Crazy For Tech - Gadgets,Cell Phones,Cameras » time

Lip Reading, 3D Desktops, And NUI: Microsoft Plans To Reinvent User Interaction

admin2 — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:25:45 +0000

Deep in the skunk works of its Research and Labs divisions, secreted around the Seattle area, Microsoft is working on totally reinventing the way people interact with their computers. Very little is out in the open or in more than a prototype form, but the work is unquestionably being done. Last week it transpired that Microsoft is working on building Kinect into the bezels of laptops , and after that, presumably, tablets and eventually mobile phones. But it’s not just about building out the install base for Dance Central 3. It’s enabling the next generation of awareness in our electronics. The iPhone ushered in an era where our devices know when we touch them. Microsoft is working on the next one, in which our devices will simply know us. How do you, as a person, experience the world around you? You mostly see and hear, and to a lesser extent you touch, taste, smell. Our devices, however, are largely restricted to an extremely limited sense of touch. Why shouldn’t they be more like us? There’s a good reason, actually: computers don’t need to be like people because computers aren’t people. For years this has held true: the computer’s primary purpose for decades was to sit still and perform calculations humans couldn’t do. Interaction with a computer was strictly input, output. You didn’t interact so much as instruct, and wait for the result. But mobile phones and touchscreens and laptops began changing the idea of a computer into something more personal, more interactive, more two-way. And technology exists to let our devices become more human. Why not let them? Microsoft wants to. Despite their reputation among tech enthusiasts as a sort of stodgy blue-chip still coasting on the PC explosion of the late 90s and early 2000s, their R&D sections are world-class and put out actually innovative ideas and devices all the time. The trouble, briefly stated, is that implementing these ideas as products that fit into the Microsoft ecosystem isn’t easy, and even if it were, Microsoft has no talent for it . But this work on “Natural User Interaction,” or NUI, is more promising. People have embraced the idea in gaming: the Wii led the way and the Kinect brought the future into your living room, though the future is a little laggy and the voice controls spotty. People are simply interested in new ways of interacting with their content and devices. For years the promise of a different kind of interaction has been dangling, in the form of sci-fi shows and movies usually, and people have always been intrigued by it. So people want it — and Microsoft wants to make it — and they have the technology. Purchasing the IP behind the Kinect was an extremely smart move, maybe smarter than they know. What started out as a way to cash in on the market the Wii had created has snowballed into an entirely new form of interacting with computers, and a way for Microsoft to differentiate itself meaningfully for years to come. It was reported to me that one of the things the new Kinect/depth/IR sensors will do is read lips. At first it sounds silly. Why? Maybe so it can better interpret your words from across the room, or in a loud environment. You won’t have to turn the music down to search and navigate the web on your TV or tablet. And then it becomes clear that it’s just part of a larger suite of “senses” the device would have. The new devices are to have face recognition and voice recognition, so your password will be you saying your password in your own voice, not someone else, and not a print-out of you. They’ll be able to pick you out of a crowd, say a small party, and will be able to tell when you’re giving it a command — because you make eye contact and move your lips . Again, it sounds perfectly ridiculous until it starts sounding perfectly natural. Another feature described was a sort of 3D desktop on which you could actually grab files and place them here and there. This has been tried before, of course, and Windows 8 is looking decided two-dimensional, so it’s probably more of a research project than anything. But it’s still interesting. Think of the basic gestures you might be able to make. One was described as pulling out a drawer. In the surprisingly resilient desktop metaphor of files and folders, what could be more natural? Or perhaps raising your hand palm up to show the task bar or dock? Trace your finger in a counter-clockwise circle to undo, clockwise to redo? User experience reflects both the needs of the user and the capabilities of the device. For a few years now we’ve been satisfied with running our fingers along a slab of glass, producing an electrical signal interpreted as a point or blob — mainly because capacitive screens got good and cheap, and nobody wants to plug a mouse into their phone. But there are many other ways of interacting with our new mobile objects and information. Soon the glass touchscreen will seem as quaint as the command-line interface. And yet, some are no doubt thinking, we still have some command-line interfaces in use. Sure. And mice and keyboards are still better for productivity, and a pen and paper is better for sketching out ideas, and headphones are better for listening to music in public. There are countless use cases and potential applications of technology, but it’s good to recognize when one should give way or simply isn’t applicable. Microsoft is working hard at this, and you’d better believe that Apple is too, though they aren’t nearly as open about their research. And for once, they seem to actually be missing a piece of the technology pie: Microsoft has a head start on them in the world of NUI, having purchased and developed depth and personal sensors for at least two years now. Apple can always throw money at the problem, but it’s pretty clear that Microsoft has perceived this rare advantage and will be using it as a wedge wherever possible. This shouldn’t be taken as an indication that Windows 8 is going to be anything other than advertised, but I think it will be a test bed for some major changes coming down the line. Microsoft wants to change the way people interact with computers because it sees, hopefully not too late, that the old way, the PC way, treating a computer like a box that computes things, is on its way out in a hurry. So if computers are going to be a part of the real world, they need to be able to live in that world. Eyes, ears, and who knows what else. It’s only creepy until you can’t live without it. [images: Matthew Fisher/Stanford , Wolfgang Herfuntner ]

The rest is here:
Lip Reading, 3D Desktops, And NUI: Microsoft Plans To Reinvent User Interaction

When Will The Post-PC Era Arrive? It Just Did.

Administrator — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:49:06 +0000

There has been much debate about what the post-PC era is, when it will arrive, or whether it’s already here. But key pieces of new data, emerging last week, are making the case that we crossed the imaginary line from the “PC” era to the “post-PC” era at the end of 2011. According to analysts at Canalys, two major computing milestones were achieved at the end of this year: smartphone shipments outpaced PCs for the first time ever, and Apple became the world’s largest PC maker, if you count iPads as PCs (as well you should). Combined, what these numbers tell us is that the post-PC era is happening now. Right now. And maybe we need to think about how we define “PC.” In Q4 2011, vendors shipped 158.5 million smartphones, up 57% on the 101.2 million units shipped in Q4 2010. For the year, there were 487.7 million units shipped, up 63% on the 299.7 million units shipped in 2010. Meanwhile, the global PC market grew just 15% in 2011 to 414.6 million units. The smartphones have won. The funny thing about that PC shipments number is that, on its own, it doesn’t paint the most accurate picture of today’s PC landscape. There weren’t 414.6 million desktop, notebook and netbook computers shipped in 2011 – those were at 112.4 million, 209.6 million and 29.4 million, respectively. The 414.6 million number includes 63.2 million in “pad” shipments, Canalys’s preferred term for tablets. That means 15% of the “PC” shipments in 2011 were tablets, largely Apple’s iPad. In Q4, tablets were 22% of the total PC shipments. And the tablet segment of the market grew 274.2% year-over-year. Also in Q4 2011, Apple became the leading worldwide “PC” vendor (if you count the iPad as a PC) with 15 million iPads and 5 million Macs shipped, representing 17% of the total 120 million client PCs shipped in Q4. It overtook HP (now #2), Acer, Dell and Lenovo in the process. Overall, the PC market grew 16% year-over-year, Canalys noted last month. Without tablets, it declined 0.4%. Of course, there’s still the question of whether or not tablets should be broken out into their own computing category, positioned against the traditional “PCs” when tracking device shipments. For what’s it worth, I think it’s fine to count tablets as PCs – after all, PC means “personal computer,” not “machine running Windows.” The fact that we still equate the word with a desktop, monitor, keyboard and mouse combo is a testament to the empire Microsoft built, and is now losing. Case in point: netbook shipments dropped 25.3% from 2010 to 2011. Desktops grew a paltry 2.3% and notebooks grew just 7.5%. This is end of the “PC” era in action. While the 209.6 million notebook shipments still make that the largest category of “PCs,” the growth trends here, if sustained, dictate that’s its only a matter of time before the shift to tablets becomes even more pronounced. Think about it: what’s the first “PC” you’re going to buy for your kid, as a new member to the post-PC computing generation? If you respond “ notebook ,” I’d say you’re lying. That kid is getting an iPad, even if they end up stealing yours. If not an iPad, then they’re getting a phone. And smartphones are PCs, too. The most affordable ones. This past quarter, smartphone shipments overtook PCs, a hugely important milestone that speaks volumes about the state of modern-day computing. The computer-in-your-pocket has moved from being “a niche product segment at the high-end of the mobile phone market to becoming a truly mass-market proposition,” explains Canalys of the change. In Q4, Apple broke records by shipping 37 million iPhones – the most ever shipped by a single vendor in a quarter. Previously, Nokia held the record with 28.3 million phones shipped in Q4 2010. What a difference a year makes. But Canalys cautioned that it expects to see smartphone market growth slow in 2012, as vendors exercise “greater cost control and discipline” to focus on profitability. This is the only discordant note to the report. Smartphone growth slowing? No offense to the analysts, but I’ll believe that one when I see it. Just watching Apple’s sales alone, it’s clear you can’t underestimate its power to deliver record-breaking numbers. In addition, just because vendors like HTC and Motorola are going to launch fewer smartphone models in 2012, that doesn’t (necessarily) mean they’ll sell fewer overall phones. If anything, the companies are hoping that their increased focus on “hero” devices will help them increase sales. One thing is clear, however: that post-PC era everyone’s been talking about since the day the phrase slipped off Steve Jobs’ lips has arrived. We’re living it. Anyone who wastes their time debating its existence (tablets are PCs! phones are PCs!) is arguing semantics. The shift itself, whatever you want to call it, is happening. So perhaps “post-PC” isn’t the best terminology. If everything’s a PC, then maybe what we’ve achieved is something more akin to “PCs Everywhere.” Not as catchy, though. Photo credit top: Lokesh Dhakar , flickr; bottom: agirregabiria , flickr

Go here to see the original:
When Will The Post-PC Era Arrive? It Just Did.

Twitter: In The Final 3 Minutes Of The Super Bowl, There Were 10,000 Tweets Per Second

Achilles — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:29:08 +0000

Big TV events are becoming an increasingly popular catalyst of activity on social media, with sporting events being at the top of the list. Many of us can no longer enjoy a Super Bowl without checking Twitter every three seconds. Last year, there were several moments during the Super Bowl that set records for the most tweets per second during a sporting event, with a high of 4,064 TPS. The highs during the Super Bowl were no match for New Years Eve 2011 in Japan, which saw 6,939 tweets per second. A year later, the Japanese continue to be avid tweeters, as the premiere of Japanese movie “Castles In The Sky” set the all-time record in December for tweets per second, at 25,088. As Alexia shared at the time, the TPS record has since been held by a U.S. women’s soccer team’s game at 7,196 Tweets per second, which came among other notable Twitter events: Steve Jobs’ death at 6,049, Bin Laden’s death at 5,106 TPS, the day of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami in March at 5,530 TPS, and the Royal Wedding in England in April at 3,966 TPS. Clearly, we are getting a glimpse of the increasing relevance and popularity of Twitter during important events, as Twitter’s official Twitter account (head explosion) announced tonight that, in the final three minutes of Super Bowl 2012, there was an average of 10,000 tweets per second. Obviously, this is less than half the tweet frequency (I’ll coin the “TF” acronym) of the Castles In The Sky premiere, but by all accounts this is the record for TF during a live sporting event. No doubt the 2012 Olympics in London, and 100 other events will give tonight’s Super Bowl a run for its money, but, for now, let us revel in tweet history. Twitter will no doubt be sharing more on the activity during the Super Bowl, which we will include as soon as we have it. In the final three minutes of the Super Bowl tonight, there were an average of 10,000 Tweets per second.— Twitter (@twitter) February 06, 2012

Go here to see the original:
Twitter: In The Final 3 Minutes Of The Super Bowl, There Were 10,000 Tweets Per Second

First Legal Streaming Super Bowl A Success, But Audience Still Denied The Real Show

user — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:03:08 +0000

Lately, we’ve been seeing more and more big television events come with an online streaming counterpart. Sporting and televised events are showing up online with increasing frequency, with the 2010 Olympics seeming to be one of the first big global events where both viewers and media publicly recognized the power and potential of carrying an event like that online. This year, for the first time in history, the Super Bowl is being shown online, for free. And it’s completely legal. I was going to say “in a brilliant move by the NFL,” but this should be default. Showing an enormously popular event like the Super Bowl online should not be a “brilliant” move. It should just be second nature. But, wishful thinking aside, the NFL and NBC both wanted to give home viewers options to watch the big game on the Web, without having to rub elbows with the riff raff at a local sports bar. Interestingly, leading up to the game, over the course of the last week, the Feds began seizing domain names owned by popular sports streaming sites, like Firstrowsports.tv, Firstrowsports.com and Soccertvlive.net, etc. You can read more at TorrentFreak here . Obviously, that action was taken in the name of freedom and preventing piracy, but it’s also in part to protecting the fairly sizable interests of the NFL and NBC. In spite of that ignominious beginning, especially in light of SOPA and all the controversy lately over seizures like MegaUpload, the streaming online experience tonight during the Super Bowl was pretty amazing. Pre-game coverage started at 2pm on NBCSports.com, with streaming capabilities featuring the ability to pause and rewind, embedded live streams from Twitter and Facebook, and four different camera angles to boot. While that in and of itself is exciting, the 2012 Super Bowl streaming experience itself left a lot to be desired. The actual banner ads, the online ads being served on NBCSports.com, weren’t particularly offensive, or a pain in the ass. But, the problem is that most people watch the Super Bowl in groups, not as individuals, and most choose to do so through a projector, or streaming the Web onto their TV or a big screen. In addition, many people watch the Super Bowl strictly for ads or for the halftime show, which, in spite of the ads finding a way to be disappointing each and every year, is a spectacle year in, year out — without fail. Even if the music is awful. For streaming viewers looking to watch ads in realtime, there was a tab which they could mouse over to watch all the ads after they aired, but the commercials were not shown during the breaks in the online broadcast, when they were actually supposed to air. Streaming viewers who chose not to pick their own commercials just got an enormous eyeful of the same ads, repeating ad nauseam. Airing on television, live on the boob tube, were the full slate of “creative” ads, from each and every brand; however, airing live on the Web was a loop of GE, Budweiser, and Samsung commercials, punctuated annoyingly by Rainn Wilson, who just became increasingly annoying. The one bonus: Both the Chevy commercial and the Samsung commercial aired online before they did on TV, so streamers got a sneak peek. I realize I may be complaining about small inconveniences, when really I should be celebrating the fact that the Super Bowl was streaming online, legally, for free, but … For those looking to watch the halftime show, expecting to see Madonna and company, all they got was an endless interview shot in a hallway. Personally, it didn’t completely ruin my Super Bowl experience to be deprived of Madonna’s performance, but it certainly seems that NBC swung and missed on that one. Strike two. Furthermore, if you are an American living abroad or wanted to watch the biggest football game of the year, NBC only offered limited options, as the network’s broadcast rights didn’t extend internationally. Sure, increasingly, big sporting events are moving online , but significant limitations endure. The Super Bowl will air on CBS next year, and CBS might as well get started now if it’s going to provide a legitimate alternative. Including the halftime show in coverage online will be significant, as will providing viewing for international football fans and Americans living abroad. While there was a lot of great functionality, and the quality of the broadcast was pretty good (depending on your Internet connection), and it was very cool to be able to switch between camera views. The future is clearly here, but sometimes it looks blurry in Silverlight. That being said, NBC definitely has a grin from ear to ear. The game was fantastic, it went down to the last minute, and The Voice still gets to air in primetime on both coasts. The Super Bowl also proved that spending millions on commercials still can’t buy you creativity, even though geeks were very excited about that Best Buy commercial.

See the rest here:
First Legal Streaming Super Bowl A Success, But Audience Still Denied The Real Show

Apple Schooled Music Execs Then, Here Are The Lessons Online Video Should Learn Now

Administrator — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 02:21:21 +0000

Editor’s Note: This post is written by guest author Peter Csathy , who is President & CEO of online video enabler and transcoding company Sorenson Media . Previously, he served as President & COO of online music pioneer Musicmatch. Thus, the following is written from the perspective of a long-time media executive, and meant to be a conversation-starter. Csathy blogs at Digital Media Update . Apple’s all-in-one physical flat-screen iTV is coming , make no mistake. And, when it does, it will represent Apple’s attempt to reinvent the television experience in much the same way it did for music. But, while media execs were hopelessly naive in Apple’s presence back then, they feel they are ready this time. They are determined not to let Apple rule the premium online video world like they did (and still do) for online music. The question is, do they have the will? Apple will, of course, follow its established playbook, which most CE companies inexplicably still do not follow, and seamlessly marry its beautiful hardware (the iTV) with its underlying software and services (in this case, movies and television) in the same way it did with music via the iPod and iTunes. Apple’s goal is to be the center of the online movie and television universe for consumers (just like it is for music). Yes, content is king to Apple, but only because content serves as the Trojan Horse consumers ride into Apple’s kingdom of riches (initially Macs and iPods, and later iPhones, iPads and the inevitable iTV). Ay, but there’s the rub. The content king-makers — motion picture and television studio execs — now know this. They have seen this movie before, and this time they are determined to monetize content more directly for content sake – for themselves. Apple transformed itself into the #1 most valuable global company and juggernaut that we see today precisely because those media execs handed Apple the keys to unlock music value in the online world. Steve Jobs wooed them with his charms, pitched a great story, and established the rules of the online music licensing game. Apple’s massive growth in the past decade all started there with its iPod-iTunes 1-2 knockout punch. That, in turn, led to the resurgence of Macs, which led to the iPhone, then the iPad. Apple would be a very different company today if didn’t get the music it needed 10 years ago. And, how did Jobs’ playbook work out for the labels and musicians? Not so well. Online music sales (and royalties) were an asterisk next to iPod sales. Don’t get me wrong. Rampant piracy — and the music industry’s misplaced attack strategy — destroyed significant content value. Nevertheless, the music industry’s negotiations with Jobs one decade ago resulted in a massive transfer of value and wealth to Apple. So, what lessons have media executives learned from this past decade? Lesson #1 — Dictate the Rules of the Game, Rather Than Have Them Dictated to You. Music execs were on their heels reeling in fear when Jobs approached them a decade ago with the promise of iTunes. They had no real experience with the Internet. They certainly had no experience with technology (many still do not) – and how it could be used for both good and evil. Piracy was rampant. Napster ruled the day (the bad one, not the good one). Kazaa’s Niklas Zennstrom was public enemy #1 (now of course he is a media insider with Skype, Joost and others). The music industry was understandably panicked. Jobs promised a way out – under three conditions. First, Apple must be able to sell individual tracks unbundled from albums. Second, its price for those unbundled tracks must be $.99 each. Third, Apple must define and control the entire online music experience. The music industry capitulated, and these 3 commandments are fundamental rules of the game that still largely rule the day. Well, those rules haven’t worked out too well for music creators and owners. Lesson learned. So, one decade later, media execs are striving to proactively dictate the value of their content and support multiple online experiences and business models. But, even now, they frequently significantly under-value their content. More on that later. Lesson #2 — Never Again Put Too Much Power in the Hands of One Distributor. Prior to iTunes, piracy was rampant, and only relatively small players (including my former company, Musicmatch) played legitimately in the online music world. Amid this backdrop, media execs empowered Apple to be the first and only established online music source and experience. As a result, iTunes incredibly still commands 60-70% of all online music sales. That represents incredible power in the hands of one. It represents a downright monopoly. Media execs are determined not to allow that kind of power in the hands of any single player in the online video world. They instead are committed to fostering an eco-system of as many legitimate distributors as possible. They actively license their prized motion picture and television assets to all those willing to pay. That’s why we already have myriad established behemoths in the premium online video game. We have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Google/YouTube, Comcast. The list goes on and on. Apple too is on that list, but it is behind the curve this time. Those same media execs who ceded control to Apple ten years ago have refused, thus far, to broadly license their crown jewels on Apple’s terms. But Apple — or more accurately, Apple’s massive hoards of cash – can be very persuasive. More on that later. Lesson #3 — License Broadly & Make the Licensing Landscape as Confusing and Opaque as Possible. Media execs aren’t panicked this time. They have a decade of learning under their belts. Yes, piracy continues to be rampant, but they now understand that it cannot simply be litigated into oblivion. The best defense truly is a better offense. Support better customer experiences, make your content available broadly to those legitimate distributors willing to pay, and experiment with business models and terms. That’s why we have over-the-top (OTT) “Internet TV” models in which content is monetized via paid downloads, subscriptions, and ads. We also have big cable’s “TV Everywhere” models in which consumers must continue to pay their monthly cable fees. And, coming soon, Google and others will become virtual cable operators that will also distribute live linear programming like ESPN. Apple too wants to be on that “virtual MSO” list, because that is the kind of premium content that ultimately moves mountains of consumers. Case in point: DirecTV’s “NFL Package.” This melange is great for the studios. No two content licensing deals are the same. Each negotiation takes place in a black box. No clarity. No certainty. Just the way media execs like it (I know, I have been there). Now THAT’s power! Right? Up to a point. More on that later. Lesson #4 — Be Audacious — After All, Content is King. Jobs ultimately taught music execs one fundamental truth – that content is THE key to unlock tremendous value online. The corollary to this is that without content, value is lost. That’s why all the deep-pocketed tech titans are lining up for a chance to play in the premium online video game. Just as it is for Apple, premium online video distribution is strategically central to their business. Apple? Sell its hardware. Amazon? Sell more goods and services. Google? Sell more ads. Comcast? Hold onto those cable subscriptions. Netflix? Survive! These players have inked a steady stream of significant licensing deals just in the past few months, the financial terms of which are almost never disclosed (remember, just the way the studios like it). But, one telling deal’s terms did slip out – Netflix agreed to shell out nearly $1 billion to stream shows from the CW Network. Think about that – if the CW can command those kind of numbers today, think about the price tag for real “premium” content like ESPN. And, we are still in the early innings of this premium online video game. Apple – with its head-spinning $100 billion war chest – is a lock to win (or at least be a massive winner in) the online video game, right? Most likely, the answer is yes. The inevitable iTVs will fly off the shelves. But, Apple isn’t alone this time. It is playing on a crowded field with other deep-pocketed and committed players (including CE guys like Samsung). Even more importantly, to really hit it out of the park, Apple’s coming iTV must be an experience. That means Apple must offer an extremely deep pool of compelling video content from the start (including sacred programming like ESPN). Otherwise, consumers will find holes, get frustrated, and look to fill those holes with programming offered by others. Each frustrated customer represents real significant loss, which is especially magnified in Apple’s case because of its closed product eco-system. For Apple, it’s not just about a single product sale (like an iTV). That sale, instead, marks the beginning or continuation of a long-term lucrative purchase relationship, which is the key driver of Apple’s stratospheric growth. That’s why Apple will be willing to strike very different content licensing deals with media execs this time around. Of course, Apple doesn’t control the content – the studios do. So, who really holds the cards here? Will the studios be as audacious as Steve Jobs was one decade earlier and demand terms that they believe reflect the true value their content creates for distributors over time? In Apple’s case, one truly audacious idea could be to seek a share of revenue for every iTV sold. Remember, not every license deal must be the same. Value means very different things to different players. If Apple, or any other online distributor, refuses to play, then they lose out. No soup for you! There are many others (including the studios themselves), but only one ESPN! Or, will media execs instead go for the quick-fix of easy money? After all it’s hard to say “no” to someone writing a big check. If they do go this instant gratification route (which is more consistent with their DNA), at least they should realize that their prized motion picture and television assets will be worth significantly more than they think in the online world over time. Avoid long-term deals! So, yes, media execs have learned their lessons well. Content is, in fact, king. Apple will continue to wear the crown, however, unless media companies have the will and creativity to take it back. After all, Apple made $46.3 billion this past quarter alone, a number that dwarfs global motion picture box office receipts for the entire year. Apple could buy Hollywood. But, will Hollywood let it? Excerpt image from SoulInTheMachine.com

See the original post here:
Apple Schooled Music Execs Then, Here Are The Lessons Online Video Should Learn Now

The Future of Peer Review

kram412 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:51 +0000

This guest post was written by Richard Price, founder and CEO of Academia.edu — an online community that revolves around researchers and their work. Instant distribution Many academics are excited about the future of instant distribution of research. Right now the time lag between finishing a paper, and the relevant worldwide research community seeing it, is between 6 months and 2 years. This is because during that time, the paper is being peer reviewed, and peer review takes an incredibly long time. 2 years is roughly how long it used to take to send a letter abroad 300 years ago. Many platforms are springing up which enable research distribution to be instant, so that the time lag between finishing a paper, and everyone in the relevant research community worldwide seeing it, is measured in hours and days, rather than months and years. Some of the strong platforms are Academia.edu , arXiv , Mendeley , ResearchGate and SSRN . What about peer review? One question many academics have is: in a future where research is distributed instantly, what happens to peer review? Will this be a world where junk gets out, and there is no way to distinguish between good and bad research? Content discovery on the web Instant distribution is a characteristic of web content, and the web has thrived without a system of formal peer review in place. No-one thinks that the web would be enhanced by a panel of formal peer reviewers who verify each piece of content before it was allowed to be posted on the web. The web has thrived because powerful discovery systems have sprung up that separate the wheat from the chaff for users. The main two systems that people use to discover content on the web are: Search engines (Google, Bing) Social platforms (mainly sites like Facebook and Twitter, but also generic communication platforms like email, IM etc) Both search engines and social platforms are peer review systems in different ways. One can think of these two systems as “Crowd Review” and “Social Review” respectively: Crowd Review: Google’s PageRank algorithm looks at the link structure of the entire web, and extracts a number (PageRank) that represents how positively the web thinks about a particular website. Social Review : Twitter and Facebook show you links that have been shared explicitly by your friends, and people you follow. One can think of the peer review system in the journal industry as “two person review”: Two Person review: Two people are selected to review the paper on behalf of the entire possible audience for that paper. The drawbacks of the Two Person review process are that it is: expensive: $8 billion a year is spent on subscriptions to journals, which is money that could be spent on more research. slow: the Two Person review process takes about 6 months to 2 years to complete, sometimes more. of questionable quality : the two people who are selected as peer reviewers may be biased against the paper, or unqualified, or just in a bad mood, when reviewing it. unchanging : the judgement is fixed, and doesn’t change as the impact of the paper changes a lot of work for the reviewers : it takes a lot of time to review a paper, and the review is not published, so reviewer doesn’t receive credit for their work. More and more, academics are discovering research papers nowadays via the web, and in particular, via search engines and social platforms: Search engines: Google, Google Scholar, Pubmed Social platforms : Academia.edu, arXiv, Mendeley, ResearchGate, blogs, conversations with colleagues over email or IM, Facebook and Twitter. As research distribution has moved to the web mostly, so the discovery engines for research content are the same as those for general web content. The peer review mechanism is evolving from The Two Person review process to the Crowd Review process, and the Social Review process. But has the research been done to a high standard? People often say that the formal peer review process helps ensure that all the accessible research is above a certain minimum quality. The fear is that if this quality floor was removed, things would start falling apart: an academic would be reading a paper, and would have no idea whether to trust it or not. The experience of the web is that this fear is over-blown. There is no quality floor for content on the web. There is bad content on the web, and there is great content. The job of search engines and social platforms is to ensure that the content that you discover, either via Google or Facebook, is of the good kind. The success of the web shows that the discovery engines do a good job generally. Discovery and credit systems are powered by the same metrics Peer review in the journal industry has historically played another interesting role, other than powering research discovery. It has helped an academic build up academic credit, which is required to get grants, and get jobs. People on hiring and grant committees have historically focused on how many peer reviewed publications an academic has in order to get a sense of the academic’s level of achievement, and in order to see how deserving the academic is of the grant or job in question. The peer review system has historically played this dual role, in powering both the discovery system and the credit system, because ultimately research discovery and research credit are about the same issue: which is the good research? Whichever systems are good at answering that question will drive both the discovery system and the credit system. One new metric of academic credit that has emerged over the last few years is the citation count. Google Scholar makes citation counts public for papers, and so now everyone can see them easily. Citations between papers are like links between websites, and citation counts are an instance of the Crowd Review process. Legend has it that Larry Page came up with the idea of PageRank after reflecting on the analogy between citations and links. Citation counts nowadays play the dual role of driving discovery on Google Scholar, as they determine the ordering of the search results, and help to determine academic credit. Academic credit from social platforms In the case of social platforms, the metric that drives discovery is how much interaction there is with your content on the social platform in question. Examples of such interaction include: numbers of followers you have the number of times your content is shared, liked, commented on, viewed. These metrics show how much interest there is in your papers, and how widely they are read right now, and thus provide a sense of their level of impact. One drawback of citation counts as a metric of academic credit is that they are a lagging indicator, in that they take a while to build up. If you publish a paper now, it is going to take several years for a body of papers to emerge that cite your paper. This leads to academics experiencing a credit gap, where papers they have published in the last 3-4 years hardly impact their academic credit. The advantage of the kinds of metrics that social platforms like Academia.edu, Mendeley, and SSRN provide is that they are real time, and they fill this credit gap. Academics are increasingly including these real time metrics in their applications for jobs and for grants. The competition for jobs, and grants is intense, and having more data that speaks to the impact of your work helps. Funding bodies are also eager to see more data about the impact of research, as it helps them make better decisions. Instant Distribution and Peer Review The prospect of instant distribution of research is tremendously exciting. If you can tap the global brain of your research community in effectively close to real time, as opposed to waiting 6 months to 24 months to distribute your ideas, there could be a wonderful acceleration in the rate of idea generation. The web has shown that you can take out this 6 month to 24 month distribution delay, which occurs when research is undergoing the Two Person peer review process, and see high quality filtering of content done by new peer review mechanisms, Crowd Review and Social Review, which are faster, cheaper, and more personalized. The web is also an incredible place for new ideas to be invented and to take hold. No doubt new peer review mechanisms will emerge in the future that will advance beyond Crowd Review and Social Review.

The rest is here:
The Future of Peer Review

Watch 2012 Super Bowl Commercials Now With Facebook + USA Today’s Ad Meter

bestcbstore — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:48:56 +0000

Want to watch the big budget Super Bowl commercials, but can’t wait till Sunday or don’t care about football? Facebook and USA Today have just launched Ad Meter , a Facebook app where you can watch many of the TV spots right now. Then from kickoff until Tuesday night you can vote for your favorites. Traditionally an offline poll done live with handheld meters, USA Today has finally brought Ad Meter online so you can judge ads both in real-time and post-game. Facebook tapped Involver to build the app, and has secured early previews of roughly 20 commercials. The rest of the ads will become available through the app at game time. Last year Facebook let you watch Several Internet companies have plopped down the big bucks this year in an attempt to court the mainstream. Arrested Development’s Gob plugs Hulu, and Teleflora.com touts the lovin you might get if you use it to send a Valentine’s Day gift. Etrade, Careerbuilder.com, Investing in Super Bowl ads makes more and more sense for web services as the general public becomes more internet savvy. They should tread cautiously, though, considering past ads from Salesforce, Groupon have been voted most disliked and caused PR crises . Let’s hope no one gives our industry a bad wrap this time around. Oh wait, GoDaddy’s ads filled with body-painted models and angels in the cloud are just as sexist as ever.

Read the rest here:
Watch 2012 Super Bowl Commercials Now With Facebook + USA Today’s Ad Meter

Newest TechStars Network Member Hub Ventures Is Looking For “Change The World” Startups

jos — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:25:26 +0000

Hub Ventures , the San Francisco-based startup accelerator focused on funding entrepreneurs “building a better world,” is the newest member of the TechStars network. The official announcement of its TechStars affiliation will be made next week. For those unfamiliar, the organization’s 12-week program provides companies with typical accelerator benefits like seed funding, mentorship, workshops and access to investors, but what makes this accelerator different are the types of startups it’s interested in. Specifically, Hub Ventures is looking for startups building solutions for things like collaborative consumption, healthy food systems, off-grid energy, clean energy, civic engagement, and other sorts of “change the world” technology. “Our operating philosophy is that business and technology can play a key role in solving some of the issues of our time and to fill the gaps where government and philanthropy are unable to create sustainable impact, which some would say is quite large,” explains Hub Ventures founder Wes Selke. “The world needs more innovative models to solve these tough problems…and we believe our approach is on the cutting edge.” The program is based out of Hub Bay Area , a collaborative workspace with over 1,000 members in San Francisco and Berkley, which is connected to 30 other locations through the Hub network. Before Hub Bay Area opened in 2009, there wasn’t really a physical space where like-minded social innovators could get together and collaborate. Now, Hub Ventures is there, hoping to tap into the emerging asset class of “impact investing” – something which JPMorgan forecasted to be a $400B-1T investment opportunity over the next decade. Besides Hub Bay Area, other partners include Good Capital , Village Capital , ImpactAssets , and SOCAP . Many of the group’s growing list of over 40 mentors come from the program’s partner organizations, but some mentors come from mobile-focused companies like Nokia and ngmoco, some are angel investors, and others come from similarly focused startups, like ride-sharing startup RelayRides. Participating companies will receive free and heavily discounted services in PR, human resources, web hosting, business process outsourcing, lean UX design, accounting, banking, legal assistance, and more. They also have access to Hub Venture founders via weekly office hours, and access to $10,000 to $20,000 in seed funding. Hub Ventures officially launched in January 2011 and did a Spring 2011 cohort with 16 impact-oriented startups. Over half have raised money since its Investor Day in June 2011, ranging from $75,000 to $1 million, Selke tells us. Other startups have decided to bootstrap. A few of the standouts from the previous round were MobileWorks , a crowdsourcing platform that doubles incomes for workers in India, Zamzee , a device that combats teen obesity by motivating them to be more active, and SpyGlass , a wireless water quality monitoring platform. The accelerator is now preparing for its second round, which will be smaller – probably 8 to 10 companies this time, says Selke. Interested entrepreneurs can apply now through March 5th. The program will begin April 16th and will wrap up on July 9th with its Demo Day.

See more here:
Newest TechStars Network Member Hub Ventures Is Looking For “Change The World” Startups

LeVar Burton Snags @ReadingRainbow Twitter Handle To Push New Reading App

bestcbstore — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:55:25 +0000

While we nerds may best remember LeVar Burton as a VISOR-clad Starfleet officer, he also spent much of the 80s and 90s instilling in children an appreciation for reading. In fact, Burton is still stuck to the idea of encouraging childhood literacy — he launched a new company called RRKidz this past September that’s currently working on (among other things) a “disruptive” new iPad reading app. But when the time came to set up the all-important Twitter account to provide “the latest info on the upcoming relaunch of [Reading Rainbow] as an app,” he found that someone had already laid claim to the @readingrainbow handle. What’s more, the account owner hadn’t so much as made a peep in the last three years. Being a nice guy, Burton tried reaching out to the account owner but was apparently met with silence. So what’s a geek icon like LeVar Burton to do? Why, call on his fans of course. Burton tweeted the following last night to his 1.74 million followers and the official Twitter account: Dear @ twitter I'm trying to contact the individual who's sitting on @ ReadingRainbow but he hasn't Tweeted in #3YEARS Can you help? Thanks! — LeVar Burton (@levarburton) February 01, 2012 Ultimately, over 700 users ended up retweeting Burton’s call for help, which apparently prompted the folks at Twitter to leap into action. The @readingrainbow account ended up in Burton’s control within just over two hours of his initial plea. It’s a pretty impressive turnaround time considering some folks faced with similar situations have had to wait days before Twitter managed to make things work in their favor. Then again, most people can’t claim to have spent time debugging the warp core on a Galaxy-class starship. I crack me up. Incredibly lame pop culture references aside, Burton’s story isn’t exactly a new one. Though Twitter representatives declined to offer specific numbers when it comes to instances of name squatting, they lay out a clear stance against the practice in their (aptly named) Twitter Rules . It’s a potentially huge problem for Twitter — with growth still on the uptick , more and more people look at Twitter as a crucial source for real-time news and insight into other people’s lives. Squatters, be they inadvertent or not, have the potential to mar brands and personal reputations, and Twitter will have to keep their collective guards up if they want people and companies to keep up all that sharing.

You Stopped SOPA. Now Let’s Startup America

A D M I N — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:55:04 +0000

Note from the editor: This is a guest post from Steve Case , the co-founder of AOL (which owns TechCrunch) and founder of Revolution. Case is the chairman of the Startup America Partnership and sits on the White House Jobs Council. In recent weeks, Americans from all walks of life came together to stop SOPA from advancing through Congress, demonstrating the power of the Internet to rally people around an important cause. In the weeks ahead, we have reason to rally again. This time, the goal is not stopping something bad, but starting something good. Specifically, ensuring that America builds on its legacy of innovation, and remains the world’s most entrepreneurial nation. Earlier today, President Obama unveiled his Startup America legislative agenda and called on Congress to pass it quickly, so he can sign it promptly. It’s a very positive first step. Let’s capitalize on this moment, and call on our elected representatives to quickly pass this legislative agenda that helps entrepreneurs start and scale the companies that can change the world while creating jobs, jumpstarting our economy, and increasing our competitiveness globally. Here’s why you should join me – now – in rallying behind the President’s proposed Startup America legislation: Young high-growth companies have created 40 million American jobs in the past three decades thirty years – and accounted for all of the net new jobs produced during that period. America’s entrepreneurial economy has been the envy of the world for decades. But other nations now recognize that entrepreneurship has been America’s secret sauce, and they are now racing to replicate it. Just as we’re seeing the globalization of manufacturing, we’re also now seeing the globalization of entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, outside of some sectors (like social media) and some regions (like Silicon Valley), America’s entrepreneurial economy is sputtering. Indeed, start-ups are down 23% since 2007. The rest of the world is accelerating, while America is slowing. But we still have time to act. Enter the President’s Startup America legislative agenda. The proposed legislation, released this morning by the White House, builds on the great work that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House have initiated in recent months. Here’s a short primer on some of the measures included in the President’s Startup America legislative agenda: Crowdfunding – The legislative package will allow entrepreneurs to leverage online platforms to raise small amounts of capital from a large number of people. The benefits of creating an efficient and transparent marketplace to raise capital have been established by successful platforms such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, and this new legislation will extend the reach of these platforms to help fund entrepreneurial companies. IPO on ramp – Well-intentioned regulations to protect investors have contributed to a decline in IPOs. The cost and complexity of initial public offerings has resulted in fewer companies going public, and more companies being sold. Public offerings of less than $50 million were 80% of IPOs in the 1990s, but only 20% in the 2000s. Sadly, IPOs typically lead to accelerated job growth – 90% of job creation typically occurs after a company goes public – while acquisitions often lead to job-deceleration. The President is embracing the recommendations of the IPO Task Force and his Jobs Council by calling for a smart, phase-in for emerging growth companies, so that they can adjust to the most costly and complex requirements of going public. Winning the global battle for talent – America is great at attracting talented immigrants to its universities, but then forces most to leave and return to their countries – taking their educations with them, and all too often creating companies in other countries that end up competing with ours. This is a critical issue that will require more attention, but the Startup America legislative package takes a positive first step by allowing more highly-skilled immigrants to stay, build companies in the U.S., and create American jobs. Investment incentives – The proposed legislation provides a capital gains tax cut when an investment is kept in a business for at least five years, incentivizing investors to put their cash behind entrepreneurs who are focused on building lasting companies. In addition, the package adds investment incentives by raising the limit for “mini-offerings” from $5 million to $50 million and increasing the Small Business Investment Company program by $1 billion. Incentives to Encourage Growth and Reinvestment – The Startup America legislative agenda would make permanent certain tax cuts for small businesses, so that once a new firm gets up and running, it has more capital available to re-invest in growing the company. The package also includes a 10% income tax credit for new small business hires, a doubling of the tax deduction for startup expenses, and an extension of the 100 percent depreciation for property through this year. I was honored to chair the high growth enterprises subcommittee of the President’s Council on Jobs & Competitiveness. (Other members included John Doerr of KPCB and Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook.) We met with the President in October and presented a series of recommendations on steps both the private and public sector should take to improve the environment for entrepreneurs. Since then, nearly a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress. The AGREE Act was introduced by Senators Rubio (R-FL) and Coons (D-DE) and the Startup Act was introduced by Senators Warner (D-VA) and Moran (R-KS). Now, the President has stepped forward with his own proposal, the Startup America legislative agenda. I’m encouraged to see our nation’s leaders focus their attention on entrepreneurship – and issue legislative proposals that will help us innovate, grow our economy, create jobs, and strengthen our competitiveness. This is a moment. While the partisan bickering in Washington is intense, and will heat up further as we head towards the November election, we can – and must – rally the entrepreneurial community to support pro-entrepreneurship legislation. It might seem as though Washington isn’t listening, but the successful effort to stop SOPA in its track proved that we can have an impact. That was about stopping misguided legislation. This is about promoting a positive Startup Agenda that moves us in the right direction. Is it a perfect package for entrepreneurs? No, but there is no such thing as perfect legislation – and we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So join the cause and tweet your support with the #StartupAmerica hashtag. Now is the time to rally together and pass a Startup America legislative agenda!