Are there some things Google isn't telling us?

Here's a little something that's amusing but barely explicable about Google.


First I have to mention a couple of things about data modelling.  When dealing with data, an attribute tells you something about an object, such as its colour or date ordered.  In a dimensional data model, objects from the real world are set up with dimensions, which are essentially more structured versions of attributes, with multiple representations of each, such as day, month, date.  So in fact the terms are generally used in slightly different contexts.

Does that make enough sense?  Or can Mr Google find a way of explaining it more clearly?  Let's see:

So far, so good: it's anticipated my question.  But if you're a quick typist, you'll be most of the way there already.  At this point, Google somehow gets rather more... mysterious...

Dimension vs Alligator??

You may be asking, why not attribute at this point?  Someone discussed this recently in the back of New Scientist recently, in the context of predictive text on phones.  Inter alia, they noted that if you keep on typing, the algorithm figures the initial predictions are not what you wanted, and tries something... different...

Sadly, if you really wanted to know the difference between dimensions and alligators, Google goes all huffy, and compares alligators with crocodiles instead.  What are you hiding, Mr Google?

The immediacy of Twitter: for fools or strategists?

It's the age of instant gratification.  The faster it is to express yourself, the easier it is to make a fool of yourself on the public stage.

With the internet it's global, and with twitter it's more immediate than email, and just as hard to press the delete button.

Ah, the internet.  The scourge of the unmeasured thinker.

I'm thinking of Rupert Murdoch, of course, who apparently stumbled again with a tweet.

Much as I might long for him to get too comfortable over a glass or two and a rushed comment, I can't picture it happening. (Much.  Depending on whether you count his comment about Brits being too broke to justify taking holidays.)

But the question - again - is why?  What's behind Murdoch's sudden move to Twitter?

It took JP to point out to me that retweets and aggregation services will give Murdoch's voice a lot of weight.  This translates to Murdoch's utterances having a global influence - something that he's never been averse to.  In fact, he couldn't get enough of it.

And does he not want to have his hand in every communication channel going?  Especially if the cost is negligent.

A few early mis-tweets have only helped to publicise his channel.  What could be wrong with that?

Soaring voices: Eric Whitacre's virtual choir

If you felt you needed an antidote to any of the previous videos, Eric Whitacre is here to help.

This is yet another presentation from TED, an organisation responsible for a large number of inspiring talks on a magnificently diverse set of topics.

Whitacre is a composer who effectively fell into this impressive project: to assemble a massive virtual choir from  audition videos submitted to YouTube.  Generalising from the videos seen, a large number of mainly 15 to 25-year-olds from all over the world watched him conduct, listened to the music on their iPods, and sang to their webcam from the privacy of their bedrooms.

The competition was quite strong, aided no doubt by an offer of singing scholarships to the top performers.

The most resonant part of his talk for me was his description of hearing a choir singing Kyrie for the first time, after years of listening to pop music and aspiring to pop stardom.  He compared it to seeing in colour for the first time after a lifetime of living in black and white.

The two virtual choir projects underpin some seriously good choral composition, and Whitacre is definitely due credit for that, and for directing such a successful result.

I had a look for one of the winning soloists he mentioned, Melody Myers.  I found her on YouTube giving a rendition of White Christmas that clearly demonstrates she is a particularly accomplished singer.  Enjoy this, and seek out that.

The (temporary) collapse of spam - #7 for 2008

I'm not sure this can be counted as being of equal substance with other issues in this series. But it has been noticeable. The forced closure of a single US spam emitting enterprise has dramatically reduced the amount of email spam circulating - and the effects are still evident months later.

Spam is more than an annoyance, it is also a resource burner at a time we need to conserve resources. It's a surprise that the emission would turn out to be largely generated from one source. Possibility: they passed through the spammer community such an attractive offer of services that 80% of the business came their way. Another possibility: they offered massively bulked services to a relatively small bunch of miscreants. I cannot tell, but there were certainly several quite distinct lines of "service" that dried up. Most comprised offers of (Indian-sourced) pharmaceuticals that were either pirates of real medicines (I presume) or out and out snake oil. There seemed to be several separate variants on this. Another line that largely dried up purported to be Russian women offering themselves in the home of a better life overseas. That could well be a variant on the Nigerian scam though.

I should note that I have two email addresses. I don't know how each got infected - I'd sorely love to know about the second infection, since I was trying to keep it clear. Possibly I registered to a relatively legit website with lax security that allowed itself to be scraped for email addresses.

The first address dates back at least 10 years, and was mainly infected by poorly-grammared Nigerian scam offers. These died over time, replaced by a smattering of miscellaneous "offers". It attracts hardly any spam right now, so erstwhile spammers must have either not onsold my address, or the remnants were hooked to that US server.

On my main, newer email, they're mainly tempting me to click on a link. I don't know where they lead, since I don't know that my security protects me sufficiently from link-clicks. And there's only three a week now, effectively taken care of by SpamFighter, but quite frankly overwhelmed by the number of tech mailouts that I haven't bothered unsubscribing from. But at least I have that choice.



Update 13-Jan-09: The spam is back in volume. It took a matter of months to ramp up again. It's unclear whether it's one source that has finally found a new home, or whether it involves a distinct community of spammers which has collectively found a new home.