Appearance model of the brain, ±2.5 standards deviations shown

T is difficult to submit a reasonably decent paper to an international conference. It is also rather unfortunate when two papers need to be completed before strict submission deadlines that are only one day apart.

I am planning to submit a paper on image registration assessment to ISBI 2006 and another on appearance model evaluation to CVPR 2006. Both deadlines have been set to the beginning of next week. That possibly, if not probably, warrants scarce blog activity. Both conferences will take place in the States and I will wind up attending at least one of the conferences.

As the documents adhere to IEEE-styled templates, I have finally descended to the level of raw L^AT_EX. I preferred to have avoided it for the past 4 years as I discovered the front-end L_yX, which has its pros and cons. L^AT_EX. feels like a step back nonetheless as failed attempts to compile a document are time-consuming. This is just one among the many deficiencies I could list.

The Google cookie

AST week, amidst discussion in an SEO forum, I raised the prospect of tailoring content based on browser cookies. Cookies may contain a person’s full search history, but potentially much beyond that. As I shall explain in the remainder of this item, it was only short time later that my predication became a reality. This development is bad news, as well as good news.

…People are described by their cookie and Google (can) builds a profile, i.e. history of all searches that an individual runs (and potentially link s/he follows). Sooner or later, for competitive advantage, the SERP we all see may differ.

Example:

Google can tell that you like a lot of pop music. Search for ‘Aqua’ and get the Danish band at number 1. If you are a scientist, you may have a page on the chemical element at number 1.

I hadn’t realised something when I made the above statement. This was bound to become a patent, courtesy of Google.

4. A method of personalizing placed content associated with a search query, comprising: receiving a search query from a user; accessing a user profile associated with the user; identifying a set of placed content that matches the search query; and ordering the set of placed content in accordance with the user profile.

This seems too fundamental to be patentable, which is probably what controversy over software patents is all about. Not in the EU though. Has anyone yet pondered the implications it has on privacy? Might this be as tactless as book scanning, which is damaging to public opinion?

Longhorn beta – old screenshot

ICROSOFT are said to offering too much choice in their upcoming Windows Vista. Some would even say that they are bound to failure due to this strategy. 7 editions of Vista are simply too much and customer confusion is foreseen.

As if a dozen editions/versions of Windows¹ was not excessive, Singularity — a research O/S — has recently been introduced by Microsoft. It is probably intended to address the many inherent deficiencies in Windows, primarily security and customisability. Singularity will in fact be built from scratch, which is reminiscent of what was previously said about Vista as words leaked out from Redmond.

If Microsoft pursue a research O/S, then so be it, but researchers are largely not fond of Windows, especially in scientific research domains. Windows is simply too restrictive and insufficiently flexible (unless one pays). The move to Singularity is absurd, in my opinion, as people do not want to completely separate research environments from other activities.

Research involves writing documents and surfing the Web, for example. Having one operating system at home a yet another O/S, which is dedicated to research at work, is utterly confusing and unnecessary. It also support the point regarding confusion in Vista, which will be distributed in 7 editions. To use analogies, it is like having a truck and a motorcycle both for the puspose of transporting one passenger. More so, it is like having completely separate sets of dishes for chicken and ham.

¹ Windows ME, 2000, NT, XP Home+Professional are still supported, but only partially and not for long either.

Although Google Suggest is a separate (yet tight) extension of the
search bar, its name reflects on reason for fear among giants like Wal-Mart

HE New York Times discusses the effect of ‘Googling’ things on industry. The article broadens its scope to discuss the small, the large and the intimidatingly large-scale impact.

Since many people begin their Web surfing with Google’s search page, information (or global knowledge) is somewhat controlled and centralised in Google’s datacentres. Search engines are able to provide advice to their consumers, much like trusted peers. With search engine optimisation there can be bias, which is dangerous. Moreover, with bad publicity in blogs and forums, many companies become overly concerned.

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, often intimidates its competitors and suppliers. Makers of goods from diapers to DVD’s must cater to its whims. But there is one company that even Wal-Mart eyes warily these days: Google, a seven-year-old business in a seemingly distant industry.

…

Wal-Mart is scarcely alone in its concern. As Google increasingly becomes the starting point for finding information and buying products and services, companies that even a year ago did not see themselves as competing with Google are beginning to view the company with some angst – mixed with admiration.

…

Google, the reigning giant of Web search, could extend its economic reach in the next few years as more people get high-speed Internet service and cellphones become full-fledged search tools, according to analysts. And ever-smarter software, they say, will cull and organize larger and larger digital storehouses of news, images, real estate listings and traffic reports, delivering results that are more like the advice of a trusted human expert.

Found yesterday in Dave Winer’s blog

Google determinded to pull Firefox out of the bag

Earlier today I came across this observation in Slashdot:

slashkitty writes “Google updated their AdSense service to pay publishers for referrals. What’s interesting is that now they pay publishers $1 US for each FireFox download with the Google Toolbar installed. Is this the bump that Firefox needs to boost downloads? Will Google be able to pay the millions for all the downloads?”

I am very glad that Google promote Firefox. I love Firefox and have admiration for Google, but I cannot help wondering if this becomes similar to kickbacks among Microsoft and hardware vendors. Free software is one thing. Being rewarded for using a piece of software means that deep pockets warrant prolification. This might also, under particular circumstances, lead to lock-in of data and habits.

Related item: Google Goes Firefox-Only?

NE fact which I am fully aware of is that I have typos in my blog. That is much as I expect. I regularly spot these when it is already too late to be worthwhile correcting.

I would like to write a few words on the way I check for the correctness of text. Before publishing an item in the blog, I read the whole message entirely (single proofreading pass), which includes a slack glance at the markup. Having done so, I quickly spellcheck the text and then validate the markup in order to spot structural inconsistencies or typos in the markup. Lastly, I have another quick and sloppy read, which assumes the first read was sufficient for eradication of typos.

¨Life is too short to proofread¨ is a quote/motto that I go by. ‘Typo paranoia’ can be time-consuming and is by no means enjoyable either. I am more lenient and sloppy when it comes to E-mail, mailing lists and newsgroups, with an exception where my bosses are involved. I rely mainly on the spellchecker and sometimes I re-read the text once, at the very end. By worrying less, I increase my capacity for writing, at the expense of quality.

FeedLounge: one among many (Web)
applications which tolerate invalid feeds

HEER hypocrisy is the only way one can describe the latest statement from Microsoft’s RSS team. Microsoft have broken and ignored many International standards over the years. This caused many application to malfunction even when they stuck with standards. Now, when matters do not suit them, Microsoft decide to say farewell to feeds that are not well-formed XML [rel="nofollow"]. Many projects, even the tiniest among them, have tolerated malformed RSS feeds. Yet, this appear to be too much to ask from biggest standards-breaking criminal of all.

Potentially, Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7 will simply refuse to handle anything that does not adhere to or complies with standards. Need I even mention that Microsoft are set to ‘extend’ RSS, thus breaking RSS protocols?

Our years of experience in with HTML in Internet Explorer have taught us the long-term pain that results from being too liberal with what you accept from others. Hence, we%u2019ve adopted the following overriding principle for IE 7 and RSS platform in Windows Vista:

We will only support feeds that are well-formed XML.