There has to be a science in Informatics to feed the engineers with basic knowledge. But today all too often workers in our field work like engineers but consider themselves scientists and then apply neither the quality criteria of engineering ("Is it really useful?") nor those of science ("Do we understand more?"). Why does this happen? Probably because our technology is so exciting and evolves so fast. I have lost who was the author, but somebody once wrote in CACM: "The dustclouds raised by a galloping technology are so thick that little visibility remains for the science to truly evolve."

So I would like to make the following point: It is paramount for fostering our field that everyone working in Informatics gets it clear for himself or herself, whether s/he is an engineer or a scientist, and then works accordingly. There is a science part of Informatics, but mix it up with the engineering part and you will not produce any unterstanding.

An interesting position, if not one i'm completely on board with (yet, anyway).

Toolsmithism and Science

Even more striking are the number of officially sanctioned projects that manage to do all eight things wrong. In fact, if you look at the way software gets written in most organizations, it's almost as if they were deliberately trying to do things wrong. In a sense, they are. One of the defining qualities of organizations since there have been such a thing is to treat individuals as interchangeable parts. This works well for more parallelizable tasks, like fighting wars. For most of history a well-drilled army of professional soldiers could be counted on to beat an army of individual warriors, no matter how valorous. But having ideas is not very parallelizable. And that's what programs are: ideas.

I feel like I understand this far, far too well. *sigh*

Holding a Program in One's Head

But I’d willingly pay [Ryan Seacrest] to host the Emmys if he would back out of his other new gig as the pregame and halftime host for a red carpet entertainment Whatever during Fox’s broadcast of this year’s Super Bowl. I mean: For. Fuck’s. Sake. This is often the single best day of the year, and now I have to deal with Seacrest and a red carpet? You know, I’m glad that things aren’t running smooth over on the set of “24” (the show just announced its second production delay while the writers try to figure out what the hell they’re doing). I hope Fox dies.

Oh me too. Fuck Fox. Fuck 'em forever.

End of Days - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

Curt at Flopping Aces has had it with the pointy-headed interlecturals what is pollutin’ ackademia wif liberalizm:

More Evidence of Liberal Bias in Our Schools and Media

Now is it any wonder the youth in this country are so totally lacking in common sense? Look at the top academia donations given so far for the 2008 election:

Yes, this chart of “the top ten educational donors” certainly suggests that “the top ten educational donors” favor Democrats over Republicans. (It’s possible that a high level of education correlates with a high level of not being a gullible maroon.)

Sadly, No! » More Proof Of The Liberal Math Conspiracy

Using photos of oft-snapped subjects (like Notre Dame) scraped from around the Web, Photosynth (based on Seadragon technology) creates breathtaking multidimensional spaces with zoom and navigation features that outstrip all expectation.

This is fucking astounding.

We're not that far from pervasive social construction of reality.

TED | Talks | Blaise Aguera y Arcas: Jaw-dropping Photosynth demo (video)

Saw this today on Ars. Not sure how great it would be as an office chair (at least if you attempt to use it with a desk). But as a gamer/laptop chair, looks fairly cool.

[ Perhaps... a lot of money for that though.

"It's a chair! But you can make it into a much SHORTER chair that rocks back and forth, you know, if you want."

Meh. -k]

TreyChair.com - Multifunction task chairs for your desk, floor, home, or office.

If they kept it real, they'd have used "STARDATE -315980.87"

Poster for the new Star Trek film...

This is the (extraordinarily obvious) point the Wall Street Journal missed when it chimed in yesterday in support of the Senator. As the Journal wrote:

Her answer was met with jeers, but what Mrs. Clinton was daring to tell her left-wing audience is that lobbyists are an essential means by which average Americans transmit their political concerns to Washington, and in turn hold their elected Representatives accountable. Not everyone in America can afford to trek to D.C., or has the clout to demand an audience with a Senator. Lobbyists represent the collective voice of groups with shared ideals, whether they be gun owners, union workers, corporate employees or the pro-choice movement.

Just the sort of reasoning that makes that page so famous: Look, lawyers represent their clients before a judge. Does it follow from that that judges must be free to take money from lawyers? Even just to redecorate their office?

On Clinton and lobbyists (Lessig Blog)

As always, so apropos of my life...

xkcd - Compiling