Posted on Jul 1, 1998

Joe Board's
resume reads like an endorsement for frequent flyer
programs

Since coming to Union in 1965, Board
has been a visiting professor or guest lecturer at the
Sorbonne in Paris, the London School of Economics, the
Universities of Umea and Lund in Sweden, the University
of California at Berkeley, Brown, the City University of
New York, Indiana, and a number of others.

He has also been a cohost for the 1976
National Public Radio broadcast of the Nobel Prize
ceremonies from Stockholm, a consultant to the U.S.
Department of State and the Smithsonian, chair of the
U.S. Selection Committee for NATO Fellowships, and a
member of numerous other national and international
committees.

With all this, he says that the major
source of gratification during his career came right here
at home — building the Political Science Department and
advising nearly every Union graduate who has gone onto
law school.

Board, the Robert Porter Patterson
Professor of Government, is retiring from full-time
service this year, although he will continue to teach a
couple of courses a year. He also will continue to teach
at Albany Law School, where he has been an adjunct
faculty member since 1970, and he plans to write and
spend some time fly fishing.

“I'd go bonkers if I did nothing
but fish,” he says. “I had a sextuple bypass
operation four years ago and have become acutely
conscious of the need to use time well and stay
active.”

Board graduated from Indiana University
with highest honors and went on to earn a B.A. and M.A.
at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, a J.D. from the Indiana
University School of Law, and a Ph.D. in government from
Indiana. He was hired at Union, he says, with the happy
mandate of building the Political Science Department. The
idea, he says, was to hire individuals who were great
classroom teachers and keen research scholars.

“When I arrived, we had three
faculty members with twenty or twenty-one majors in all
classes,”he says. “By the time I left the
chairmanship in 1972, the department had grown to nine
and a half faculty members and fifty-three senior majors.
By the early 1970s, this was the best small college
Political Science Department in the country. We taught
well, published regularly, and were visible at national
and international meetings.”

The department, he says, was marked
with an “extraordinary esprit de corps and a strong
sense of loyalty from students.” He recalls many of
his students with anecdotes. He remembers, for example,
that Phil Robinson '69 did his senior thesis in the form
of a fifty-minute videotape documentary on the breakdown
of the old New Deal coalition of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“Phil got a grant from the GE
Foundation and then wrote, produced, directed, and
narrated his thesis,” Board says. “He went to
Washington to interview Larry O'Brien, then head of the
Democratic Party. I'm very proud of that thesis.”

Robinson, who went on to direct and
produce such films as Field of Dreams and Sneakers,
remembers Board as his first producer.

“I went into his office with this
idea, figuring he would say no and I'd have to write a
paper,” Robinson says. “He enthusiastically
said yes, and that was my first film. Every once in a
while he would show up dressed very well, and instead of
a casual discussion, he would do a lecture that would
knock your socks off. When I'm in the middle of a
project, I still call him and I always learn something
new.”

Although Board's internationalism (he
speaks seven languages) has taken him around the world,
he has been a specialist on Sweden. Supported by a
Fulbright Fellowship, he spent the 1968-69 academic yeart
lecturing at the University of Umea and the University of
Lund. It was then that he mastered Swedish well enough to
lecture in the language; he received an honorary Ph.D.
from the University of Umea and was elected to the
Academy of Sciences at Lund. To this day he contributes
articles on a regular basis to Swedish newspapers.
“A lot of what I've written over the years explains
Sweden and other parts of Europe to Americans — and vice
versa,” he says.

One of his writing projects will be an
examination of the political views reflected in Norman
Rockwell's paintings. The topic is a natural; Rockwell's
studio in Vermont is about 200 yards from Board's house.

Read More

Posted on Jul 1, 1998

If you want
to see students perform under stress, math exams are OK,
says Professor of Mathematics Ted Bick '58.

But if you really want to see students
perform under stress, watch them run a grueling cross
country race.

“In cross country, you get to know
the students in a different way than you do in the
classroom,” he says. “You see them when they're
hurting and under stress, and you really find out a lot
about their character.”

Bick, an avid runner, retires this year
after thirty-two years in the Mathematics Department.
Contrary to rumors, he has never required his students to
run. But being a runner probably never hurt, either.
Affable and witty, Bick has held forth for years with
math majors and runners alike on topics ranging from
differential equations to the Boston Marathon.

Running and math go together, he says,
because both are solitary pursuits. “I can't tell
you how many times I've been on a run and thought I'd
proved a theorem. Most of the time, I either forgot the
proof or found out it was wrong. In mathematics, you've
got a problem and you solve it alone. Even when you
collaborate with a colleague, you are solving problems in
solitude.

“I've loved running,” he
continues. “It's been an important part of my life.
Even after knee surgery a few years ago, I still run
three or four times a week. My competitive career is
over. But as they say, 'once a marine, always a marine.'
The same is true with runners.”

In 1972, the year that Frank Shorter's
Olympic win in the marathon ignited the running boom,
Union's athletic director saw Bick's talent and asked him
to coach the cross country team. He held that post until
1982 and came out of coaching retirement to mentor the
1993 team.

Bick's own personal records would be
the envy of runners of any age. In his early 40s, he ran
2:46 in the Boston Marathon. Years later, as a member of
the over-50 division, he repeated that time in the
Berkshire Marathon.

Bick entered Union after a stint with
the Marines, graduating in 1958 with a degree in
mathematics. After earning his Ph.D. at the University of
Rochester, he taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges
until 1966, when he returned to his alma mater.

As a mathematician, he specializes in
analysis. He has written books on set theory and partial
differential equations and, for a number of years, taught
a course on mathematical biology.

One of his first faculty assignments,
taken a year after he arrived, was as a member of a
committee that was to study the future of the College.
Bick and another new faculty member were asked to come up
with “really outrageous ideas,” one of which
was that Union should admit women. “They all thought
that was very amusing, and three years later that became
a reality.”

Bick took particular satisfaction in
the fact that Patty Sipe, who arrived in 1970 with
Union's first women, got perfect scores in every one of
his calculus exams, a feat not done before or since, he
says.

Bick is proud of his association with
students in the Academic Opportunity Program, for
students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. He was
the program's first director in the late 1960s and has
taught the summer math component nearly every year.
“It's been a source of great pride to see them
succeed.”

Bick loves sports of all kinds and is a
regular at noontime faculty basketball games on the days
he doesn't run. At home football games, he usually sits
with a number of fellow alumni, playing his trumpet.
“I started sitting with alumni who liked to sing the
fight song after touchdowns. But we sang so off-key that
I decided to play the trumpet instead. After a short
time, I was joined by Ed Craig (former dean of
engineering). As bad as we are, each of us thinks he's
better than the other.” Bick has just purchased a
new trumpet, part of a rite of passage to what he calls
“my second childhood, but with no adult
supervision.”

With his children spread across the
country, Bick and his wife, Joan, plan to indulge their
love for travel. He also pledges to be among the
spectators at football games and cross country meets. And
he plans to continue work on a book with colleague
Michael Frame. “Retirement is the next to last thing
you do. I hope that before I do the last thing I do, I'll
finish that book.”

Read More

Posted on Jul 1, 1998

The College recently received a mouthwatering
collection of rare books that includes a 1755 edition of
Johnson's Dictionary (the first dictionary of the English
language), a 1645 edition of John Milton's Poems, a 1632
edition of Ovid's Metamorphosis, the 1713 second edition
of Swift's Miscellanies in Prose and Verse, and much
more.

The collection was the gift of Carl
Booth '38, a retired neurologist at Veterans
Administration Medical Center in the Bronx, who left more
than 350 books to the College in his will. The collection
focuses on literature of the late seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, especially the works of Milton,
Swift, Pope, and Johnson.

“We looked at the list of books
and it was full of wonderful, really significant
titles,” says Jim McCord, associate professor of
English and a rare book enthusiast. “But when they
arrived, we saw that their condition was
extraordinary.”

Beautifully bound in leather, their
fine paper and unique type are well preserved and many of
the illustrations are still sharp and clear. They do not
show their age and are invitingly readable. Unlike most
collections the College receives, the Booth collection
also includes secondary sources, such as biographies of
the authors, and critical works of many of the titles
included in the collection. From this, we can infer that
Booth collected these books for more than just their
looks — that he in fact read them carefully, sometimes
leaving slips of paper to mark the pages he studied.

The new collection fits perfectly with
the College's curriculum, one of the goals of Union's
special collections. These great works are read not only
in Union's “Major English Authors” courses but
also in seminars concentrating on Milton and eighteenth
century literature. “One of the great things about
special collections in the expanded library is that we
now have a space that is specifically designed to be a
classroom for just these kinds of classes,” says
Ellen Fladger, the College's archivist.

McCord says that very few students have
seen original editions of seventeenth and eighteenth
century literature, so bringing them to the special
collections is “very special.”

Hugh Jenkins, associate professor of
English, points out that much can be learned from reading
these early editions. Just looking at the placement of
footnotes, the illustrations, and the type can reveal
much about a book. “That sort of editorial choice
can show us a lot about the tastes and ideals of the
time,” he says.

Pulling Milton's first published work
— a book of poems from 1645 — off the shelf, he points
out the lack of footnotes. “It's just poetry to be
read — and that to me is intriguing,” he says.

Browsing these books also gives
students a chance to read books as they appeared when
they were written. Rather than read Pope's Of the
Characters of Women in a 2,000-page Norton Anthology,
students can enjoy the fifteen-page original work.

Fladger says students should not look
at these books as if they are in a museum, but should
become familiar and comfortable with them. “I feel
that it is important that students get as much exposure
to this kind of material as possible, even students who
might be science or engineering majors,” she says.

Humidity control, appropriate security,
and light fixtures with UV filters in the special
collections ensure that these books will be available for
students and scholars for many years to come.

A gift of Swift

Carl Booth's recent bequest to the
College complements the 1996 gift of Fred J. Emery '54 in
honor of William M. Murphy, the Thomas Lamont Professor
Emeritus of Ancient and Modern Literature. Emery donated
his collection of several editions of Jonathan Swift's
Gulliver's Travels, which are now available for student
and scholarly research.

Read More

Posted on Jul 1, 1998

In
the summer of 1995, Linda E. Patrik, associate professor
of philosophy, began to read newspaper reports about the
Unabomber case. She became concerned that the Unabomber's
profile seemed to match her brother-in-law, Ted
Kaczynski, and she encouraged her husband, David
Kaczynski, to consider that his brother might be the
Unabomber.

Nearly three years later, after the
conviction of Ted Kaczynski as the Unabomber, Patrik sat
down with Adrian MacLean '98 and Katie Pasco of the
Office of Communications to recount the details of her
discovery and the impact of the conviction of Ted
Kaczynski on her life.

Q: What role did you play in the
Kaczynski family's recognition that Ted Kaczynski had a
mental disorder?

Patrik: I have never met Ted Kaczynski,
so I only know him from the stories that my husband and
mother-in-law have told me. Psychiatrists say that in
eighty percent of the cases of schizophrenia, family
members themselves do not recognize the disease and
resist the diagnosis, even if it comes from a
professional psychiatrist. Usually it takes someone from
outside the family to see that there is a problem. They
think that this is the role that I played with Ted
Kaczynski.

Q: How did you recognize his illness?

Patrik: Since I never met Ted, I came
to know him through his correspondence with the family.
Ted briefly corresponded with his family in 1990 and 1991
but then lapsed into sending extremely negative,
insulting, violent-sounding letters.

In the fall of 1990, after the death of
his father, he resumed correspondence with his mother,
and at first the letters were cordial. They would
address, for example, Buddhism, because Wanda was puzzled
as to why David and I were married in a Tibetan Buddhist
ceremony. They wrote about other matters, such as books
and politics, but sometime in the spring or early summer
of 1991 Ted became furious with his mother again, as he
had many times in the past. He insisted that she not
write to him again, and these letters included fairly
cruel and vicious attacks. He blamed her for his lack of
sociability and for his lack of relationships with women.
He blamed her for pushing him academically; he blamed her
for everything.

One of the most frightening letters for
me — the one that convinced me that we needed a
psychiatric opinion — was about two women. They were
women that Ted knew from a distance and would have liked
to date. The way that he described them was strange. So I
was worried and wanted a professional opinion.

Q: So you convinced David to take Ted's
letters to a psychiatrist?

Patrik: The letters convinced me that
we needed a psychiatric opinion, so David took them to
Dr. Robert Mitchell in Schenectady. At the two
consultations, Dr. Mitchell told us that he thought Ted
was mentally disturbed. At that point, we discussed
strategies and whether it was possible to have Ted
committed, but Dr. Mitchell explained that it is
extremely difficult to get someone institutionalized if
they have not committed a crime and if no one knows of
them harming themselves or others. At that point, in
1991, we had no evidence whatsoever that Ted had harmed
anyone or had harmed himself, so we didn't think that it
was possible to have him committed.

Dr. Mitchell also reminded us that most
violence occurs within families, and if we confronted Ted
and tried to put him in a mental hospital, he could react
with violence. We decided to contact a heart specialist
whom Ted had been seeing in Montana for a heart problem,
and we begged her to urge Ted to get therapy. But Ted
never came to her office again, so nothing ever came of
that.

Q: When did you first realize that Ted
might be the Unabomber?

Patrik: In the summer of 1995, I was
vacationing in Paris and I began to look over the reports
about the Unabomber that were printed in the Herald
Tribune. That summer, after the Unabomber threatened to
blow up a plane flying out of Los Angeles, the FBI
changed its policies and began to seek help from the
public by releasing a lot more information.

I read this information every day in
the Paris Herald Tribune and began to worry that Ted
could be the Unabomber. When David joined me in Paris, I
urged him to consider that his brother might be the
Unabomber.

Q: What indications did you have that
Ted might be the Unabomber?

Patrik: It was a lot of things — Ted's
woodworking capability, the cities he had lived in, the
fact that at this point the FBI believed the Unabomber to
be a loner, and they believed him to be highly committed
to an anti-technology cause.

Q: When did you first read the
Unabomber's manifesto?

Patrik: My colleague, Professor Felmon
Davis, downloaded the manifesto from the Internet for me
in mid-October. I had lied and told him I was going to
teach a course on environmental ethics.

I knew as soon as I saw it that it was
Ted who had written it. The anti-technology stance in the
manifesto was as extreme as Ted's views and lifestyle.
There were also criticisms of liberals that seemed to be
similar to the attacks he made against his parents. I
called David right away and told him to come to my office
so that he could read it, too. David was deeply disturbed
by the manifesto but he was not sure it was written by
Ted. And if David couldn't be sure, I really couldn't be
sure either, since all I had to go on was the evidence
and feelings that David had.

Q: What did you do next?

Patrik: After David and I both read the
manifesto, David dug up many letters that he had from
Ted, and we spent a month talking about it and comparing
the letters to the manifesto. I also discussed my
concerns with Dr. Robert Mitchell in therapy sessions.
Then we contacted my best childhood friend, Susan
Swanson, who is a private investigator in Chicago. I knew
that we could trust her; I didn't know anyone else who
could help us in a practical way.

Without telling Susan that it had
anything to do with the Unabomber, we asked her how to
get a writing analysis done. As a teacher of writing —
at that time I was grading at least thirty to forty
papers a week — I had an eye for writing style. I
convinced David that we should have a writing analysis
done, but we didn't know how to locate someone who would
preserve our confidentiality, so that's why we turned to
Susan.

Q: What did you tell her?

Patrik: At that point we just told her
we had two documents that needed to be compared. She
began to search for experts in the field, and she came
back to say that the top expert was Clint Van Zant, a
retired FBI agent. We knew that turning over any document
to him was tantamount to turning it over to the FBI, so
we had to make a decision whether we were willing, even
with the scanty evidence that we had, to essentially turn
this information over to the FBI.

It took us another month to decide.
David was particularly concerned that his brother was so
paranoid that if Ted were innocent, anyone showing up on
his doorstep, especially an FBI agent, would be in
danger. David was worried that his brother might either
shoot himself or shoot the person who showed up — or, if
his brother were innocent, we would be putting him
through great emotional turmoil.

We made our decision by mid-December
and told Susan to go ahead and engage Van Zant to do the
writing analysis. We sent the letters, retyped, to Susan,
who sent them to Van Zant and protected our
confidentiality.

Q: What did the analysis indicate?

Patrik: The report came back around New
Year's Eve and said that there was a forty to sixty
percent chance that the manifesto and the letters were
written by the same person. David and I had agreed that
if the report said that there was at least a twenty-five
percent chance, we would go to the FBI.

Q: This was your first contact with the
FBI?

Patrik: Yes. We had a problem finding a
lawyer to be our mediator with the FBI, but finally Susan
arranged for her old law school friend, Tony Bisceglie,
to be our mediator.

Susan had drawn up a list of nine
conditions that we wanted the FBI to agree to, most of
which involved preventing the FBI from jumping the gun
and targeting Ted as their main suspect. We wanted them
to search out evidence very carefully, because we didn't
know if he was guilty or innocent, but we knew that he
was mentally ill.

The list included conditions for a safe
arrest and for the preservation of our confidentiality.
The FBI was not supposed to reveal that David and I were
the ones who turned in Ted. Susan's list of conditions
was used by Tony Bisceglie as the basis for his letter to
the FBI, which opened our negotiations with the FBI.

Q: When did you learn that the FBI had
breached your confidentiality?

Patrik: David and I were listening to
the CBS News the night of Ted's arrest in April, and Dan
Rather announced that David had turned in his brother.
His exact words were that David “fingered his
brother.” The FBI had had a chance earlier that day
to tell us that they had breached confidentiality, but
they chose not to notify us.

Q: Based on the media craze that
invaded your life at that point, what are your
impressions of the media?

Patrik: David and I have very different
views on this. David feels positively about the media
now, whereas I still have some residual resentment. Since
David launched himself into a two-year battle to save his
brother's life, he had to rely on the media. The
interviews he gave lasted three to four hours, and he
came to find journalists who were thoughtful people, good
writers, intellectuals. So he actually made friends with
some of the media people.

This is only my third interview. I
certainly liked the 60 Minutes interview; I found them
intelligent and sensitive; they didn't pressure us. It's
just that first onslaught — the paparazzi — they had no
ethics whatsoever.

Q: Why did you and David make the
decision that you did?

Patrik: It's very clear to me that the
decision was for the sake of the victims. The victims had
suffered greatly, and we wanted to make sure that never
happened again. David has met with some of the victims,
but I have never had a chance to talk to them. I would
like to tell them that the decision we made was for their
sake and for the sake of people like them. There is no
easy way to tell them that their horror and their pain
touched us all deeply, and that's why we didn't stop. We
had only the vaguest idea that Ted might be the
Unabomber. Many people would have just put those
suspicions out of their minds, but I think that it was
the pain of the victims that motivated us to continue.

Q: How was your life on campus?

Patrik: Union itself was great. Roger
Hull, Dean Cool, Dean Sorum, all of my colleagues, the
philosophy secretary, the people in the Public Relations
and Safety and Security Offices — they all were great.

First, they stonewalled the media when
the media were out of control and behaving unethically.
The media in this country, in cases like this, have no
respect for privacy and no respect for the feelings of a
family going through trauma. Everybody at the College,
from the top down, did their best to stem the tide of the
media invasion, and I greatly appreciate the protection
they gave me — both the protection that I needed to
continue working and the protection of my privacy.

On a more personal note, the Philosophy
Department secretary, Marianne Snowden, and my colleagues
were very gentle in giving me space — not pestering me
with questions, not wanting to know the latest news.
Also, a number of friends at the College helped David and
me move into a new home. We were reluctant to hire a
moving company because we had confidential papers, and we
didn't want strangers coming into our home. About ten of
our friends, many of them professors, helped us move
during the time that they were still teaching.

My two best friends, Professors Roset
Khosropour and Sigrid Killenter, also provided great
emotional support, even when they didn't know what was
troubling me. Through all of this, I have found that
friendship is more important than everything else.

Q: As a philosopher, what have you
learned from all of this?

Patrik: Based on this whole experience,
I have lost respect for tremendous intellect. I have
discovered that genius needs to be coupled with heart and
loving relationships with people to have a positive
impact on society. I now know that intellectual
brilliance alone has great dangers.

This experience has also made me think
about some things in terms of my research. I don't have
answers, but I do have questions. Before all this, I was
working on a book about the obstacles that block us from
figuring out what is in our own self-interest. I had
focused my thinking on individuals and self-interest, but
I think that what this experience has revealed is not an
answer but an understanding that sometimes ethical
decisions need to be made that have nothing to do with
self-interest or self-benefit. Sometimes, ethical
decisions are simply called for. They come to you by
fortune, I suppose one might say.

On a more personal note, I also see how
the ability David and I had to make our decision arose
out of the good things David and I had in our life. In my
book, I had concluded that what is in our self-interest
is not necessarily something that we have to strive for
or work toward. Instead, much of what is good for us we
already have — the privileges that we enjoy. These
privileges are the talents that we have, the
opportunities that are open to us, the strengths in our
lives, either from our family, our economic situation,
our jobs, or our marriages.

On a personal level, I have realized
that I am quite privileged to have my job at Union and a
loving marriage with David. These are great gifts,
wonderful things. I have realized that when one is
privileged in these ways, one can undertake difficult
tasks.

Q. You are going on sabbatical next
year. What are your plans?

Patrik: When all this came up, I
essentially dropped my book project; I had neither the
time nor the concentration to work on it. This has
absorbed my husband's life and, as a result, it has also
absorbed my life. So the main project for my sabbatical
is to return to the book, Knowing What is Good For Us. I
will also be editing an anthology on existential
literature.

Q: How are you going to move on from
this? What is left to confront?

Patrik: We still have to pay our
attorney's fees. We have to figure out a way to pay him,
which is difficult because we have been reluctant to do a
movie or book deal.

We don't know if the government will
give us the million-dollar reward. We would very much
like the reward money to go to the victims, but if they
tax us and then if they tax the victims when they receive
the money, there's not much money left.

David has been approached about book
and movie deals, but he doesn't feel like he can write a
book. He's still in too much pain from this experience
and in too much pain over his brother. I've urged him to
write a book, partly because he's an excellent writer and
partly just to pay our attorney, but he has always said
no. Maybe he'll change his mind once we go on sabbatical.

Personally, I am eager to return to the
work I had set out for myself and return to the things
that mean a lot to both David and me. One thing that
means a lot is our marriage; we are deeply committed to
it. We would like some private time to go canoeing, go to
the movies, and to have fun — like we used to have
before all this started. We want our lives back.

Read More

Posted on Jul 1, 1998

Not
only has Evan
Schwartz '86 coined a new term —
'webonomics' — he's written a book about it.

Schwartz, a contributing writer for
Wired magazine and a former editor and reporter for
Business Week, is the author of Webonomics: Nine
Essential Principles for Growing Your Business on the
World Wide Web, published in the spring of 1997 by
Broadway Books.

A computer science major and a
contributor to the Concordiensis, Schwartz wasn't very
good at writing in FORTRAN, a computer programming
language, but discovered that he could write in English
about computers — “something apparently rare in
that field,” he says.

After graduating, he took a temporary
position as a receptionist at a national computer
industry newspaper. After one day there, he suggested
that they take him on as a writer, and he immediately won
his first writing job.

He moved on to Computer Systems News
and then to Business Week, where he covered the computer
industry. Several years ago he left to freelance, and he
now writes for Wired magazine, The New York Times
business section, and other journals.

In the spring of 1995, an editor at
Wired asked Schwartz to write a story about emerging
business models of Web sites. Feeling that it was too
early to write the story because there were not enough
serious Web sites, he delayed until Netscape made a
public offering of its stock in the summer of 1995,
thereby igniting interest. The article appeared in the
spring of 1996, and Schwartz says he got so much feedback
that he decided to write a book.

“If you say 'web economy' ten
times fast, you get a new word — webonomics,” he
explains. “A lot of the old economic theories don't
apply to the Web. A real economist probably couldn't have
written this book because the web doesn't work that way.
Most economics is ruled on the basis of scarcity, but
nothing is scarce on the Web, except attention.”

Writing the book in seven months was
“a mammoth undertaking” for Schwartz, but he
felt he needed to move quickly because the Web changes so
fast. He also liked the fact that a book has “a
shelf life. It's not like articles, which seem to come
and go.”

But the thought of writing — and
selling — a book was also a frightening one. “It
was a great feeling when on my first book tour,
Webonomics jumped from number thirty-two to number three
on Amazon.com's 'hot 100.'” (The 'hot 100' is list
of the top 100 books sold by the on-line bookseller;
Webonomics spent thirty weeks on the “hot
100.”)

Now available in paperback, Webonomics
has received much attention, especially on the Internet,
and has been chosen one of the five finalists for a
Global Business Book Award. Schwartz is at work on
another book, also about the Internet. “I had to
continue to write about computers and the Internet. It's
too hard to ignore and it's too interesting,” he
concludes.

[For more information, see Schwartz's
web page at www.webonomics.com.]

Read More