Searching for search and finding Godot

The battle for search eyeballs is heating up again. The model has been shown to work and Google is now Ad Mogul extraordinaire. Microsoft in classic fashion has tried, learned and is trying again. Yahoo has had much publicized struggles. Even new players are coming into the space. The buzz about Wolfram Alpha is everywhere.

What this next level of competition is about is relevance of information. The reason Google initially made inroads with search was their optimization routines and ability to give people search results that were relevant to what they wanted. Recent additions such as the ability to promote and bury links based on your own preference are continued iterations of this optimization. Similarly iGoogle and personalized history of search with functions like returning the link you clicked on last time you searched for something are again continued iterations.

The next generation of search is taking more of that sea of information that is out there and turning it into something useful. This is both good and bad. It's good/great in terms of making things digestible and understandable, especially when you are researching a particular topic. But it is less so when what is important is being determined for you and you loose some of the outliers. Outliers are where innovation happens. This is not to say that results don't get buried with a raw information return because they certainly do but just as with code and layers of abstraction, with great power comes great responsibility and the need to know what is going on behind the scenes. In many cases this behind the scenes is proprietary information and algorithms that companies (rightly) don't want to share as their secret sauce. What a dilemma.

Wolfram Alpha is the new kid on the block and have gotten a lot of Internet love with an effective launch that you could watch in video live. It's cool for checking out what happened on the day you were born, doing research on specific items and generally getting a quick easy view of relevant data to concrete topics.

Microsoft Live didn't really live up to what was desired by Microsoft but they are back and ready for round two with their new search engine Bing. (I thought that was the sound the Southwest ads used for new deals?) Bing is in pre-launch and is supposed to do a lot of what Wolfram does and use other proprietary correlation tools to give better and deeper results. ComputerWorld has a nice Visual Tour of the functionality to give a good idea of what is coming.

That leaves Google. Google's new exciting new news is the pre-pumping of Google Wave. If buzz on the Internet is any indicator there is a lot of excitement and potential here as well. If it wasn't clear why there was rumored interest in Twitter from Google it is now. Wave is intended to be a merge of... well... everything Just In Time.

So, it looks like the observation that the next generation of systems are about visualization and the presentation of information, not just finding it. Boy won't this be fun to watch.

The Hangout and the Bazaar

I have been more active of late in both the Twittersphere and Facebook universes and have a few observations to share. 

Facebook is cool and is a great place to connect with friends. New and old friends all in one spot. The feel is more like a social club or hangout than an internet site. This means that people say things (as many have pointed out) that they might not say in front of their boss, mom, or who knows who else. This has led to the two-face-book approach where people have their friends profile and their work profile separate. This way when you comment on the silly photo of your friend who has had too much to drink it doesn't show up on your bosses page and so on. After all, Facebook is now for old fogies. (I suppose that's me as over the course of a few weeks I had numerous friends ping and prod me to get online as things like school reunions become the talk of the day.)  It has the feel of being a semi-private club where what you say is sort of private though you know that it is subject to repeat. 

Twitter on the other hand is like a big bazaar on the internet. Everything is there and nothing is really private. There is an ability to keep your updates to only people you approve but it is not regularly done. There is a social etiquette followed regarding followers and following, numbers and post types, frequency etc. This gives a basic structure though there is the constant pressure of those attempting to use things for their own marketing (and annoying) messages. Just search on something current like #Startrek (Hashing is a way to mark tweets for easy search and trending)(The new Star Trek is a fabulous movie by the way, both Campy and High Tech and Throw Back and Modern all at once. GO SEE IT.)  

So I am using both. For different reasons. I love connecting with old friends and reconnecting with people I have lost track of on Facebook. I also love the raw feed feel of twitter though. It feels like the early days of Bulletin Boards when you could chat all day with people you didn't know connected only by your interest in computers and ability to type. 

Making sense of nonstructured nonsense - Trend Spotting in the Over-Information Age

As we look out over the web and remember that all of this information at our finger tips didn't used to be there it's a little hard to believe. The current Generation Y has a reason to be asking as this information has always been there for them. They are used to being perpetually connected and living their lives online. Tools like Twitter and Facebook make connectivity via digital methods a default. Connectivity from access devices such as iPhones or something as strait-forward as SMS provide snippet updates and easy push of information. Even Microsoft is getting into the game with their recent Vine announcement. All the while "normal" information continues flowing out. Papers are published and go to the web, news releases feed directly out, blog posts go out every second. Lots and lots of unstructured data every single day.

This brings about the challenge of the next generation of systems. Simple links to information without context aren't necessarily useful any more. When the search engines first came out the ability to point you in the right direction was enough. It no longer is. If a search engine returns a particularly pithy 140 character tweet on my topic I probably won't be thrilled. If it returns a mesh of links based on that tweet connecting with others, blogs and research topics in a neat visualized package... well that would be cool. 

For example, I am obsessively (those that know me probably are nodding their heads right now... I would ask you to stop please) interested in ants, papers on ants and recent research about ants. I believe that how they work, organize and where collective intelligence emerges provides us with many great clues on building scalable systems out of unstable parts. But in order to keep up on this I need to keep running searches and queries against various engines, look to known research outlets, receive email pointers from friends and build my own views and filters to what I think is worthwhile.  

Another example, twitter and other outlets can give indicators of where traffic problems are. People get stuck in traffic and tweet to their friends they are stuck. What if that information were automatically gathered, from the problem areas themselves, with geocoded info and placed on a google map mashup. Talk about useful. (I will of course conveniently forget to mention the downsides of texting, tweeting, facebooking and driving. Don't do it.)

Visibility to all of this disorganized and free flow data is the next great mountain to climb. Terms such as Crowdsourcing, Trend Spotting, Data Visualization are the buzzwords of the day. For a quick and inspiring note on what you can do with this type of information check out Erik Hersman's Ted Talk.  Knowing what is getting buzzed on Twitter and where the collective consciousness is headed is good and in many cases ahead of "standard" news outlets. How to create tools to view this information in a meaningful way is the challenge we need designers and engineers to be working on. 

In the meantime if you see good ant stuff let me know. 

I watched an interesting Ted Talk that got me thinking along a couple of avenues. Margaret Wertheim presented The beautiful math that links coral, crochet and hyperbolic space. Go ahead and watch if you have 16ish minutes. I'll wait. 

I have mused before that we know less about the universe than we like to think. For simple examples look at things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy... wonderful hypothetical constructs that we don't really understand that make up only 80ish percent of the universe... 

When you look at things like science fiction and thin

gs like space travel and teleportation in particular a good amount of suspension of disbelief is usually required. Well, when you look at some of the items that actually occur in nature maybe not. 

Margaret does a great overview of Euclidean Space (Planar), Spherical Space and finally Hyperbolic Space. For those that are not visual or auditory learners though here is a quick overview of getting from destination A to destination B in each space. 

• Euclidean Space (discovered by Euclid (go figure)) is essentially planar space. There is a whole lot of math involved in a full explanation but essentially it is the rule that given a strait line and a point the only line that can be drawn through the point and not go through the line is parallel to the original line and there is only ONE of those.
  
• Spherical Space is a similar math run but can be simplified to say that when you have a line drawn in spherical space and you have a point there are ZERO ways to draw a line that doesn't intersect from that point and the line.
• Hyperbolic space has even more math and if you go back just a little bit in time much of that math is proving that it is impossible. However, nobody ever told choral that so it uses it all the time. Following the line and point theory again this basically is the statement that given a line and a point there is an infinite number of lines that can cross the point without crossing the original. Margaret does a great tactile example of this with a demonstration of a simple crochet piece.

So, that was a lot of words and explanation to say we see this type of space in multiple ways. It is easy to jump to an explanation of "multi-dimensional" space being the answer but think about the web. You can get anywhere from anywhere with one simple button push. There may be a mess of routers and switches that do math in between but to you using your browser it's click and away nearly instantly. As the math for this type of space matures and we understand it better things like "folding space" and traversing large "distances" instantly may become a reality.

What fun to think about. All from something as simple as a piece of choral made out of crochet. Next time you watch grandma spin that yarn just think, she could be paving the way to space travel.

IBM in talks to buy SUN

Well not two days after I say how their cloud innovations may be too late in coming for SUN... now IBM is in talks to purchase them. How very interesting.

This potential deal is interesting on multiple fronts.

• RISC (Not Risk as in risky but RISC as in Reduced Instruction Set Computer) This potential merger creates a big home for the remaining non-Intel chip guys. While HP does have their own this combination of fanatical Sun worshipers and the IBM "tried and true"ers is a potentially strong combo. Very different audiences and users though with one driven by tech innovation in Sun users and the other in the "never been fired for picking IBM" mentality.
• Java - Not a lot of the press on the topic brought this up. I guess because it is a shared standard and all that rigmarole. The reality though is that Sun still drives Java in a lot of ways. IBM on the other hand has been a big Java pusher on multiple fronts for development tools, open source etc. This could be a big deal. Of course there is always the gotcha side of the new languages such as SCALA coming up in popularity for the many-core problem.
• Open Source - Sun was big big in the .com era and went down when the .com boom went up. Since then they pushed into Open Source fairly successfully and actually have several software products that they are responsible for that have decent success. Grid, MySQL, even Solaris (a religion among some by itself) are big software assets. Of course the hard part is that IBM has their own efforts in these areas.
• People Logistics - If Sun has an office somewhere, so does IBM. The overhead portion of this could be a big savings opportunity. Not geeky though so I will stop there.
• Competition - Some of the press has stated this is a response to Cisco's entry into the data center space for servers. I doubt that but it does narrow down the big data center players. HP, IBM... ... well...

All told I think this could be good for Sun and IBM. If done right. (isn't that always the trick though... if it works everyone is a genius if it doesn't they were doomed from the get-go.) It gives me some hope for these products and companies for the future and in any case it will be fun to watch.

More cloud updates

Since my last post I have been sent a few and read a few other articles that I thought might be worthy of note related to what clouds are and why it is important.

Sun's CTO Greg Papadopoulos did an interview with Informationweek and discussed some of the efforts that SUN has going on. One of the biggest items of note in that article is the new Drizzle product coming out of the MySQL work. There are many articles and blog posts on the topic as well but the gist is that it is an effort to Cloud-smarten MySQL. Seeing how "MySQL gets used, people only use a subset of the relational capabilities because it has a horizontal scale and there are all these concerns that go into large-scale deployments. So Drizzle sort of strips back down to a small core and then builds up the distributed capabilities." I have made no secret of my feeling that Data is no longer relational. So I think this is encouraging news though as seems to be the case lately with SUN it may be too late for MySQL.

(Aside... Greg Papadopoulos and David Douglas recently co-authored Citizen Engineer: A handbook for socially responsible engineering. Though it is not yet available you can check out an interview with David Douglas on the book and engineering at the Mercury News. Personally I find this to be a refreshing take on the responsibility of Engineering as a profession and all of the personal and corporate responsibility that should go along with it.)

As if they noticed Microsoft pushing cloud tech Amazon announced a few new items in their own cloud initiatives. The ability to reserve capacity for known needs. They also expanded the ability of Windows based services in another Amazon zone. All of this from a company that sells stuff, proof that necessity is the mother of invention.

Even Microsoft realizes it’s all about the cloud. (though opinions still differ on what a cloud exactly is… I personally like the blind men describing the elephant/cloud analogy)

Wired did an interview with Ray Ozzie - Long article but worth reading even if you are an ABM coalition member. (I have always thought highly of Ray Ozzie, even if I did hate Notes itself as an administrator and user, it was visionary in its setup and ahead of its time. Heck… Ray even saw P2P coming before the rest of the industry started to catch up.)

Further proof of the gap between the over-served and the under-served. The question is if Microsoft is late enough to the cloud innovation game that their delay will actually cause them harm in market share. They have rallied before and come in with overwhelming response. (e.g. I.E.) The truth is the services such as PPT, DOC etc is so ubiquitous in the work environment it will be difficult to displace them with anything else. The question though becomes more of what will happen to those types of documents and will they be service disassembled themselves enabling other innovation plugs to go in. Also, who knows maybe Microsoft will have the bones to push further change into media distribution and synch. Though Apple has a pretty strong hold and the media providers can’t seem to understand that technology can help versus hurt their business (self destroying DVRs anyone? Eventually a multi-billion dollar DVD business… sigh)

What a great time to be a technologist.

The Cathedral and the Bazaar and the Ignorance of Crowds


CIO.com recently did an interview with Linus Torvalds and the rules he lays out for quality code development are very good. It goes well with my theory of each development team needing a Benevolent Dictator role.


Some time ago I was forwarded a great article on Innovation as it relates to Open Source. Several of the key observations were saved for the last page. I thought it would have been good to draw some suggested next steps so I thought I took a crack at it and the items below are the result.

The article by itself has a good deal of value. But for complete understanding you probably need to have the previous context (inferred from the article is probably sufficient for basic understanding) of The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Wikipedia has a good simple summary of the paper. At it's simplest though it is a paper written by Eric Raymond about how "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." This means that it becomes easier to drill to quality because more people with disparate backgrounds means better test coverage and bug finding. (And a lot more but that's not what this post is about.)

My actual observations from the Strategy and Business article: I have historically referred to the needed role to make any product development work, whether Bazaar or Cathedral, as the Benevolent Dictator role. It is someone with the vision and strength of personality to push or pull those around them into a unified functional reality of a product. Without that role you get a lack of direction and vision and problems ensue. We have seen this need prove out over and over with the hardening work that we have done. Those teams that had a Benevolent Dictator that laid down tenets for development, surrounded themselves with a “Wizard Enclave” of smart folks for enforcement and saw it through generally had much better systems. This showed in test coverage, uptime, ability to adapt and change and many other areas.

I am a big fan of Open Source developed products and have been for some time. It has certainly proven to be the case that those that are successful have this Wizard/Leader/Benevolent Dictator that surrounds themselves with the Wizards that get there via meritocracy. From this “Brain” squad comes unification and initial innovation. Ongoing innovation can be pulled from the Chaos of the Crowd but to become real will need to be driven by the Benevolent Dictator.
When it comes to our own efforts, Internal Open Source and Product Development need to be set up with this type of role and if we can’t identify someone to fill this role then we can’t honestly expect to move that product forward.

Creating a customer obsessive culture

I read a post from Harvard Business recently that was so head spinning I have to share. I have subscribed to the HBR Ideacasts (easy to add to your iPod via iTunes) for a while and listen to them on my commute to work. They are both insightful and quick and easy to understand. I have access to their published components through work and the electronic lead ins provide a great way to focus on the stuff that actually matters.

An example of that is a post titled Why Zappos Pays New Employees to Quit - And You Should To. The idea of giving people a $1000 bonus to quit sounds absolutely insane when you first look at the surface of it. Especially when you consider the high cost of talent acquisition, nut then when you think a little deeper it starts to make sense.

The people who would take such a bonus and leave are people who are asking themselves the question of "what have I gotten myself into". They may be thinking, "this is all well and good but is this really for me?" In most situations when you start a new job you are so focused on pleasing everyone you hardly stop to think if the fit you thought was there really is. As an employer you are also focused on trying to make sure someone fits and gets all the opportunity to succeed they may need. The perception of someone leaving is so very negative that no one wants it.

By taking this approach Zappos short circuits all of those negative items. It becomes not just ok, but encouraged to consider your fit. It becomes not anathema but perfectly acceptable to call it quits when there is not a fit.

It may not be something that every company goes out and does right away (or potentially even should ever do) but I certainly applaud the Zappos team for thinking differently and realizing how to get to their real goal of excellent customer service with fanatical employees.

Brilliant.

Data is no longer relational

Ok, so the headline may be a little of an over statement for effect. Perhaps I could have said that data that people are interested in is no longer relational but then it wouldn't have been nearly so pithy.

With much respect to Edgar Codd and his invention of the relational model for database storage I think it is time to move forward. Relational databases are great for things like financial models, personnel data and other Enterprise Systems as well as many other standard, repetitive data. It gave a solid reference point to learn data structures and modeling to several generations of budding Computer Scientists.

When I say it is time to move forward I am not saying we should immediately move all data systems to Object Oriented Databases or otherwise induce data chaos. What I do want to push is the idea of unstructured data. Computers are great with rules, with structure and with fundamentally binary relationships. Algorithms are starting to mature around unstructured data (for an example go search google.) but it is still not widespread or well understood.

New exciting algorithms such as Amazon's Dynamo (Werner Vogels is one of my favorite speakers and bloggers on distributed tech, if you are not familiar with him in this space you should be) database are showing in real world situations that distributed systems and distributed data are a reality.

In a lot of system designs because people are so familiar with relational data structures and systems we find Object Models that look like a relational database design. When asked why it looks like this the answers are fairly consistently things like "this is how the database stores it, for speed we need to do the same" or "it just made sense when we pulled the DBA in to help us with the model."

Objects are not relational! They are objects. Then when you get into full structures of objects or object trees there are relationships but it is not the same as a relational database. Especially as we start to build and mature distributed system algorithms it doesn't make sense to use a centralized data store. If the data can be broken up, distributed and stored with the algorithms that will use it performance will improve.

In fact I would argue that the elusive SLA of a system response can begin to be discussed if we can tie the data to the processing. Granted there are new complexities in this model for synchronization, segmentation and consistency but there are ways to solve them. Similarly consistent access to the same servers is also possible.

What other great examples of distributed computing and distributed data storage have you seen?

A time management observation

Have you ever noticed how critical decision meetings have a tendency to be scheduled at the end of the day? I have noticed this as a trend recently in several of the streams that I am working on.

My first thought was that this was due to the need to work through the day to get the information together in preparation for that meeting. Anecdotally (meaning stuff I have seen, done or messed up myself but may not be statistically significant to the world at large) this seems to be the case in 20-40% of the high criticality meetings that get scheduled. This leaves a gap of 60-80% that could happen at other times in the day.

At the end of the day you are tired. At least (anecdotally) I am since the day has been spent making decisions, digging into problems and hopefully doing real work. So my next thought was why do we push these important meetings to late in the day if we are actually going to be less well equipped to handle them?

The answer (or at least my version of it) came to me as I thought about the tasks list and task list management that I do. Each day I follow the process below.

1. Review a list of tasks. I assign each one an A, B, or C. This roughly amounts to A - MUST DO, B - Good to do, C - No chance I am getting to this, I could schedule it forward now but then that would take time from getting to the A and B stuff.
2. Assign a number to each task starting at 1 for each letter category. (Yes, I never even bother with C)

Now when I do this I can say A1 is more important and I should work on it first. Great! Only my human nature kicks in (chances are if you are reading this you have one of those as well. We tend to keep them in closets and they can get dusty but they do peak out at the worst of times) and suddenly I find myself drifting down the list to item A4 or (say it isn't so) a B1... because it's easier. My little human nature side lives for that little endorphin rush of the check mark so... hmmm... off I go.

With meetings I think we do the same thing. We schedule some simple meetings up front. Easy discussions, standing team meetings etc etc. Then we postpone some of those really important, hard meetings and conversations to later in the day.

So I am going to try to move my important meetings earlier. When I find myself setting up one of these meetings I will catch myself and ask the question "would this be better in the AM? Or now?"

Am I nuts? Is this just how business is supposed to work? Have you seen this? In a global economy with companies getting more global in audience as well as employee base these types of behaviors become not only self-pain inflicting but they don't even make sense given global time zones and the fact that the sunlight moves.

Creation of new is playing with a purpose

The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves.
- Carl Jung

I ran into this quote today and thought that it was simply excellent. When the "zone" hits and you are creating anything new, be it a program, a system, art, music or a new business model it feels like playing. When you watch someone who is really good at it, they almost seem to be having too much fun... it can't possibly be work that way right? I have always found so much enjoyment in these types of activities myself that to describe it as anything else is pretense. When your brain is in the right state, you are relaxed, the deep parts of your mind, where the real horsepower is, can bubble up thoughts and put things together that your conscious mind simply can't.

This phenomena was described to me recently as operating with the power in the frontal cortex (the default conscious section) is roughly equivalent to using the change in your pocket. When you are in "the zone" and your deeper mind is able to work it is more like the national product of the United States of America. That's one heck of a difference.

If you never play with your inner child they atrophy. Or potentially worse, get bored and go off in random directions. Kind of like any muscle in your body when you don't use it your mind gets tired too and you can't be as readily be creative... plus personally I think it just makes you prematurely old. If you ever want a dose of reality on your brain aging check out the Brain Age games on the Nintendo DS.

The moral of this post... play every day.

YAY Input Innovation

There few things in technology that really get me hopping excited any more but every now and then something pops into the tech stream that makes me happy. Today is a happy moment for me.

Input devices and Human Computer Interface design though not something that is part of my core job or direct areas of research has always been one of those items that I have had a lot of interest in. I blame a particularly engaging professor I had in college that did research in this area that helped open my eyes to how silly things are today.

For example, we still use the QWERTY keyboard layout, a model that was built to slow down typing... yes really. On typewriters it was built so that the hammers would hang up less often because commonly used letters were farther apart and people would be slower thus causing less hits. If you are old enough or lucky enough to have had the experience of a typewriter that hung you will understand why this was a good idea at the time. Now critical mass is there and the world is unlikely to change. Just try and tell a Gen-Xer that can type 100+ words per minute on a QWERTY that you are going to change the layout. Of course now Gen-Y is used to a phone and small device without the need for a keyboard at all.

Apple has filed for a patent on a new generation of input device that is focused on touch, write and multi-touch. For more info check out the Apple Insider post for great detail from the patents themselves. One of my favorite features/ideas from the iPhone has always been the multi-touch. In fact part of the reason I expect to be getting an Apple laptop now is that they are adding that ability to those as well.

While we still have not achieved a DNI (Direct Neural Interface) jack yet so all we have to do is think it's only a matter of time. By the way... that really is happening. Controlling your computer with the power of thought is currently focused on assistance for the physically disabled. You don't need to be a dreamer though to realize that the downstream implications are simply fascinating.

Microsoft bid to buy Yahoo

It has been in the rumor mill for a while now that Microsoft was seeking to buy Yahoo. When there is sufficient smoke there seems to be fire and now the deal is officially proceeding. There are reasons for it and reasons against it. Apparently Live has not pulled in the traction that Microsoft wants and the desire for ad revenue and internet traffic control as a business model is

Google brings up some interesting points on the combination having more webmail and portal traffic than anyone else and Microsofts track record of following the path of Embrace, Extend, Exterminate when it comes to competition. But that input from a competitor is unlikely to bring about any sort of block of the deal. In fact some reports are even suggesting that the deal could be good for competition.

I am not 100% decided on the deal and it's positive or negative effects. Microsoft has a long record of proven execution and when they really set their eyes on something they can make it happen. There is a wide range of incredibly bright people there that when unified to a cause can deliver. The big change that I see though is in release management. Microsoft has a history of classical software development with releases taking years and subsequent patches taking months. In the internet world, and Google is a great example of this, change is constant, the ability to roll out new versions and try new approaches every week is key to success. This will be a big change from the default Microsoft dev approach. Will this Agile development change cross over into Microsoft's standard products? Another one of those much discussed items, SAAS Software As A Service suddenly becomes a lot more of a potential reality. To me this is the real reason for the desired purchase. Ads and Eyeballs are great to monetize and transform what Microsoft has done for a long time.

No matter what finally happens, this aught to be fun to watch.

You have to pay attention to the periphery

I have long been interested in how the brain works and why we do some of the bizarre things that we do. Add my interest in innovation and viola there is a fun intersection.

Individuals as well as companies have problems spotting, let alone executing innovations. In many cases the innovations seem obvious in retrospect causing people to think "well why didn't ABC co do that? They must be idiots." The truth is that spotting something outside of our current focus is not anything that we are wired to do. In fact we are wired to do the opposite.

For a few cool examples of this check out these YouTube videos. (Normally I would do an embed for your convenience but these are not available for some reason so go check them out.)

• Change Blindness; you cannot be aware of everything
• Mind's Eye; the Brain relies constantly on Visual Memories

The defense our mind puts in place that keeps us focused and able to complete a task without all of the information available overwhelming our brain is the one that keeps us from noticing things on the periphery. But if the periphery is where the interesting things happen what do we do?

The first step is to be aware of what you are focusing on. The next is to allow yourself time to wander, or in many cases allot yourself time to wander. This doesn't mean daydreaming (remember, vision without execution is daydreaming) but it does mean looking at things outside of the immediate and allotting effort and brain cycles to it occasionally. Probably not at the same rate as your real focus but without carving out at least some you quickly find that your immediate focus is all you have time for.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Darwin

Have you ever watched on tv or listened on the radio to one of the spots on Stupid Criminals? The premise is those criminals that get caught because the things they do are just plain dumb. For example, here in Texas a man convicted of robbery worked out a deal to pay $9600 in damages rather than serve a prison sentence. For payment, he provided the court a check... a forged check. He got 10 years. If you have time... do an internet search... and laugh.

A research paper pubished in 1999 is very relevant to this topic and I thought I would share. The postulation of the paper is that in cases where one is ignorant, that same ignorance keeps you from realizing your ignorance. The graphs in the paper are very telling regarding people's regard of their own abilities. Even after tests were administered people still felt they were in the quadrants that they were not.

So... why is this relevant in a technically focused blog? I bring this up because if you consider the rate at which technology moves it requires a near constant diligence and research to stay current. So far Moore's law that processor speeds will double and halve in cost every 24 months has tracked fairly close. Software architectures seem to have an average lifespan of 2-4 years. As processors get quicker more and more levels of abstraction are able to be added and new algorithms are enabled. Bill Gates has often been attributed with saying "640k aught to be enough for anybody"? (He denies having actually said that BTW) Now we have services that handle thousands of transactions per second with message payloads of well over 10x that.

The meaning in all of this is that work in technology needs to be one of constant improvement. Both in ourselves as well as our systems. We need to be constantly learning, innovating and expanding. We can't let ourselves individually or as a company become complacent and be ignorant of the fact that we are ignorant. We need to be blissful because we love what we are doing and are growing as part of something larger than ourselves... not because ignorance is bliss.

Assume that your skills need to be refreshed every two years... and act accordingly.

Wide Area Network --> Home Network --> Personal Network

Everything keeps getting smaller and smaller. A few years ago people wrote off the "crazy people" who started to say that eventually everything would have an IP Address. Well now it seems like EVERYTHING has an IP and certainly everything hits a network somewhere. The internet may not quite be ubiquitous but things get closer and closer every year.

While a personal network used to be the network that you ran at home. Originally for the geeks among us (yes, I have had a network in my house for YEARS), then wireless (as before, first with manual configurations but now available through every retailer under the sun with easy push button setup). Well now it seems like technologies such as Bluetooth and other personal networking technologies have people running their own networks in human form without even thinking about it.

Bluetooth on phones and laptops has been around now long enough that even my mom (well, ok maybe not my mom as she chooses to believe cell phones are evil and voice mail even worse but most moms) can turn on a bluetooth headset and wirelessly interconnect. As other devices hit the market (Watch Gizmodo for a few weeks and be amazed) these personal networks will get larger and more populated. Especially as Apple gets more and more into the general consumer personal device business (this upcoming week's Macworld will be great to watch for just this reason, last year brought us the iPhone... who knows about this year) these things will get even more ubiquitous.

What a great time to be a techie.

Are you an Egghead?

Having something of a sick interest in the meaning of words, origin of words and their use had me wondering this morning where the word Egghead came from and what the history of it's use would be.

Turning to the Internet source of all random knowledge: Wikipedia, I asked. Egghead has origins starting in the 1950s and is a slang anti-intellectual epithet directed at people considered to be out of touch with reality due to their own intellectual interests. What fun.

It was even used by Richard Nixon in the 1952 presidential campaign to describe his opponent. So it also has a political connotation to it. No real originating source was quoted. The article also mentions a potential start of the description of an Egg shaped head referring to a Bald head. (something near and dear to my heart) Also no mention of Egghead software who changed to newegg some time ago though apparently now egghead.com goes off to Amazon. Not that this is completely relevant but it's my random chain of thought.

Ain't the Internet cool?

Do you sleep work?

Have you ever gone to bed wondering how you would solve a difficult problem and dreamt up the answer? Apparently you are not alone. A recent survey found that 51% of those surveyed dreamed about work and nearly 70% of those put those dreams into action.

I have always slept with a notebook and pen on my night stand so that I could write down what I thought up while not sleeping or dreamed about. It is interesting to me how many people apparently do the same.

This is of even more interest when you think about it in terms of the "work 40 hours" credo in Extreme Programming. (Really more of a manage your spikes in hours and avoid death marches but I digress). The core of the reason behind that is if you are well rested and fresh you do your best thinking and are best equipped to handle what gets thrown at you.

So next time you have a tricky problem to work out, think about it before bed, write it down as a checklist to complete (leave it on the paper so you can actually sleep) then dream up an answer. (Remember you are still limited by the fact that you won't sprout wings extra heads or anything along those lines so it is likely best to discard those dreams... in fact probably best not to talk about them either.)

Having forgotten my phone today and not having constant access to email made me remember an article I ran into and had to share. Several key things contribute to burn out but one of the major ones of today's business world is email. So here is a fun little exercise.

1. Think about the number of emails that you receive in a day...


2. Now think about your average response time to those emails...


3. Now think about how many of those emails are really critical, high value things that need immediate responses...

Scary isn't it? Recent findings even shown how the level of access provided by things like Blackberry's and other email devices actually make you dumber by as much as 10 IQ points with close to drug addiction levels.

To address this immediate brain drain one of the things suggested is to set aside specific times to answer emails. Don't let your email be a task list. There are emails that are urgent and there are ones that can wait. Prioritize.