Obey the Almighty Library Laws
January 23, 2017
Recently I was speaking with someone and the conversation turned to libraries. I complimented the library’s collection in his hometown and he asked, “You mean they still have a library?” This response told me a couple things: one, that this person was not a reader and two, did not know the value of a library. The Lucidea blog discussed how “Do The Original 5 Laws Of Library Science Hold Up In A Digital World?” and apparently they still do.
S.R. Ranganathan wrote five principles of library science before computers dominated information and research in 1931. The post examines how the laws are still relevant. The first law states that books are meant to be used, meaning that information is meant to be used and shared. The biggest point of this rule is accessibility, which is extremely relevant. The second laws states, “Every reader his/her book,” meaning that libraries serve diverse groups and deliver non-biased services. That still fits considering the expansion of the knowledge dissemination and how many people access it.
The third law is also still important:
Dr. Ranganathan believed that a library system must devise and offer many methods to “ensure that each item finds its appropriate reader”. The third law, “every book his/her reader,” can be interpreted to mean that every knowledge resource is useful to an individual or individuals, no matter how specialized and no matter how small the audience may be. Library science was, and arguably still is, at the forefront of using computers to make information accessible.
The fourth law is “save time for the reader” and it refers to being able to find and access information quickly and easily. Search engines anyone? Finally, the fifth law states that “the library is a growing organism.” It is easy to interpret this law. As technology and information access changes, the library must constantly evolve to serve people and help them harness the information.
The wording is a little outdated, but the five laws are still important. However, we need to also consider how people have changed in regards to using the library as well.
Whitney Grace, January 23, 2017
Microsofts Researcher Feature Offers Shortcut to Finding Sources
January 23, 2017
The article titled Microsoft Launches Researcher and Editor in Word, Zoom in PowerPoint on VentureBeat discusses the pros and cons of the new features coming to Office products. Editor is basically a new and improved version of spellcheck that goes beyond typos to report back on wordiness, passive voice, and cliché usage. This is an exciting tool that might put a few proofreaders out of work, but it is hard to see any issues beyond that. The more controversial introduction by Microsoft is Researcher, and the article explains why,
Researcher… will give users a way to find and incorporate additional information from outside sources. This makes it easy to add a quote and even generate proper academic citations for use in papers. Explicit content won’t appear in search results, so you won’t accidentally import it into your work. And you won’t find yourself in some random Wikipedia rabbit hole, because the search for additional information happens in a panel on the right side of your Word document.
Researcher pulls information from the Bing Knowledge Graph to provide writers with relevant connections to their topics. The question is, will users rely on Researcher to fact-check for them, or will they make sure that the suggested source material is appropriate and substantiated? In spite of the lessons of the Republic National Convention, plagiarism can get you into big trouble (in a college classroom, anyway.) It is easy to see student users failing to properly cite or quote the suggested information, unless Researcher also offers help in those activities as well. Is this a good thing, or is it another way to make our children dumber by enabling shortcuts?
Chelsea Kerwin, January 23, 2017
CREST Includes Additional Documents
January 22, 2017
Short honk: The CIA has responded to a Freedom of Information Act request and posted additional documents. These are searchable via the CREST system. The content is accessible at this link.
Stephen E Arnold, January 22, 2017
Yahoo Is Trying: Tusk Keep Trying
January 21, 2017
Beyond Search read a short but interesting “news” item with the interesting title “Yahoo Japan is Refusing to Stop the Sale of Ivory on Its Website.” Like other Internet news items, we believe everything we read online. Yahoo, according to the write up, is selling ivory. The write up points out:
“Even Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, has tried to stop the trade — but the business argues that so long as no laws are broken, people should be able to trade whatever it wants on the site.”
We love the “even.”
A Yahoo Japan person, quoted anonymously in the write up, allegedly says:
We want to provide an internet auction site where people can trade freely, and at this moment we have no intention of banning legal trading without any reason,” a spokesman for Yahoo Japan said. “We don’t believe the ivory sales contribute to a fall in elephant numbers.”
US Yahoo, I learned:
bans the sale of endangered animal products, says it can’t force Yahoo Japan to change. Mayer has not publicly addressed the issue, though she has let it be known that she has raised concerns internally.
The tireless warriorette, Marissa Mayer, “has met up dozens of times with Yahoo Japan on this issue.” Meeting up is easy because US Yahoo owns more than 35 percent of Yahoo Japan.
Well, Yahoo is trying, using the same management methods which may have contributed to the loss of users’ credentials. Trying. Yes, Ms. Mayer is trying.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2018
Elasticsearch: Security Assertions
January 20, 2017
I read “MongoDB Hackers Set Sights on ElasticSearch Servers with Widespread Ransomware Attacks.” According to the write up, more than 2,400 ElasticSearch services were “affected by ransomware in three days.”
“Attackers are finding open servers where there is no authentication at all. This can be done via a number of services and tools. Unfortunately, system admins and developers have been leaving these unauthenticated systems online for a while and attackers are just picking off the low hanging fruit right now.”
The write up explained:
ElasticSearch is a Java-based search engine, commonly used by enterprises for information cataloguing and data analysis.
What’s the remediation? One can pay the ransom. We suggest that Elastic cloud users read the documentation and implement the features appropriate for their use case.
Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2017
Where to Sell Cyber-Centric Software and Services
January 20, 2017
The Lost Angeles Times published “A Look at the 17 Agencies That Make Up the U.S. Intelligence Community.” My hunch is that the “real” journalists thought that the list would be “real” news. I scanned the information and noted:
- No useful urls were provided
- Where to track funding and new project announcements was not included
- Specific information about the objectives of each entity was omitted
- The sub entities associated with the principal intelligence entity; for example, Strategic Capabilities Office.
What is the list? Well, if a small outfit in Orange County wants to sell its products and services to the US government’s “intelligence’ entities, the list provides a starting point for research.
The article could have been become a useful way to stimulate outfits not participating in these agencies’ projects to get the ball rolling. The write up contains one useful thing—a list of agencies which blurs the role of the Department of Defense and omits some interesting entities:
Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Army Military Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of National Security Intelligence
Energy Department, Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Marine Corp Intelligence
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Office of Naval Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
State Department, Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Treasury Department, Office of Intelligence and Analysis
My hunch is that the “real” newspaper is revealing the vapidity of its editorial method. But, hey, I live in rural Kentucky and don’t understand the ways of the big city folks.
Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2017
Some Things Change, Others Do Not: Google and Content
January 20, 2017
After reading Search Engine Journal’s, “The Evolution Of Semantic Search And Why Content Is Still King” brings to mind how there RankBrain is changing the way Google ranks search relevancy. The article was written in 2014, but it stresses the importance of semantic search and SEO. With RankBrain, semantic search is more of a daily occurrence than something to strive for anymore.
RankBrain also demonstrates how far search technology has come in three years. When people search, they no longer want to fish out the keywords from their query; instead they enter an entire question and expect the search engine to understand.
This brings up the question: is content still king? Back in 2014, the answer was yes and the answer is a giant YES now. With RankBrain learning the context behind queries, well-written content is what will drive search engine ranking:
What it boils to is search engines and their complex algorithms are trying to recognize quality over fluff. Sure, search engine optimization will make you more visible, but content is what will keep people coming back for more. You can safely say content will become a company asset because a company’s primary goal is to give value to their audience.
The article ends with something about natural language and how people want their content to reflect it. The article does not provide anything new, but does restate the value of content over fluff. What will happen when computers learn how to create semantic content, however?
Whitney Grace, January 20, 2016
Google Popular Times Now in Real Time
January 20, 2017
Just a quick honk about a little Google feature called Popular Times. LifeHacker points out an improvement to the tool in, “Google Will Now Show You How Busy a Business Is in Real Time.” To help users determine the most efficient time to shop or dine, the feature already provided a general assessment of businesses’ busiest times. Now, though, it bases that information on real-time metrics. Writer Thorin Klosowski specifies:
The real time data is rolling out starting today. You’ll see that it’s active if you see a ‘Live’ box next to the popular times when you search for a business. The data is based on location data and search terms, so it’s not perfect, but will at least give you a decent idea of whether or not you’ll easily find a place to sit at a bar or how packed a store might be. Alongside the real-time data comes some other info, including how long people stay at a location on average and hours by department, which is handy when a department like a pharmacy or deli close earlier the rest of a store.
Just one more way Google tries to make life a little easier for its users. That using it provides Google with even more free, valuable data is just a side effect, I’m sure.
Cynthia Murrell, January 20, 2017
Facebook and Google: The M Word Is Not Enough. The C Word Arises.
January 19, 2017
I believe everything I read on the Internet. I am so superficial. Perhaps I am the most superficial person living in rural Kentucky. The write up “The Google-Facebook Online Ad Cartel is the Biggest Competition Problem” seems to be the work of a person who specializes in future Internet competition. He has worked for presidents and written op eds for “real” journalistic outfits. I am convinced… almost.
The main point of the write up is that Facebook and Google operate as a cartel. I highlighted this statement:
Google commands ~90% market share of mobile search and search advertising. It protects those monopolies with an anti-competitive moat around Alphabet-Google by cross-subsidizing the global offering over 200 expensive-to-create, products and services for free, i.e. dramatically below Google’s total costs. Those many expensive subsidized products and services make Google’s moat competitively impregnable, because no competitor could afford to recreate them without a highly profitable online ad business, and the Goobook ad cartel forecloses that very competitive possibility.
The statement echoes Chaos Monkeys, the tell all about the high flying world of Silicon Valley.
I also noted:
In early 2013, Facebook launched its alternative to Google search, called “Facebook Graph Search” in partnership with Microsoft’s Bing search engine. Then in 2014, Google and Facebook obviously, abruptly, and relatively quietly, chose to no longer directly compete with one another. In the first half of 2014, Google reversed course in social, defunding Google+, ending its forced integration, and announcing the shutdown of Orkut, Google’s 300 million user social network. In the second half of 2014, Facebook quietly dropped its Facebook Graph Search alternative to Google search and its search partnership with Microsoft’s Bing.
One consequence is:
Goobook’s customers – advertisers — pay higher ad prices and have less cohesive and effective ad campaigns under the Goobook ad cartel than they would have if Google and Facebook continued to compete. No material competition to keep them honest, also means Google and Facebook can avoid third party accountability for the core advertising activity metrics that they use to charge for their ad services.
The net net is that US laws and policies:
favors free-content models over paid content models, ultimately produces monopolies and monopolies colluding in cartel behaviors that are hostile to property rights. Monopsonies [sic] de facto forcing property owners to offer their property for sale at a wholesale price at zero, is anti-competitive and predatory. Free is not a price, it’s a subsidy or a loss.
No monopoly word. The cartel word is the moniker for these two esteemed outfits grouped under the neologism “Goobook.” WWTD? Oh, that means “What will Trump do?” Perhaps the Trump White House will retain the author as a policy adviser for cartels?
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2017
IBM Explains Buggy Whip to Control Corvettes
January 19, 2017
I love IBM. I enjoy the IBM Watson marketing. I get a kick out of the firm’s saga of declining quarterly revenue. Will IBM make it 19 quarters in a row? I am breathless.
I read “IBM’s Rometty Lays Out AI Considerations, Ethical Principals.” The main idea, as I understand it, is:
artificial intelligence should be used to advance and augment humans not replace them. Transparency of AI development is also necessary.
Since smart software is dependent upon numerical recipes, I am not sure that the many outfits involved in fiddling with procedures, systems, and methods are going to make clear what their wizards are doing. Furthermore, IBM, in my opinion, is a bit of a buggy whip outfit. The idea that a buggy whip can control a bright 18 year old monitoring a drone swarm relying on artificial intelligence to complete a mission. Maybe IBM will equip Watson with telepathy?
The write up explains:
Commonly referred to as artificial intelligence, this new generation of technology and the cognitive systems it helps power will soon touch every facet of work and life – with the potential to radically transform them for the better…As with every prior world-changing technology, this technology carries major implications. Many of the questions it raises are unanswerable today and will require time, research and open discussion to answer.
Okay. What’s DeepMind up to? What about those folks at Facebook, Baidu, Microsoft, MIT, and most of the upscale French universities doing? Are the insights of researchers in Beijing finding their way into the media channel?
Well, IBM is going to take action if the information in the “real” journalistic write up is on the money. Here’s what Big Blue is going to do in its continuing effort to become a plus for stakeholders:
- IBM’s systems will augment human intelligence. Sounds good but the direction of some smart software is to make it easy for humans to get a pizza. The digital divide delivers convenience to lots of folks and big paydays to those in the top tier who find a way to sell stuff. Alexa, I need paper towels.
- Transparency. Right, that’s a great idea, but how it plays out in the real world is going to be a bit hit and miss. Actually, more miss than hit. The big money folks want to move to “winner take all” plays. Amazon Alexa has partners. Amazon keeps some money as it continues it march to global digital Wal-Mart-ism.
- Skills. Yep, the smart software movers and shakers buy promising outfits. Even the allegedly independent folks in Montréal are finding Microsoft a pretty nifty place to work.
Perhaps the folks doing smart software will meet and agree on some rules. Better yet, the US government can legislate rules and then rely on the United Nations or NGOs to promulgate them. Wait. There is a better way. Why not use a Vulcan mind meld?
I understand the IBM has to take the high road, but when a drone swarm makes its own decisions, whipping the rule books may not have much effect. Love those MBA chestnuts like buggy whips.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2017
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
