LinkedIn goes exponential

They're such an obvious Google acquisition target. Maybe too obvious.

I've been on LinkedIn for about a year, but for most of that time my network wasn't too large. I didn't really press it. More recently several things boosted my use and even led to some proselytizing:

• a high school reunion led to some sentimental additions
• I started attaching my LinkedIn profile to my email signature
• I decided I wanted a net presence (a facade or facet identity) that was less revealing than my old web site.
• I added a link to my LinkedIn profile to my corporate Sharepoint profile
• LinkedIn will now process a Gmail contact list and look for matches to LinkedIn members (among others I located a sister-in-law that way)
• organic growth
  

The result is my network is getting fairly large and it's growing very quickly:

19,053 new people in your network since November 1

People in your network are hiring:
* Sr Data Warehouse Architect at Yahoo! Inc.
* SAP HR and SD Consultants at Bluefin Resources
* SAP Business Analyst (various disciplines, levels, all perm/full time) at Goodrich Aerostructures

This is going to be interesting. The trick for LinkedIn will be to extract revenue without getting too greedy -- though their end point is most likely to be a Microsoft or Google acquistion.

Apple Tablet: what the heck is it good for?

Daring Fireball thinks the Apple tablet rumor will turn out to be true:

Apple Tablet PC is real, says Asus - Crave at CNET.co.uk:

...So, can Apple turn the Tablet PC into a success when previous attempts have failed? The short answer is 'yes'. Any company that can make a mobile phone with no buttons, no picture messaging, slow Web access and no video capture into the most desirable phone on the planet can easily make tablets popular...

I wasn't paying attention until DF spoke. So now it's at least mildly interesting.

I have no idea what I'd use it for, but I'm not Apple's demographic. They haven't done anything new since the original Nano that's ready for me to buy. (I very much want an iPhone with 1993 Palm Pilot 1.0 capabilities, but that's just another proof point that Apple isn't selling to me.)

What the heck would a slate/tablet be good for besides vertical markets? Did you ever try reading the newspaper on one? (Hint: laptops don't require a stand and they have other value.)

I'll be looking around for a clue ...

Emmy Noether and symmetry: we ought to know HER name

[If you look at the URL of this post, you'll see I originally wrote "his name" in the title. Brilliant mathematical physicist? Tell me you wouldn't make the same blunder. Ok, so not everyone would.]

CV tells us we ought to honor the name of Emmy Noether:

Higgs 101 | Cosmic Variance

...I believe that the greatest (and I mean THE greatest) discovery of the 20th century was to recognize that every symmetry in nature coresponds to some conserved physical quantity. It is a great sorrow that Emmy Noether did not win the Nobel Prize for this profound work. Symmetries are all around us - some are very simple, and some not so simple. For example, consider symmetry in time. The laws of physics are (we presume) the same now as they are at the time you finish reading this sentence, and will be the same 100 years from now. If you move (translate) in time, the rules stay the same. This symmetry in fact leads to conservation of energy. Likewise, if you move in space, the laws of physics are the same. This leads to conservation of momentum. If you rewrite the laws of physics in a frame of reference rotated 42.6 degrees from the one where you are writing them now, they are the same…conservation of angular momentum...

I did not understand the relationship of symmetry to energy conservation.

Alas, Nobels are not given posthumously, which is why there's a correlation between longevity and becoming a laureate. Emmy died young ...

... Emmy fled Germany in 1933; she had been forbidden from teaching undergraduate classes by the Nazi racial laws. She joined the faculty at Bryn Mawr College in the United States. She died at Bryn Mawr on 14 April 1935 in mysterious circumstances. Her doctor told her that she needed an operation, and she scheduled it during a college break at Bryn Mawr, without telling anyone. She perished during or shortly after the surgery. Emmy never married, and she had no relatives in the USA. Emmy was buried in the Cloisters of Thomas Great Hall on the Bryn Mawr Campus.

There was at that time a common operation performed secretly with a high mortality rate, but Ms. Noether was 53 when she died.

NYT subscriptions fall sharply

My read of this article was that the NYT had the steepest circulation fall of the national journals:

More Readers Trading Newspapers for Web Sites - New York Times

The New York Times, which shed less-profitable circulation and increased some prices in the last year, lost 4.5 percent of its weekday circulation (to less than 1.04 million) and 7.6 percent of its Sunday circulation (to 1.5 million)..."

I think it's plausible that the NYT has mostly lost readers to the NYT web site, but it's one heck of a circulation drop.

The evanescence of the net

Crooked Timber remembers Faflbog, DeLong and my wife were fans. Fafblog went offline 2-3 years ago, from the comments we learn that the author is known to some and that he stopped writing due to illness.

Another comment references Chris Lightfoot, a 28 yo UK activist, programmer and writer who, I read, committed suicide in February 2007. He left a fairly large amount of writing behind, his last blog post was in July 2006.

I suspect there will soon exist, or may already exist, businesses that will use a robot to snarf a blog and put it on an "immortal" server. Cryogenics may not be the best idea, but blog post "immortality" is a practical runner-up.

Update 11/7/07: On reflection, the funeral home is the obvious site for one's digital ghost. I'm surprised I haven't heard of them doing this already. Well, at least after today the idea won't be patentable.

Living in a dream world - The American right not to know

In a bottom-line age, the media reports what the public wants to know. Too often, what the public wants is a comforting story ..

Michael Massing, "What Orwell Didn't Know" | Salon.com:

...In his reflections on politics and language, Orwell operated on the assumption that people want to know the truth. Often, though, they don't. In the case of Iraq, the many instruments Orwell felt would be needed to keep people passive and uninformed -- the nonstop propaganda messages, the memory holes, the rewriting of history, Room 101 -- have proved unnecessary. The public has become its own collective Ministry of Truth -- a reality that, in many ways, is even more chilling than the one Orwell envisioned.

I don't think the American public has changed all that much compared to earlier years, but I do think the media is more adept at giving us what we want -- perhaps because the media is facing financial ruin.

There's nothing in the story any informed citizen doesn't already know, but it's a good review.

The right declares in favor of torture - responding to the ticking clock

The GOP has smoothly moved from "we don't torture" to "yeah, we torture, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". Their method is to first premise conditions under which the "good of the many" is so vast that any crime seems justified. Then, once the precedent is established, they move on to institutionalizing torture as "a last resort".

This honesty is a risky form of progress. On the one hand it fully exposes what they do in our name, on the other hand it moves American another step closer to Pol Pot. (I think we're close enough now to make out his smug expression.)

I figured it was time to refute this position, but today I found Clive Crook has already stated my position fairly well (emphases mine):

FT.com | Clive Crook's blog: Update: It depends what you mean by torture

...Whether the law leaves room for doubt about whether waterboarding is torture is one thing; whether the law ought to leave room for doubt on that point is quite another. In my view, the law should be clear: waterboarding is torture, and all torture is illegal.

Stuart is sympathetic to the view that ruling out a technique like waterboarding under any and all circumstances would be a mistake. Would it still be wrong, he asks, if the information elicited saved hundreds or thousands or millions of lives? It is a fair question, and one that most commentators on this issue are reluctant to confront. But one could ask the same question of any kind of torture, however vile. Would it be immoral to roast somebody over a slow fire, if the information elicited saved hundreds or thousands or millions of lives? I dare say that nobody, not even Alberto Gonzales, will argue that roasting somebody over a slow fire is not torture....

...One can conceive of rare circumstances in which waterboarding or any other kind of torture might be ethically justified. To say that torture is always and necessarily immoral seems to me to betray a lack of imagination. But a wise government would not allow for that contingency by making the practice legal. In those very rare cases, the interrogators would have to expose themselves to prosecution, and a jury would decide whether or not to convict, weighing what they did against their reasons for doing it. To make torture legal, even under rare circumstances, is to institutionalise it. That is both immoral, and for the reasons just cited, deeply unproductive in the war on terror.

Bush is putting millions of men and women in harms way. He asks them to risk their lives and health for America. In the unprecedented theoretical circumstance that torture is justified, he should take the responsibility and be willing to face the legal consequences -- including life in prison. If he can't take that responsibility he's a coward and should resign immediately.

Laws exist for a reason. I can imagine circumstances where I'd torture someone to save my children, but I'd expect to forfeit my own life for having made that choice.

That's the sacrifice civilization demands. If we can't do that, we don't deserve democracy, and we don't deserve civilization.

Breastfeeding and IQ: A stunning result

Ok, I'm stunned. I didn't see this one coming:

BBC NEWS | Health | Gene 'links breastfeeding to IQ': "

Children with one version of the FADS2 gene scored seven points higher in IQ tests if they were breastfed.

But the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found breastfeeding had no effect on the IQ of children with a different version.

The gene in question helps break down fatty acids from the diet, which have been linked with brain development.

Seven points difference is enough to put the child in the top third of the class, the researchers said.

Some 90% of people carry the version of the gene which was associated with better IQ scores in breastfed children.

The study was done on infants in Britain and New Zealand, we aren't given any ethnicity data. I'm assuming these numbers apply only to "euros" for now.

It's such an extraordinary result, with so many implications, we need to be cautious. It would be interesting to read the PNAS letter page next month.

It is worth noting that most children adopted as infants, or placed in orphanages, are not breastfed.

Shared family calendars, PDAs and Google Android

A few months ago I tried creating a shared family calendar solution on Google. It didn't work, because I couldn't get come up with a satisfactory Outlook sync solution.

I figured Calendar Swamp and I are the only people in the world trying to implement a shared family calendar solution (including work calendars), but it turns out the "Gphone" company is thinking about this too ...

Calendar Swamp: If my phone could do anything

... About 1:43 into this new video, Nick Sears, the co-founder of Android, the company Google bought to build its mobile phone platform, has this to say: "If my phone could do anything, it would be that we would have a shared family calendar.

Ten years or more ago Palm briefly sold a small device that was supposed to create a family calendar based on individual Palm devices. Shortly after that Palm died.

It's been a long wait and it's not over yet.

Fidelity vs. Vanguard: For want of a form a customer was lost

We have investment accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. It's not some sort of odd diversification strategy, it's mostly historic. We started with Fidelity and while I prefer Vanguard's policies and stinginess there's a lot of inertia in my life.

Which is why it was unwise of Fidelity Investments to be stupidly annoying.

I wanted to deposit a check in a treasury fund. Simple act, but the days when I could find deposit forms are sadly gone. (No, I don't balance my accounts either. You have time to do that?)

No problem, I figured I'd have Fidelity print one out.

Hah!

After ten minutes of increasing frustration I finally found a page that would print a generic deposit form -- which I had to complete by editing the pdf.

Huh?

I tried Vanguard. It took seconds to find the right page, and Vanguard generated a custom PDF for me with all the information entered -- and a transaction number.

Smart.

Good-bye Fidelity.

Regions of rapidly evolving genes: evidence of genetic control of the rate of adaptation and disorders of evolution

About four weeks ago I wrote about the possibility that "autism" and "schizophrenia" might be "disorders of evolution". If the genes that code for brain function are experiencing very high variation levels, and thus rapid adaptation and differentiation (evolution), it's plausible that we'd see a range of disorders related to maladaptive variations.

Back then I thought the post was a bit daring, the sort of thing that might cause some in my vast readership to think I was being a bit eccentric.

Nowadays though, that post seems pretty mainstream:

Mouse study finds hotspots of genome instability (John Timmer)

[Nature 10/28/07] ... The data suggest that certain parts of the genomes are "hotspots" that both undergo change frequently, and produce changes that are well-tolerated by the organism. These hotspots undergo changes up to 10,000 times more frequently than quiet areas of the genome, and can undergo multiple, successive changes. The fact that the organism appears to tolerate these changes isn't due to an absence of genes in the CNVs. In the 18 mentioned above, there were a total of 43 genes, including some involved with reproduction, immunity, and brain function.

There's been an idea floating around for a while that suggests that genomes evolve to the point where they work well with evolution. A genome that, by chance, winds up with genes that are sensitive to dose effects in a region that's stable is more likely to be be inherited. In the opposite case, where different doses of a gene might help an organism adapt to different environments, having that gene located in an unstable area might be selected for. The new data doesn't directly address this proposal. But it does find that there unstable areas of the genome that are likely to undergo major changes within the span of less than 100 years, which seems to be a prerequisite for the proposal to be taken seriously.

It turns out Timmer has at least one other post relating these types of gene rearrangements to autism.

I'm ready to be that within six years medical students will consider a wide variety of neuropsychiatric disorders to be "disorders of evolution". You'll have a jump on those whippersnappers ...

How to Hyperlink: advice and some hypertexual history

Coding Horror has done a nice job summarizing the art of the hyperlink -- and he provides historical context:

Coding Horror: Don't Click Here: The Art of Hyperlinking

...I distinctly remember reading this 1995 Wired article on Ted Nelson and Xanadu when it was published. It had a profound impact on me. I've always remembered it, long after that initial read. I know it's novella long, but it's arguably the best single article I've ever read in Wired; I encourage you to read it in its entirety when you have time. It speaks volumes about the souls of computers-- and the software developers who love them.

Xanadu was vaporware long before the term even existed. You might think that Ted Nelson would be pleased that HTML and the world wide web have delivered much of the Xanadu dream, almost 40 years later...

I recommend the article, though every rule should be broken on occasion. Sometimes I do resort to "click here", for example.

The historical context led me to dredge up old links, and in honor of Ted Nelson, I've created a "hypertextual thread" (tag) called "xanadu".

As CH tells us, Nelson was in fact quite unhappy with how the Web developed. In 1988 (yes, that long ago) Ted Nelson delivered the keynote address to the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) on "Project Xanadu" -- and it was clear he wanted the web to go away.

That was the most fun and interesting keynote I've ever heard at AMIA, but half the audience thought Nelson had gone off the deep end long ago. AMIA has since been careful not to invite anyone particularly novel to speak.

Nelson wasn't the only hypertext pioneer to be unhappy with the unidirectional hyperlink. Berners-Lee, the "father" of the web, used to be very unhappy with our fragile hyperlinks. I recall he'd wanted a directory service and an indirection layer for the hyperlink, his CERN experiments simply escaped prematurely. Nowadays, of course, Google is beginning to offer suggested redirects when one enters a failed link into the search engine -- an unimaginably brute force solution to the problem. I'm sure there are some interesting lessons in how this has evolved!

For a bit more on the topic over the past few years (I used to write about this pre-blog):

• Computers and thinking (shades of Vannevar Bush)


• Jakob Nielsen on reviving advanced hyperterext - Nielsen wrote a book on hypertext @ 1995 -- it's a great guide to a lot of forgotten innovations


• Hyperscope: a failed experiment by Doug Engelbart, who sometimes calls himself the inventor of hypertext (with some legitimacy)
  


• The NYT Magazine on "the universal library", the post mentions Dickson's hypertext science-fiction classic "The Final Encyclopedia". Dickson pretty much pegged wikipedia.

The scandal that created the army and executive privilege

I can see why this story is generally omitted from this history books:

Making Light: Retreat Along the Wabash

It was the worst defeat under arms ever suffered by the US Army. Out of some 1,100 men who answered muster on the night of November 3rd, 1791, only 27 were unwounded at sunset on the 4th. 90% were dead. The camp followers, the artillery, all were lost.

In just over three hours on that bloody morning St. Clair lost 60% of all the men then under arms in the service of the United States...

...And that, my friends, is why Fort Wayne, Indiana, is called “Fort Wayne” rather than “Fort St. Clair.”

That too is where we got a standing army, and where the doctrine of “Executive Privilege” comes from.

Among other things, we discover Washington was quite human.

Ground zero in Pakistan: Informed Comment blog

Talking Points suggests Informed Comment: Global Affairs: Barnett Rubin as a source for understanding the global crisis of the week (month? year? decade?) -- Pakistan's crisis of governance.

I glanced at the most recent post and it felt good. Consistent with what I'd already understood, plausible details that extend what I've read in known reliable sources, a measured tone.

I'll be tracking it.

This is also an opportunity to thank the gods that Rumsfeld is gone and, though Cheney and Bush remain, the rest of America's military and political governance is in far saner hands than it was a year ago.

Karen Hughes: another Bush loyalist quits

I missed this one: Bush loyalist Karen Hughes has quit. She was on a bizarre mission to improve America's image abroad. That's a bit of a tough job while the President works to make waterboarding a competitive sport.

Surprisingly, from what we all remember of the bizarre debut of her mission, Kaplan tells us she was actually doing a good job resurrecting the corpse of America's cultural outreach. He doesn't really have any good explanation for why she abruptly quit.

Did she finally give up on George Bush Jr?