I just tested my Personal DNA to “have my true self revealed” and was pretty shocked at how accurate the results were. Not sure what it means to be an Encouraging Director? Neither did I. Thankfully they filled me in about myself in my full report.
Typically I’m not much for internet personality tests, especially ones of considerable length, but Jason and Adam’s endorsements were enough to convince me to give it a shot. Although tests of this nature cannot compensate for self-delusion, it’s still pretty cool.
‘Street View’ mode is the latest addition to Google Maps impressively robust list of features. To make Street View possible, the Google team literally drove a van all over Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs, taking 360 degree panoramic pictures all along the way. Since most people commute around NYC either by public transportation or walking, being able to make your commute virtually before you make it physically is an incredibly valuable resource.
While previous versions of Google’s mapping technology gave you directions to your destination along with a bird’s eye view of the area, it was devoid of the real world context that makes finding locations easier. When you get directions to a friend’s house, the address is usually accompanied by a physical description such as “it’s the white house with all the lawn flamingos.” Being able to visualize your destination makes a huge difference, especially considering that finding a building address is increasingly difficult in commercial areas.
Telling someone my office is located at 75 Ninth Avenue allows them to easily find the general area, but finding the specific building is still very difficult (as I found out when I came here for my interview). Wouldn’t it be easier to just look at a picture? Now, when you approach that general area, you have some familiar sights to guide you. We all know people who don’t work well with specific directions. If you tell them to head north 2 blocks and make a right on 24th street, they will inevitably end up lost. But, advising them to make that same turn at the deli with the red awning and including a picture of the corner will increase their probability of finding their destination.
I am obviously very impressed and excited about the possibilities of Street View. How will people use this tool and what cities are next in line to be mapped? Any thoughts?
UPDATE: I’m famous! I was looking around my neighborhood and found myself crossing the street on my way to the subway. I wasn’t positive until I zoomed in and saw my gold striped Pumas. Google, I think you owe me some likeness royalties.
In the 5th century, St. Augustine declared that all unbaptized babies went to hell upon death. By the Middle Ages, the idea was softened to suggest a less severe fate, limbo.
In his Divine Comedy, Dante characterized limbo as the first circle of hell and populated it with the great thinkers of ancient Greece and Rome, as well as leading Islamic philosophers.
The document published Friday said the question of limbo had become a “matter of pastoral urgency” because of the growing number of babies who do not receive the baptismal rite. Especially in Africa and other parts of the world where Catholicism is growing but has competition from other faiths such as Islam, high infant mortality rates mean many families live with a church teaching them that their babies could not go to heaven.
Father Thomas Weinandy, executive director for doctrine at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the document “addresses the issue from a whole new perspective — if we are now hoping these children get to heaven, there is no longer any point in worrying about limbo.”
So basically Father Weinandy is saying that century old beliefs can be changed on a whim based on cultural changes and modern practicality. If all it takes is ‘hope’ to change the teachings of the Church then why don’t we stop arguing about issues like gay marriage and just start hoping? Apparently it’s a far more effective catalyst for change.
Having been raised a Catholic, its been difficult to see my faith in the Church diminish over the years. Most of what I accepted as a child no longer seems to be applicable to my life, so I look to more open-minded sources for answers. I completely agree that Church teachings should reflect modern issues, but you can’t pick and choose what changes and what remains the same.
If you are going to say that teachings regarding celibacy, for example, are set in stone, then don’t start making exceptions for situations like this. It’s blatant hypocrisy. It seems like the Church is more concerned with helping itself than those who dedicate their lives to the faith. What an unsettling thought.
Until the Church realizes that people are looking for a faith whose teachings resonate with modern day issues, religious fanatics will continue to exist and the shortage of clerics and followers will surely jeopardize it’s stronghold of the faith community in the future.
As of today, when the 200 million users of Google Earth log onto the site, they will be able to view the horrific details of what’s happening in Darfur for themselves.
In an effort to bring more attention to the ongoing crisis in Darfur, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has teamed up with Google’s mapping service literally to map out the carnage in the Darfur region.
Experts estimate that 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million more have been displaced since the conflict flared in 2003, when rebels took up arms against the central Sudanese government.
The new initiative, called “Crisis in Darfur,” enables Google Earth users to visualize the details in the region, including the destruction of villages and the location of displaced persons in refugee camps.
Once again Google has impressed me with their ability to leverage technology in a positive and thought-provoking way. Having compiled one of the most extensive (and feared) databases of personal information on the planet, I am glad to see that Google is using it’s unprecedented information-gathering powers for good when most people perceive them simply as tools of evil.
To me, visualizing data is the only effective way to truly realize the significance and magnitude of a number. I found it interesting that this was a collaborative effort between Google and the National Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. because the most powerful example of data visualization that I have ever seen in my life was at that very museum.
Obviously the mass genocide of the Jews during World War II was an atrocity of epic proportions, but the amount of people who were killed is somewhat incomprehensible as a number alone. People do not differentiate between numbers once they reach a large enough size. The difference between a million and a billion is nothing more than a few extra zeros if it’s not put into the proper perspective— which is where the real power of data visualization lies. As you walk through the museum you eventually come to a room that is full nothing but shoes. Thousands of pairs, each representing a life lost. Once you consider how many people it would take to fill all of those shoes you start to put that huge number into perspective. It becomes human.
As shocking as that exhibit may be, it can only affect those who actually make the trip to the museum to experience it firsthand. The reason the Darfur initiative is particularly powerful is that the message has been seamlessly integrated with existing and well-known technology, allowing for a significantly higher penetration rate. People are so preoccupied with concerns about privacy and spying that we fail to realize how powerful all of the information we have can really be. Instead of trying to keep everything a secret we should be open to what this information revolution can teach us about ourselves.
What can really happen in a day? Rome couldn’t be built, as the famous saying goes. Policies can’t be changed. Diseases can’t be cured. As pessimistic as it may sound, the only major change that can be made in a day would be something catastrophic— ending the world as we know it. This isn’t the rant of a doomsday prophet, but rather the scientific conclusion of some of the worlds most renown biologists, geologists and astrophysicists. Our universe is an incredibly volatile place— it can end at any time and in a number of ways.
Have you ever worried about two atoms colliding at the speed of light, creating a Black Hole whose tidal forces would rip us all apart atom-by-atom? How about a landslide off Africa’s coast that triggers a mega-tsunami which wipes out the east coast of the United States? Of course not. These scenarios are usually dismissed as being the product of a wild imagination and too many science fiction novels. But the fact of the matter is that it’s not a question of if these events will happen, but when. Worried yet?
I’m not saying we should all live our lives crippled in fear over this scientific inevitability. Rather, we should take this opportunity to more actively observe and question our surroundings and escape the cone of ignorance that we are falling into. I’m sure you’ve all heard the phrase “what goes up must come down” and accepted it as scientific fact. Based on our experiences, we are given no reason to believe otherwise— it’s the law of universal gravitation at work just as Newton described it.
The truth is, if an object is given an initial upward speed of 11.2km/s it would break Earth’s gravitational pull and never return. So much for that theory. Obviously no human is capable of projecting an object at such a high rate of speed, but that’s not my point. The point is, when did we, as a society, become so willing to accept things at face value? Has history not taught us that science is a constant cycle of improving past theories to reflect new discoveries? Then why do we theorize about gravity like it’s 1687?
The universe is billions of years our elder— not all of its intricacies will become apparent within the confines of our lifetimes or even our planet. We are looking for the easy answer, because we all fear what we can’t understand. But we shouldn’t be afraid. Being baffled is at the heart of all innovation— it’s what keeps us asking questions and further pursuing that which we can’t comprehend. I often feel like my generation has lost interest in asking ‘why?’— the foundation of all discovery. Answers, accurate or not, are offered to us so readily that it has become inconvenient to seek any first-hand knowledge. Now that’s something to worry about.
I recently finished a book on this topic called ‘Death by Black Hole’ by Neil deGrasse Tyson, a world renown astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. While some of the scientific jargon was a bit over my head, the book gave me a new appreciation for the world around me, and what a fragile balance our universe hangs in. It encourages you to forget everything you think you know and open your eyes to the world as it is revealed to us. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in this topic read this book. For those of you who are more interested in an abridged version of the universes chaotic schemes, the BBC just released an excellent short film detailing many of the same theories, but without the scientific explanations the book offers.
So take a little time to appreciate the world today. There might not be a tomorrow.
Having always been a supporter of the Sony brand, it has been disappointing to watch it crash and burn over the past year due to the turmoil surrounding their latest offering to the gaming world— the PlayStation 3. This video, to the tune of The Fray’s “How to Save a Life,” points out some of the more obvious ways Sony killed its own brand. Granted Wii, PS3 and 360 all rhyme, this is still an awesomely creative song.
The gaming industry has changed drastically in recent years, and Sony has either overlooked or ignored this fact. When Microsoft entered the market with the Xbox in 2001, it changed the the dynamics of the industry as we once knew it. Strong brands such as Nintendo and Sony could no longer depend on platform loyalties like they had in the past. They needed to differentiate through innovation instead of simply making cosmetic improvements to past products.
Nintendo obviously got the hint— releasing the remarkably successful and innovative Wii. Microsoft found a niche with their online community, Xbox Live— enabling casual gamers like me to verbally berate 12-year-olds of superior skill. This is an obvious attempt to compensate for my inability to adapt to today’s overly complicated game play, but satisfying nonetheless. Sony, on the other hand, thought that the strength of it’s PlayStation brand would be enough for it to survive the platform wars. When Wii sales proved it wasn’t just a novelty and online communities revolutionized gaming, Sony was left reeling.
So what was the PS3’s fatal flaw? It’s simple— it was late, expensive and incompatible. When it was announced in spring of 2005, it had the opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of Nintendo by beating them to market with this next generation system. Nintendo effectively stole the PS3’s thunder by releasing the cheaper, more innovative Wii while Sony was still struggling with manufacturing delays. Cost was another major flaw. While the $600 price tag is actually quite reasonable for the amount of technology packed into this system, it makes it inaccessible to a majority of its target audience.
Ignoring the needs of the consumer was Sony’s most fatal flaw. Giving the consumer the option to buy these features on an à la carte basis, like the Xbox 360’s HD-DVD drive, would have made a tremendous difference. Forcing Blu-ray down our throats in an attempt to use influence to win the format wars was not well received. Ignoring gamers demand for online communities was just stupid. When the consumer is clear in what it wants, why wouldn’t you listen?
With all of this said, what is Sony’s only hope? That the PS3 spontaneously combusts like their batteries, destroying all evidence of this colossal mistake.
I would like to start by thanking Charles for presenting this video at our companies weekly creative meeting. Not only is this an effective visualization of the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, but one that offers a stunning insight into how Web 2.0 is affecting and changing our lives as we know them.
To many people, Web 2.0 is a term used to describe the fancy gradients and glassy buttons that have become so common in recent web design. Others will make reference to the emergence of user-generated content, blogs, wikis and social networking. Indeed, these are all byproducts of the Web 2.0 movement. However, the most profound affects have only begun to emerge. As the video describes, the most important distinction between these web “versions” is the separation of form from content. By separating the visual aesthetic from the content itself, we have hidden the complexity of the technology at the heart of the internet. This has opened the doors of online content creation to even the least tech savvy people, allowing virtual content to be the voice of the entire population rather than a select few. Web 2.0 is a movement that marks the beginning of an entirely new way of thinking and a new way of living. We are currently experiencing a technological and cultural shift that is unprecedented. Think about the world as you knew it a decade ago. It’s gone. Our lives have become automated, at times to a fault.
Google has emerged from the depths of Silicon Valley and streamlined all of our day-to-day activities, relieving us of any responsibility to search for answers or solutions unaided. MySpace has created virtual identities and communities for millions of people to use and abuse. Wikipedia has channeled the flow of information around scholars and first-hand sources and allowed it to intersect with the average person. YouTube has opened the door to 15 minutes of fame for aspiring directors, actors, musicians and absolute idiots. Everyone has now been given the means to be seen and be heard, but, more importantly, the means to be heard but not seen.
This is both fantastic and terrifying.
As we enter the virtual world we are shedding our real world identity in favor of utter ambiguity. We are now pure content, our true inner selves freed from the restraints imposed by our outer framework. With the ability to spread across a variety of forms with complete anonymity. As creators of virtual content we choose what and how much of ourselves is reveled to our virtual colleagues. We choose what we teach the machine and this lesson is by no means uncalculated. Anyone can visually observe the events of my life by perusing my Flickr account, but not even know my name. Conversely, somebody could read this blog and know many of my inner thoughts and opinions without having any context to base an assumption of my physical appearance. Obviously I have just made that connection for you, but that is a choice based on my comfort level with this medium. Some people openly embrace it while others shudder in fear of it. I would probably shake its hand.
At the beginning of the information revolution, back in Web 1.0, we were attempting to make a distinct separation of our real selves from our virtual ones. Now that we are beginning to grow tired of the ambiguity we once thrived on, we again crave the real-life interactions and connections we once had. Enter Web 2.0. For the most part, these virtual connections have not made the transition back to reality to complete the circle. As a result, we are beginning to see a change in the way that we handle our daily lives — opting for an automated solution in lieu of our traditional ones.
Why go to a bar to meet someone when you can go to Match.com?
When a society starts thinking like that, it becomes screamingly obvious that we are no longer looking for an enhancement to our daily lives, but a replacement. A step over the line dividing real life, tangible experiences from virtual ones is a step in the wrong direction. But what will happen if we cross that line, you ask? Web 3.0, I presume.
