This Blog has Moved to NovaSpivack.com

NASA Makes Plans to Deflect Possible Asteroid Hit in 2036

This just in...

NASA has outlined what it could do, and in what time frame, in case a quarter-mile-wide asteroid named Apophis is on a course to slam into Earth in the year 2036. The timetable was released by the B612 Foundation, a group that is pressing NASA and other government agencies to do more to head off threats from near-Earth objects.

The plan runs like this: Eight years from now, if there's still a chance of a collision in 2036, NASA would start drawing up plans to put a probe on the space rock or in orbit around it in 2019. Measurements sent back from the probe would characterize Apophis' course to an accuracy of mere yards (meters) by the year 2020.

If those readings still could not rule out a strike in 2036, NASA would try to deflect the asteroid into a non-threatening course in the 2024-2028 time frame by firing an impactor at it — using this year's Deep Impact comet-blasting probe as a model. Experts would start planning for the "Son of Deep Impact" mission even before they knew whether or not it was needed.

Top 10 Sources Selects Minding the Planet

Top Ten Sources has selected Minding the Planet as one of the top 10 sites by "Thinkers of the Web."  Thanks!

Towards a World Wide Database (WWDB)

I believe the next big leap for the Web is what I am calling "The World Wide Database." The World Wide Database is a globally distributed network of data records that reside on millions of nodes around the network which collectively behaves as a giant virtual, decentralized database system. Google Base is an attempt to try to build such a database on a single node. But I don't think that approach will ultimately become the WWDB. At best it will be a huge data silo, or many silos in one place.

I think that for the WWDB to emerge it has to be distributed, just like the Web itself. Think about it. Would the Web have spread as it did in 1995-1996 if all Web sites had to be hosted on Yahoo? I don't think so. Not only would such a restriction have stifled innovation and competition, it simply would not have scaled. There is no way that today's Web could live on a single node! This means that Google Base -- whatever it intends to be -- is not a candidate for becoming the WWDB -- at least not if Google intends to host the whole thing. Ultimately what we are really going to need is a system that enables anyone to run their own node in the WWDB as easily as they can run their own Web server today.

I think there are several steps necessary to evolving the WWDB:

1. Level 1: The Document Web. This is sometimes called "Web 1.0." It is a Web of HTML formatted documents connected by hyperlinks. We have this already. The content on the Document Web is unstructured or semi-structured. It is mostly flat text and images.
2. Level 2: The Data Web.  This is a Web of structured data, defined and expressed in XML. XML does for content structure what HTML does for content formatting. OK, for the purists out there this analogy is simplistic, but I still think it's useful. The content on the Data Web is mostly structured data records of one form or another. The Data Web is one component of "Web 2.0" but not all of the story (Web 2.0 also includes other technologies and methods besides just XML). The Data Web makes it possible to publish and consume data on the Web, but it doesn't solve the problem of data interoperability. The data created on the Data Web is largely non-interoperable. Applications must be explicitly coded to work with each data schema.
3. Level 3: The Semantic Web. The Semantic Web -- what we might call "Web 3.0" -- takes the Data Web one step further by providing formal languages (RDF and OWL) for defining the semantics of data structures, mapping between them, publishing data records, and searching across them (using SPARQL, a new query language). The Semantic Web solves the problem of data interoperability by providing open standards for defining and integrating data schemas using formal ontologies. Ontologies may be used to define top-level schemas, and/or to map between lower-level schemas, making it possible to integrate data schemas at a meta-level.
4. Level 4: The World Wide Database. This is when it all comes together. The Semantic Web combined with the Data Web and the Document Web enables the Web to function as a vast, decentralized database. A core set of upper and mid-level ontologies define common concepts, data types and relationships. These ontologies in turn are used to map between thousands of lower level domain ontologies about specific subject areas. On the basis of this ontological fabric, all data is integrated and accessible. Applications can add records to this database at any node on the Web, it has no center. Agents roam autonomously within it, discovering knowledge, adding content, and making inferences and links. Search engines syndicate distributed queries across millions of nodes in order to scan billions of data records at once. Within this network, services aggregate, remix, and organize subsets of the data into virtual databases about various subjects such that the same data records can be referenced in multiple different applications and contexts.

The WWDB cannot function with the Data Web alone -- it requires the Semantic Web. Without the Semantic Web, the data on the Data Web is still siloed -- it cannot behave as a single database. By adding the Semantic Web layer to the Data Web we can dissolve these silos, making data and applications more interoperable. Only once this happens will it be possible to treat the entire Web as a single virtual database. Until we have the Semantic Web, the Data Web will continue to be a complex system of thousands or millions of databases at best.

I think Google Base is an attempt to create a large, centralized Data Web -- But even within Google Base itself, I see huge potential data interoperability obstacles and I wonder whether it will behave as a single database or millions of little database silos that don't work together. It doesn't seem to be a candidate for becoming the WWDB. But who knows, maybe Google will gradually embrace semantics over time (their statements in the past have been very opposed to the Semantic Web however).

For the WWDB to emerge, we need a more decentralized approach, and we probably also need a new kind of server for hosting WWDB nodes. In addition, we probably will also need a core ontology or set of core ontologies that everyone can start using for high-level data interoperability. It's very difficult (probably impossible, in fact) to come up with one ontology that covers everyone's perspectives and needs -- But I think we can do a pretty good job of coming up with a simple ontology that covers common concepts -- if we carefully restrict the domain and purpose of this ontology. According to my own research there are really only a few core concepts that we all need to share in order to achieve very high degrees of data interoperability for most of our data. Once we agree on these, branch ontologies can be developed by special interest groups for particular vertical domains of data, and mappings can be made from these to the common upper and middle ontology layers, as well as laterally to other alternative mappings within their own domains, and other vertical ontologies in other related domains. This is a fair amount of work and won't happen overnight. I think it will take place in both a top-down and bottom-up manner simultaneously. Gradually, islands will emerge and form bridges to one another. Meanwhile, here at Radar Networks we are working on this problem from several angles and hopefully in the future we will be able to make a useful contribution to the evolution of the WWDB.

Blogs on the Job -- New Stats

This study is interesting -- it seems to miss the point that many blogs are loaded with content that is actually USEFUL for work -- for example in-house blogs, blogs from competitors, blogs from industry pundits, blogs from software developers, blogs from users and customers ... and the list goes on. Simply reading blogs cannot be equated with "wasting time" -- in fact it could be very productive market research, product research, etc. The article also mentions that some companies are (insanely) filtering out content containing the word "blog" -- talk about shooting their workers in the foot (or the head)! But despite the simplistic bias of the analysis, the stats are quite interesting. Clearly blogging and blog-reading are a big part of many professionals' workday. And that's interesting to me, and others, who are interested in pushing the envelope of what a blog can be used for...

That co-worker staring, eyes scrunched up, at his computer monitor may look like he's sweating through another hard day's work. But he just might be one of the growing number of office jockeys who, according to new research, have their minds not on their jobs -- but on a blog.
Trade paper AdAge.com reported this week that US workers would waste the equivalent of 551,000 years during 2005 reading blogs, online web diaries and gossip sheets, which have exploded in numbers in recent years.

Around 35 million workers -- one in four of the labour force in the United States -- spend three-and-a-half hours, or nine percent of their working week on blogs, the survey found.

Blogs, which range in tone and quality from scandal sheets to semi-professional news sites to in-depth "geek" technology forums, are often seen as the ultimate expression of online freedom.

"Forget lunch breaks -- blog readers essentially take a daily 40 minute blog break," AdAge quipped, presenting its survey as a best-guess extrapolation based on blog related data.

The AdAge survey mirrors a poll conducted by America Online and Salary.com in July, which found that American workers were goofing off for two hours a day on the Internet, costing their employers 759 billion dollars a year.

But some blog and Internet experts argue that reading a blog in itself does not necessarily equate to wasted time -- and may replace time when workers could be idling away their boss's time doing something else.

"I think it is a little broad brush to turn around and say 'oh, they are reading blogs and it's a waste of time,'" said Steve Ferrer, head of sales and marketing firm The Propaganda House which specializes in the Internet, e-commerce and technology.

"If they weren't reading a blog they might be doing something else not necessarily productive either," said Ferrer, pointing out that some jobs require workers to use blogs and the Internet for research.

Lee Rainie, a researcher at the Pew Internet and American Life Project, said not all blogs were trashy journals -- many are now put out by reputable media firms, and used increasingly by corporations.

"It is not the case that a blog, is a blog, is a blog -- blogs run the spectrum from being ridiculous to the sublime," he said, but admitted : "the notion that some people might not be optimising their time is probably legitimate."

Pew earlier this year released research that suggested that eight million Americans have created blogs, while blog readership jumped 58 percent in 2004 and stood at 27 percent of Internet users.

The AdAge survey coincided with new reports that America's companies may be waking up to lost productivity as desk-bound workers surf the net.

 

My Definition of Web 2.0

There's been a lot of buzz about "Web 2.0" lately, but I still haven't seen a satisfying definition of just what Web 2.0 is.

Coming from the Semantic Web camp I tend to define Web 2.0 as "Web 3.0 - 1" instead of "Web 1.0 + 1" because I can clearly see what it lacks: namely semantics. But that's coming soon. Meanwhile, for now, what is Web 2.0?

I think that Web 2.0 combines several trends:

• AJAX: which is really just a design pattern for using existing technologies to make more dynamic Web user-interfaces, rather than a specific new technology in itself.
• Social software: software that facilitates more communication between people and groups, either via explicit relationship formation, or implicit realtionships via trackbacks, content syndication and collaborative filtering.
• User-created content: a new paradigm of online services in which the traditional content provider - content consumer dichotomy is flipped such that the consumers also function in the role of content providers.
• Open content APIs and "re-mixing" whereby services allow other services to repurpose and re-mix their content with other content, creating a global content commons.
• Dynamic content whereby services enable content to be edited after it is created by individuals (in the case of blogs), or by groups (in the case of wikis).
• Microcontent: individual chunks of content such as blog entries, data records, photos, bookmarks, etc., are the focus, instead of monolithic portals or publications.
• Syndication: Microcontent objects are easily syndicated via feeds into third-party outlets, and notifications are distributed directly to users who subscribe via RSS.

Global Institute for New Energy

This organization has some very cool projects studying exotic new energy devices. Check out their Projects page.

Do You Want a Link to Your Blog from Minding The Planet?

Hello readers! I am trying a little experiment to see who is reading this blog. Anyone who posts a link in their blog to the permalink of this blog entry will get a reciprocal link back to their blog from within the body of this blog entry. I'll search periodically for sites that link to this entry, and when I find new ones, I'll add links back to them from this entry.

Why am I doing this? I'd like to form a network of reciprocal links with the blogs of my readers.

As well as a way of saying "thank you" to my readers, this will also help me understand who is reading my blog, and will also enable my readers to discover each others' blogs. And it's a way for my readers to give me feedback about what they want to see more (or less) of on my blog: just put your comments for me in your post and I'll see them when I find your post.

Please note that this is NOT a chain letter, or anything like that -- This is just an easier way to manage the process of forming reciprocal link relationships with my readers. It's 1-to-1: You link to me and I link to you. In fact, it seems to be the only effective way to build a blogroll of my readership since just searching for sites that have linked to me in the past doesn't necessarily find lurkers who read but haven't linked explicitly. I want to see the blogs of my readers -- and I want my readers to know about each other's blogs. It would be cool if there was a more automated way of doing this (trackbacks are one way, in theory at least, but they don't always seem to work consistently  for everyone).

[Also: I do reserve the right to not link back to blogs with content that I don't endorse (such as adult content, junk advertising and spam, etc.). It will probably take at least several days before I start adding the first links here, so be patient. I have to wait for your links to get indexed in Technorati so that I can find them (and make sure you have added your blog to Technorati so that they and I find your post)]

Of the pages that Technorati reports are linking to me, here are the sites that have linked directly to this article so far:

1. Philosophy, et cetera (Good idea: replicating this concept on your own blog)
2. Notes from a Mind
3. Silverstripe Blog
4. Mediatope (Thanks for the feedback)
5. Lost Boy (a semantic web guy!)
6. The Burden of Proof
7. Kiss the Sun and Walk on Air (thanks for the suggestion: I've now made my RSS feed full-text)
8. Diarizing
9. Agylen
10. The Unreasonable Man (I enjoy reading this blog)
11. Elements of Life
12. randomselections
13. Semantic Bits (Hi Ina!)
14. Anarchaia
15. flying aqua badger
16. 1000 Flowers Bloom
17. Myke's Weblog
18. Near Walden  (I used to swim at Walden Pond as a child)
19. Numerabile (Ciao, Italia!)
20. Better Communication Results (Hi Lee!)
21. 4Nonprofits.org (nice to meet you!)
22. Stacy Sez (Thanks for the positive review, Stacy)
23. infOpinions?::Public Relations
24 The Second Mouse Gets the Cheese
25. Valentin's Blog
26. Double Loop
27. Graffiti Neuronal
28. Corportate Blogging
29. Greek Complexity
30. Alex Rarus
31. double loop
32. Opposable Mind
33. Linguify
34. Consciousness Cafe
35. Transformation Economy

Using DNA to Send Messages into the Distant Future

This article discusses recent research into encoding short 100 word messages into the DNA of living organisms. The error-correcting characteristics of DNA enable such messages to be passed down without degrading across generations. By embedding short messages into hardy organisms such as particular strains of bacteria, it may be possible to preserve information over longer timeframes than by using any other known storage media. This in turn can be used to intentionally send messages into the far future. I blogged about this over a year ago, here, where I suggested that because this is possible, we might want to look to see whether any such messages are already there in our own DNA or that of particularly hardy organisms. Perhaps someone put their signature there for us to see a long long time ago? Perhaps the best way to create a time capsule that can last for thousands or millions of years would be to embed messages across the DNA of a bunch of different organisms in different ecoological niches, to ensure that at least some would get through to the future. Certainly a few strains of bacteria should be included, as well as perhaps cockroaches, some types of fish, some plants, and perhaps even some volunteer humans. Since the message has to be pretty short, I would suggest that we use it to indicate the location of one or more hidden storage locations on the planet (or on the moon?) where larger volumes of information, technology, DNA libraries, etc., could be located. I view this as a kind of global "backup strategy" not unlike backing up a hard-disk. I once had some thoughts about doing this using special satellites as well, which you can read about here.

The Problem with Google Base and Ning

There is a hidden problem with open databases such as Google Base and Ning -- as presently designed -- a problem that I have not seen any discussion of yet.

Briefly stated: As the number of unique data schemas created in such systems grows, the probability of applications that use those schemas breaking also grows (perhaps exponentially).

Here's why:

Let's say that Sue creates a new schema in Ning (or Google Base) for a "Person." They make an app that uses this record structure. Now Joe makes a calendar app that takes Sue's Person record and connects it with his own unique "Event" record schema. Joe's app relies on Sue's Person schema to work. Next, Bob makes a To-Do list app that uses Joe's Event schema and Sue's Person Schema and pumps out "To-Do-Entry" records. Finally, Lisa creates a Project manager app that uses Sue's Person schema, Joe's Event schema, and Bob's To-Do-Entry schema, to pump out "Project" records.

So we have a network of apps that rely on data schemas from other apps. Next, let's say that Sue decides to change one of the attribute-value pairs in her Person schema -- perhaps changing it to map to a string instead of an integer value. That 1 simple change has huge ripple effects. First it causes Joe's app to break, which then causes Bob's app to break, which causes Lisa's app to break, etc. In other words, we have a chain reaction of broken apps.

As the number of unique schemas increases, the likelihood that a given schema will be modified in a given time frame also increases. At the extreme end of this curve, with large numbers of users, schemas and apps, the likelihood approaches 100% that at any given time some schema that is directly or indirectly required by a given app will have changed, causing that app to break. So in other words if such services are successful, apps within them will break ever more frequently, causing endless problems for developers.

The only solution from a developer perspective is either to submit to constantly fixing your apps as they break, or to simply not make use of data produced by other apps on the platform. In the latter case, developers can protect their apps from breaking by simply "reinventing the wheel" and creating their own schemas for every data structure they wish to use, but the tradeoff is that they then will not be making use of existing content from other apps. The problem with this choice is that, at least in the case of Ning, "re-mixing" of data between apps is the very value proposition of using such a system. Without this capability why even use such a system instead of running your own database on your own server? So clearly neither pole of this tradeoff is optimal from a developer standpoint.,

Systems such as Google Base and Ning present an N-squared integration challenge to developers. Every app has to be potentially continually re-integrated with up to every other app in the worst case. But even in the best case, they present unworkable challenges to developers because every app may have to be continually re-integrated with at least a few other apps.

This is the very problem that the Semantic Web was created to solve. The Semantic Web provides tools for data schema integration and interoperability. The base value of RDF and OWL is that they provide a means to define, publish and map between data schemas in an open way. So for example, application creators can map their unique schemas to centrally agreed upon ontologies enabling the best of both worlds: individual developer freedom and global standards.

Of course using ontologies isn't a magic bullet -- it simply pushes the problem to a higher level. If the ontologies are changed, then any apps that rely on them may break. But at least everyone can integrate their apps with one single ontology (or a few) instead of potentially millions of disparate schemas. From a developer standpoint this is a far more manageable problem.

You can read more about my thoughts on the evolution of a World Wide Database (WWDB) here.

Tech Web 2.0 People -- Monthly Meetup in SF Starting

I had lunch with Chris Law and Paul Martino at the Web 2.0 conference earlier this month and we hatched an idea to start a monthly get-together for Web 2.0 tech startup people in San Francisco. We love the concept of the Techcrunch barbecues -- but they are all the way out in the Valley, which is too far away for those of us in SF to attend regularly. We need something like that here in SF for the strong and growing community of tech entrepreneurs and developers that is re-emerging the city. So we're going to start it and see who shows up. Hope to see you there!

You can get the details on Zvents

Until Zvents gets RSVP functionality you can RSVP  on this wiki..

The World Wide Database -- Google Base Thoughts

I am playing around with the barely functional live beta of Google Base that just launched. There's not much there, but what I do see is interesting. At the very least this is going to be serious competition for Ning. Beyond that it may compete with Craigslist and other classifieds and events listing services. It's an interesting first step.

But I also see several potential major problems with the approach that Google Base  is taking -- in particular there does not seem to be any notion of real semantics under the hood. Is the data at least available as RDF? But even if it is -- how will it be integrated as everyone starts creating their own types? From what I can see, without data type standards, Google Base is likely to develop into billions of non-integrated data record types -- an unuseable "data soup." Searching across these non-normalized records will be next to impossible without an ontology or some form of higher-level data integration. I wonder if the folks at Google have thought this through? At my own startup, Radar Networks, we've spent several years exploring these issues in our own work and in our DARPA work -- all of which is centered around making use of richer semantics in applications. And we've built a working system that makes this much more practical. 

We believe that "the world wide database" requires the Semantic Web as its key enabling infrastructure. The technologies of the Semantic Web (RDF/OWL principally, and perhaps XML Topic Maps as well) enable a truly interoperable, open data exchange layer. From what I can see neither Ning nor Google see this, but they are interesting first steps at least. If anyone from Google or Yahoo is reading this, I would be interested in speaking further with you.

Update: Google has taken Google Base offline for a while it seems.  

20% of Your Genes Belong to Them

From Boing Boing today:

Xeni Jardin: A report in this week's issue of Science says 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States:

The study (...) is the first time that a detailed map has been created to match patents to specific physical locations on the human genome. Researchers can patent genes because they are potentially valuable research tools, useful in diagnostic tests or to discover and produce new drugs.

"It might come as a surprise to many people that in the U.S. patent system human DNA is treated like other natural chemical products," said Fiona Murray, a business and science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and a co-author of the study.

I have long felt that patents should not be granted on naturally occuring phenomena -- such as the DNA of any species. It is simply absurd to grant a patent on something that has existed in the public domain for millions or even billions of years! It's simply an absurd abuse of the legal system, for the benefit of corporate greed, in my opinion. I do believe that patents should be granted for new inventions (although I think all patent rights should expire much faster than they presently do -- which would solve many of the problems in the patent world) -- but it is simply wrong to allow patents on naturally occuring physical phenomena. Discoveries are not inventions.

New Russian Stealth Fighter Uses Plasma Shield

The Russian air force has invented a next-generation stealth technology based on surrounding the aircraft with a plasma shield that completely disperses radar waves. This technology offers significant benefits over existing stealth technology and also enables higher-performance aircraft since the shape no longer has to be altered to achieve stealth.

TV2Me -- "Space-Shifting" of Local TV Broadcasts

My friend Ken Schaffer's startup, TV2Me, is starting to really push the envelope on video streaming. Their box enables you to stream your own cable, satellite or terrestrial TV signal to your laptop or cell phone or PC, no matter where you are, with incredible fidelity. You hook up their component to your cable box at home and then you can login to your signal over the Net from anywhere. On the receiving end (for example on your laptop) you just install the TV2Me signal processing plugin for your browser and you can start watching full-screen live TV, streamed from your house, with the ability to change channels instantly, etc -- as if you were operating your TV from your home remote. It's possibly one of the best streaming technologies I've seen. I've used their private demo and it's amazing to watch live TV from cities all around the world on my laptop, even over a wireless router when on the road. We're not talking postage stamp sized streaming here, folks -- this is full screen and very crisp. And the buffer time is incredibly short as well -- it starts up almost immediately.

From what I can see their technology is way more advanced than the Slingbox. Not only that but the TV2Me box has the potential to be miniaturized and made even cheaper than the Slingbox. All in all this is a hot technology to watch. I could see this being built-into every cable box in the future as an additional service that cable box providers could sell to their customers. But there are many other uses of this as well -- for example keeping up with home news and sports when on the road, or for always catching those crucial HBO series episodes you just can't stand to miss. So many people spend so much time on the road for work -- TV2Me is a nice way to bring a little bit of your home with you wherever you go.

Here's their latest press release:

Amber Daily
[email protected]

The World's Longest TV Show?

It wasn’t quite the level of Lucky Lindy's 1927 flight from Roosevelt Field to Le Bourget, but it was another trans-Atlantic first: On Sunday,
16 October, on El Al flight 01, non-stop from Tel Aviv to New York, private passenger Avner Teller, acting on his own initiative, watched live hometown Tel Aviv TV all the way to Kennedy.

Television reception from Tel Aviv was made possible by TV2Me®, an extraordinary system that allows viewers to "space shift" any city's full range of cable or satellite television stations anywhere on — or off — the earth.

My friend Tristan Louis has started a week of posts about metrics for the blogosphere and Web 2.0.

Readers of this site have noticed a recent focus on trying to get some rough numbers and some types of metrics around the blogopshere. Those are part of my trying to figure out whether Web 2.0 is a bubble or whether it is really different from web 1.0. To that extent, I've been working on a series of entries relating to metrics in the blogosphere and web 2.0 world. I'm sure that many of the statements I will be making over the course of the next week will be controversial but I expect to stir up discussion of what Web 2.0 means in terms of real numbers.

The series is going to be broken down into five main chapters. Today, I'm going to go over the basics of measurement and who needs them. Day 2 will be about hard metrics (aka. the measurable ones.) Day 3 will delve into soft metrics (ie. the ones that are harder to measure.) On day 4, I will try to weight all those values out in order to get some types of basic formulas for measuring web 2.0 performance. An finally, on day 5, I will review what I expect to be a fair amount of commentary being made in the blogosphere about the previous four entries.

The Future of the Web is Semantic

Here is a good article from IBM that provides decent, not-overly-technical, overview of the technologies that make up the Semantic Web, and the value they offer.

Strange But True -- Low Frequency Audio as a Social Instrument

This is really fascinating:

Scientists used to consider the frequency band of 500 hertz and below in the human voice as meaningless noise, because when a voice is filtered, removing all higher frequencies, ne hears nothing but a low-pitched hum. All words are lost. But then it was found that this low hum is an unconscious social instrument. It is different for each person, but in the course of a conversation people tend to converge. They settle on a single hum, and it is always the lower status person who does the adjusting. This was first demonstrated in an analysis of the Larry King Live television show. The host, Larry King, would adjust his timbre to that of high-ranking guests, like Mike Wallace or Elizabeth Taylor. Low-ranking guests, on the other hand, would adjust their timbre to that of King. The clearest adjustment to King's voice, indicating lack of confidence, came from former Vice President Dan Quayle.

The same spectral analysis has been applied to televised debates between U.S. presidential candidates. In all eight elections between 1960 and 2000 the popular vote matched the voice analysis: the majority of people voted for the candidate who held his own timbre rather than the one who adjusted.

From this site.

The Spherical Desktop

I've been thinking a bit about how the GUI for computer desktops could be improved so that it is possible to have more information available without cluttering the screen with windows and folders etc.

One approach that is kind of interesting is to think of the desktop as a sphere instead of a plane. You can zoom in or out from the sphere by holding down the shift key and dragging up or down. When you zoom in sufficiently it's flat, just like standing on Earth. So for example, to read or write a document, just zoom in until it is flat enough to work in. Or if you want to look at several documents at once, just zoom out until they are all visible. If you zoom out all the way you see the entire sphere from an orbital position.

On the surface of the sphere you can place windows, folders, files, apps, etc. You can put them wherever you want, even on top of one another if you like, just like the windowing systems we're used to presently. You can also lay them out in groups or clusters of related windows, like continents separated by bodies of water on the surface of the globe.

One reason for using a sphere as an interface for storing our "desktops" is that a sphere provides more space while still being topologically equivalent to a plane. We are all quite familiar with thinking in planar terms about the locations of things -- for instance, the locations of buildings or parks in a city, or geographic places on the globe. This is a natural, intuitive skill we all have by virtue of the fact that we are living on the surface of a globe. Note however, that this only applies to 2D spatial geographic reasoning, not to 3D geographic reasoning. When it comes to organizing things in three dimensions, we easily get disoriented (at least without something akin to gravity to provide a constant sense of up and down). This is one reason why I think that previous attempts to organize people's "desktops" in 3D virtual spaces have always been a bit difficult to use -- we just don't really think or navigate well in 3D, we are planar beings (presently; perhaps in some future era when humans live in space this could change).

A spherical desktop has other advantages -- for example it's easier to navigate. You can turn the sphere by moving your mouse to any edge of the screen, which starts it turning in the opposite direction (so you sort of fly over the surface in the direction of the mouse). The velocity of your gesture controls the speed at which it turns. You can also stop the sphere from turning by clicking anywhere as it turns. Wherever you click becomes the center of the screen. If you double-click the zoom level jumps in to the close-up, flat-view of whatever you double-clicked on. If you double-click again, it zooms back out to a "high-altitude" view.

Here's another nice feature. If you run out of space on the surface because you've covered it with windows and other things, simply control-click anywhere and it starts to inflate the sphere to add more space. So for example, if you want to place a window between two windows, rather than moving those windows, just inflate the sphere to create more space between them, and then put your new window in there. It should also be possible to "group items" such that they stick together even when the sphere is inflated -- so for example, when the sphere is inflated additional space is not added between grouped windows: they retain constant distances between one another on the new larger sphere. Similarly, you can deflate the sphere to reduce space between items if you want to bring things back together (and likewise, grouped items would not get closer to each other when the sphere loses surface area during deflation). It should also be possible to inflate or deflate any set of windows on the sphere -- which is different than inflating or deflating the sphere itself; this ability is useful for example to reduce the size of many windows at once. It could also be possible to toggle one or more windows between minimized and maximized rectangle states (in other words toggling between different preset levels of window deflation or inflation). The abilities to inflate and deflate the entire sphere, or sets of windows, and to group and ungroup items on the sphere, provide the basic tools for organizing and re-organizing the speherical desktop. For added convenience there could also be a spherical "clean up" routine, akin to what we presently have on some desktop windowing environments, that seeks to neaten up the placement of items on the surface of the sphere according to various alternative rules.

But this is just the beginning. The spherical desktop could be improved by a number of further navigational elements. It may also enable a new way to browse the Web and manage histories. Below I delve into these ideas in a little more detail.

Just saw Serenity

I just saw Serenity. A very fun, cool, swashbuckling sci-fi adventure with great special effects. It had a lot of Star Wars moments, some Blade Runner, plust a bit of The Day After Tomorrow. I highly recommend it. A good time was had by all.

Spielberg Invents New Movie Technology

Steven Spielberg has applied for a patent on a new cinema technology which he claims will bring viewer right inside the movie.

  "But in the future, you will physically be inside the experience, which will surround you top, bottom, on all sides.

This sounds a bit like a larger version of the immersive movie-rides now common at amusement parks. Or is it something totally different? Could it be the Smell-O-Vision of our generation?

Blood Tests for Psychological Illnesses

A new blood test was just announced for quickly diagnosing anxiety. Next, the makers plan to release a blood test for diagnosing depression. This is an interesting new trend: blood tests for psychological illnesses. And it's just the tip of the iceberg. After the Genome, the mind is the next great frontier for medicine.

How to Keep Founders Involved Once Companies Grow

Fred Wilson has an intersting post about how to keep founders engaged in the companies they started after they step out of CEO roles. He says:

I'd like to find a formula (like the one Yahoo! has found) and bottle it.  Because I believe companies that can keep their founders engaged and motivated are so much better off than those that cannot.

I think the key to this is to understand the mentality of founders. We are people who choose to start things instead of join things that already exist. We thrive on invention and the opportunity to disrupt existing systems. We are evangelists and communicators -- we get the most satisfaction from being able to transmit our excitement to others. We are more motivated by the slight chance of huge upside than a guaranteed but limited win. We have no fear of personal financial risk -- perhaps even irrationally so -- we are eternal optimists and believe we will always prevail. We look to the future more than the present or the past. We are highly competitive and need to be in leadership roles but we hate beaurocracy and the inefficiencies of large organizations, which is why we start small ones. We are more interested in what hasn't been built yet, than what is already working. We strive to be successful, but not merely in financial terms -- acknowledgement for our ideas and creations from our peers is even more satisfying than making money.

Generally we are workaholics and we are comfortable wearing many hats -- and in fact we often wear our many hats better than specialists who only wear one hat. Rather than wait for others to things, we tend to just get them done ourselves -- a skill which is great for small companies but perhaps disruptive in large ones. We are generally not top-down managers and we don't like to treat others as non-equals -- another reason why we like startups where everyone is collaborating as a team.

What does all this mean? To me it means that VC's and companies that wish to keep their founders involved, after they are no longer in the CEO role, need to find ways that their founders can do what they do best for the company, rather than somewhere else. In other words, they have to give founders the ability to invent and incubate new business, or lines of business, for the company. They also have to make sure that founders never feel sidelined our overshadowed by the hired management teams that come in when companies start growing.

I believe that it is often a good thing to bring in professional CEO's -- for example, when companies get large enough in people and revenues to require managers with large-enterprise management skills. But it's also vital not to bring in hired leadership until the company is really large enough, and focused enough, to warrant it. If done to early, bringing outsiders in to run a company, can destroy the company's DNA rather than replicate it.

I think the formula for managing this transition successfully is:

• Only bring in outside CEO's to take over leadership when a company has grown up (or is about to) -- when it is large enough in people and revenues to need a new level of structure and management.
• Keep founders motivated by giving them the freedom to innovate and incubate new businesses within the framework of the existing venture.
• Utilize the founders as evangelists, keep them in the spotlight -- don't marginalize them internally or externally.
• VC's should make sure the founders have the last word, and veto power, in choosing the new leadership -- even if they technically don't have an equity majority in the company anymore. Additionally the choice of a new CEO should be carefully tailored to fit the personality of the founders. Some founders don't like to be in the spotlight, others do. It's important that the new CEO's ego is compatible with their egos, or lack thereof.
• Make sure the founders are made a part of the new leadership team so that they continue to feel a sense of ownership and control in their companies.
• Instead of the founders reporting to the new management team, it should be the reverse. The new management team should report to the founders (not on a day-to-level -- but perhaps on a quarterly level).
• The transition from leadership by the Founders to leadership by a new CEO and management team has to be handled carefully. Often there is a strong bond of loyalty between the Founders and key employees who were there from the early days. In order for key employees to accept the new leadership, and not see it as a negative sign, there has to be an unambiguous communication to key employees and staff about the benefits, and support of the Founders, of the change. If not managed well such transitions come across as "management shakeups" rather than positive developments for the business.
• Make sure the founders still have as great or greater opportunities for huge upside within the venture, as they might have by starting something new outside the venture.

I think companies that follow these principles make a successful transition to professional management while continuing to harness the tremendous energy, inspiration and initiative that their founders can provide. The best combination, in my opinon, is when the new CEO is less of a star and more of a manager. Founders usually provide the charisma and media savvy. What they need is someone who can build the structure and discipline to back them up.

I think the case of Google is a great example. Larry and Sergey get to be the guys in front of the cameras. Eric, who has always been a speak-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick guy, is the man making things run. They don't compete -- it's very complementary. In the case of Yahoo, it's a different arrangement. I rarely ever see the original Yahoo founders in print or elsewhere -- they seem to have vanished -- yet they are still there it turns out. In Yahoo -- which has become a media company -- it's Terry Semel who is the media star in the spotlight. It seems to be working, but clearly the personal goals of the Yahoo founders are quite different from the Google founders because they were willing to take more of a backseat role.

Who are the Clickers?

I have a question. Maybe it's just me, but I think I've almost never clicked on a Web banner ad or sidebar ad in the nearly 10 years that Web ads have been around. A short informal poll of my friends yields similar answers. Nobody I know clicks on Web ads. Never. Ever. Now maybe my sample is skewed because my friends are..well..my friends. But even so, I've even got ads running on my own damn blog and I've never looked at them or clicked on them. In fact, I don't even SEE Web ads anymore. My brain literally tunes them out. Like dirty dishes. Does yours? So who IS clicking all those ads? Google and Overture are making gigabucks, but how? This is one of those unexplained mysteries of the Twilight Zone of the Web. Where are the actual clicks coming from? Who are the Clickers? Has anyone actually witnessed someone click on a Web ad? It's kinda OO-EEEE-OO, isn't it? We're all building businesses that rely on clickstreams but we don't actually know anyone who clicks. I wonder if it's some obscure, unexpected, demographic?

This guy is funny

Ze Frank is funny. He reminds me of Jim Carey, before he got famous. Watch these and this one and these and these. He's also prolific. He's going to be a presenter at Pop Tech this year. I won't be there, but it looks like a great conference lineup. 

A Cool Thingy...

This is cool Click to see why.  I think this idea has great value for viral, meme-based Web advertising. Just imagine: Advertisers could release really cool animations to add to sites, and site owners could add them into their sites for entertainment or humor. The animations could run ads within them as well. It's fun. Everyone wins, everyone's happy. And of course users can aim these animations at any other site so visitors who like it can spread it to their own sites. Very smart!!! Very Web 2.0.

Update from the Web 2.0 Conference: THE WEB BIZ IS BACK!

I've been at the Web 2.0 Conference here in San Francisco this week. And it's been incredible. Not only is it completely mobbed, but the energy is just intense. There are so many new companies, so much VC interest, and it really feels like the Web industry has suddenly woken up from a 10-year slumber. In fact, it feels like 1995 all over again. There's a tangible sense that something Big and New is happening here -- that Web 2.0 is really changing the game -- and gaining momentum. And there are so many new funded startups here. But there is also a tangible difference between the Web business today and the biz in 1995: Today it's much more rational. People have learned from what worked and didn't work in the 90's. The startups are all run by experienced teams, and they've got a clear understanding of what they're doing. There's also a decade of case studies to draw on for how this business really works: the revenue models that actually work and how to implement them, the best-practices for funding, building and executing Web business models, and the relevant metrics for measuring progress and success. The entrepreneurs and the VCs are more seasoned now and there is a clear sense that everyone is really thinking carefully about every move. That said, there is also a growing excitement around AJAX, social apps, and the potential of Web 2.0 to enable a whole new generation of software and services. And my startup, Radar Networks, is sitting right in the sweet-spot of all this new activity and energy. It's a great time to be starting an Internet venture!