The major criticism of the service is the inaccuracies in the meta data taken from the books. It is not the basic information such as the title date or author that can be provided by libraries and publishers; what is problematic however is the data collected by Google through the indexing of the content of the pages of the books.

However the question is will the purchase of reCAPTCHA solve (or at the very least start to solve) the problems faced by Google in indexing the pages of the world’s books. The issue for Google is that no matter how good no OCR software is good enough ot recognise all characters and words in all books therefore meaning there will always be errors that can only be picked up and corrected by the human eye, a hugely labour intensive process. So how will reCAPTCHA solve this?

It can be said almost for certain that at some point you ave come across one of these:

This image is referred to as a CAPTCHA and is used to try and stop automatic input (often from spammers) usually into websites forms. The difference between a normal CAPTCHA and the reCAPTHCHA service is this:

‘reCAPTCHA improves the process of digitizing books by sending words that cannot be read by computers to the Web in the form of CAPTCHAs for humans to decipher. More specifically, each word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is placed on an image and used as a CAPTCHA. This is possible because most OCR programs alert you when a word cannot be read correctly.’

Source: reCAPTCHA

http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html

This means that you can actually feel good about solving these CAPTCHAs as your helping to digitise books and if your a webmaster you can sleep easy knowing that some of the best OCR software in the world cannot read the characters in the box and so it is unlikely that and spammer can build anything to read these yet further distorted words. However there is still undoubtedly some doubt as to exactly how Google fits into this whole process.

Google offers the Google Books service which seeks to scan and index books from all over the world including some of the out of copyright books of great university libraries such as the Bodleian in  Oxford and the library of Harvard University. So with the new acquisition of reCAPTHCHA it would seem Google has solved it own problem of inaccurate meta data. By using the collective human eyes of all those who solve a reCAPTCHA to correct the incorrect scanning of words a much more accurate index is created and we all benefit from better searches of those books Google has already scanned. This means that through the use of reCAPTCHA even those tasks that seem most trivial can have some lasting and useful output.

For more information on reCAPTCHA (and to use it on your site for free) read the reCAPTCHA site and for more information on the acquisition of reCAPTCHA by Google read the official Google blog

However there are challenges to this belief, one book that put forward a challenge to the conventional wisdom is Grown Up Digital by Don Tapscott. The Economist suggests that preventing ‘net generation’ for accessing Facebook at work is ‘the equivalent of forbidding older staff to use their rolodexes’.

Following the study by Tapscott of 8000 people in 12 countries he presents a different picture to that normally associated with those who spend much of their time using computers and playing video games. The issue, it is suggested, is not with the current generation but with the baby boomer generation before them. The two generations are so far removed from each other that they are unable to understand each other.

Contrary to the baby boomers beleif that video games and other activities of the net generation have ‘robbed today’s young of the ability to think’ research would seem to suggest otherwise. Instead video gomes are increacing visual processing abilities of the new generation and the internet in enabling the mass mobilisation of the young.

The recent campaign of Barack Obama has demonstrated this ability with Obama having 3,187,755 supporters on Facebook alone and millions more emails on the campaigns email list. This led to 66% of voters aged 18-29 voting Obama (according to an exit poll reported in The Guardian see the picture here). Further the same statistic would seem to suggest that the Obama campaign has used this mass of esupporters not only to gain existing voters but encourage new registrations aswell with 68% of first time voter choosing Obama.

The Economist quotes Taoscott’s eight characteristics which define the ‘net generation’. These suggest that this new generation values freedom and choice in what they do as well as entertainment in all parts of their life (including work). This would suggest that it is those firms which choose to allow facebook and other sites in the work place are not providing a carte blanche to staff to waste time but instead are making use of one of the internets newest communication tools.

Tapscott does have worries. The first not a new one, being the failings of the worlds education systems. Although many are doing well out of these systems those who aren’t are further behind than before. Secondly is a lack of regard for privacy.

Lack of privacy is something that could be seen as one of the drawbacks of the internet with many sites requiring personal details (sometimes without justification) and a willingness from all to give out such information without any regard for where it might go and what might be done with that information. Further this lack of privacy on the internet is something that almost all employer have made use of. Employer now check the online footprint of prospective employees and the pictures of your drunken antics is unlikely to be the first impression with which you wish your prospective employer to be presented.

Tapscott suggests that the education of children on the dangers of the internet is very much the job of parents using the very low tech means of family discussion. However it is also the current internet users who unthinkingly spread the contents of their lives liberally across the internet who really need education as to the hidden dangers as well the many wonders of the internet. Isn’t it?

This site uses data from pole to try and estimate which candidate is likely to win each state and offers datails for each individual state. More on they do it can be found here. Plus if you don’t like it you can enter your own number.

Although this is only one of many sites that claim to be able to be able to predict the outcome of the election this site would seem to be trying to create something resembling a fair estimate. However it is easy to ask if this can ever be done, the simple answer being no. So everyone is left to wait for the outcome of the election.

What surprises me is the lack of pro-Palin literature I have come across. Whilst I’m sure it’s out there and is equally as well written it’s not the information getting most exposure.

Now I have to mention my limitations on the subject, while I may have access to international new sources and both on the internet and in print the coverage of the US election in the UK is minimal in comparison to the massive coverage received in the US itself. Further with the massive cutting back of the republican convention means they are not giving themselves the same opportunity to get their side out there as the democrats had. Although I should also mention that I have not gone looking for these anti-Plain articles and that I have not seen as many negative pieces about any of the other candidates (including McCain) so it would seem that Palin is genuinely unpopular?

My dislike* of Palin however (regardless of the articles and the references they offer) does not come from her. Instead my dislike came from watching Channel 4 news as a republican party representative was interviewed. The representative did that thing that all politicians (and people of that type, i.e. their spokespeople) do where they don’t answer the question but instead choose to answer a question that is completely unrelated such as what the weather is like or what they might be having to eat later. It was more the fact that there must have been a good way of answering the question  (because that is what those people get paid to do, right?) and if there was no good answer, even with copious amounts of spin, is there a real problem?

I welcome comments about Palin both for and against, so comment away.

–

* I say I dislike Palin but this must be qualified by the fact that I dislike all politicians for their ability to not answer the question and so this dislike is no more than usual (in the same way that the only reason I like Jeremy Paxman is that he keeps asking them the question)
At this point I bring in a comment by Mark Watson he makes in his book ‘Crap at the Environment’ where he said that he often finds himself in a position where he is informed on both sides of an argument and so is left with no other choice than to sit on the fence.
Now whilst I may not be well informed on all subjects and certainly am often unable to gather information on both side of an argument I am willing to concede that it is almost always true that there is at least one counter argument to any argument and so I find it hard (well I don’t I do it all the time) to make statements without assuming that there are likely facts I am unaware of on the other side of the argument. So whilst I may be unaware of these facts and may take sides I urge you to please not see anything I write as a basis for your beliefs/position.

The story states how the US has release figure stating that this year it has released 11,000 Iraqi ‘detainees’.
Most were held without charge (the BBC World Service stated this morning that many had been held for more than 1 year without charge) and were considered security risks but could now lead more productive lives.
They were offered vocational training and the chance to:

‘obtain what is described as a better understanding of Islam during their detention’

A spokesman aso stated that the reoffending rate is less than 1% for these ‘detainees’.

I see several problems with this:

1. How can predominantly Chrisitian country with only 0.6% Muslim population (accoring to their own figures) be properly equiped to offer these people a ‘better understanding’ of their own relgion.
2. The reoffending rate may be less than 1% but:
   • Someone who has not been charged has not been proven to have committed a crime
   • Someone who has not committed a crime cannot reoffend at all
3. The prisoners were only prevented from leading productive lives by their unjustified imprisonment by the US

I should qualify my comments:

Although I do agree that those who are religious extremeists do not have any understanding of the true teaching of their religion (that applies to all religions). Therefore a monkey could surely teach them more about the true teachings of their religion than they are aware. However I also think that it is unlikely that more than a few (if any) of the uncharged innocent ‘detainees’ have these veiws or lack a proper understanding of their religion.

Further we have the issue of the very low reoffenring rate, for those of you that have not already realised  the statement is nothing more than a massive case of political spin designed to sound good but is in fact bullshit.

TED describes itself as a “group of remarkable people that gather to exchange ideas of incalculable value”. Its lectures cover a broad set of topics including science, arts, politics, global issues, architecture, music and more.

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29

They podcast bits from their conferences (you can get them through: the TED website, YouTube and iTunes ) which is great because they have all sorts of great speakers.

The bit I’m really interested is part that was brought to my attention which is the video by Sir Ken Robinson

 

 

 

Source: TED

He talks about educating the creativity out of children and how the education system is really only there to fulfil the needs of one specific set of people, which was originally the industrialists. This is of course true of most things, that is that they are only there to serve the purpose of one set of people usually to the detriment of another group. For example the fact that

History is always written by the victor

This is demonstrated by the view held by the majority of people that the USSR was wholly to blame for the Cold War. This is of course is not true and there are equally as many points that can be made on the subject of how the USA was responsible.
(OK so this example is a bit abstract and off subject, but it is supposed to demonstrate the fact that things are often one sided and ignore the other possibilities)

Many would argue that this is a necessary evil and that there will always be those things that will suffer and those which are advanced on the back of this. For example if we did encourage dance in the curriculum would the academic subjects suffer, and if they did (as is likely to happen as there are only so many teaching hours available, something has to give) is this not just unfair on those who are academically gifted.

However this is not the point of Robinson’s argument. His point is that we in fact are not giving any of the children a chance as we, as a race, are stifling the natural creative urge present in everyone. It is not about whether or not people are good dancers but that they are not willing to find out as they are too scared of being judged or because dancing is unimportant.

So the problem is not at all fixed by making everyone dance instead of focusing on academic subjects however. The only way to fix the problem is to allow students to do everything available and encourage them in all of these until they naturally make their own decisions.

This can however create it’s own problem in that you have to decide the point at which you face these children with the hash social realities; that while they may enjoy dancing they do have to do their maths and languages and have a basic understanding of them as this is what society requires and we are not going to change this overnight. Further the problem that if you don’t do this will you end up with a situation like that with ‘new maths’ in the UK (which has ended up with much of a generation requiring tuition as adults) where people do not have the skills required.

Of course the balance is what is key, you must be able to expose people to these social norms without crushing their ability to be creative. This has a lot to do with how people are taught and more importantly the extra circular activities made available to them. What has to be established along with this is that it is expected that people take part in at least one activity, be that sport, community service or charity work of some kind, scouts or cadets, drama or whatever. The problem is that these activities are not always available, whether that be at school or elsewhere or their parents work makes it impossible to go and this surely must be where the problem lies.

These are also the problems hardest to solve, along with those problems of money (especially the amount allocated to state schools). We can however make organising these activities easier by reducing the amount of red tape surrounding doing anything with children.

In the UK you have to be CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked before working with children. For those of you not aware of the issues surrounding this:
Although this may seem like a very good idea ther are problems, for each activity you do you have to separately checked and you can be banned from working with children for many reasons (unrelated to children); that is not to say that I think the idea should be scraped (it shouldn’t), merely better executed.

This has led to many people who may have previously organised activities not bothering due to the added hassle not only caused by this but by endless risk assessments and health and safety. Again these seem like good ideas but when for example you have to have a certificate to step more than two steps up a ladder it can start to get annoying.

There are again two sides to this. In the position of the parent giving the care of their child over to someone else you feel reassured an have peace of mind knowing that there have been checks done and that the risk has been minimised at all points. However in the position of the volunteer organising the activity on top of their normal working week this may well be enough to mean you do have enough time (or patience) to organise the activity.

Now obviously the parents side has won out (quite rightly I think most would say, it is certainly true that their are far more arguments in favour of the parent position). But it does raise a difficult question, on this basis whose job is it to provide children with activities that nurture both their creative and academic traits? Is it schools which require more resources and flexibility allowing them to do what they want or parents working to provide as best they can for their child.

It would certainly seem that although parents have an important role to play schools, seeing children all day five days a week, are often in a better position. Immediately we hit another and possibly the biggest problem with the whole system. Who decides what children are taught (and therefore how much emphasis there is on more creative subjects)?

There are several groups:

• Parents – All parents want some different for their children but children have to go to schools and as much as the teaching should be tailored individually to each student for teaching to work they must all be work from the base.
• Teachers – Although most would say they are the best people to educate children what qualifies them above anyone else to decide what children should and shouldn’t be taught
• Politicians – This is the way it is at the moment (in the UK they decide the National Curriculum) but again they, really, are no more qualified.

Any and all of these groups need to take many things into account and consult many different groups including all of those above (yes, and the politicians they do hold the purse strings).

So this leaves us with no real answers really just question:

How do we teach children those things they need to know (to ‘fit’ social norms) whilst still encouraging creativity (throughout their life) and who are the best people to decide how this should be done? Discuss.

Anyway on to some actual content…

Earlier (whilst fixing the problem with wordpress) I was listening to some old episodes of one of my podcast (Anarchy X – 120) and I finally got my act together and had a look at some of the things that they regularly talk about I had a look at Who Killed The Electric Car ? (Wikipedia) (Official site).

This happens to be one of their favorite subjects, supression of new specifically electric car related technology by the oil industry, and something that when you think about it seems quite plausible, but not only that it seems likely. I still need to get a copy of the film and watch it (hopefully providing more verifiable facts) and so I’ll be able to talk more (and get angry) this with the addition of more facts and figures.

The site however lead me on to something more interesting (and something that Anarchy X have talked about before) which is plug-in hybrids. Now here I have to educate (for those of you who don’t know), a plug-in is different from a normal hybrid, the difference being that a plug-in hybrid can be charged from a normal power outlet (plug), where as a normal hybrid can only be charged by the engine and brakes of the car whilst it is running. This means that a plug-in hybrid has the capacity to drive many more miles of your journey than a normal hybrid especially if you for example are travelling to work where you could plug in your car.

Now for those of you that want to know more I have various places for you to go and look:

As always wikipedia

Now there are those out there I hear crying “but anyone could have written it”. Normally I would agree with you and suggest caution when looking at any straight facts that it presents without proof. However this particular article seems very well referenced giving you a third party to verify the data.

My favorite part of the article is right at the end and presents an interesting look into the under hand ways in which the oil industry (and the closely allied car industry in the US) work.

“Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries

 

In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics’s battery development and manufacturing, including patents and trade secrets controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, TexacoCobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.^[64] purchased GM’s share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was changed to According to author and San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association president Sherry Boschert, large-format NiMH batteries had been commercially viable but Cobasys refused to sell or license them to small companies and individuals. For years, Cobasys had only accommodated very large orders, and at that time the major auto makers capable of placing such orders showed little interest in NiMH batteries.”

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid#Patent_encumbrance_of_NiMH_batteries

 

Next Plug-In America

This site contains a wealth of information, even if your not in the US it is well worth a look.There are two things that I’d like to pull out from the site:

Firstly, that Toyota (who have been producing normal hybrids for a while) are now testing a plug-in Prius in California and Japan. Seeing this main stream is good news and a step in the right direction.
Toyota Press Release L.A. Times Article (PDF)
(This article is also at the top of the Plug-in America homepage at the time of writing)

Secondly, a graph

Source: Plug-In America

http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/driving_habits_graph.jpg

This graph clearly shows that most people don’t drive far in a day meaning that many of these people would be able to completely run their cars on battery almost every day. This means that it would make a significant difference to greenhouse gas emissions.

Lastly, Google.org / RechargeIT.org

This is part of a charitable organization setup by Google (I wont go into what for, find that out for yourself). This contains the answers to some interesting questions.

The site states:

 

 

“Did you know…

Electric miles emit about half as much CO2 as gasoline miles on the national power grid.”

Source: RechargeIT

http://www.google.org/recharge/index.html

This is an interesting statement and is then followed up by this in the FAQ section (which is worth a read if you have any questions):

“4. Will plug-in hybrids require the construction of new power plants?
Actually, studies have shown that our current electricity grid could power three quarters of the nation’s 217 million passenger vehicles. ”

Source: RechargeIT

http://www.google.org/recharge/faq.html

The other great page is this one not only does it give a comparison between the two types of car they are testing you can also select each car individually and see the raw data by date. Not only does this offer proof of the worthiness of plug-in hybrids but also offers verifiable data and also the raw data so that it may be interpreted by the reader.

There is much more on all of these sites and many more sites out there these are just the few that I have had the opportunity to look at and write about so if you think there is more that is worthy of inclusion or you disagree with me and have bothered to write an opposing argument then email me: thesender@thesender .co.uk.

By the way if you disagree and you can be bothered to write a coherent argument of any kind (i.e. you want to hurl abuse) don’t email me, I don’t care.