Imagine you're a financial analyst looking for data about an investment company. You've found a useful site on the Web, but it's starting to feel a bit stale. You'd like to move on, but you know that a search will take time and there's no guarantee that other sites will be any more useful. When should you abandon the dwindling supply? This, Pirolli and Card argue, is analogous to the problem faced by hunter-gatherers. And it can be solved in the same way.

The article (originally published in New Scientist) is a great read. This sort of research could have a significant impact on how we design information retrieval systems, although the authors note there are some limitations:

The analogy between food and information looks like being a big help to Web designers. But at some point, Pirolli says, it's likely to break down. For one thing, there's the question of evaluating costs and benefits. Biologists and anthropologists can always draw up an energy balance sheet for a foraging behaviour in joules. The value of information isn't so easy to measure.

2. How It All Ends - You've probably seen this guy before. If not, take some time to watch this video. It's slightly obnoxious (more so than his previous videos), but his arguments regarding global warming are very well-reasoned. If you really get into it, you can visit an enormous list of related videos in the 'More Info' box of the YouTube page.

3. Aboriginal archive offers new DRM - Short but intriguing article from the BBC (via John Hawks). It's difficult to overstate the importance of preserving the history and culture of indigenous groups, especially given that they are increasingly being subsumed by cultures around them and disappearing. Providing access to the information can be complicated by cultural rules, a lack of computer skills, and the like. For example, the archivist in the article encountered the following issue when displaying a slideshow of preserved photographs:

After loading them onto her laptop, she took them back to Tennant Creek and set up a slideshow - where she noticed that people turned away when certain images came up on screen.

For example, men cannot view women's rituals, and people from one community cannot view material from another without first seeking permission. Meanwhile images of the deceased cannot be viewed by their families.

These are issues we might not immediately think about. (I wonder how well some of our 'social software' might translate to other cultures.) The solution to this particular problem was to design a system that restricted access by requiring individuals to input name, age, sex, and standing within their community -- what the article describes as "a new take on DRM." Interesting stuff.

4. Did You Know - a video on globalization and the information age. Interesting, but long... and I'm not sure I trust their numbers. It would probably be better as a web page with proper citations.

5. Google to Host Terabytes of Open-Source Science Data

6. MIT Entrance Exam, 1869-70 - from the MIT Archives & Special Collections. Take the exam and see how well you do. You can also try your hand at the 1876 exam.

1. 35 Greatest Works of Reverse Graffiti

2. Remember 'go outside and play?' - As children, my siblings and I spent countless hours playing outside, unsupervised. In retrospect, there were many times when we could have been injured or gotten into some other serious trouble. Had my rather nervous mother really known what we were sometimes up to, she would never have let us go outside again. But luckily she did let us go out, and I can say those hours were perhaps the happiest in my life. From the editorial:

Reader, if you're much over 30, you probably remember what it used to be like for the typical American kid. Remember how there used to be this thing called "going out to play"?

For younger readers, I'll explain this archaic concept. It worked like this: The child or children in the house -- as long as they were over age 4 or so -- went to the door, opened it, and ... went outside. They braved the neighborhood pedophile just waiting to pounce, the rusty nails just waiting to be stepped on, the trees just waiting to be fallen out of, and they "played."

"Play," incidentally, is a mysterious activity children engage in when not compelled to spend every hour under adult supervision, taking soccer or piano lessons or practicing vocabulary words with computerized flashcards.

An article from the Daily Mail explores the trend over four generations and maps the decrease in roaming area. Having said all of this, I'm completely sure I would not let my own children wander very far unsupervised! I wouldn't even give them the same freedom I enjoyed as a child. So, have the risks really changed, or have our perceptions simply changed? Is it a little of both? This issue fascinates me.

3. The Critics Need a Reboot. The Internet Hasn't Led Us Into a New Dark Age - One perspective among many, but worth sharing (mainly because you don't encounter it very often).

4. Some E-Cards - 'For when you care enough to hit send':

5. On the Limits of Memory - another strange and lovely photo gallery from the wonderful Square America. Take some time to browse through the whole site. There are lots of gems, many quite hidden. (Definitely check out Square America and In The Booth.)

"But if God decides -- and it's always up to God to decide -- that rain of Biblical proportions would be a good and proper meteorological condition for that evening, we'll see it, and we'll say that it is good. And if He decides it's not really necessary, I'm OK with that. I'll still trust in His wisdom and I'll rest peacefully knowing that lots of us offered up a humble prayer request. Would it be so wrong if we asked people to pray for rain?"

No word from God (whom we can presume has better things to do), but it does look like Mother Nature has readied a statement on Republican policy and may upstage the convention. (It could be good, bad, or both for them.)

I really shouldn't approach this issue so facetiously, so let's be completely serious for a moment. It's eerie to look back at the post I made here right before Katrina hit. Like everyone else, I dearly hope Gustav ends up being far less destructive. If you're into praying about the weather, this is something you should pray about. By the way, the offer of a free place to stay still stands. And this time I'm in Austin, Texas - where we already have evacuees - so it's actually a reasonable offer: You are welcome to crash in my shoebox apartment for as long as you need.

(Someone call Neil Young and let him know we've found the leader he's been looking for. It even turned out to a "black man after all".)

2. Most of the traits I once appreciated in John McCain have disappeared during this election. Read (or better, listen to) a recent interview. I wonder if it occurred on the Straight Talk Express. Heh. I know candidates often feel they must practically sell their souls to win a presidential election, but come on... (And, yes, I've previously noted some of Obama's recent shifts, so please relax your e-mail trigger-finger.)

3. On to Sen. McCain's VP choice. Wow. I know VPs are often chosen to help win an election without any regard to what might happen after winning the election, but this was an incredibly transparent and downright poor choice. My first thoughts echoed this Salon article: McCain's Palin pick is the epitome of tokenism. Or this quote from the less sanctimonious McCain's Baked Alaska: "This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that a women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back." So if the McCain campaign calculated that they simply needed someone who was Sen. Clinton's 'gynecological twin,' as Samantha Bee hilariously put it, why not Condoleezza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchison or Carly Fiorina or Elizabeth Dole or Olympia Snowe? Over at electoral-vote.com, The Veep: A Short Play in One Act sums up how the process might've led to Palin. Funny. And Sad. Anyway. For a slew of other links, see Ghost In The Machine.

4. There are so many things I'd like to discuss with regard to Palin, but I should use my limited time to explore other topics. So let's just take one of my pet issues, creationism in public schools. Over at Thoughts from Kansas, Josh looks at the candidates' views. Palin, like Bush and McCain and plenty of reasonable but woefully scientifically-illiterate people, spouts "teach both" nonsense. Ugh. (Let's just teach our children a variety of creation myths and label everything 'science', then.) Obama tends to discuss the issue in a very thoughtful, diplomatic way, with wise conclusions like "I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry." Joe Biden comes through with the more acerbic remark (one that will certainly cost votes but tickles me nontheless): "This is reversible, man. This is reversible. We don't have to go down this road. I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!"
Malarkey, indeed, Joe. But I'm afraid the majority of people do believe it. Not only are Americans scientifically illiterate, but they are historically and politically illiterate (and, increasingly, 'just plain' illiterate). Most do not research issues or examine candidates' records and statements through non-partisan resources (such as FactCheck.org or OnTheIssues.org). I constantly receive anti-Obama e-mails from conservative family & friends that are downright false. And not just the wacky "He's a muslim terrorist" ones. The other day I got one full of tax numbers that looked reasonable enough at first glance but were completely false. If the last two elections (particularly 2004) are any indication, there's no reason to believe the majority of Americans voters won't be easily influenced by propaganda, vote from the gut, and fall for gimmicks like the Palin choice. If they do, they deserve what they get. Too bad the rest of us will be stuck with it, too.

5. Finally (to lighten the mood a bit), here's something to spice up next week's GOP convention: McCain Bingo. I wish it had more "My Friends" spaces but I suppose that would make it too easy. Also, if you think the "Get Out of Gaffe Free" card is unfair, consider the McCain campaign's response to the criticism over McCain's inability to specify how many houses he owned: "'This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison,' referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War." Oh, OK.

1. Jamie Livingston's Polaroid a Day - Jamie Livingston took a polaroid nearly every day for eighteen years. It's not so much that he took a photo every day -- many people these days take multiple photos each day -- but that he took a good photo almost every day. Or maybe it's just that there's something about a polaroid. I don't know. Anyway, take a look at this mental_floss article. The Wikipedia entry provides links to more information, too.

2. Lawrence Lessig on McCain on Technology - I'm a big fan of Larry Lessig. Check out his critique of John McCain's technology policy. (These issues are a big deal, folks.)

3. I drove past a number of wind farms, in a number of states, on my trip from Utah to Texas. The enormous alien-looking machines spinning slowly in the air can be a strange sight. It struck me that even a clean, renewable energy source like wind power has tradeoffs. Don't get me wrong; it beats a coal or nuclear power plant. However, I can understand why some people might take issue with living next to them. It's worse if you're a bird or bat. For example, wind turbines make bat lungs explode. Ech.

4. Fleshmap: Musical Genres - I've seen lots of links to this lately, but I'll share it because a few of you probably missed it. It's a chart of how often a part of the body is sung about, sorted by musical genre (from a sample of 1000 songs). It's interesting how hip hop stands out from the rest. Oh, there are actual photos of body parts, so it's NSFW. If you go to the main site there are a couple of other odd little 'studies'.

5. Radiohead's 'House of Cards' video - 'House of Cards' might be my favorite cut from In Rainbows. The video is worth mention, too. (If you have a fast connection, it's worth downloading the high res version from Radiohead's site.) Instead of using lights and cameras, they used "just data" (from Geometric Informatics for the closeups and Velodyne LIDAR for the landscapes). The effect is pretty cool. Plus, you can get the data from Google Code to do with as you please. The site also has a making-of video, viewer, and more.

2. Where the Hell is Matt? - This video has been floating around for months, but apparently I've never linked it to it. Hmm. This link is for any of you who somehow missed it. (There's a larger Vimeo vid at APotD.) The guy's site is here.

3. An anthropological introduction to YouTube - I'm fascinated by the intersection of technology and culture (beyond just the hype of the 'social web'), so I thought this video was worth sharing. It's a lecture by Michael Wesch, "a cultural anthropologist exploring the impact of new media on human interaction (and the impact of human interaction on new media)." He's currently working on an ethnography of YouTube.

4. Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them - If you take some time to study research on human behavior, you will find ample evidence supporting the interesting and unsettling fact that your 'conscious brain' doesn't always make decisions for you. (Libet's experiments are probably a good start.) Instead, you unconsciously make a decision and act, after which you consciously feel like you're making a decision and usually come up with some rationale for the decision you made (post hoc). It's strange, but there are all sorts of weird and fascinating experiments that demonstrate the phenomenon. (They tend to involve simple, quick sorts of decisions, so for now let's avoid deep, thorny philosophical discussions about whether or not free will is an illusion. Still, it should give you pause to realize you're not as 'in control' as you believe.)

5. Presidential Election Already Decided ... In Voters' Minds - Continuing in the same thread, an article in the current issue of Science (you'll need a subscription to read past the abstract) demonstrates how people often have their mind made up at an unconscious level based on mental associations, even when they consciously believe themselves to be undecided. The Wired article explores what this could mean for, say, politics. Creating negative associations in the unconscious minds of voters would, sadly, seem to be the best (or at least easiest) strategy for winning elections. And... when we think we're basing our votes on rational, informed judgement, are we really just going with our gut and coming up with post hoc justifications for supporting one candidate or another? (Our 'gut' having been influenced by negative association, dominance displays, assessment of sexual attractiveness, etc.) As depressing as that thought is, it would explain much about politics. (Once again, the great Stephen T. Colbert was on to something with his notion of truthiness that comes "from the gut".)

1. More than 100,000 gorillas found in Congo - "An estimated 125,000 Western lowland gorillas are living in a swamp in equatorial Africa, researchers reported Tuesday, double the number of the endangered primates thought to survive worldwide."
Finally some good news in terms of primate conservation. The situation is still grim for other gorilla species (and many other primate species in general), but it was such a breath of fresh air to hear something like this.

2. The History of Xenu, As Explained By L. Ron Hubbard In 8 Minutes - Oooookkkaaayyy......

3. Bush or Batman? - "Bush or Batman is the hottest new game in town. You have to guess whether the quote you are about to hear was said by George W. Bush or Batman as played by Adam West. Sounds easy enough, doesn't it?"  I love it:

4. It's Lovely! I'll Take It! - A collection of poorly chosen photos from real estate listings

5. 10 Unexpected Costs of Owning Things

In my new apartment, I've opted to go with a handful of fuzzy over-the-air TV channels. (Cable is both expensive and distracting, but oh, how I will miss it!) So I actually spent quite a bit of time watching NBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics. I can't remember why I missed most of the '04 and '06 games, but it was somehow comforting to watch Bob Costas and the NBC crew covering the events in their usual, distorted way.

In sprinting, the Jamaicans were simply unbelievable. Usain Bolt's performances were superhuman and his teammates racked up a number of medals, too. Assuming they're not doping (a reasonably safe bet since they've apparently been tested frequently), why is it that Jamaicans are such great sprinters? Further, why do New Worlders of West African ancestry make up such a disproportionate number of champions in short-track events? Is it genetic?

Clearly, genes are a very significant factor in creating an Olympian. Olympic champions are probably all at the very far end of the bell curve for some trait or combination of traits. (Michael Phelps, for example, has disproportionately large hands, feet, and torso.) But of course there's much more to it. We all know phenotype isn't determined entirely by genotype, yet we hear about a "sprinting gene" and immediately forget about countless environmental factors (like culture, nutrition, scouts, trainers, etc. -- it's quite belittling to Jamaica's culture and running programs).

The popular press, in particular, loves to latch on to some piece of data from the very complicated and nonintuitive field of genetics and run with it. A number of simplistic stories have been circulating in the press declaring ACTN3 as the Jamaican sprinting gene. Some articles (like Slate's 'Jamaican Me Speedy'), to their credit, did try to point out that it's rather more complicated than figuring out who does or doesn't have one or two copies of a particular gene variant (allele) in their genome. There are, of course, countless interacting genes involved as well as countless environmental & cultural factors. (Read this article to learn about some of the social reasons Jamaica has such a great track program.)

The best explanation I've seen is over at the Genetic Future blog. Take a minute to read The gene for Jamaican sprinting success? No, not really. Some highlights:

So, how good is this scientific evidence? Does the "Actinen A" gene (whatever that is) actually influence sprinting performance? And if so, does it explain the difference in explosive power between Jamaicans and the rest of the world? The answers, as it turns out, are "probably" and "not really."

...

So the absence of α-actinin-3 means very little to most of us, but to a young athlete craving 100 metre Olympic superstardom it could make all the difference in the world. The same could be said of many other genetic variants, of course; Olympic sprinters, essentially, are those unlikely individuals at the vanishing edge of the probability distribution for whom nearly every genetic coin has come up heads.

...

It is almost certainly true that Usain Bolt carries at least one of the "sprint" variants of the ACTN3 gene, but then so do I (along with around five billion other humans worldwide). Indeed, I'm fortunate enough to be lugging around two "sprint" copies - but that doesn't mean you'll see me in the 100 metre final in London in 2012. Unfortunately for me, it takes a lot more than one lucky gene to create an Olympian.

None of this rules out the possibility that some genetic edge does play a significant role in Jamaican sprinting success. Maybe there really is a difference in the Jamaican gene pool (and it wouldn't have to be much because it would be magnified when you're looking at Olympics-level athletes). It could be stochastic, or it could be the result of something like artificial selection resulting from the slave trade. (I doubt this, but you never know...) More explanation can be found at Weird lands of the tails from the Gene Expression blog.

The bottom line is that we simply don't know. It's complicated and there are probably multiple explanations for the trends we see. It would behoove the press (and us, as individuals) to stop speculating and making simplified assumptions. (In this wild new 'genetic world' we're living in, I'm not sure that's going to happen. Frankly, I'm a little worried. But we'll see...)