, thanks to Alaric Bien, a friend who pointed this out, it looks like there’s a robot that can use a wok like the best chef around and knows how to whip up more than 600 dishes.

I certainly hope that includes regional specialities such as Cantonese, Chaozhou, Sichuan, Shanghai and Shandong – not to mention hand-pulled or shaved noodles, like you can find in Lanzhou or Xian.

Researchers from Shanghai Jiaotong University (which has been in the news) and Yangzhou University teamed up with a Shenzhen business to unveil the robot, which looks like a big box that cradles a wok, according to Xinhua, the Chinese news agency.

The folks at Popular Science found this video of an earlier version of the robot – which at that point made kung pao chicken.

The man in the video talks about safety features.

As for the taste of the food?

That remains unclear – at least from an April 7 demonstration in China’s Jiangsu province.

Xinhua dispatched photographer Zhao Jun to document the robot-created food.

Two women attended the event and apparently ate a dish of meat and vegetables.

Two humans taste the robot-made Chinese food during a demonstration on April 7 in China's Jiangsu province. Photo source: Xinhua

The only catch, as far as I could tell, is that there’s no food review – Frank Bruni, Sam Sifton, Theresa Lin, Mark Bittman, Jen Lin-Liu or someone who is a Chinese food expert, we need you!

Popular Science, though, throws this tidbit into the mix:

Although details of the invention process have yet to be released, sources report that one only needs to dispense the ingredients into the machine, program it, and await a delicious meal.

Just precious – on many levels.

First, a robot that can make hundreds of types of Chinese dishes.

Second, apparently the word “sources” had to be used because, well, it appeared no one felt comfortable enough to go on the record to state that a human has to load the ingredients and program it.

By the way, since rice cookers also need people to load and program them, are they considered robots?

I digress.

I should note that some of the best online comments were posted on Sina.

From someone who goes by Billy Bob (The Moon):

Who shops? Who loads the igrediants? Who cleans? Who do I blame if raw chicken sickens me?

If you’re at a restaurant that uses a robotic wok, I guess the owner or manager might have a new way to talk about plausible deniability because, technically, a human actually didn’t cook the food.

From someone who uses the online handle of BurgerChimp (Earth):

i, for one, welcome our new giant wok robot overlords. can it cook burgers?

Probably so: Beef, chicken, and if programmed just right, salmon.

But let’s elevate this concept just a bit more.

Who should bring this food to you?

ASIMO, the Honda robot, is a predictable choice.

Besides ASIMO already has introduced a hybrid car and led a symphony of humans – and bringing food might, well, not be on its list of preferred outcomes.

What about a robot dog?

This could generate some publicity, some online buzz, some zip for the drive, some juice for the iPhone video.

Right?

BostonDynamics has a robotic dog - which could be a very sanitary way for the food to be sent to the right place.

In fact, BostonDynamics apparently even took its creation, dubbed BigDog, to a beach in Thailand and posted this clip (with music) on YouTube.

See.

This is getting better as we go!

BigDog, a robot, was designed to help humans. Does that include delivering Chinese food made by a robotic wok? Image source: BostonDynamics

Could BigDog, a robot, help humans by bringing back food. Would humans have to program it to get a six-pack of beer or mapo tofu? Photo source: BostonDynamics

Of course, if we want to go with a complete all-robot theme here, we really don’t need humans to be in the picture to taste the food.

Follow me?

Now, I have not come across any robot that can actually digest food made for humans – and remember, robots really don’t need a regular diet of protein and vitamins.

I should note that I’m human – as compared to some computer software that can type up blog posts.

But what about a robot that is doing the job of a human journalist and documenting all the demonstrations of this wok robot and BigDog?

Bingo!

Researchers at Tokyo University reportedly have made a robot that can conduct interviews, shoot pictures, search the Internet for background and crank out online stories. Image source: Charlie Catlett on Twitter

Is this the coolest or what?

OK, I am human. I’ve always been on Team Human.

So, let’s do it this way: Let’s have a cook-off, just like they have on Iron Chef.

Iron Chef has brought on humans in a tofu battle.

We should do the same but a mapo tofu chef vs. the robotic competitor.

It would be classic.

I’ll point out right now that the human chef can actually tilt the wok at different angles than what the robot can.

But that can change, you know.

Researchers at Tokyo University reportedly have made a robot that can conduct interviews, shoot pictures, search the Internet for background and crank out online stories. Image source: Charlie Catlett on Twitter

Perhaps, if journalists, content producers or information brokers – or whatever label you use – really want to get a jump on things in 2010, one logical step might be to enter the robot industry.

Why?

Well, robots might have the ability to do what human journalists do these days – at least, according to this blog entry from Singularity Hub which the Knight Foundation also noted.

Life is rich. Isn’t it?

Researchers at Tokyo University apparently have come up with a robot, that as blogger Aaron Saenz writes:

…that can autonomously explore its environment and report what it finds. The robot detects changes in its surroundings, decides if they are relevant, and then takes pictures with its on board camera. It can query nearby people for information, and it uses internet searches to further round out its understanding. If something appears newsworthy, the robot will even write a short article and publish it to the web.

Just to think that people in what is now China once used bamboo as the medium to record words and thoughts.

Now this.

As a former newspaper journalist, who has watched the industry change rapidly in the past few years, I suppose the rise of the robotic content producer is possible.

If you thought the Internet – and its inexpensive entry for people to have their own online platform – opened up the world to citizen journalists, bloggers and commenters, it remains plausible that, well, robots would join the fray.

The information pool, well, just made room for bots.

If bots ever come to actually collecting and distributing news and information, would humans notice the difference?

Would we even care?

I mean, if a photo of a news or sports event was captured and distributed broadly after the event happened and there was little weight on how artistic or composed that image was, it could work (I suppose).

The same could be said for written copy or video or audio.

Since humans could operate an army of journobots, news subjects (meaning humans) would have to contend with a new way to ask for corrections.

And talk about journobots seriously never stopping until they received an answer to a specific question from a reluctant news subject (meaning humans).

I can already see what public relations officials for government agencies and companies would say: “Let’s just put our own bot out there with the journobot, sort of in a head-to-head standoff.”

ASIMO, Honda’s robot, already has led the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

And search bots are helping Google and other companies scour the Internet for key words, topics and images – so they can be categorized in search results.

What I think would be ideal, though, and I’m speaking as a human who still types on a keyboard and presses the button of a digital camera, would be an aerial drone-like robot that also can do the work as a human journalist.

If it can go underwater (and in space), that would be quite impressive.

As you might realize, I find robots to be pretty fascinating.

In this Honda-produced documentary, the topic of robots centered around the fact that humans are the ones that are programming them – and that they are, in a sense, a reflection of ourselves.

Months ago, I wrote a headline about robots and mapo tofu and jokingly referred to whether a machine could really make one of my favorite tofu dishes, which is from Sichuan province.

I think I might have typed that headline too soon.

In Japan, giant robotic arms have made noodles for customers.

I agree with the comment posted on YouTube: The end is a bit creepy.

The Japanese restaurant that dishes up these robot-prepared noodles has more videos of the mechanical masters at work.

An IBM robot also was set to compete against humans on Jeopardy! – the game show in which winning answers are asked in the form of answers.

The question is though: Can robotic arms – which have been used in the automobile industry and the medical world – really dish up a tasty helping of mapo tofu?

Noodles and tofu – they’re both food.

If a bot can make one, it could in theory make the other.

Steve Yamaguma, a family friend in California, told me that he once ate sushi in Tokyo – made by robot machines.

Eating food made by humans, he added, was more fun.

And in the parenting world and joy of playing with LEGOs and kids, a bot could actually take the part of playmate.

I’m going to let the idea of robots as journalists (or mapo tofu cooks or LEGO playmate) sit for a while.

But I do think if robots are going to move under the First Amendment with digital recorders, cameras and software to crank out stories, resembling a human might be more acceptable.

Of course, if you have a robot spokesperson, or spokesbot, at a press briefing, it wouldn’t matter too much if bots made up your media corps.

But when a journobot comes knocking on the door of a human being, at least have it look like a person.

My thanks to Singularity Hub – and all of its great posts about robots and the future.

I’ve been trying to get my mind around Monday’s announcement from Google that it would shift its servers from mainland China and to Hong Kong - a move which it viewed as legal but would let them run a non-censored Google.cn site.

That site, as we all know by now, would redirect users to Google.com.hk.

China unleashed a volley of criticism and the fallout and analysis quickly took place.

At the risk of tossing out a simplistic answer to a complicated issue touching free speech, sovereignty in a country that has seen uprisings, instability and occupation and increasingly complex U.S.-China relations, there is the thought that revolves around a simple phrase that people in Washington, D.C. are all too familiar:

To get along, you go along.

If you’re a business and inclined to make a political point in China – a place in which its senior leaders want to maintain authority at all costs – it’s best to put your shingle out elsewhere.

From the view of a human rights activist or free speech defender, that thinking is, undoubtedly, hard to accept.

But multinational companies, wherever they operate, do need to follow the laws of their host countries. I suppose that’s true even if senior leaders of the host country don’t always follow the law.

And traditional corporate responsibilities are tied to shareholders, employees and customers. Governments and their leaders set policy and engage in foreign policy. 

That theme emerged in this conversationon CNBC, which featured Jack Welch, the former chief executive of General Electric.

It’s one interview that I found to be lively about the Google and China topic because you have a capitalist with decades of experience trying to come to terms with an ethical question regarding free speech and the flow of information.

It was a sobering one – and a peek inside business realism when you deal with a country, such as China, that has a remarkable economic market – including 384 million Internet users and online spending soaring $11 billion last year – but rules that you might find distasteful in your home country.

The talk looked at down the road in the time frame of the next 10 years or so.

Welch was explaining the difference between corporate decisions and government policies, when CNBC anchor Becky Quick noted that the Chinese government prompted Google’s reactions with its suspected hacking of Gmail accounts and stealing of code:

Said Welch:

Google has a right to do anything. Google has a right to be an agent of the U.S. government…and act as the U.S. government would want them to act at this terrible Chinese behavior. But Chinese behavior is Chinese behavior. It’s the way they act. It’s the way they control that society.

CNBC anchor Carl Quintinalla jumped in to say that if a company is unhappy with that style of government, a corporation can leave the Chinese market. Welch agreed and talked about a corporation’s responsibility to its shareholders, employees and customers.

Then, Welch considered the Google-China row in the long view and corporate flexibility:

What does it mean in 20 years? I don’t know….Let’s go back to a company’s responsibilities: Employees, customers and shareholders. They don’t carry out government policies. They’re told by their government what to do: ‘You can’t ship to Iran.’

 A third CNBC anchor, Joe Kernen, interjected:

I can see what you’re saying. For shareowners, and for customers and for everybody else, they might just suck it up and go ahead and go along with what China wants them to do because how big it can be in 20 years.

Later, Welch gave a realist’s view in this hard ball game with a nuance:

I don’t see how China can let Google win….Google may have a strong hand than people think.

Welch also turned the table and asked Kernen what he thinks China will do to Google. There was some discussion and Kernen noted:

I’m saying it’s impossible for Google to change China.

Welch continued to talk about if he ran a multinational company that was selling hardware, such as engines, there wouldn’t be much reason to pause:

If I was selling turbines, jet engines, medical equipment, I’d be in there just as we were 20 years ago, driving like hell. And living with all the punitive stuff they do to you. They do terrible things to you. They make life difficult. And when they get their own supplier with the same quality, you’re dead.

Kernen talked about an evil society and the price of business in a market economy:

As a businessperson, you do what you have to do. It’s not immoral but businesses have to be driven by something other than I guess…But there are times, I hate to use the word ‘whore’ but businesses have to ‘whore’ themselves certain times to stay in the money. And to stay in the marketplace, you have to look the other way in a distasteful situation.

Welch:

You’re playing in somebody else’s rules in somebody else’s playpen. And you want to make it the rules your rules. That doesn’t always go. China, they’re not making this rule up as a surprise.

Wow.

At least, if anything, it was a frank discussion which talked about the realities – and costs – of doing business in China.

As I wrote in January, there is ample reason for Chinese leaders to stress political stability at almost all costs – even if they let the economy, in some cases, roar and let activities unfold as if a new Wild West had been born.

The issue here, of course, is that Google is no ordinary corporation in the global marketplace.

Before it entered the China market, its founders and senior leadership debated the merits of its corporate philosophy of doing no evil and how, yes, Chinese leaders operate.

As this recent case illustrated, Google – in a sense – became somewhat of a “nail house”- a description used in China for people who don’t want to leave their houses but are forced out by government or business officials, sometimes with force.

The catch is that while you can subscribe to lofty, ethical principles at your home office, when you open your shingle in a different country with dramatically different rules shaped by an unstable past, you do lose control of some of your guiding principles in exchange for money, customers, market share and brand recognition.

So, which one do you want?

And how badly do you want that market share for your corporate leadership and shareholders?

Or as some in China say, do you keep one eye open and one eye closed?

Meaning: You acknowledge what you like and what is politically safe to accept and ignore what is bad, corrupt or threatening.

Kernen described the same idea but with different words.

It’s no wonder that so many middle class Chinese citizens have found a path to economic success by sticking only to education, career and economic goods.

In The New York Times, reporter David Barboza quotedXiao Qiang, a China Internet researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, putting it another way:

Internet companies in China have to work so closely with the government. And that means the government’s political agenda can become the company’s business agenda.

But whether it’s impossible for a government to change, as discussed in that CNBC interview, strikes me as a bit fatal.

That never seemed to be the attitude of U.S. capitalists in world history – at least going into a project.

Yes, operating in the People’s Republic of China is nearly a completely different context.

But keep in mind that China has changed – dramatically since the late 1980s – especially with architecture, ownership and global events.

The late paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, ushered in a new era of pragmatic economic policies.

I recognize that soft power is what senior Chinese leaders are talking about now – that the country’s rise can be done without being seen as a global threat to developed countries, such as the United States.

The question becomes whether that change will ever include the inclusion of greater free expression and the distribution of criticism aimed at the central government.

As I said when all of this surfaced:

The Chinese government also dislikes others touching their political affairs….They’ve used power in a very real way and are willing to interfere when they want.

Business is business. Internal politics is a matter for the leadership in Beijing.

The most fascinating part of this is which group will truly win in the long run – Government leaders in Beijing or those who have a deep faith in the power of the Internet and all the information that flows.

Eventually, as history has shown us, people in the world are smart enough to get around restrictions.

For now, Google has left some of its operations in China, including staff to work on entertainment.

And what you have today might not be yours tomorrow.

These pandas were part of a museum exhibit last year in the United States. The exhibit looked at change, specifically in the design field. Image source: Portland Art Museum

Consider Google’s decision to stop censoring its Google.cn site and shift its servers to Hong Kong, both of which were announced Monday, as just a point on a very long line.

This is fascinating. But it is, by no means, the end point.

The Associated Press, in its report, called it a way around censorship. The New York Times moved a version of this historic episode regarding the Internet.

If there’s anything to remember about the epic view of Chinese history in this wave-making incident, it’s that, well, senior leaders have a good memory.

Just as leaders in any country like to win, they also are happy when they get their way.

Not everyone in China is enjoying the benefits of staggering economic growth in that country.

But the country is expected to become the world’s second largest economy, one with an Internet market of an estimated 384 million people.

Certainly, that number could grow in the coming years.

And the elite in China are chasing brand names, owning multiple homes, traveling the world and leading remarkable companies, such as Baidu, the Internet search engine leader in that country.

But consider that while the British ruled Hong Kong for about 150 years – and actually instituted some reasonable policies and procedures there – senior Chinese leaders achieved their goal of having the former colony return.

And interestingly enough, it’s in this former colony that the Mountain View, Calif. company will run its unfiltered Google.cn.

It’s only a few hours after Google posted its move on its corporate blog. Chinese news outlets are running with the basics.

(UPDATE: The Chinese government has responded, saying Google’s decision is wrong. The White House issued a statement, too.)

But Xinhua, a state-run news agency, is noting that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao might be looking for some middle ground on contentious U.S.-China issues, including trade and currency, in a May meeting.

But who knows?

That meeting needs to take place and actions must follow words.

And in regards to this specific incident: The people who work at Google are pretty bright, too. 

Here are actions or issues that I’ll be watching in the Google-China issue, which shook the online world and global capitals in January:

1. CHINESE CENSORSHIP REMAINS POSSIBLE

Even though Google has moved its servers to Hong Kong, a bustling free port, censorship can still take place.

Google knows this.

From the Monday announcement:

We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.

Google certainly had to follow through on its January announcement – which many in the United States praised.

But it’s always eye-catching when corporate leaders publicly use the word “hope” in conjunction with the reaction from senior Chinese leaders.

I think corporate and government leaders often like to know – with a high degree of certainty – things and reactions before they publicly comment on them.

I also realize that censorship can occur because years ago, I was resting in an inexpensive guesthouse in Guangzhou.

I was watching English-language news from Hong Kong and the report was about human rights or democracy, when I saw a few seconds of the dispatch.

A gray screen popped up for a few minutes. It disappeared after that report ended.

2. CHINESE REACTION – BOTH OVERT AND COVERT

It could surface quite fast or take form in smaller, but noticeable, ways over the coming days and weeks.

(UPDATE: See first update above. The Chinese government is critical of Google’s move and the response was swift).

Did senior Chinese leaders lose face in all of this?

Already, they were saying that all countries don’t allow a true free flow of information on the Internet. Therefore, according to this logic, China doesn’t have to do so, as well.

The Chinese government could, as some reports have noted, put pressure on Google’s partners in China.

Even before this announcement, Chinese leaders were talking about how a Google exit really would not affect international investment in China, according to Xinhua.

The message was clear: Google might be upset.

But China remains a powerful enough draw for other companies and countries to do business in the Middle Kingdom.

One illogical argument that I’ve seen from Chinese leaders is this: They say Google is trying to impose its values and ideas on China and its people.

Yet, if this were true, shouldn’t senior Chinese leaders have rejected Google’s efforts to enter the country years ago, before it even planted its logo on China’s soil and the hacking news surfaced?

And if senior Chinese leaders are truly upset with Google, what type of actions will they take to return the favor to the corporate officers in Mountain View, Calif.?

After all, why didn’t the leaders of those 20 other U.S. companies take their concerns public?

3. WHO HACKED GOOGLE?

This still remains a mystery – at least to most people.

After Google announced the attacks in January, I wrote that this key question – central to any crime, besides motive – would be pushed aside in a wave of rhetoric.

The Chinese government has denied involvement and so have the two Chinese universities that U.S. authorities suspect might have been involved.

Senior Chinese leaders probably have noted – many times over, in their minds – that the National Security Agency worked with Google in investigating the cases.

If these hackers were so brave and bold to hit Google – in addition to about 20 other U.S. companies, which have to my knowledge, remained silent – do they have the gumption to truly up this chess game?

As in: Go after Google again – to prove a point.

Isn’t that part of the motive of hackers?

4. BOAO FORUM

This is a prestigious forum for world leaders, academics, analysts and other movers and shakers.

Well, the organization will have its next meeting from April 9 to 11 on the Chinese island of Hainan, which is near Guangdong province.

The topic will be on sustainable growth and China has made news for its efforts to play in this economic space.

But in the hallways or in hushed conversations, I wonder what government and corporate leaders will say – if they even do so – about Google and China and overall tensions between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

They might stick to polite talk and just watch people’s facial reactions and body English and parse what was said in public to gauge a sense of reality.

5. GOOGLE’S APPROACH

Google’s approach is more of a nuanced, middle step – if that’s actually possible to say, given all of the rhetoric in this case.

They could have pulled out completely.

But the company was probably smart enough to know that there are many brilliant people in China – who make for some terrific employees.

From the company’s blog:

In terms of Google’s wider business operations, we intend to continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence there, though the size of the sales team will obviously be partially dependent on the ability of mainland Chinese users to access Google.com.hk. Finally, we would like to make clear that all these decisions have been driven and implemented by our executives in the United States, and that none of our employees in China can, or should, be held responsible for them.

Clearly, company leaders in California wanted to give their employees in China enough protection – at least in words – so that they can continue to work in that country.

Since the news broke in January, I have heard from a source – and the company reiterated this in its Monday announcement – that the cyber attacks were “sophisticated.”

They were so sophisticated that Google’s employees had to take extra security steps before they could do their work.

One question I often wonder about:

In the 1990s, senior Chinese leaders opened their doors and the country to international investment and global friendship.

There were huge banquets. Western business leaders were treated to lavish dinners, five-star hotels with staff workers swirling about and meetings with speeches, banners, handshakes and smiles for the camera.

What happened?

Why the change?

I should note, too, that relatives of senior Chinese leaders have come to the United States to enjoy opportunities in education and work.

And U.S. and international citizens have traveled to China to do the same.

There is nothing wrong with that, though some have been caught up in a messy life that high stakes can bring.

What is noteworthy, though, in the case of relatives of senior Chinese leaders is that they actually enjoy the benefits of a more open society in the United States – one with a much more open information flow. Yes, I understand they probably contribute to this country, as well.

But yet, senior Chinese leaders have decided that an open society in that country should apply largely to economic and business matters.

But Google might be right in a sense: That the Internet is changing China.

In recent months, my mom has taken to watching epic Korean soap operas – full of good and bad characters and stylish clothing.

I think, though, that watching U.S.-China relations is so much more compelling and intriguing.

Did I remind you that Chinese President Hu Jintao is scheduled to visit President Barack Obama in Washington, D.C. this year?

Stay tuned.

If you’re interested, here are my previous posts on Google in China.

And here’s a guest post I did for TechFlash about the topic in January.

You can read all the details about Rudy Heeman’s flying hovercraft on Popular Science.

I just like watching this thing fly.

Is it practical? Is it worth the $13,000?

I mean, is any human invention truly practical on first glance?

Innovation certainly calls for refinement.

I recall when the personal computer started showing up in people’s homes in Northern California and the question was: What can this be used for?

A good family friend, who had one, responded: Storing recipes.

You mean, like for tofu?

My wife, who grew up in China, told me that many people who first had phones in their apartments – and we’re talking the good-old fashioned wired, dial models – wondered who they should call.

The reason: Phones, at one point, were so new in the apartments of Chinese people that relatives and friends didn’t have them to receive calls.

The good thing is that Heeman went airborne with his invention (and thanks to the Stranger’s Slog, where I first saw it).

Now, what would go well with this hovercraft?

A larger Canadian Coast Guard hovercraft?

How about a sleek-looking luxury boat?

Or a turbo jet zipping over the waters of Hong Kong?

A car that can be a boat?

Or how about a car that can turn into an airplane?

Or in the context of flight and what William E. Boeing Jr. told me for a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Things are changing all the time. There is no permanent goal. You keep going. You keep expanding….There is no stopping. It’s pretty hard to stop when you’re up in the air. You get in a lot of trouble if you do.