Help...

Due to a mixup with my girlfriend and her flatmate today, I'm locked in a house in Paris that has a front door which requires a key to open from both the inside and out. I don't have a key. Even with a key, the door can be very tricky to open.

Some french girl, that I do not know, who does have a key, just tried to open it from the outside but failed.

All the while I tried to explain to her in what little French I know that I am trapped inside and I don't have a key while she tried to explain to me in equally limited english, that she does have a key, but the door is too difficult to open.

After about 10 minutes of failed attempts to open the door and communicate, I finally conceded defeat and let out a feeble exclamation for "help" to which she responds, "I'm sorry, it's too difficult, I have to go now…" and left.

What a bizarre situation.

nary a bad idea in sight.

per a friends recommendation, tonight, i found myself at my first google sponsored event. a schmooze fest i guess and i walked away with the following non-distilled impressions.


first, nary a 'bad' idea in sight.




instead, i'd say it was nothing but buds for conversation. conversation that continuously flourished in every which direction.




not unlike google's product portfolio, right?..




and that got me to wondering too. wondering how such an organism fecund with new ideas keeps from being smothered or buckling under the pressures of its own creative forces and byproduct.




it seems it may all have to do with keeping tabs on scale. measuring everything. having a visceral sense of SCALE.




and boy, oh boy, does google stretch the human notion of scale. they gave a few riveting examples. for instance, the feature that buffers pages at the top of your search result, the results presented prior to actually clicking on the link of your choice, this feature alone saves humanity (at least those whom choose to use google as the search engine) a whopping 13 man years per day. 13 man years per day! wow.


that's just one example.


you might think, when making considerations on scales like that, who would have a necessity for a microscope?




well, from an outsiders view (like myself) a microscope may actually be the most useful thing to begin to understand my initial wonderment - how google has scaled so well from small/successful to BIGger and still remain successful; i.e. not get mired by products, egos, corporate stuff, etc.


btw - they still consider themselves a mid sized organisation. hmmm.. something to think about.




scale.




in their big screen(s) presentation, google distilled a core set of elements that need not require a microscope to understand what drives it: think big, start small and constantly measure. measure everything. while qualitative hunches may actually point the way forward, all things google seem to remain backed by constant quantitative analysis of the data.


match that philosophy with abundant financial resource, and i'd say that's a nice recipe for: innovation, creation and productivity.


in the short few hours i shared with the event goers, having the privilege to listen to google's presentation, converse with intelligent, open, and forward thinking individuals, i walked away with so many fun exciting ideas of my own, that i'm certain will keep me giddy for days to come.


could working for a company be so energizing and thought provoking on a day to day basis, or was it all just a bunch of buzz?




hard to say. but the beer (sierra nevada torpedo ale), the wine (sonoma dry creek and much, much more), the food (mini burger, fishy soup, crab meat, and much, much more) wasn't so bad : ) after all, who can resist free food and drink?

Mankind's Burden

Here's an article posted on NPR's site featuring a creature called a "tuataras" that has been around for 230M years - it may be the closest living link to a bona fide dinosaur. In fact, it's direct relatives are animals that predate the great dinos! That's right. Whatever killed out the dinos didn't take this thing out... 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/10/16/163015959/tough-old-lizard-to-face-grave-romantic-troubles-say-scientists?sc=emaf

Due to environmental changes, this guy may be running out of track - literally. This creature is an amniotes (comes from an egg), and it's gender is not determined by chromosomal composition, instead, it's gender is determined by evironmental temperature. In the case of the tuataras, cooler temperatures yield more females and warmer temperatures more males. This can be expressed to an extreme whereby anything under 64F will result in all hatchlings being female; anything greater than 72F will result in more male hatchlings. 

Based on current climate model predictions for the northern parts of New Zealand, these creatures could become extinct by 2085. To avoid this dismal fate, this week a team of biologists relocated 222 tuataras to the southern, cooler region of New Zealand in hopes the future brings more females to gestate.

A great initiative to keep these little buggers in business... a little while longer. But has this direct intervention with nature become the new burden of mankind? Is it that we feel guilty for an expedited climate change or protracted colonization that we feel responsible to 'help' species that might be affected by it? 

Something tells me "it's not these guy's first rodeo." 

And it makes me wonder, do we humans know best? Here's a species that has transcended 6 geologic time periods and the better part of two eras. Arguably, being one of the most resilient species of all time. They have survived through numerous (dramatic) climate swings. Namely the one that straddled the jurassic and cretaceous period - some 145 million years ago. You might suppose their greatest virtue is the ability to adapt in an ever-changing world. And continue to persist. By directly meddling with the fate of these creatures, are we not potentially undermining the very mechanism that has brought it thus far?

It's a simple evolutionary notion: survival warrants for a species to adapt to their environment; not the other way around.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. From both sides, really. We're responsible for global climate change, thus exposing these creatures to an immediate peril for survival; to compensate, we're attempting to modify their immediate environment.

Do two wrongs make a right?

So what's better? To be guided by the myopic hand of mankind and possibly forever be indentured to rely upon it for support - or - the blind-eye of evolution, which has provided not only the tools required to be attuned with the environment today, but through gradual adaptations, a natural path toward preparation for the changes entailed with tomorrow.

It's a fine balance I suppose. And perhaps, if I were teetering toward the brink extinction, my outlook might sway differently.

On the other hand, maybe if I were an affiliate of a species that's been around 1000 times longer than humans, I might soon take my chances with the method that's proven to be tried and true... 

After all, arguably, who's fault is global warming anyway?

Building unimaginable shapes

http://on.ted.com/Hansmeyer

 I bet Antoni Gaudi wonders where does he get those magnificent toys.

I can't help but think how relevant algorithmic design will become when nanotechnology gets to a stage whereby structures can be 'grown' with raw material rather than 'forged' from material. Nature won't only serve as an inspiration for end-state designs, but certainly methods can and will be borrowed as well. For example, co-opting the transcription machinery of DNA and RNA to manufacture proteins -- at some point, 3D printers will thought to be so -- "old fashioned."

New BF5 Album - Onus on Fans to Promote

(If you don't like words, then see the diagrams at the bottom of the blog...)

Recently Ben Folds reunited with fellas from BF5 to create a new album - the first from the boys in over 10 years. That alone is remarkable (and highly anticipated).

Now, being the quasi-big rockstars that they are, they could have recorded their album then handed it over a label and take the conventional route in releasing an album, i.e. let someone else deal with it while they kickback and chillax. But not these guys - they're employing a completely different method.

BF5 are calling on their fan-base to promote the album for them. Big deal, right? Well, everyone who participates becomes a "Vice President of Promotions" playing on notion that nowadays, everywhere you look, somebody somewhere, is a VP of something... But as with any VP title comes the CUSHY PERKS - and over at the "defacto BF label" there's no exception...

So how is this any different than what most bands that don't have a major-record label, or a massive budget do? Well, to put it bluntly, these guys have already made it. And somehow it's refreshing to see guys at the top stir up a sense of community on the grass-roots level with a bottom-up approach. Most jerks who make it use the a top-down approach and never look back.

Myself, well, I'm probably not "VP" material. But if I had a few extra cycles to break away from the 'bread-maker' (i.e. paying job), I'd love to implement the following idea that had occurred to me this morning whilst in the shower scrubbing myself.

And maybe, someone actually worthy of VP status could even implement the idea...

So here it is:

A web-engine-app that is linked to a twitter account that would do the following: 

Build a visual diagram of how Ben Folds word-of-mouth campaign has spread from user-to-user via re-tweets. 

Sounds cool, right? Huh? Doesn't make any sense? Ok, let me explain how it might work.

It would go something like this...

Ben Folds kicks-off the chain-reaction by tweeting something like:

"Grab a copy of the latest BF5 album before it's sold out! @trackbot4000"

(Of course this is an example. The content of Ben's tweet could be whatever he wishes it to be...)

But the key here is Ben's initial tweet is directed to a twitter account that has been setup and linked to a campaign tracking page; eg. THE "trackbot4000".

Then, anytime someone re-tweets Ben's tweet (either with, or without @trackbot4000 inline) this would register on the campaign tracker engine via sniffing through the twitter public API. The campaign tracking engine would then build a relationship map of who retweeted who...

Hold on, stay with me here -

Then people could go to a website, and the presentation aspect would come in the form of a nifty diagram showing connections between all the tweeters that have retweeted Ben's original tweet and everyone who has retweeted their tweet, and so on and so on.

Eventually a pyramid structure would emerge showing how the word-of-mouth has spread. Yes, something like a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme where no one actually benefits. Or wait, maybe everyone benefits, who knows...

Technically, shaking out the links between who is retweeting who, should be achievable polling data via the Twitter Public API (I suspect...)

Anyway, as they say, an image is worth a thousand words, to which I say, "a working system is worth a thousand images..." But let's start with the image(s) anyway...

I apologize for the scraggly martini-napkin-style diagraming, but I did it on whatever vellum I could muster from around my hotel room.

Here's a visual example of what the hell I am talking about: 

 Step 1 - Ben tweets a kick-off tweet targeted @trackbot4000...

Step 2 - Trackbot4000 is invoked (turned-on) by Ben's "kick-off" tweet...

Step 3 - Ben's fans retweet Ben's "kick-off" tweet. Word of mouth, spreads like wildfire... 

Step 4- All the while, @trackbot4000 listens and begins constructing the network relationship maps of who is retweeting who, etc...

Step 5- Then the trackbot engine builds and displays a diagram on a website hosted on the interwebs.

That's pretty much how it would work kids. Anyone bad-ass-crazy enough to implement such a system, would be a thrice-righteous VP by my book.  

How are Women and Quantum Physics alike?

As much as we try, men may never fully comprehend the two. 

For many years some of the best and brightest have tried to wrap their mind around the quantum realm. No lesser of men have probably spent even longer trying to understand women. 

We make observations, postulate a hypothesis, put on our lab coats, strap on our safety googles, pull out our clipboards, conduct experiments, record our findings, adjust our ideas, formulate our arguments, try again, again, and again only to walk away realizing that perhaps any attempt to apply our logic is simply a vain attempt to impose our understanding of the world, on a different world altogether.

I see man's approach not unlike Eistein's theory of general relativity. It's logical. It seems straight forward. And in many ways, it offers an explanation for why the universe operates the way it does. It's a theory that works well at a macro level. We can predict the location of celestial bodies years in advance and if our hypothesis turns out wrong, we can usually find explanation for that too. We can anticipate how a beam of light might bend when passing through the gravitational force field of a massive object, millions and millions of miles away. We can conduct the most delicate of experiments that yields an outcome that match the results we had anticipated with a certain level of accuracy and satisfaction. A logical path exists. There is a causality. An explanation. It seems rational. Some may even consider it elegant.

That is, until we observe how the universe operates at a microscopic level. 

It turns out the universe that we inhabit, when scrutinized at subatomic levels, is nothing more than a bat-shit-crazy, illogical realm that does not follow any conventional law from the world as we know it. 

Particles jump from place to place, darting in out of existence and adhere to no agenda conceivable by man. Scientist have repeatedly tried to fuse the models of of general relativity with quantum mechanics only to walk away having failed miserably; not unlike a man trying to rationalize a woman's emotion through logic. 

The only thing that we fully understand about the quantum realm is that the principles of general relativity do not apply. And there is volumes of empirical evidence to support that. No matter how much we try to infuse the logical constructs that our world has conditioned us with,  in the quantum realm, they do not apply. 

It would appear at times, a woman's state of emotion is resistant to a man's logic, just as quantum theory is resistant to general relativity. Perhaps before we can unite the two under a cohesive framework, it's best not to try and force the principles of one model onto the other. But rather we accept each pillar independently for what it is and continue to seek for the harmony that has undoubtedly existed between the two for many, many millennia. Even if we never fully understand it. 

My thoughts on SOPA

The topic featured center of most water cooler talk this past week has most certainly been about Senate bill 3261, otherwise known as Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). 

While the proposal was made before the House nearly 3 months ago, hardly anyone knew of it's existence until a coordinated internet demonstration was made by thousands of websites on January 18th. Most notably, and perhaps the demonstration with the most impact, was the blackout service of the English interface of Wikipedia to raise public awareness.

What? Wikipedia down for 24 hours to demonstrate against a piece of U.S. Government legislation?! Shit. Wikipedia is my lifeline for almost all trivial and non-trivial knowledge (but mostly trivial) - so this legislation must be evil, right?

Public demonstrations are a perfectly healthy function of any democracy as they bring awareness to the masses. At the idealistic core of democracy, the intent is for the people to decide what's best for them and let the majority rule. If people aren't aware, then that cannot happen and decisions will inevitably be made by a small group of individuals who are informed and aware. So demonstrations are good, because they can put important issues at the forefront of our collective conscious and people can get involved. Herein lies the issue: the simple fact that most individuals take little to no initiative to sort out what might actually be best, and inevitably, the "majority" becomes a manifestation of uninformed individuals caught in the wake of a minority pursuing their own interests. And the adhesion that permits this type of herding to happen, usually involves some level of information filtering, twisting of facts, manipulation of data, melodramatics or down right lying. 

Now, I'm not explicit in stating that Wikipedia, Reddit, Google or the various other heavyweights that have demonstrated an active stance against this legislation are dutifully employing any of those tools manipulation. However, what does concern me is that these players are taking such an active role on any topic matter. These amalgamates wield so much influence by virtue of the fact that they are the modern gatekeepers of information and I hope we never become so blind to the fact that the switches and doorways to a vast majority of information that we consume is controlled by a small minority of individuals. While that has always been the case throughout history, with perhaps exception to the infancy stages of the internet, that is, the short period of time before the information nexuses developed across the web, it becomes evermore relevant in the sense that information has never been so widely available, easily accessible and quick to travel as it has since the advent of the internet. And that fact alone is a powerful and dangerous element that can give us the sensation that we are free to choose what information we consume. The reality is, that without extra effort, we are only exposed to what search engine algorithms yield. But that sensation of freedom only makes it that much more difficult for us to see through, puncture or unravel the illusion that we are in control, and have free access whatever information we want. 

In the past week, I've read numerous articles on the topic and in the comments that follow these articles, there seems to be a unanimous, across the board attitude that SOPA is complete bullshit and it's going to destroy freedom of speech on the internet, etc. etc. The vast majority of these sentiments expressed in opposition of the legislation make little to no effort to make a case as to why SOPA is not good for me. The statements typically range from blanket statements like "They can't control us! That's unconstitutional!" to "Fuck SOPA!" to downright personal insults toward the Senator who proposed the bill. Sadly, I'd expect this type of mobbing from individuals who don't have access to information to formulate an informed opinion. But clearly, if they're posting their non-constructive statements on the web, then all the information they need is at their fingertips.  

If the intention of Wikipedia, Google, and other's who publicly take opposition toward SOPA is to get the masses riled up and rally against this proposal, then I'd say they've far exceeded their goal. However, how many of these guys have made any effort to clearly separate the intent of the SOPA from it's methods of implementation? And the alleged implications of what such methods might have against the freedom of speech and expression. From what I can gather, there is absolutely nothing about SOPA that intends to censor LEGAL content on the internet. It targets illegal content. Illegal content that is hosted by foreign service providers. In fact, the first sentence of any significance in the mangers amendment of SOPA clearly states: FIRST AMENDMENT.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Hmm… for a bill painted as the worse thing since communist China, that seems pretty benevolent. 

Here's the deal. And perhaps this is where I fully expose my naivety toward how the world works altogether - but imagine you're a congressman and one the issues that continues to dog you like a flea is unemployment. In your limited capacity to make a meaningful contribution of any significance toward the issue, you begin asking yourself questions like "what are the strengths of America that we could draw upon to improve the job situation?" and "what industries are forward looking?" you'll probably come up with a list of things orbiting around innovation, technology, creative content, etc. If you don't believe America has created arguably the best platform for entrepreneurialism on the planet, then do yourself a favor and find several people who have immigrated to the United States of America, especially those whom are business owners themselves, and ask them why they came to America and you'll probably get the same answer that you would have over 100 years ago - America is the land of opportunity and has a system that gives you a fair fighting chance to be successful. 

Now, back to our congressman. If you're that congressman you have a number avenues that you can pursue to support these industries and ultimately put people back to work. Let's see, you can propose a bill to blindly throw money in general directions, in hope that some of the funding will actually spur on the economy as intended, sans any real plan - but we know how well that has worked in recent times. Or you can look at the problem differently. You can ask the question what areas of the current system could stand to use some maintenance? Where are the leaky pipes and how can we patch those up? Well, as it turns out, according to the Judiciary House website (I didn't take the time to validate this figure) America supposedly loses over 100 Billion dollars every year. While that is just a small fraction of the US GDP, that's no number sneeze at. Especially when considering that number supposedly represents the money that is being directly stolen out of the pockets of American's and not accounting for losses attributed to companies that teeter on the threshold of make-or-break and inevitably evaporate thus costing individuals jobs, or opportunity cost associated with further developments not being funded through additional profits. So again, if you're that congressman and you see this "leak" in the pipework, what are you going to do? Your job is propose bills that you believe is going to improve the situation. If you look at the attitude publicly demonstrated by Lemar Smith, the congressman who is offering SOPA, to my knowledge, there is nothing that suggests that he simply isn't trying to put forth a solution that ultimately curbs the type of perils that threaten to undermine the very framework that makes U.S. a place where innovation continues to thrive. 

It's really no different from putting laws in place that prohibit people from walking down the street and looting from local merchants or unlawfully conducting business in any shape or form. The landscape of the U.S. commerce scene is built on layers of regulations that are fundamentally grounded on their state constitutions and ultimately the federal constitution. These regulations are designed to protect the consumer just as much as they are the merchant and vendor and that's exactly what gives free-trade a chance in hell to work. Now where it becomes sticky, as it always does, is when we crossover from the concrete realm to the virtual. For instance, if some crooked merchant from Russia tried to open up a shop on the streets of anywhere USA selling counterfeit merchandise, pirated software, potentially harmful prescription drugs, he would be put out of business immediately and would anyone care the less? Probably not. But the difference here is that the potential threat happens to fall conveniently under the reach of the law's arm. Whereas service providers on foreign shores, do not. And so what is the U.S. to do to protect their investments? Well, we can play this game both ways. Would it be fair if because one merchant, say somewhere on the Embarcadero was offering counterfeit DVD's or, heaven for bid, child porn - should everything between Sacramento and Clay street be shutdown? No. But that's not the issue that we have been focusing on. And we should be. Not distracting the masses by infusing fear that the U.S. Government is trying to "CENSOR CONTENT ON THE INTERNET". That's bullshit.

There is something that fundamentally bothers me when large forces of influence become active politically. It doesn't matter if it's the corporations with fat wallets lobbying behind congressman on Washington hill or the gateways that broker information into our very own homes. There is something about consorted political activity from big organizations that usually reeks of self-serving interests. Look, I love the products and innovations that the guys from that multi-colored outfit in Mountain View bring us just about as much as anyone I know. But that shouldn't make them exempt from having their motives examined. 

Let's assume that you are in the business of internet search. At some point you must submit yourself to a philosophy of turning a blind eye to the information that your creation brokers day-in and day-out. As soon as you get involved, you take a stance, you have a position and that's liable to create a watershed between those who agree with you believe and choose to continue using your service, and those who do not. Not only does it keep your hands clean and dry, but people get what they want. It's a WIN/WIN all around.  And through this remiss, you find that business may actually be better. Your market capacity is uncapped. You're addressing an unwavering demand with an unabated supply. The only thing that stands between you and your ultimate potential, is the efficacy of your algorithms. Your job is to put people in touch with the things they want. It turns out, one of your big sources of income is through advertising to the clients of whom you provide your service to - and why not? You have a captive audience in pursuit of all things that interest them. It's like being a store that carries everything that everyone wants, always. You can care less what they are after as long as your clientele continues to grow and they keep clicking the links that puts pennies in your pocket. You're riding high off of peoples desires. You are essentially turning a buck off everyone. Again, you're giving the people what they want and bringing business and notoriety to everyone else. What's there not to love about the service you offer? Somehow you've found the perfect niche and as long as the internet remains unregulated and free, nothing will stand in your way.  

Yeah, I can see why a business that fits that type of profile might object or even go as far as to demonize an effort to curb activity that bolsters a significant share of their market. They're already beyond the moral implications that their service may entail. If they weren't, they wouldn't rise to the success they've obtained thus far. And frankly, should such a legislation be passed, not only does that potentially bring upon an atrophy to a large segment of their business, but it puts them right smack-dab in the center of this legal quagmire. With great power, comes great responsibility. And we all know that constant legal legwork, which literally transformed from a lucrative clientele segment to a business overhead, can't be any good for business... 

I'm not saying that measures put forth in the SOPA are the right way to address the problem it's trying to solve. But I do believe that we should not neglect the core intentions of SOPA as what it's attempting to curb does threaten to undermine the very framework that allows businesses to thrive, which translates to jobs and a healthy economy. And to those who are in control of brokering the information that we rely upon, have just as much of a responsibility to not allow their private interests deter the masses away from seeing that.