] "Social software is stuff that gets spammed."

Clay Shirkley has a way with words.

Many-to-Many: Tags run amok!

] In case you've missed it, there's been an explosion of
] interest in "tagging," the idea that if everyone labels
] photos, blogs and so on, we'll more easily be able to
] find what we're looking for. But all the interest (dare I
] say hype) is largely ignoring the fact that we've had
] tagging on the web for going on 10 years, and the
] experience on the search side is that it can't be
] trusted.

Tagging Not Likely The Killer Solution For Search

] Free tagging could help Web search in a couple of ways.
] If Yahoo or Google could enlist people to annotate
] visited Web pages or those which crop up in search
] results, it could be a valuable voter's guide for them to
] deliver better results next time.

Imagine. A site where people write commentary and annotation of
the sites they come across. For free. Propagating memes.
How unlikely.

] A key byproduct of free tagging for search would be a
] visitor loyalty coveted by all the providers. As many
] researchers point out, the cost to switch search engines
] is nothing, compared with instant messaging technologies,
] e-mail, or applications that carry what's called "the
] network effect."

[print version] Yahoo's game of photo tag | CNET News.com

] Google News, fresh from being sued by the French press
] and subsequently backing down and pulling the AFP's
] stories, is right back in at the deep end. This time, the
] question of transparency comes up in relation to it's
] non-disclosed news sources and nazi websites being
] featured on the Search engine's algorithmic news portal.
]...
] Philipp hits the nail on the head though when he quite
] rightly states that Google do indeed have editorial
] control, they choose the sites that appear in Google News
] - In other words, someone looked at a neo-nazi white
] pride hate site and said "oh my, that just has to be in G
] news...."

Yet more evidence of Google misstepping.

I should have called it when I saw it, how Google was going to fall. Fall from the graces as the Can Do No Wrong folks. The common fall for such a tech company is to slow down in their rate of innovation, have their technology surpassed. They have been smart enough to prevent that; ever new release is a new domain killer, pushing the limits of our expectations and released at a sufficent frenzy as behoves such a giant talent-suck with such visible and easy to change products [ie, DEC in its heyday couldn't put out something substantial every 6 months].

And the general fear with Google was that they would be too powerful, and Evil Empire status would fall upon them just because they found themselves ruling the world; people couldn't live without them, and no one could compete with them. That has not yet quite happened, although it occasionally looks like it.

No, the problem is that the business was smart enough about keeping their tech edge, and felt like to do so they needed to preserve their corporate culture. Unfortunately, one part of their culture that may have worked for them as a small company with a killer product, is a lack of communication. Reading the Operating Manual, for instance, this was obvious: they are "smart" in their field, and know to emulate the "smart" people in fields they find themselves now in; but without a deep understanding of the field, fall short. Buffett gives deep descriptions of his company in a way they do not. The maneuvers he does are generally transparent to a watching crowd, because of the SEC requirements tracking investments. And his annual meetings.

Google refuses to be answerable to the public, and to the finance community, and as long as nothing "bad" happens, they will get away with it. But things like this essay point out that their reputation is already being tarnished. The Trust In Google metric is down. And at the end of the day, most of what they do relies on it.

Trouble Brewing over Google News Transparency | Threadwatch.org

] A number puzzle originating in the work of self-taught
] maths genius Srinivasa Ramanujan nearly a century ago has
] been solved. The solution may one day lead to advances in
] particle physics and computer security.

New Scientist Breaking News - Classic maths puzzle cracked at last

] Iceland's parliament voted overwhelmingly this week to
] grant Mr Fischer citizenship - and with it an Icelandic
] passport.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Fischer 'put Iceland on the map'

] 13 things that do not make sense

Great article pointing out some of the very open gaps in our understanding of the who and what of existence.

1. The Placebo Effect
2. The Horizon Problem
3. Ultra-Energetic Cosmic Rays
4. Belfast Homeopathy Results
5. Dark Matter
6. Viking's Methane
7. Tetraneutrons
8. The Pioneer Anomaly
9. Dark Energy
10. The Kuiper Cliff
11. The Wow Signal
12. Not-so-constant Constants
13. Cold Fusion

Typical New Scientist approachability.

New Scientist 13 things that do not make sense - Features

] The hexedited files that Drever.C tries to use to damage
] F-Secure Mobile Anti-Virus, contain message intended to
] us.
]
] FSECURE MUST DIE!!!!!!
] Please, don't make new antiviruses for my viruses and I
] stop make
] viruses for your antiviruses. My target is Simworks!
] =)
]
] Thanks for the warning, but I don't think we are stopping
] any time soon.

A couple of months ago, cell phone virii were a new and novel concept. Now we're getting three releases in a day, and ones targetting the free anti-viral tools...

F-Secure : News from the Lab

] It may be instructive to look at the pricing model of
] DVDs for insight into what has happened in the CD market.
] In case you were unaware, the film/TV industry uses a
] very different pricing strategy than the music biz.
]
] Studios release far less product each year then the
] labels, with major film releases numbering in the 100s
] versus 25,000 or so annual CD releases.
]
] Films have a model where they typically are released from
] the highest revenue generator down to the lowest. Another
] way to describe that progression is a dynamic pricing
] structure going from highest paying users to lowest.
] Starting with theatrical release (movie theatres), moving
] next to pay-per-view, and than premium cable (i.e, HBO).
] After the premium cable run has begun (or ends) is when
] typically DVDs get released for sale (or rental) to the
] public. Eventually, movies make their way to basic cable,
] and lastly, to broadcast TV. (Somewhere in the middle is
] overseas release, but for our purposes, that's more of a
] parallel track).
]
] DVD sales do not rely on a static pricing model. They are
] initially released at a price point consistent with
] expected demand. After a short period of time, prices
] drop, and in some cases, significantly.
] ...
] Pricing is a combination of popularity (demand) and age
] (supply). The older a release is, the more its available
] on the secondary markets. Let's look at a few recent
] animated films: Older movies, such as Shrek, Ice Age and
] Antz are all $10 today. More recent films, such as
] Finding Nemo or Shrek2 are $14.99 and $15.99
] respectively. Films fresh out of the theatres, such as
] The Incredibles, are $20.
]...
] Ironically, many of the films mentiooned here now sell
] for less than their soundtracks. Two hours (or longer) of
] a movie, plus additional audio commentary, a documentary
] of the making of the film, outtakes, special features
] etc., all cost less than a mere 45 minute audio only
] songs from the film.

Barry L. Ritholtz, a good numbers analyst, posts a draft of a DVD vs CD paper he is working one. I am interested to see where he is going with this, and how he incorporates some of the comments.

For example, DVDs are watched less -- do they represent less value? But DVDs involve the efforts of far more... etc.

Is the proposal that those involved in the record industry should look to the whole process of a record: initial investment of time and talent, then studio time, post-production, release, the tour in support, junkets -- like movie releases, and price accordingly? I suspect that given the cashflows for the artists themselves, they already do.

The Big Picture: Dynamic Pricing: DVD versus CD Strategies

] HP has suddenly become a power in the photo business.
] Strongly believing that their ink jet process is better
] then the vastly more common, and generally more
] expensive, Kodak process that currently dominates the
] personal and professional photography business HP has
] just put its money where its mouth is and purchased one
] of the leading on-line photo processing companies
] Snapfish.

What? HP makes a good move?

Technology Pundits ~ HP Buys Snapfish