i think one of the issues -- problems has been the fact the pakistani military have had a monopoly on their national security and diplomacy. that has to change also. >> gentlemen, thank you both so much for your time. thank you for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington. up next for our viewers in the united states, "fareed zakaria: gps." >> this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of new the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a terrific show for you today. first up, one of our grand tours around the world with an all-star panel. we have more of my conversation with condoleezza rice, stanford professor will give a grade to president obama, and to donald rumsfeld who slammed her in his recent memoirs. >> don is a friend but is a grumpy buy. he is. he doesn't know what he's talking about. >> a fascinating discussion with

google's executive chairman eric schmidt about the great tablet battle between apple and google. why it matters who will win. here is my take. pakistan's military has been embarrassed, to put it mildly, by the suspicion it must have known where bin laden was hiding. in response, it is using its old tricks and hoping to ride out the storm as it has in the past. it is leaking stories to favor journalists, all with the aim of stoking anti-americanism in pakistan. having been caught in a situation that suggests either complicity with al qaeda or gross incompetence and the realty is probably a bit of both, it is now furiously trying to change the subject. generals angrily denounce america for entering the country. a pakistani friend put it to me this way. it is like a person caught in bed with another man's wife who is indignant that someone entered his house.

the military has also once again been able to stop the civilian government. according to pakistani sources, the speech given at a recent news conference was drafted by the military. so having come to power hoping to clip the military's wings, pakistan's democratically elected government has been reduced to mouthing talking points written for it by the intelligence service. now, some politicians and journalists say they want an inquiry into how america entered pakistan. but is that really the issue? the united states has been involved in counterterrorist operations in pakistan for years using drones and people going in and out. the fundamental question is -- how was it that the world's leading terrorist was living in pakistan with some kind of support network which must have included elements of the pakistani government? how is it every major al qaeda official that has been captured or killed since 2002 has been found comfortably ensconced in a pakistani city?

and how is it that anytime these issues are raised, they get drowned out by an organized campaign of anti-americanism or religious fanaticism? washington has given in to the pakistani military time and again. but america has leverage. pakistan needs american aid, arms and training to sustain its army. if the generals are going to receive those benefits, they must become part of pakistan's solution and not its problem. washington should do three things. press for a major national commission in pakistan headed by a supreme court justice, not an army, to investigate whether bin laden and other al qaeda leaders have been supported and sustained by elements of the pakistani state. demand the provisions of the lugar/kerry bill on civilian control on the military be strictly followed. otherwise american aid will be withheld. ask to see a plan for the pakistani military to go after the major untouched terror

networks in pakistan. in the longer run, as the united states scales back its military presence in afghanistan, which i hope it will do, it will need the pakistani military less and less to supply its troops in theater. pakistan's civilian government, business classes, intellectuals, have the largest role in this struggle. they should not get distracted by empty anti-american slogans or hypernationalism. this is their chance to become a normal country. and it might not come again. let's get started. joining me for our tour of world affairs whose expertise spans the globe but manage to bring them into our studios today.

anne-marie slaughter was the first woman to serve as director of policy planning, top strategist at the u.s. department of state. she's now returned to princeton to teach. joshua cooper remo, managing director of kissinger associates. before that he was "time" magazine's youngest ever world editor. and kishore mahbubani has been a career diplomat representing singapore around the world and heading its foreign office. he's now the head of the school of public policy. welcome to all of you. kishore, the killing of osama bin laden, how has it been perceived around the world outside of the united states? >> i think the world is better off with osama being eliminated. nobody cried, i guess, when he left the scene. but at the same time i was actually very troubled by the celebrations that you saw in america about his killing because it seemed to imply that hey, the problem is over, we can

now carry on. the fundamental problem of disconnect within america and the islamic world, america at one point, 2 million muslim, still remains. it is important to not believe that the killing of osama bin laden has solved all their problems. indeed and there's probably a greater need now for america to engage islamic world mostly to try to bridge this growing disconnect that exists over there. >> what do you think, anne-marie? >> i don't think that the celebrations were this is the end of all our troubles. i think this was catharsis after a decade of 9/11 where no matter what we did, we couldn't even capture osama bin laden. particularly for the young people, 12, 13, coming of age at 9/11, they're in college now, and they're the ones you saw just this relief and the sense that a shadow had been lifted. i also think that the real

significance is not that al qaeda is not to be worried about as an enemy but it allows us to pivot to a different face of islam. now you can see the arab spring as the primary face of muslims demonstrating, seeking a better life, which is a far more positive image than that turbanned enemy. >> what did you think of obama's leadership? the chinese view these things carefully. you spend half your time in china. >> i think a lot of us reflected on that remarkable image from the situation room. i mean, for all of us who grew up setting foreign policy and obsessed by the nuances of everything that happens in these moments history is really made to have a photo like that and see the president sitting where he was sitting, to see the secretary of state either because she had an allergy or having a human react, this is a horrible thing to be watching unfolding in front of your eyes. i think it demonstrated a real decisiveness to decide what was a clearly risky operation.

you can see the president's instinct even in the photo where he is sitting off to the side to not lead from the center. somebody said if you looked at that photo you would have thought rich daly was the president, wearing the tie and looks like he's the one in charge. as they look at the middle east, is america's role in middle east which will continue to evolve and what happened to bin laden is a milestone, to sit off to the side and be part of a group that's making things happen or is it to take a leadership role. i think that's a crucial question they have to answer in the coming weeks. there's huge national security threats we face, issues like iran, those things don't go away just because bin laden is gone. >> how do you think -- i was going to ask you how do you think the world reacts to the lead from behind idea? i will get to anne-marie because she is quoted in that article that phrase comes from. obama's team, somebody said -- to be fair, specifically about libya, which was a case where they wanted the europeans to take the lead, isn't this,

though, the america that the world wanted to see and cooperative, multilateral america rely on other people to get involved? >> i think -- very important point i need to emphasize here is don't underestimate the sophistication of the elite overseas and their understanding world. of what's happening in the world. they always look at both american rhetoric and american power. it is present everywhere. if american power is present in -- israel and palestine, present everywhere, you cannot lead from behind. you are involved. you are there. you are participating. >> i have to say when we lead from the front you call us unilateral. when we lead from behind you say we are not leading from the front. it's a little -- >> no -- >> damned if you do and damned if you don't. >> i think it's about the

policies you adopt and whether they work or they don't work. >> anne-marie? >> i don't think lead from behind is the right expression at all. i don't know where it came from. it is certainly not the way the white house thinks about it. i wouldn't read too much into that picture. i think they were all exhausted. they were all watching a risky operation. but the president came out of this looking like a very decisive person. someone who was patient and persistent and ready to make a really tough call when he had to. i think that is true of libya, too. he delayed more than i wanted him to. but he, again was very decisive. but the way he describe it is leadership is we create the conditions and the coalitions for others to step up. that's not leading from behind. we are there. we are politically indispensable. we go to the u.n. and have to offer our support. we have to make sure that the other countries are participating. once we have done that, his idea is we shouldn't be the global policemen. other countries have a really strong stake in these outcomes. and we should be willing to share responsibility with them.

sometimes that means they will do things in ways we would have done slightly differently. but i don't think that's leading from behind. i think that's leading in a world of many different powers where you are still the dominant player but you need to make sure others are taking their share of responsibility. >> in other places, try to lead as the -- this speech on the arab spring or spring plus the death of osama bin laden. do you think that -- presumably this there will be a chance for the united states to align its interests with the people of the arab world? >> it is almost exactly two years ago, june 4, 2009, he gave the cairo speech. i think everybody understands the incredible significance of that. that would be example of something seen as a catalyzing event. he went in and did exactly what you said, went in and tried to create the conditions necessary. when you look at it from the standpoint of what america's interest is in the middle east, is it likely to assume it will get us where we need and that's what's important about this speech.

are we going to hear more catalyzing policies? do we really believe they'll stop iranian nuclear proliferation, for instance. is that something we can afford to put a few ideas in motion and let people in the region take charge of that? or is that something we need to take charge of? hopefully the speech will delineate some of those things. a strong american position is very important. iranian proliferation should be one of them. in other areas a more catalytic approach would be appropriate. >> you are saying a nice speech about democracy will not stop iran's nuclear -- >> right, exactly. i think the idea that having democracy promotion as the core tenet of your foreign policy is a very important value. that's who we are. >> i sense a "but." >> having said that, i don't think in the time frame we're talking about the possibility of developments in iran at a pace that will make a meaningful difference to their nuclear trajectory is likely. i think the implications of a nuclear iran are tremendous. >> we will be back to discuss all of this and more right after this.

>> i think every united states decision, until we get strong again, has to be run through the filter of what does it take to have a strong economy. we have no hope of kind of garnering the sorts of loyalties we need if people think we're in decline. [ male announcer ] megared omega-3 krill oil from schiff.

unlike fish oil, megared softgels are small and easy to swallow with no fishy smell or aftertaste. try megared today.

and we are back with anne-marie slaughter from pri e prince. kishore mahbubani from singapore. josh ramo from china and the united states. kishore, one of the things obama has to deal with, no matter what happens in his foreign policy, it is the economy that's going to determine whether he gets re-elected. and you wrote a broadside against base you cannily whole way americans are approaching their economic policy. you need strong, state-directed programming in the model of surprise, surprise, singapore or china. right?

>> well, i think you sort of exaggerated the argument a bit. >> you know the -- the magazine has two rules that says when it -- hires its young editors. it says simplify and then exaggerate. >> true. i want to emphasize one point. that the world wants america to succeed. but now the level of concern about the future of the american economy is the highest i have ever seen in my entire life. and -- there's a sense of hey, what happen it is things go fundamentally wrong in america? i mean, just imagine it is conceivable that within two to three years, the markets or bond markets will say hey, don't touch u.s. treasury bills, what happens then? that's the kind of horror scenario that was inconceivable but now conceivable and actually have you traders figuring out what might happen and what -- >> is it conceivable, josh? i mean, look at what's happening in greece right now with europe. when you look at the

alternatives -- >> one of the lessons of the last few years is is the inconceivable should be conceivable. his point is a good one. i think it is a valid point for a couple of reasons. in terms of domestic economics, the united states, three years of 9% unemployment, no comprehensive jobs bill passed. there is reason to be nervous. we haven't seen that before. i thinking the second point which is how the rest of the world looks at the united states is also very significant. i think every united states decision has to be strong again and has to be run through the filter of what it takes to have a strong economy. no hope of garnering sorts of loyalties we need. people think we are weak and declining. >> speak up for america. >> i always do. and always against you. first place, i don't know, i remember the 1970s, stagflation, the sense we were going absolutely nowhere. other countries were going to pass us. i see this as absolutely a critical point. this president came in knowing this was his job.

he has done a number of things that are going to take a while to -- >> don't you feel a lack of urgency? as somebody who lives in beijing, and i look at the amount of urgency on economic policy planning. i come back to the united states and spend time in washington and new york. i don't feel nearly the sense of urgency. >> no. on the contrary. we are having real huge debates. first about the '11 budget and now the debate about the debt ceiling is enormous. we are going to figure out what the consensus is. >> 9% unemployment and no job bill. how can that possibly -- >> because the american political process has focused first on the debt and deficit. which is right because we know long term we have the chief of -- the head of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, says our deficit and long-term debt is the biggest national security threat we face. secretary of state says that. the president as a national security strategy that says we have to rebuild our economic foundations at home. >> doesn't that make you nervous when there is that much consensus about something?

i hear all these people in agreement that it's the debt immediately makes me think these people can't -- >> you don't think -- >> i think the debt is important but every single american discussion has to be driven through issue what does it to create around the world to create a perception we are a strong and prosperous country. the nature of economics is that if we had -- >> the perception we are not strong has to do with -- >> something to do with the bet death. but everything we know about keensian economics is sometimes ef to go into debt and people borrow money to invest in their education and other things. debt is a sensible strategy so we -- we are in a position we can take on the debt. >> one more discussion about this. we have to go. anne-marie slaughter, kishore mahbubani, thank you so much. we will be right back. ttd# 1-800

ttd# 1-800-345-2550 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 and talk to chuck about ttd# 1-800-345-2550 rolling over that old 401k. years ago, my mother taught me. and over the years, i've taught my family. we've created so much here together. so when my doctor said that over those years my high cholesterol was contributing to plaque buildup in my arteries, i listened. and that's why i'm fighting my cholesterol with crestor. [ male announcer ] when diet and exercise alone aren't enough, adding crestor does more than lower bad cholesterol and raise the good. crestor is also proven to slow plaque buildup in arteries. crestor is not right for everyone -- like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant.

simple blood tests will check for liver problems. tell your doctor about other medicines you are taking or if you have muscle pain or weakness. that could be a sign of serious side effects. ask your doctor about plaque build up. and if crestor is right for you. [ woman ] i love what we've created here together. [ male announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astra-zeneca may be able to help.

now for our "what in the world segment." here are some astonishing numbers that got us thinking. 1 out of 4 people on this planet paid a bribe last year. bribery costs a trillion dollars every year. bribery accounted for one-quarter of afghanistan's annual gdp. i was intrigued to hear about an innovative idea to deal with corruption. from one of the places most plagued by it -- india. india's chief economic adviser posted a paper on his personal website in which he made a case for legalizing certain types of bribes.

corruption is a huge and growing problem in more than half of all indians said they had to pay a bribe last year. many of those are what are called harassment bribes. illegal payments to get basic services. like an extra hundred rupeys to get a driver's license or a routine permission. these are the kind of bribes he wants to change the law on. under current indian law, both the bribe giver and the bribe taker are guilty. if they are caught, both are fined an equal amount. say a hundred rupees. the state gets 200 rupees total. he has a radical proposal. fine bribe taker, the government official, 200 rupees, he says. led the bribe giver go scot-free. so the government collects the same amount in fines, but the person who had to pay the bribe is not fined. instead he gets his bribe money back. so how does this reduce corruption? his game theory simulation

suggests bribery in general will decrease because people who are asked for bribes can pay the money and they can still go and complain without worrying that they will be prosecuted. and the corrupt official who takes the bribe will know if they take the money they face twice the penalty. it is a fascinating idea. it has come in for lots of criticism. in india. but the critics are missing the point. india needs creative thinking to cure the cancer of corruption that is actually getting much worse, and not just in india. take a look at this map. it is a corruption index. put together by transparency international. the redder a country is, the more corrupt are the bureaucrats. yellow spots are less corrupt. you notice here in the u.s. we are not doing too badly. so what's the least corrupt country in the world? singapore. about five decades ago that tiny country was newly independent. and for all of the rapid growth, it had the usual third-world

culture. that changed under lee kuan yew. he decided to pay government officials at power with those in the private sector. that killed the incentive for officials to be corrupt. the singapore solution is expensive especially for large countries with large bureaucracies but would probably still be a bargain considering how much corruption costs most economies. another innovative idea came out of africa. a sudanese-born millionaire often wondered why his continent had the richest resources, the richest natural resource, and yet the poorest people. identifying corrupt leaders is the problem. he tried to change those leaders' incentives. he instituted the annual prize, it awards $5 million to an african leader who is not corrupt and leaves office peacefully. the winner then goes on to get an additional $200,000 annually for life. a great incentive, right? the problem is they couldn't find a winner for 2009 or 2010.

the jury simply refused to make the award to someone that was not truly deserving. the point of this story isn't to despair. corruption or bribery are not innate cultural qualities. singapore shows that cultures can change and studies show that these crimes are due to inertia. if everyone is doing it, it's incentive to take a bribe as well. but how do you get to a critical mass where people stop doing it? smart government policies, good leadership from the private and public sector, all that helps. it is possible that this is the year of change, after all. remember, much of the popular anger against governments in the arab world this year was fueled by the sense that they were out of touch, repressive, and corrupt. so let's try more ideas like the one from india. we will be right back. i have to ask you, don rumsfeld

says that, to put it bluntly, a bad national security adviser. what do you say? [ male announcer ] your hard work has paid off. and you want to pass along as much as possible to future generations. at northern trust, we know what works and what doesn't. as one of the nation's largest wealth managers, we can help you manage the complexities of transferring wealth. seeking to minimize taxes while helping maximize what's passed along. because you just never know how big those future generations might be. ♪ expertise matters. find it at northern trust.

condoleezza rice, thanks for joining us pleasure to be with you. >> it has been about two years president obama has been in office. you are a former national security adviser, former secretary of state, former and now, again, college professor in american foreign policy. what grade would you give president obama? >> well, i only give grades to stanford students. but i believe that there's a lot of continuity in the policies that have been pursued. and while i may or may not agree with every decision that has been made, i know how hard it is to be in there and to make those decisions. i, like president bush, said i'm going to make certain i don't chirp at my successors, you know. you are in, you are making difficult calculations every day.

i remember very well that sometimes i would get up and would read the newspaper and it would say the bush administration should get iran to cooperate and they should get sanctions against iran. i think why didn't i think of that? you know? it is just hard. but i think that this is a very good national security team. and they are protecting the country. >> you know, this is going to horrify both people on the left and the right. the left wanted a sharp break with bush's policies and the right thinks obama's betraying the country. you're saying no, there's an element of continuity. >> the united states set the foreign policy is a great big aircraft carrier. it doesn't turn around quickly our interests tend to be stable. again, while i may not agree with every word that's been uttered, with everything that's been done, the united states is a country that is pursuing its interests and its values. and that's very important, too. i think what we are seeing is that you have your presidential

election, the president becomes president, and then he realizes that he has responsibilities to protect the country look very different from inside the oval office than in anticipation of getting there. >> let's talk about some of those decisions. libya, president obama is trying to do something that seems a little different in libya, which is to say that the united states wants to help. it wants to be supportive. but this is not an area that affects our core interests to such an extent that we want to be the lead player. so he is trying this process of letting the europeans take more of the lead, we provide some support. is that the right model? >> well, first let's talk about libya. i am very grateful that we disarmed gadhafi. i'm very grateful that his wmd are sitting in oak ridge, tennessee, because we would be facing a very different situation right now in libya were he still in possession of those weapons of mass destruction. there are things about the way this operation is unfolding that

i think are questionable. that are troubling. i'm not quite certain what the end game is here. i'm not quite certain who the rebels are and, therefore, what part they will play in the end game. i think it is good that others can take lead like the british and french. you know, nato is not an alien being to us. we are indeed central to nato. so you can't actually hand an operation off to nato. the united states is too central and too much important part of its capability. so we will see how this comes out. i don't mind -- >> would you have gone in? >> this is one, fareed -- i'm usually clear on these. i was 50/50. i could see both sides of this an important set of principles to engage. my concern is that humanitarian interventions are always a bit slippery. are we intervening in humanitarian affair because

someone is about to slaughter his people quickly? on cnn that's probably not a good argument. but we don't intervene if they are slaughtering them slowly out of eye of the press. we have to be a little bit careful with the argument for humanitarian intervention. i think you could argue in the middle of the arab spring to have gadhafi successfully mow down his people and by brute force stop the demonstrations that that might have been an argument for intervention. >> don't ask, don't tell, do you agree with president obama's decision? >> i do agree with the decision. on don't ask, don't tell. this is a country that somehow finds its way around the difficult social issues in time and given enough time. and -- >> why didn't you guys do it then? >> president bush had a lot on his place. a lot on his plate. everything can't be done in one administration. sure, i think it was time. i think bob gates has handled it very, very well.

i think the issue was an issue of military -- for the military, making certain we had a military that still functioned well, and once the pentagon was satisfied with that, i see no reason not to do it. >> perhaps the biggest strategic decision president obama took in his first two years was the decision to do the surge in afghanistan. close to doubling, tripling the number of troops in total. it is a large commitment to a kind of very comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign that is very expensive, could go on for years. is it the right move? >> well, we indeed in the last year or so of the bush administration went through a fairly thorough review of afghanistan. it is fair to say -- i want people to understand in 2005/2006 things were not going so badly in afghanistan. they seemed to be going in the right drx, in fact.

it really was the development of the safe haven in pakistan. that made the situation in afghanistan look very different by 2008. and so we did start to increase troop presence and to broaden the counterinsurgency effort there. it is now a quite large effort. we can get this done. it may not take -- i don't think it will take forever. what we are looking to do is to build -- help the afghans build security forces that can prevent an existential threat to afghanistan from the taliban, get them more decent government. it's not going to look like switzerland, but more decent government. and then i think we can begin a drawdown pretty safely. >> i have to ask you, don rumsfeld says that you were, to put it bluntly, a bad national security adviser. that you didn't take to president bush the hard, difficult differences among his key national security adviser, and that produced a lot of the

dysfunction that people commented on. he puts it squarely on you. what do you say? >> don is a friend and will always be a friend but he is a grumpy guy. all right? he is. he doesn't know what he is talking about. he never followed me from the situation room to the oval office where the president and i would have intense discussions about what was going on in that room, who thought what. and whether the president would decide to go back in and keep seeing if you can find a consensus or whether the president would take a decision. the president was not shy about taking a decision. so don doesn't know what he is talking about. plus, i will write my own book and then we can talk about it. >> condoleezza rice, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> the next generation of children will grow up with this ubiquitous network of intelligence around them and they will take it for granted and will wonder how did you actually operate without knowing all this all the time? but what did he say? 42 wild italians. huh? it's a cruise for plus-size individuals. it's a commercial. that's all.

i'm pretty sure he said the chevy cruze eco -- a commercial for eagle? eagles? no eco, eco, eco! it's "the chevy cruze eco gets up to 42 miles per gallon." who asked you? [ male announcer ] the amazingly fuel-efficient chevy cruze eco. turn up the volume!

hello. i'm fredricka whitfield at cnn world headquarters in atlanta. here's our top stories. mandatory evacuation orders are under way as the mississippi river's floodwaters surge through the morganza spillway. 2,000 people in st. landry

parish west of baton rouge are being told to pack it up and get out. right now, four floodgates on the morganza spillway are open. more openings are planned in the days ahead. the head of the international monetary fund is about to be formally charged in new york with attempted rape. police say 62-year-old dominique strauss-khan tried to attack a maid at his luxury manhattan hotel. he is also accused of committing a criminal sexual act and unlawful imprisonment. strauss-khan is expected to enter a not guilty plea during a court appearance today. all around israel's borders today scenes just like this. palestinians facing off and clashing with israeli troops. in the golan heights on the lebanese border in gaza, several people are reported killed, many more hurt. today is the day every year when palestinians angrily protest the creation of israel. and join me for more news at the top of the hour.

"fareed zakaria: gps" continues after this. it's true. you never forget your first subaru.

there is a good chance that you either have a tablet, one of those computing devices that's larger than a cell phone but much smaller than a laptop, or

you thought about buying one. when you look at the shelves muff options. apple's ipad has 80% of the market right now. but there is also samsung and motorola, rim, many more. my next guest says this isn't just a brand war. it is a war of ideas and war for the future. that next guest is google's executive chairman eric schmidt. i sat down with him for a special we are working on about innovation. by the way, take out those tablets and mark your electronic calendars. that special will air on june 5. 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. schmidt has more than a bit of a bias with google's products but insights into the future of technology are nonetheless absolutely fascinating. you have apple coming out with this extremely elegant ipad that everyone is in love with. but it requires that you follow apple's rules. all the restrictions that are

placed, no flash, the most prominent. now you have android providing a kind of open platform. obviously, as the head of google, you're going to tell me android is going to win. but tell me something about this contest. >> it is a classic contest in high-tech. and in that contest, you have a very well-run, very focused closed competitor who builds a great product that does something that's very useful. that would be apple. have you another competitor who makes all the technology available to everybody else and using various creativity and various partnerships and so forth gets the benefit of everyone else's creativity. because there are more people involved in the open side of that, that side will eventually get more volume and have more investment, therefore have more creativity and more innovation, and ultimately the end user will choose the open one over the closed one.

>> except right now the open one, all these tablets android based, are -- let's be honest, they are not as good as the ipad and they're more expensive, which strikes me as unusual. >> which approach will produce a lower product quicker? one manufacturer for a product or many manufacturers competing? the fact of the matter is we are just at the beginning of this fight. and the fight between two very well-run and very large and very significant ecosystem companies will ultimately produce great value to consumers because the fight between them will keep prices low, keep these systems honest and open and encourage the kind of investment that people want to see. one of the greatest things about this contest is that the people who win in this are the consumer. >> you imagine that this will end up very much like the pc market where apple had this very elegant product that many people thought was perhaps better but because it stayed closed it ended up being a boutique product. and yours will be open, much larger, many more users and many

more applications. >> there's pride in both approach, but they're completely different. in apple's case, they can continue to build beautiful and excellent products. the ecosystem that google represents will continue and already has more volume and more users and will have more investment in the platform. in . ultimately that will produce cheaper, better and faster products for everybody. >> is cloud competing also a part of this feature, meaning you can connect into the cloud? >> as an experiment, turn off all your devices and turn off the internet for six or seven hours. you'll realize how dependent you've become on it, whether it's to buy movie tickets or what have you. the competition has this stuff called cloud, which means the information is out there in the cloud somewhere, and you pick up a device, turn it on and it's there. the new devices from google and

others, you'll be able to pick up, log in, give it to somebody else, log off, it erases all your information and so forth. all of a sudden, the device becomes in disposable. when you drop or lose your computer, you won't lose everything because it's stored in the cloud. >> you once told me mobile phones will be much more powerful than they are in ten years. that sounds difficult to imagine? >> think about mobile phones a decade ago and you can see it is faster than it was ten years ago. how quickly we forget the primitive world we lived in ten years ago. the future is mobile computing. the future will carry many mobile devices and they will provide many mobile services. today your phone provides who you are, where you are, where you're going, and with that and with your permission, it's possible for software and software developers to predict where you're going to go, to suggest people you should meet, to suggest activities and so forth. so ultimately what happens is

the mobile phone does what it does best which is remember everything and make suggestions and then you can be just a better human and have a good time. >> what will the world of technology look like ten years from now? >> it's hard to predict ten years, but we do know the devices will be so much faster and so much more useful. the real evolution is in the applications. there is a new standard in the internet called htm05 which everyone is adopting which means web applications will run on all these devices in a very powerful way, you'll have powerful games that people will spend their time on, a whole generation of social activities of one kind or another. but to me the most interesting thing about what computers will do will allow us to have more fun, to have more enriched lives, to have more ideas. the computer will suggest things you might be interested in. since i'm a history buff, if i'm walking down here in the street, it will tell me the history of the area or tell me something i might be interested in. all of a sudden, the augmentation of my human

experience is something that's really a wow moment every hour. >> and, of course, after a while, we'll take it for granted and we won't imagine life without it. >> and just like your children have always had -- grown up with cell phones, the next generation of children will grow up with this ubiquitous network of intelligence around them and they'll take it for granted. and they'll wonder, how did you actually operate without knowing all of this all of the time? how did you know how to meet somebody? >> so should we be teaching the way we're teaching now with intelligence all around? do we need to be drumming facts into people's heads? do we need to spend hours and hours teaching children how to spell? >> there's been a lot of evidence that the next generation of teachers will use computers much more integrally in the classroom. it's more fast paced when targeted to the students. when you can come up with

teaching methods and students can keep going. there is a lot of evidence that students learn best with these games with visual cues and prizes and people move quickly through those and learn an enormous amount. people were concerned when games came along that a generation would be stupefied. but somehow tests indicate that it improves calculation, improves their ability to read them, even though you look at them and say, how can that be? but it looks like they're very good for people. >> nice having you. >> thank you very much. like it's some kind of dream. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's either this magic number i'm supposed to reach, or... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's beach homes or it's starting a vineyard. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 come on ! tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just help me figure it out tdd# 1-800-345-2550 in a practical, let's-make- this-happen kind of way. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 a vineyard ? schwab real life retirement services is personalized, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 practical help that's focused on making your retirement real.

open an account today and talk to chuck tdd# 1-800-345-2550 about setting up your one-on-one consultation. tdd# 1-800-345-2550

our question this week from the gps challenge is, what reportedly caused thousands of people to flee rome on wednesday? was it, a, a roundup of illegal immigrants, b, a rally to support berlusconi in the sex trial, c, an earthquake, d, a plague of bedbugs. we'll tell you the answer. go to cnn.com for ten questions. check out the global square where you'll find other questions. you can also find all of our gps shows if you missed one. my book of the week is henry kissinger's latest "on china." this is a must read. part history, part memoir of kissinger's extensive dealings

with china for 40 years, and this is a major work. that henry kissinger could write such a book at the age of 88 is extraordinary. it will be in bookstores on tuesday. now for the last look. it was a picture that seemed to capture the stress and tension of the bin laden raid as seen in the white house situation room. it has also become the picture that spawned 1,001 variations. you might have seen this version published in a jewish newspaper where the women in the room were photo shopped out for a religious proprietor. but this might be my favorite, the superhero squat. president obama as