Facebook is top dog in social; Google in search. The thing they both (with MS lurking in the wings to make a big comeback (an odd thing given how well MS does as it is)) are doing is to take recommendations to a new level (with ads thrown in of course). I have tried logged in search. I must say I was surprised. To be clear, I find there is mainly rot in social network data just as there is in search. Whether I would have used Google+ had I not been at Google is unclear. Probably not. But I did. Then I searched for some law review articles and some basic technology information. WOW. The personal results at the top had links to blog posts by people whom I followed on Google + AND THEY WERE…RELEVANT. Blew my mind. My search time went down and I found credible sources faster. Will that last? Who knows? Someone may find ways to game the system, but the small experiences make me hopeful. Now to Facebook and Bing.

If Google can do well with a much smaller set of users for Google +, Facebook and Bing might do really well. After all, Facebook has the social piece and MS has some search computer science types. Whoever wins here may offer the next thing in search. I like conducting logged out searches and logged in. When logged in, I like the potential for seeing things from friends and people I trust. For example, if I start to be interested in cameras and search gives me posts by friends I’d ask anyway, that is a pretty cool result. I can read the post and call the friend for deeper advice or just use what they posted.

All in this space will, of course, cope with privacy concerns etc. But I think that this new level of relevance has the chance to co-exist with those concerns and users may flock to one of these services to have results well-beyond the current ones in search without social. In other words, let the games continue.

Now compare

Not so fast. The sharing of book, film, and music recommendations is important, and social networking has certainly made this easier. But a world of automatic, always-on disclosure should give us pause. What we read, watch, and listen to matter, because they are how we make up our minds about important social issues – in a very real sense, they’re how we make sense of the world.

What’s at stake is something I call “intellectual privacy” – the idea that records of our reading and movie watching deserve special protection compared to other kinds of personal information. The films we watch, the books we read, and the web sites we visit are essential to the ways we try to understand the world we live in. Intellectual privacy protects our ability to think for ourselves, without worrying that other people might judge us based on what we read. It allows us to explore ideas that other people might not approve of, and to figure out our politics, sexuality, and personal values, among other things. It lets us watch or read whatever we want without fear of embarrassment or being outed. This is the case whether we’re reading communist, gay teen, or anti-globalization books; or visiting web sites about abortion, gun control, or cancer; or watching videos of pornography, or documentaries by Michael Moore, or even “The Hangover 2.”

And before you go off and say Neil doesn’t get “it” whatever “it” may be, note that he is making a good distinction: “when we share – when we speak – we should do so consciously and deliberately, not automatically and unconsciously. Because of the constitutional magnitude of these values, our social, technological, professional, and legal norms should support rather than undermine our intellectual privacy.”

I easily recommend reading the full post. For those interested in a little more on the topic, the full paper is forthcoming in Georgetown Law Journal and available here. And, if you don’t know Neil Richards’ work (SSRN), you should. Even if you disagree with him, Neil’s writing is of that rare sort where you are better off by reading it. The clean style and sharp ideas force one to engage and think, and thus they also allow one to call out problems so that understanding moves forward. (See Orwell, Politics and the English Language). Enjoy.

Content should slip the TV versus computer snag soon. So, hello, Stage 3; thank you commodity cloud computing.

Customers want their content on demand. College students forgo cable fees, because they are so damn expensive and carry mainly crap they don’t want. Streams work for them, because they have the campus network. But many I know have cut the cable and gone to streaming only. And why not? Lower cost is clear. Plus, no one talks about whatever is today’s Friends at the water cooler because a #1 show is nowhere near as watched. Must see T.V.? Please.

I will bet that the demand for direct delivery of content will mean a new order for T.V. and film. As a technical matter, Ed Felten reminded me that asynchronous delivery of content poses problems. He knows far more than I. But consumers will want to buy (or direct subscribe to) content and will use the Internet to get that content. Producers like HBO will lead the way save for threats from cable companies. Assuming tensions in that sphere, someone will figure out how to leverage current network advances to store content cheaply, deliver it so that peaks are handled, and cable boxes will go the way of the DoDo.

In other words, why rely on cable for the menu of content? Cable’s value is the delivery of whatever content someone wants. The odd part is that I still subscribe to cable and will even watch a movie with commercials (Ocean’s 11 on TNT, Star Wars) when it is one rather than getting the DVD I own. But my way will die. I may abandon it too. And if the older folks stray, look out cable. The young ‘uns are already gone. More will follow. Then again the Lakers are on tonight. So maybe sports will save cable. Then again, sports teams own their cable stations when possible. Hey cable, say it with me: NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL on demand with a little ESPN for kicks?

Using philanthropic funding, Baraniuk and the team behind OpenStax contracted professional content developers to write the books, and each book went through the industry-standard review cycle, including peer review and classroom testing. The books are scope- and sequence-compatible with traditional textbooks, and they contain all of the ancillary materials such as PowerPoint slides, test banks, and homework solutions.

So there is professional level seeding of content while also allowing for wiki-like contribution:

Each book has its own dashboard, called StaxDash. Along with displaying institutions that have adopted the book, StaxDash is also a real-time erratum tracker: Faculty who are using the books are encouraged to submit errors or problems they’ve found in the text. “There’s also the issue of pointing out aspects of the text that need to be updated,” notes Baraniuk, “for example, keeping the Sociology book up-to-date as the Arab Spring continues to evolve. People can post these issues, and our pledge is that we are going to fix any issues as close to ‘in real time’ as possible. These books will be up-to-date in a matter of hours or days instead of years.” When accessing a book through its URL on Connexions, students and faculty will always get the most up-to-date version of the book. Faculty can, however, use the “version control” feature on Connexions to lock in a particular version of the book for use throughout a semester.

If you thought that keeping up with authoritative versions of an ebook and citing it (trust me it is odd to cite to a location in a Kindle book) was messy, this new model will throw you. Then again, that is a small issue.

Group contributions for the latest on an issue and the ability to choose versions is a great idea. Law texts that could update the latest cases or a change in legislation as they happen and then be refined overtime would be wonderful. Of course teachers use other ways to reach these goals. But if crowds/commons style approaches to texts work, we may see better and less expensive versions of textbooks. How the system will mangage disputes about content and education boards’ issues with approval remains to be seen. Still, the promise of this approach should make the miasmic aspects of education boards look silly and create a press for improved ways to have quality content available for educators and most important, for students.

Now, it’s only been two years since the brand unveiled the “Vortex Bottle,” a seemingly useless and unnecessary bottle design feature that has somehow lasted 23 months longer than anyone expected. Undoubtedly, the success of the swirly bottle neck has influenced the powers that be at Miller Lite to carry over their brand of “science” to cans. I can only imagine what the supporting market research looks like: “In our study, seven out of 10 brospondants said that when they shotgun cans of cheap beer to the amusement and horror of their friends, they opt for Miller Lite. Of those that answered positively, four out of five said that they have been wounded by the jagged aluminum the occurs in the wake of puncturing the can with their car keys, which reportedly ‘hurts like a bitch.’”

Lawsuits ahead? Sure why not? 1. Campus and underage drinking events mean someone will get alcohol poisoning or get hurt after drinking from these cans. Of course as the industry says Drink Responsibly (and in the ad, “Great Beer, Great Responsibility (with a TM it seems, so don’t go talking about great responsibility even if you are Spiderman’s uncle or maybe Marvel will sue. Hey I found another lawsuit!); but they offered the tool, so go get ‘em. Oh and other shot gun tools are available just search for beer shotgun under images in Google for an example. 2. How about a patent suit? Maybe. It seems Coors tried this innovation path a couple years ago. OK not really. It was a joke as far as I can tell. But one comment said no one would do it. And now the joke is real.

Innovation, as in beer!

“Far too many pieces of code critical to the reproduction, peer-review and extension of scientific results never see the light of day,” said Andrew Morin, a postdoctoral fellow in the structural biology research and computing lab at Harvard University. “As computing becomes an ever larger and more important part of research in every field of science, access to the source code used to generate scientific results is going to become more and more critical.”

If the essay were available, we might assess it better too.

Nonetheless, the idea is interesting. It reminds me of work by Victoria Stodden who has looked at this issue for some time. From her bio:

Victoria Stodden is assistant professor of Statistics at Columbia University and serves as a member of the National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee on Cyberinfrastructure (ACCI), and on Columbia University’s Senate Information Technologies Committee. She is one of the creators of SparseLab, a collaborative platform for reproducible computational research and has developed an award winning licensing structure to facilitate open and reproducible computational research, called the Reproducible Research Standard. She is currently working on the NSF-funded project: “Policy Design for Reproducibility and Data Sharing in Computational Science.”

Victoria is serving on the National Academies of Science committee on “Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process” and the American Statistical Association’s “Committee on Privacy and Confidentiality” (2013).

In other words, if you are interested in thisarea, you may want to contact Victoria as well as Mr. Morin.