Google Lost Its Touch? Evil?

O'Reilly Radar - Insight, analysis, and research about emerging technologies: "I'm happy to criticize Google for shallow attempts to capitalize on opportunities created by others, and am very concerned about an increasing tendency to favor Google's own content sites rather than distributing attention to others. But Google is a long way from eating their own children, as Microsoft eventually did. Both Android and Chrome demonstrate true strategic thinking, focusing on how to grow the market for everyone rather than just finding advantage for Google. They still seem intent on creating more value than they capture."

Tim says no and that makes sense. However, "... an increasing tendency to favor Google's own content sites." is just part of the problem. People cant seem to understand that the links don't come from Google. They are not recommendations. True, I can't say this is Google's fault, but it is a disturbing reality.
Of course, one could argue that asking a billion people to decide what is important beats having every one consult their favorite deity.

O'Reilly Radar - Insight, analysis, and research about emerging technologies

I'm not sure what this says about the relationship between mailing list activity and delivered software;-)

With several hundred applications now available in the iTunes App store, I decided to consider alternate ways of gauging interest in the platform. Using MarkMail, one can quickly scan thousands of mailing lists and restrict the results to those related to software development. Based on the number of posts to (MarkMail) mailing lists, Linux-based alternatives generate considerably more email chatter than the iPhone:"

Getting Stupid, take two

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

[See terse, prior comment on haystack]

Carr is not the only one who finds that they appear to be loosing some memory etc. as a result of using Google as a memory substitute. They also find that they are reading less. That is not my experience, but life would not be life if we all had the same experience.
However, I think they have a pretty narrow set of concerns.

Google is not the issue. [There are plenty of reasons to worry about Google, but spreading illiteracy is not one of them.] The issue is the net, the web and expanding modes of human communication.

1. Carr and his friends may be reading less, but others are reading much more. Others? A pretty diverse group Here are two examples: I read more because its easier to find things that interest me, things I find valuable because I have more powerful search tools than a coffee shop and a library card index. Others, in rural Peru, for example, read more because while their village did not have books in the past, now, thanks to OLPC and the net, the village has on line libraries, access to news papers, blogs, etc.
2. Reading is only one, and not the best, form of human communication. Music and images have much more to offer and both are undergoing an explosion of production and use. Carr may find You Tube too low brow. Fine. All the educated people thought Dante was too low-brow too.
3. A bit of perspective is useful. The written word devalued traditional skills -- especially oral memorization. Those skills gave special rights to a small number of people with the unusual innate ability to handle the rhyme and volume as well as access to the holders of the tales. And yes it may be true that Carr is reading less. [Perhaps even writing less;-) ]But I can find Lynne d Johnson and Salt-n-Pepa.

Thanks to the web and technology like Google's more people can produce more content in more formats than ever before. And, more people can find it.

I'm so sorry that this does not work out for the editors of Atlantic, but I'll get over it.

Different Approaches to the Semantic Web - O'Reilly Radar

Interesting, but why ignore semantics inferred through machine learning?

I've been thinking a bit more about why I'm more excited about Metaweb's freebase than I have been about previous Semantic Web projects that I've been exposed to.

I think that part of it is the difference in how they capture data about relationships. A good example is Semantic MediaWiki, which Stefano Mazzocchi pointed me to. They capture relations in a very explicit way, in this case, using structured wikitext. For example, as the wikipedia page on Semantic MediaWiki explains, an entry about Berlin might include the wikitext:"

An ESB for the Web? - O'Reilly Radar

I spend a great deal of my time encouraging 'enterprise people' to think more like 'web people.' Focus on adoption, use platforms to enable emergent capability, build the 'generative enterprise,' and that sort of thing.

So, imagine my surprise when I saw the web acting a bit like the enterprise with the launch of Gnip."