Progressive bifocal fix


I’m throwing out this “life hack” after finally, almost, dialing in my new progressive bifocal glasses so I can see acceptably well both at  computer distance and long distance.

Problem ONE:  lenses are fairly small.   Not clear this is necessarily part of the problem, but I think it makes each of the 16 gradations in the lens smaller and therefore makes it harder to get the glasses to sit “just right” on your face.   I kept the small lenses but recommend you get medium to large lenses with progressive bifocals.

Problem TWO:  Reading Prescription was wrong.    I have a pretty capable eye doctor so it really surprised me when I went in after initial problems.  He sat me down next to his computer with hand lenses of -.25 , -.50, and -.75 diopters and had me experiment.  This was VERY helpful and surprised him as we found I had more of a difference between distance and computer range than he’d measured with the instruments before.

Costco sent the specs back in at no additional charge to boost the lower portion of the bifocals.    The new ones were better, but I still had problems with wavyness and inability to dial in a good focus on both eyes.

Problem THREE:    Optical Center could be off as measured.   In my case this was NOT a problem though it felt like it.   She measured it many times and it matched earlier numbers.  But have them do this if you have problems since errors here will create problems.

Problem FOUR: Optical Center could be off as the glasses sit on your face.   This does appear have been part of my problem and I’m still tweaking the nose pieces to make sure vision from each eye is correct.

Problem FIVE:   ANGLE of the GLASS is WRONG.    THIS appears to have been my big problem.  In general the glass should be parallel to your eyes, yet many frames won’t sit this way and need extensive adjustment.    Before I got the new prescription this potential problem was mentioned *immediately* by the doctor and optical person so I assume it’s common.   FIX:   Take a small needle nosed pliers, clamp them up near where the little screws attach lenses to frame, and bend the ear pieces DOWN (or perhaps up in some cases?).   Mine are now at a much different angle than they came, but the glass now is parallel to my face and therefore the glasses are working much better.

Note that 20 feet to infinity distance need the same prescription for most people.

Note that often eye doctors and especially glasses providers will often encourage you to “get used to this”.    Generally I think this is very BAD advice and you should insist on working with the specs until you dial them in perfectly, or close.

Artificial Intelligence Optimism: Human intelligence on a computer is coming soon.


I don’t know how I missed reading Raymond Kurzweil for so long.  He’s an amazing pioneer in a variety of innovations from music to Artificial intelligence, and his perspectives on the ongoing shift from human to machine thinking are quite brilliant. It’s too bad we miss so much of this, needing as we do our daily fix of Anna Nicole news.

Here are a couple really neat items from a recent interview with him:

KURZWEIL: We’ll have sufficient hardware to recreate human intelligence pretty soon. We’ll have it in a supercomputer by 2010. A thousand dollars of computation will equal the 10,000 trillion calculations per second that I estimate is necessary to emulate the human brain by 2020. The software side will take a little longer. In order to achieve the algorithms of human intelligence, we need to actually reverse-engineer the human brain, understand its principles of operation. And there again, not surprisingly, we see exponential growth where we are doubling the spatial resolution of brain scanning every year, and doubling the information that we’re gathering about the brain every year.

nonbiological intelligence, once it achieves human levels, will double in power every year, whereas human intelligence—biological intelligence—is fixed. We have 10 to the 26th power calculations per second in the human species today, and that’s not going to change, but ultimately the nonbiological side of our civilization‘s intelligence will become by the 2030s thousands of times more powerful than human intelligence and by the 2040s billions of times more powerful. And that will be a really profound transformation.

Profound indeed. Look at how our modest intelligence capabilities, when applied cleverly, lead to really neat innovations, higher standards of living, better environment, etc, etc. With a *billion times* our abilities the thinking machines should be able to create a blueprint for an earthly utopia. There are plenty of resources on earth to give everybody a high standard of living- we just don’t distribute them optimally, primarily due to hopelessly ineffective economic systems and conflicts in the developing world and only modestly effective ones in the affluent sectors.

When the computers give us the blueprints for change will we choose to implement the suggestions? Will they look for ways to force us to use them? Will they value humanity as we do (which, I would argue, is not much given the state of affairs in the 3rd world and how little attention we pay to that suffering).

Kurzweil Reader

Kurtzweil Website 

Google News? Not!


Today’s big news is that Google is not allowed to put out the news from a European news outlet that sued them. As usual, silicon insiders are 1) waxing argumentatively in favor of the virtuous wonder of Google and 2) forgetting the big picture which is *long term content control*. Here is the story, and here’s an example of the siliconized logic from TechDirt. Here’s Google’s view on the case.

Of course it’s probably stupid and shortsighted for the Belgian newspapers to insist Google remove them because they’ll lose reach and they’ll lose some potential for advertising revenues. This is especially true for an American audience that, without online exposure, is far more likely to encounter a Belgian waffle than a Belgian newpaper.

However, the news flash that Silicon Valley is always so reluctant to read is that Google’s spectacular success has not been primarily a function of *Google’s* own efforts, rather it has been their brilliance monetizing *other people’s content*. Google, as they themselves are fond of reminding us, does not do content. That’s fine and even appreciated by those of us who do do content. [Hmm – I said do do as in “Yes, I doo doo content” said Chico the Wonder Dog].

However the key question about content remains – how should content cash be divided between those who produce it, those who monetize it, and those who expose it to the world? Google can reasonable suggest that they are now doing much of the monetizing and the exposure and therefore deserve most of the cash. That fits well with the fact they are *getting* most of the cash. Google might also note that they are providing publishers with adsense program and then sharing about 70% of that revenue with the content producers themselves.

On the other hand, Belgium papers or other content providers can reasonably argue that when Google pulls up snips of their stuff and shows them in Google search results page, and the a user winds up clicking an advertisement at the side, the content folks don’t see a dime of that even though they were a key contributor to the Google profit equation.

Who is right? I say let the market decide.

Raining on the Gadget/Widget parade, Jeremy?


When Yahoo’s Jeremy is concerned about something technical you *always* need to pay close attention, as he’s one of the most knowlegeable observers of the internet landscape as well as a key driver of Web 2.0 innovation over at the unrivaled Yahoo Development department.

Today Jeremy listed several concerns about the challenges of widgets (aka Gadgets) including security and bloated websites.   Considering that many, including me, see a coming gadget revolution where our desktops will become littered almost beyond recognition with site gadgets, desktop gadgets, and more, it might be a good time to listen to Jeremy and solve some of these problems or at least standardize things, especially to reduce spyware and malware issues which will likely become even worse as users become less sophisticated and gadgets become more complex.

Nomenclature Primer aka Yahoo and Apple say WidgeTomato, Google and MSN say GadgeTomatoe:
Yahoo still calls gadgets widgets as does Apple, but Google changed widgets to gadgets to be consistent with Microsoft which, at MIX06, was heavily promoting desktop gadgets as one of Vista’s strong suits and website gadgets as a key web innovation.   Google leads the Gadget pack now thanks to Adam Sah and the excellent gadget team.

I think everybody should rename all these things “Little boxes made of Ticky Tacky”.

Intel Teraflop chip doing one trillion mathematical calculations a second


Intel’s new prototype computer chip could herald a new age of computing reports the New York Times today. The “Teraflop” chip is not yet ready for widespread use but the advanced capabilities represent a leapfrog over current chip technologies offered by Intel and AMD.

One *trillion* calculations per second. How many can you do? One can’t help but think these speeds and power will soon break down the barriers between human minds and mechanical ones, leading to a revolution in thought the likes of which we may not be able to even imagine… without the aid of computer enhancements to our own brains! I just hope I can use my Circuit City coupons for a new, enhanced brain.

Rescue Wiki – check it out !


Rescue Wiki is a new website to assist Search and Rescue efforts around the world. Like DangerData.com it is an experimental approach to enlisting online help for SAR efforts.

Wikis can be a good way to collectively process information if you are dealing with a computer savvy crowd, but in my experience they limit participation compared to blogs which make it easier to comment and to passively participate.

Rescue Wiki has both, which may be a great solution. Check it out and let him know what you think!  Rescue Wiki

Solar Warming Hypothesis heats up the GW debate


Nigel Calder is no science slouch and he joins a growing number of voices challenging the conventional wisdom about warming. Although I think there are still too few such voices to reject the findings of the IPCC report that states it is 90% certain that observed warming is caused by humans, it’s should be clear to all now that dissenting voices in academic circles are stifled both by peer pressure and by grant pressure where projects that might challenge the current thinking simply are not funded.

Calder’s perspective is interesting. All of us should be frustrated by the intensity of the groupthink and alarmism that has characterized the warming debate, though there is enough of a concensus among respected researchers that I’m skeptical Calder is right that most of the warming is due to solar radiation fluctuation and not greenhouse gasses.

However I’m very respectful of the fact that Calder and many others are correctly asserting that good science comes from hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom rather than adopt it unskeptically.

A book that needs to be written is one that exposes the academic censorship claimed by a growing number of insiders and outsiders in this heated global debate which arguably could lead to the most expensive project in history.

However, even if one accepts IPCC conclusions, I’m floored to see how many scientists are comfortable asserting that since IPCC suggests a 90% likelihood that warming is human caused we therefore should forego trillions in GDP to stop it.  This conclusion does NOT flow from science, and borders on economic and societal irresponsibility.

The global public, even more than scientists and politicians, seems unwilling to engage in an intelligent debate about whether to spend resources on current catastrophic conditions of poverty and health or on the potential dangers of global warming. As always, our ignorance is our peril.

Powerset or Power Hype?


Powerset is one of the few new search offerings that actually may threaten the status quo, where Google picks up the lion’s share of internet searches (and internet search revenues) simply because they are the best of the mediocre. I’m not knocking Google’s brilliance here, but people are not realizing how great search would be if you could, for example, carry on a conversation with the computer rather than try to constrain the dialog in ways that meet the needs of the search algorithms. Powerset probably won’t be a conversation with the machine, but if they can crack the nut of natural language search even Google may tremble, as they are currently weak in that regard and it appears they have not been spending the time and money in that direction.

TechCrunch and VentureBeat on Powerset potential.

Natural language search is basically the idea that you’ll tell the computer exactly what you need, and probably refine the query as you would if you were speaking to a person. This may not do much for advanced “power users” who know how to use boolean expressions and advanced query refinements to get at the info they want, but it could be a wondrous thing for the other 99% of searchers out there who struggle every day trying to get Google Yahoo, or MSN to deliver the great specific results they need.

I still predict that eventually it’ll be Artificial Intelligence applications that bring us “near perfect” results as they’ll be able to screen spam and process good stuff at light speed, but great AI search is probably at least a decade away.

The search game has just begun and it’ll be fun to see how Powerset fits in.

Yahoo: Piping hot content to websites near you. Brilliant.


Yahoo Pipes (site may be down at the moment – I think they didn’t anticipate the instant global attention) is a perfect example of why I’m so bullish on Yahoo’s prospects as a company. Yahoo Pipes is a premier mashup enabling application coming along at a very opportune time.

Yahoo’s developer team is second to none, and in my opinion has a remarkable understanding of “Web 2.0” sensibilities. Pipes will simplify the process of connecting content, websites, and applications.

In an ideal world, innovation is constrained only by the human imagination, not by the limitations of technology. Yahoo pipes is a profound step in that direction.

More about Yahoo Pipes:

Jeremy Zawodny

Tim O’Reilly (is this guy ever *wrong* about stuff? I don’t think so. )
… enormous promise in turning the web into a programmable environment for everyone.

Matt Cutts

Anil Dash 

—————–

Disclaimer: I  have some Yahoo stock and as of Monday some short term Yahoo calls.