blog.cankoklu

Kurzweil: The trend so far is that communications technology is moving closer to us rather than forcing humans to become more like the classical notion of a machine. When I was a student at MIT, you did have to be an engineer to use the computer, and I had to use my bicycle to get to the one computer on campus. Today, I have a computer on my belt, and I am able to access virtually all human knowledge with a few keystrokes. And, already, 5 billion people have these mobile devices in their pockets. The technologies that succeed in the marketplace are the ones that meet our basic human needs to communicate and socialize. 

Within 20 years, computers will match human intelligence and pass the "Turing test," in which they will be indistinguishable from human intelligence. But this will not be an alien invasion of intelligent machines to compete with us and displace us. We will use these machines as we have always used our tools -- to extend our own reach.

I have to say I didn't find anything "shocking".. But I'm guessing they just had to put something sensationalist in the article title. Because, you know.. He's Ray fcking Kurzweil..

AdMob, the mobile advertising network currently being acquired by Google, this morning featured the latest results of its monthly analysis of consumer usage and attitudes across the Android, iPhone and webOS application platforms in its January 2010 AdMob Mobile Metrics Report.

Among the most interesting things the survey found is the conclusion that 91 percent of iPhone users would recommend their device, compared to 84 percent of Android users and only 69 percent of webOS users.

That 22% difference has got to hurt for Palm.

This explains the unparalleled success of the iPhone.. Regardless of the functions or capabilities the device provides; the emotional attachment and the WOM created by the ease of use of the device causes a truly viral adoption among consumers.

It also fits in perfectly with the Harvard Business Review Article, "The One Number You Need To Grow". Which you can -and should- read, right here: http://hbr.org/2003/12/the-one-number-you-need-to-grow/ar/1

Gooogle is still the only company whose name is synonymous with the verb search
Photo: Mauricio Alejo

The story of Google's algorithm begins with PageRank, the system invented in 1997 by cofounder Larry Page while he was a grad student at Stanford. Page's now legendary insight was to rate pages based on the number and importance of links that pointed to them - to use the collective intelligence of the Web itself to determine which sites were most relevant. It was a simple and powerful concept, and - as Google quickly became the most successful search engine on the Web - Page and cofounder Sergey Brin credited PageRank as their company's fundamental innovation.

But that wasn't the whole story. "People hold on to PageRank because it's recognizable," Manber says. "But there were many other things that improved the relevancy." These involve the exploitation of certain signals, contextual clues that help the search engine rank the millions of possible results to any query, ensuring that the most useful ones float to the top.

Web search is a multipart process. First, Google crawls the Web to collect the contents of every accessible site. This data is broken down into an index (organized by word, just like the index of a textbook), a way of finding any page based on its content. Every time a user types a query, the index is combed for relevant pages, returning a list that commonly numbers in the hundreds of thousands, or millions. The trickiest part, though, is the ranking process - determining which of those pages belong at the top of the list.

Read the rest of the article to understand the awesomeness of Google.

Kasparov himself reminded me of the match in an article he published in the February 11 issue of the New York Review of Books . It's ostensibly a review of the book Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind , by Diego Rasskin-Gutman, but much more interesting for me were Kasparov's insights on the interplay between people and computers around the game of chess. He's a formidably intelligent person (duh) who has thought deeply about the implications of the computerization of his profession. He's also a fine writer, so the piece is a delight to read. And it contains lessons for playing the game of business better.

Here's what the article boils down to:

I didn't think that smart process design - in this case, a process for determining the "best" chess move - could overcome both cognitive and computational deficits. But it did, even in this domain where brains and calculations would appear to be the only things that matter. As Kasparov writes of this amazing result, "Weak human machine better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human machine inferior process." I think that's my new motto.

Also mentioned in the article, and definitely worth learning about, is the Moravec's paradox .

Feb 17, 2010 -

Facebook is known for its uniformity.  You can post all sorts of content, but the actual design and layout of your profile is the same as everyone else's.

But with Facebook Fan Pages and the array of apps you can plug into them, there are a few ways you can customize what people see when they land on your Page.

You've probably seen custom Fan Pages like those of Techipedia article on the subject.

In an age of open source, custom-fabricated, DIY product design, all you need to conquer the world is a brilliant idea.
Photo: Dan Winters

The door of a dry-cleaner-size storefront in an industrial park in Wareham, Massachusetts, an hour south of Boston, might not look like a portal to the future of American manufacturing, but it is. This is the headquarters of Local Motors, the first open source car company to reach production. Step inside and the office reveals itself as a mind-blowing example of the power of micro-factories.

In June, Local Motors will officially release the Rally Fighter, a $50,000 off-road (but street-legal) racer. The design was crowdsourced, as was the selection of mostly off-the-shelf components, and the final assembly will be done by the customers themselves in local assembly centers as part of a “build experience.” Several more designs are in the pipeline, and the company says it can take a new vehicle from sketch to market in 18 months, about the time it takes Detroit to change the specs on some door trim. Each design is released under a share-friendly Creative Commons license, and customers are encouraged to enhance the designs and produce their own components that they can sell to their peers.

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 |

Full Page | Next

Long but super-mega-awesome article from wired..

This year, we’ve seen four major trends take center stage. If you’ve missed them, you’re missing huge opportunities to improve your organization. As a leader, you need every edge you can get so I encourage you to explore these trends and figure out how you can take advantage of them. So in no particular order, here are trends you can't miss as a leader:

Trend #1: Social Media and Expanded Use of teh

Interwebz

Trend #2: Innovation Caused by the “More With Less” Dynamic

Trend #3: People Are Our Most Valuable Resource (cough, cough)

Trend #4: Letting Your People Do Their Jobs

The Trend is Your Friend

Stock market investors are familiar with the phrase “the trend is your friend.” Hopefully you, as a leader, are at the forefront of the aforementioned four trends. If you’re not, there’s still time to jump on them and do what you do best: lead your organizations to a better place.

- Mike Figliuolo at thoughtLEADERS, LLC

Click the link to read the details.. It's well worth the time..

Video: Cats versus dogs

THE world is divided into "dog people" and "cat people", each passionately believing that their preferred pet is superior. Until a decade ago, there was very little scientific evidence either camp could muster to support its claims. Then animal behaviourists became interested in dogs and unleashed a pack of ingenious experiments testing canine capabilities and cognition. Recently, researchers have started doing similar work with cats. Could it be time for that showdown?

There are obvious pitfalls in trying to use science to resolve this perennial dispute. Every pet-owner knows their furry family member is special - a unique being with its own talents and foibles. Yet scientific research tends to look at species as a whole and deals in averages and trends when attempting to quantify their characteristics. Then there is the thorny issue of comparing two very different animals. Some might argue that the whole venture is doomed to failure, but here at New Scientist we like a challenge. So we have pitted cats against dogs in 11 categories. It's a winner-take-all competition with "best in show" being awarded to the pet that prevails in the most categories. Let the fur fly...

Click the via link for the rest of the story.. (Spoiler, dogs win.. which is bullshit..)

We all need leaders in our lives: mentors, people to look up to, people that simply get it. Leaders inspire us, help us accomplish our dreams, and teach by example. Leaders make us better people and give us an ideal to strive for.

The measure of leadership is always influence; leaders have an amazing ability to influence our lives. Leaders lead wherever they go; they lead at work, at home, or wherever they happen to be.

So after that intro, it's easy to conclude that being a leader is not an easy task; it requires a collection of very important skills that have to be ingrained into your daily practice - your soul.

Below are the 7 Signs of a Leader. How many of these do you believe you have? More importantly perhaps, do you look up to someone today that doesn't have many of these traits? Are they really the person to look up to? The choices you make today and the people you surround yourself with will determine much of your path in life; choose wisely.

Vision

 

“It’s a terrible thing to see, and have no vision.” – Helen Keller

Leaders are visionaries; they know where they’re going, and their committed to bringing others along. They have a clear vision of what they want to accomplish and their vision is so compelling that it inspires others to participate in the fulfillment of the vision.

Discipline

 

“Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment.” – Jim Rohn

Leaders are disciplined individuals! They are the first partaker of what they preach and they exemplify unprecedented discipline, focus, and commitment in the achievement of their vision.

Emotional Strength

 

“He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city.” - Proverbs

Leaders are not easily shaken. Leaders anticipate challenges and are not derailed by obstacles. Leaders remain strong when things get tough; they don’t faint when adversity strikes.

Leaders have an amazing level of emotional strength.

 

Experience

 

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." – Jim Horning

Leaders have experience. In other words, they’ve been around the block a few times and they know where they’re going. Their experience has taught them how to get things done and they can differentiate between activity and accomplishment, between efficiency and effectiveness.

Leaders focus their efforts on the tasks that produce the greatest rewards.

Respect

“Respect is love in plain clothes.” – Frankie Byrne

Leaders are respected and trusted individuals. Leaders have earned the respect of their followers by becoming an “example.” They chart the course, follow their destiny, and inspire others in the process.

Leaders are respected because they earn respect. The second they demand respect is the second they are no longer a leader.

People Skills

 

Arguing with a fool proves there are two. - Doris M. Smith

Leaders have great people skills; they are friendly to the unfriendly, they know how to respond in every situation. Leaders do not engage in personal battles, they save their strength for the task at hand.

Leaders treat people with respect and dignity; they connect with others on a personal and emotional level.

Momentum and Timing

“If you're coasting, you're either losing momentum or else you're headed downhill.” – Joan Welsh

Finally, leaders know how to create momentum, and they know when to act. Nothing great is ever accomplished without momentum and timing.Leaders Develop Leaders

The test of a great leader is who they develop. A great leader will develop great followers; those followers will become great leaders.

It takes a leader to make a leader. A leader’s legacy is measured by succession. Are you a great leader?

Thank you for reading.

 

Written on 11/20/2009 by Mr. Self Development who is a motivational author that offers a practical guide to success and wealth; support him by visiting his blog at mrselfdevelopment.com. .

Photo Credit: I'll Never Grow Up

The Empire always strikes back. Every revolution inspires a counter-revolution. Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance didn't win independence overnight — and neither, it seems, will the www.

Microsoft is negotiating with News Corp to pay it to remove its content from Google's index. Uh-oh: the Empire — industrial-era business as usual — is striking back. Will the rebels be crushed?

Not a chance. Blocking Google is about as smart as eating a pound of plutonium. Here's why MicroFox is making a big mistake.

Substitution. The simplest flaw in the MicroFox's strategic logic? MicroFox is trying to create artificial scarcity instead of value. That might have worked in the 20th century, but in a hyperconnected world, creating artificial scarcity kills orthodox businesses dead. That's because though MicroFox can block Google, there's no way to block people from using Google to find stuff that doesn't suck. Artificial scarcity is usually a one-way ticket to oblivion, as people simply defect to better alternatives.

Network economics. Search engines live or die by network effects. Murdoch's challenge isn't "de-indexing" the stuff of the newspaper — but de-indexing all the viral and network effects that flow from newspapers. If MicroFox could remove all the tweets, links, and blog posts that flow from newspapers, their threat would begin to be credible. But they can't — and so the threat is limited in value.

Conflict. I spent a couple of days discussing MicroFox's move with investors, entrepreneuers, and media bigwigs. Many said: "a little competition in search? Isn't that great"? It would be — but this ain't competition. It's what I've termed conflict: the opposite of competition, or anti-competitive behaviour. MicroFox's goal isn't to offer a better alternative to consumers. It's explicitly, simply, to deny Google. It's what regulators call "exclusive dealing."

Unnovation. Isn't, I said to one notable investor, real competition about building a better search engine — not just cornering the market on content? That competition and conflict are so easily confused by those at the very pinnacle of the economy speaks volumes about why our economy's in a mess. The fundamental challenge of the 21st century is learning to make radically better stuff, because for the last several decades, most industries have been unnovating. MicroFox is just deal-making — not making a radically better search engine, or better news media. And for that simple reason, Google will always outcompete it.

Scarcity. As I point out in my recent IdeaCast, the challenge for newspapers is scarcity — real scarcity, not artificial. Can newspapers offer distinctive perspectives, rich with knowledge, expanded into topics, that make readers authentically better off? That's what scarce, distinctive news might look like.

Thick value. The real challenge for every industry today is learning to create thick value — value that makes society smarter, healthier, authentically better off. Yet, MicroFox, as ever, illustrates the shortcomings of 1.0 strategy perfectly. Murdoch's move is a page straight out of the thin value playbook: bluff, threaten, withhold. Yet, if Murdoch "wins," society is worse off. Readers lose, because choice in news is limited, and prices inevitably jacked up, without better news having been created.

At the end of the day, what MicroFox is missing is the big picture. The future of advantage is fair, not unfair.

Every Constructive Capitalist knows that Google's revolution wasn't just about search. It was about learning to not engage in unfair tactics like these. Google's far from perfect — but it strives to be less evil, less unfair, less, well, 20th century, than rivals. Its next great challenge? To get even more radically fair. Google's big flaw is that it hasn't kept exploding the boundaries of fairness in recent years, leaving its suppliers beggared. Today, Google must find radically innovative ways to share a portion of the thick value it has created with content guys, without the exclusive dealing that MicroFox uses. There's no reason that sharing value has to involve kickbacks and side deals.

What kind of publishers are likely to seek these sorts of exclusive deals? Those whose content isn't competitive on a level playing field to begin with. The same is true for search engines. That's classic adverse selection — uncompetitive players falling into each others' arms. And it's why this strategy is easily dominated.

Let me try and put it even more simply. FairTrade is turning food upside down through the power of a fair advantage. Who will create a FairTrade for media? That's every media player's next great challenge. MicroFox, still trapped in the confines of strategy 1.0, can't take it on. But somewhere out there is a Constructive Capitalist who will — and when they do, kiss big media goodbye.

Empires always strike back, but the Force is with the fair. It's awesomeness that gives you the power to, like Google, create real value. So how unfair is your business? Is the force with you?

* * *

NB — Here's some more basic econ for those who are interested:

How much will Bing will be willing to pay News Corp? The value of the advertising revenue that marginal traffic generates for Bing. But that value depends first on how valuable Bing ads are. If Bing ads were maximally relevant, no exclusive deal would need to be struck in the first place. The fee is an admission that ads aren't valuable enough to publishers alone. When Google's ads are valuable enough to offset the marginal gains from fees to publishers, exclusivity will fall apart. Conversely, Google will always be able to offer greater exclusivity fees than Microsoft, should it choose to do so.

People who read this also read:

* * *
Never miss a new post from your favorite blogger again with the HarvardBusiness.org Daily Alert email. The Alert delivers the latest blog posts from HarvardBusiness.org and HBR.org directly to your inbox every morning at 8:00 AM ET.