BEVERAGE SERVICE must include a thoughtful assortment of meads and bendy straws.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Bendy straws must be strong enough to be able to be used as blowguns.  ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT NOTE: Local paramedic aid may be required.

Read the rest, it’s great. -m

As a refresher, here’s some things that Google and other search engines can handle. The square brackets represent the search box into which the queries are typed, not part of the queries themselves.

[term]

[term -butnotthis]

[term1 OR term2]

["phrase term"]

[tem1 OR term2 -"but not this" site:dubinko.info filetype:html]

So what kind of semantic queries would be usefully expressed in a similar way, avoiding SPARQL and the like? For example, maybe [by:"Micah Dubinko"] could map to a document containing a triple like <this document> <dc:author> “Micah Dubinko”. What other kinds of graph queries are interesting, common, and simple to express like this? Comments welcome.

-m

But this really caught my eye, from Nalco, the manufacturer of the oil dispersant Corexit 9500 which is being used both in unprecedented quantities and depths in the Gulf. Here’s how they cleverly describe the ingredients of their product, an ingredient list they protect as a trade-secret:

1. One ingredient is used as a wetting agent in dry gelatin, beverage mixtures, and fruit juice drinks.
2. A second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo.
3. A third ingredient is found in a popular brand of baby bath liquid.
4. A fourth ingredient is found extensively in cosmetics and is also used as a surface-active agent and emulsifier for agents used in food contact.
5. A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for “soap scum” removal.
6. A sixth ingredient is used in hand creams and lotions, odorless paints and stain blockers.

That is one impressive bit of verbal agility, my complements to their staff writer(s). It would be a fun exercise some day to see what kinds of toxic sludge could be described in similar terms. But let’s see if we can figure out the exact ingredient list: here’s the MSDS for the substance. According to it Propylene Glycol is clearly one of the ingredients, as are “Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light” and “Organic sulfonic acid salt”. “Wetting agent” and “surface-acting” are both code words for a surfactant. A little knowledge of chemistry along with household product label reading might go a long way… Got insight? Add a comment here to describe what you find.

-m

6/10 Update: Nalco released the full ingredient list and cheat sheet:

The * footnote indicates, essentially, “contains propylene glycol”.

The ** footnote indicates that this chemical is found only in Corexit 9527, not the one most commonly used in the Deepwater Horizon cleanup.

“Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature…”

Hmm, Mr. Ebert doesn’t seem to be up on the concept of hypertext, which has manifold connections with cinema. See for instance the scholarly paper Cinematic Paradigms for Hypertext. In fact, making a hypertext or branching narrative requires even greater amounts of authorial skill.

But I’m still curious, what is the Rick Wakeman clause? From where did that term originate? -m

What if it spit out one dollar per hour? Would you pay exactly 24x as much for it then? Or one per week–would you pay 1/7th as much?

What if it’s hard to measure how much money comes out of it–maybe sometimes it emits a dollar, but sometimes you have to put one in. Then what? -m

• Easy start: blogger (299 posts in 24 months)
• Succumbing to the desire to roll your own (259 posts in 12 months)
• Realizing that rolling your own is too difficult: Pyblosxom (172 posts in 12 months)
• Moving to a mature platform you don’t need to worry about much: WordPress (500 posts in 42+ months)

-m

Note: I’m having trouble finding independent verification of this, other than what appears to be re-hashes of the superconductor.org article. If you have any additional proof or refutation, please post it in the comments.

This looks pretty significant. The AZ Supreme Court ruled that document metadata must be disclosed under existing public records law. This may start a chain reaction with other states following suit. With the movement toward open data including data.gov and the Federal Register, this fits in well. Quite often metadata including creation date and author and the like make for much better searching and faceting. -m

For years people have been pointing to Java as the model for how XML namespaces should work, so this proposal goes that direction. Either it will work, or else it will get people to finally shut up about the whole idea. :)

It’s heavily based on Tom Bradford’s Clean Namespaces proposal, which doesn’t have a living URL anymore but is available on archive.org.

-m

Attendees numbered about 35, and came from widely varying backgrounds from librarian to linguist to professor to student to CTO, though uniformly geeky. With SemTech this week, the timing was right, and the number of international attendees was impressive.

In community development, nothing gets completely decided just because a few people met. But progress happens. The first day was largely exploratory, but also covered plenary topics that nearly everyone was interested in. Namely:

• Finding, choosing, and knowing when to create vocabularies
• Mapping from one vocabulary to another
• RDBMS to RDF mapping

Much of the shared understanding of these discussions is captured on various wiki pages connected to the one at the top of this article.

For day 2, we split into smaller working groups with more focused topics. I sat in on a discussion of Common Tag (which still feels too complex to me, but does fulfill a richer use case than rel-tag). Next, some vocabulary design, planning a microformat (and eventual RDF vocab) to represent code documentation: classes, functions, parameters, and the like. Tantek Çelik espoused the “scientific method” of vocab design: would a separate group, in similar circumstances, come up with the same design? If the answer is ‘yes’, then you probably designed it right. The way to make that happen is to focus on the basics, keeping everything as simple as possible. If any important features are missed, you will find out quickly. The experience of getting the simple thing out the door will provide the education needed to make the more complicated follow-on version a success.

From the wrap-up: if you are designing a vocabulary, the most useful thing you can do is NOT to unleash a fully-formed proposal on the world, but rather to capture the discussion around it. What were the initial use cases? What are people currently doing? What design goals were explicitly left off the table, or deferred to a future verson, or immediately shot down? It’s better to capture multiple proposals, even if fragmentary, and let lots of people look them over and gravitate toward the best design.

Lastly, some cool things overheard:

“Relational databases? We call those ‘legacy’.”

“The socially-accepted schema is fairly consistent.”

“It’s just a map, it’s not the territory.”

-m

But I do question parts of his thesis. He (with tongue in cheek) posits the existence of another species of human, called Homo Logicus. Stepping on to an airplane, Homo Logicus turns left into the cockpit with a million buttons but ultimate control over every aspect of the plane. Regular Homo Sapiens, on the other hand, turn right and tuck themselves into a chair–no control but at least they can relax.

But if there was only one “species” of Homo Logicus, members (like me) would never experience usability issues in software created by fellow Logicians. But ordinary fax machines give me fits. The touch-screen copier at work instills dread in my heart. And the software I need to use to file expense reports–written by enterprise software geeks probably very similar to me–is a usability nightmare. Words fail me in expressing my disdain for this steaming heap of fail.

The book is sub-titled “Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy”, but one doesn’t have to look very far to find similar usability bugs in the low-tech world. Seth Godin, for example, likes to talk about different things in life that Just Don’t Work, along with reasons why. Some examples:

• airport cab stand (75 cabs, 75 people, and it takes an hour)
• “don’t operate heavy machinery” warning on dog’s prescription medicine
• excessive fine print on liability agreements–intentionally hard to read and figure out
• official “Vote for Pedro” shirts that look nothing like the ones in the movie
• more examples on the web site

If anything, I think Cooper’s work doesn’t go far enough. It is relatively short on good examples, stretching out only four examples over four chapters. If properly-designed software is so hard to come up with examples of, then there are bigger problems in play (that would need to be dealt with by something more manifesto than book).

The book now 5 years old. Perhaps it’s time for an update. Particularly in the world of web software, lots has happend in 5 years. Flickr. Gmail. Yahoo Pipes. Google Docs. Even SearchMonkey. Instead of focusing on pointing at crappy software, I’d like to see more emphasis on properly-done interfaces. More delving into nuance, and common factors behind why both high-tech and low-tech products miss the mark.

But maybe that’s just me. -m

[Two men in a satirical dialog] managed only to demonstrate that the mathematical limit of an infinite sequence of “doubting the certainty with which something doubted is known to be unknowable  when the ’something doubted’ is still a preceding statement ‘unknowability’ of something doubted,” that the limit of this process at infinity can only be equivalent to a statement of absolute certainty, even though phrased ans an infinite series of negations of certainty.

It’s not like the whole book is like this…far from it. But it is chock full of little gems.

-m

From the article, researchers used plastic as a permanent record of neutron movement and found that, indeed, neutrons are being produced, leaving tiny tracks behind.

Another recent article from Jeffrey Kooistra has more details of current research. Good stuff, and important if it works. Heck, it’s important if it doesn’t work, because that still expands what we know. -m

Imagine if Earth’s gravitational field, instead of being a constant 1.0G, rocked back and forth between 0.99G and 1.01G at some fixed interval. That’d be perhaps not enough to feel, but enough to extract “free energy”. Arrange a heavy weight on a wheel, and time it so that it moves downward (doing work) during the heavier phase and returns to the top during the lighter phase. You’d have more than perpetual motion, you would be able to extract real work out of the device on a continuous basis.

Steorn’s claims are similar, but with permanent magnets instead of gravity.

Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e. magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.

I get the feeling that they are being very, very careful about what they write. In particular, the word “efficiency” is very odd in this sentence. In my earlier example, it would sound unnatural to talk about the “efficiency of the gravitational interaction”. Unless one talks about the kinds of efficiency that go above 100%…. So let’s roll with it.

It is this variation of energy exchanged as a function of transaction time frame that lies at the heart of Orbo technology, and its ability to contravene the principle of the conservation of energy. Why? Conservation of energy requires that the total energy exchanged using interactions are invariant in time. This principle of time invariance is enshrined in Noether’s Theorem.

So some hitherto unknown process temporarily nudges a magnetic interaction in one direction, only for it to bounce back in the opposite direction, like in the gravity example. Get the timing right and presto, free energy. I don’t understand why they are so cavalier about “contravening” the principle of conservation of energy though. It seems to me that more observations would be in order. As in “the device produced 100 watts for 6 months straight, with no input power sources”–which could be true in various ways that don’t contravene conservation of energy. It’s almost as if they are deliberately being provocative in their statements. Go figure. -m