Social Mode

,

  • Investigating causal factors instantly is not only possible it’s GREAT!

    Check this graph out… think there’s a relationship?

    GM revenue vs US Carbon Emissions

    cool. very cool.

    The Power of Wolfram|Alpha – Instant Primary Research

    –––––––

    Jun 9
  • Whether it’s “valid” or not humans (and probably most animals) make associations of new, unknown things with similar-seeming known things.  In fact, this is the basis of communication.

    In the case of discussing new websites/services/devices like Wolfram|Alpha, Bing, Kindle, iPhone, Twitter and so on it’s perfectly reasonable to associate them to their forebears.  Until users/society gets comfortable with the new thing and have a way of usefully talking about it making comparisons to known things is effective in forming shared knowledge.

    My favorite example of this is Wikipedia and Wikis.  What the heck is a wiki?  and what the heck is wikipedia based on this wiki?  Don’t get me wrong – I know what a wiki is. But to someone who doesn’t, hasn’t used one, and hasn’t contributed to one it’s pretty hard to describe without giving them anchors based on stuff they do know.  “Online Encyclopedia”, “Like a Blog but more open”…  (for fun read how media used to talk about wikipedia, more here)

    More recently is Twitter.  What is it like?  A chat room? a social network?  a simpler blog? IM?  right… it’s all that and yet something different, it’s Twitter.  You know it when you use it.

    Just like in nature new forms are always evolving with technology.  Often new tech greatly resembles its ancestories.  Other times it doesn’t.

    In the specific case of Wolfram|Alpha and Bing/google… they share a common interface in the form of the browser and an HTML text field.  They share a similar foundation in trying to make information easy to access.  The twist is that Wolfram|Alpha computes over retrieved information and can actually synthesize (combine, plot, correlate) it into new information.  Search engines retreive information and synthesize ways to navigate it.  Very different end uses, often very complimentary.  Wikipedia uses humans to synthesize information into new information, so it shares some concepts with Wolfram|Alpha.  Answers.com and other answer sites typically are a mash up of databases and share the concept of web search engines of synthesizing ways to navigate data.

    All of these are USEFUL tools and they ARE INTERCONNECTED.  None of them will replace each other.  Likely they will all co-evolve. And we will evolve our ways of talking about them.

    Making Associations Based on What Is Familiar

    –––––––

    Jun 4
  • One of my favorite things to do everyday is to visit CNBC.com and read about their new prediction of the MARKET BOTTOM.

    Threw the power of the Internet we can trace just how completely wrong they are every time.

    Lesson: stop predicting things like this.  you can’t do it.

    Unless your goal is to entertain… if so, keep doing it, because it is entertaining to me!

    When Will The Market Hit Bottom? CNBC always knows.

    –––––––

    May 27
  • Oy, this crazy-making discussion is not going to be over for a long time.

    Why is there anything about marriage in any constitution?

    Yes, I know… property, children’s issues. etc. etc.  Those can be resolved without marriage language.

    Just get rid of it so we can all move on.

    Or tell me why we need declarations about recognizing marriage between one man and one woman…????

    Eliminate All Marriage Language from the Constitutions

    –––––––

    May 26
  • Michael Lynton responds with a confusing analogy to the blogosphere’s blast of his now infamous comment, “I’m a guy who sees nothing good having come from the Internet. Period.”

    The fact that he’s following up to add context is great for his argument and his agenda.  Unfortunately his choice of analogies or the choice to use an analogy muddles his argument.  The Internet isn’t like anything.  The abstract workings of how people behave online is not unlike how they behave offline but the details (actual behaviors, reinforcers and consequences) are very different.  His analogy, the Interstate System, oversimplifies his argument and the ultimate concept he’s chasing: piracy.

    Contrast the expansion of the Internet with what happened a half century ago. In the 1950’s, the Eisenhower Administration undertook one of the most massive infrastructure projects in our nation’s history — the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It completely transformed how we did business, traveled, and conducted our daily lives. But unlike the Internet, the highways were built and operated with a set of rational guidelines. Guard rails went along dangerous sections of the road. Speed and weight limits saved lives and maintenance costs. And officers of the law made sure that these rules were obeyed. As a result, as interstates flourished, so did the economy. According to one study, over the course of its first four decades of existence, the Interstate Highway System was responsible for fully one-quarter of America’s productivity growth.

    We can replicate that kind of success with the Internet more easily if we do more to encourage the productivity of the creative engines of our society — the artists, actors, writers, directors, singers and other holders of intellectual property rights — yes, including the movie studios, which help produce and distribute entertainment to billions of people worldwide.

    What specific success are we replicating (what is this study he cites?)?  How are the physical constraints of the highway system like anything with mostly non-physical Internet?  And the bigger question… how is the function of the highway system (move people about) comparable at all to the Internet (move info, place to exhibit, converse, transaction… and so on)?

    I don’t know what will reduce piracy.  I don’t know what will ensure that Sony and others can make as much money from content as they would like.   I do know that Lynton has made no progress to further is argument and perhaps took a step back by not just sticking to this one key point.

    But, I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I’ve stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content — music, newspapers, movies and books — have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

    At least this is something we can argue.  (I don’t think his statement is accurate and I’ll write on that later).

    Guardrails for the Internet – Another Analogy Gone Bad

    –––––––

    May 26
  • instead of hunting for it, why not send it out there and see what happens?

    Load up several extra-solar rockets with some hearty organisms that can survive in extreme conditions.  Program the recon devices to detect hospitible atmospheres/planets so that when the rockets fly by they can alter their paths to drop their payload when they find a suitable location.  These locations will be far beyod the reach of our radio signals, so we’ll just have to throw this out there for posterity. Oh, and yes, include in the payload some  information in various forms (pictures, mathematics, sound, the genomes) about planet earth.

    This might be a faster, more efficient method of finding out if life outside of our planet is feasible.

    just a thought.

    Life in the Universe

    –––––––

    May 25
  • We often blame businesses, leaders, ourselves for “not knowing better.”

    The reality is, in modern American, there is a healthy amount of conditioned incompetence.  Yes, as a society, we really don’t know better, don’t know different.  For a very long time, if ever,  we have not had to deal with some of the incredibly complex issues at play now.  For the most part our businesses, schools, health care, housing markets have been swept along in a 30 year string of mostly growth and expansion.

    the last couple of generations literally do not know better. We have to develop new behaviors, new thinking, new ways of getting it done.

    Conditioned Incompetence

    –––––––

    May 22
  • The invention and acceptance of new vocabularies is important to the success of ideas, products, policies and methods.  Many valuable new “things” are written off simply because we lack applicable metaphors, analogies and vocabulary.  Many authors and inventors of new things fail to market a new vocabulary and set up new modes of thinking while they perfect the new thing itself.

    Consider these ideas, products, philosophies, politics, sciences that have taken a long time to take hold because of our lack of vocabulary:

    0 (concept of zero)

    Probability

    Natural Selection

    Search Engine

    Hyperlink

    Terrorism

    Recession/Depression

    Google

    Wiki

    Computation

    Web 2.0

    Semantic Web

    So how do we absorb a new vocabulary?  Through use.  Use of these products and ideas and association of their vocabulary to the use.

    e.g. can you explain a Wiki to anyone?  you could if you showed them.  We still don’t have a general use of the word Wiki but we all “know what we mean.”

    Developing the vocabulary within the intended audience of the product, idea or policy is as important to the success as the thing itself.  do not neglect this and/or don’t be surprised if people don’t “get it” at first…

    Lack of Vocabulary

    –––––––

    May 22
  • Here is one of the best blog posts on putting Wolfram|Alpha into perspective:

    Asking which result is “right” misses the point. Google is a search engine; it did exactly what it’s supposed to do. It isn’t making any any assumptions about what you’re looking for, and will give you everything the cat dragged in. If you’re an elementary school teacher or a flat-earther, you can find the result you want somewhere in the big, messy pile. If you want accurate data from a known and reliable source, and you want to use that data in other computations, you don’t want Google’s answer; you want Alpha’s. (BTW, the Earth’s circumference is .1024 of the distance to the Moon.)

    When is this important? Imagine we were asking a more politically charged question, like the correlation between childhood vaccinations and autism, or the number of civilians killed in the six-day war. Google will (and should) give you a wide range of answers, from every part of the spectrum. It’s up to you to figure out whether the data actually came from. Alpha doesn’t yet have data about autism or six-day war casualties, and even when it does, no one should blindly assume that all data that’s “curated” is valid; but Wolfram does its homework, and when data like this is available, it will provide the source. Without knowing the source, you can’t even ask the question.

    What Is Wolfram|Alpha Really?

    –––––––

    May 21
  • does not exist.

    Users all have unique histories, unique needs, unique interests and unique behaviors.

    Software built around the average user is bound to fail because you cannot pin point features and interfaces that work for a non existent entity.

    Great software (and products in general!) comes from  specific use cases and specific users with defined needs.  Great software becomes “generally used” as more users learn the software and more uses are built into the software based on feedback loops.

    The idea of specific use design is not limited to software… all technology develops that way.

    Examples:

    Facebook was all about ivy league college students managing their social lives. (You couldn’t even join if you didn’t have a .edu address when it first started)

    Twitter was  for prolific bloggers, socialites and those who want to broadcast and you still have to be technically minded to understand its concepts

    Cell phones were only for those that really needed to be connected all the time (government, researchers, military… we all didn’t know we need to be connected until we learned that!).  Remember when you first used SMS?  right, it probably made no sense to you then and seemed niche (for the kids, for nerds, not for the average user…)

    Personal Computers were only for business… well until we all learned them.

    Photoshop was only for artists, until we all learned to do digital photos.

    and so on!

    The Average User

    –––––––

    May 16
Previous Page Next Page

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Social Mode
    • Join 99 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Social Mode
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar