A conversation – 8 characters at a time

by (UB) Sean R
Print Custom Text and Photo M&M’s:
[Via TidBITS]

Too cool. I just saw in the Photojojo newsletter that you can print text and – this part is new – photos on M&M’s, the little candy-covered chocolates from Mars. This doesn’t mean you can run an M&M through your HP inkjet, amusing as that is to imagine; instead you design your M&M’s on the My M&M’s Web site. For any order, you can create up to four designs – two photos and two text messages. Photos should look good when printed in black food-grade ink at a size of about 1 centimeter, and if you think Twitter’s 140 character limit is tight, try getting your message across in two lines of 8 characters each. Going beyond the obvious may be a bit
tricky, since Mars is persnickety about what you’re allowed to put on an M&M, so no “inappropriate” images, objectionable words or phrases, business or product names, drug references, or single letters. It’s not cheap, needless to say, with a 7 ounce (198 gram) bag costing $11.99, and you have to buy at least three bags at a time.

This sure seems like a nice Web 2.0 (“Web 2.0 is about conversations”) idea but I wonder just what sort of conversation you can have when you eat the result?

Technorati Tags: Entertainment, Web 2.0

No excerpts please

by jurvetson

The Problem is Too Much Biological Complexity [adaptivecomplexity's column]:
[Via The DNA Network]
This is what appeared in my newsfeed:

We like to talk about the amazingly complex machinery of the cell: flagella that resemble finely tuned outboard motors, or complex information processing circuits that help a cell process information about its environment. Biologists work hard at understanding how these systems work. They will take a wiring diagram like the following, and ask why is it set up this way?

Read More…

I hate reading excerpts of a post because few people actually are able to get the point of the post across in just a few sentences. In this case, I happened to follow the post for random reasons. The post itself is not so important to me. I already know most of what it details. Many posts do not have really valuable information themselves but they lead to other more important data. Here is what this post contained that was important to me:

Evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch rather bluntly, if not combatively, makes the same point (free full text), not about genetic circuits, but about the complexity in our genomes:

“Emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.”

Lynch argues that much of the complex structure of the genomes of multicellular organisms (compared with the more simple genomes of single-celled organisms) arises not because it’s useful, but because it can’t be avoided given the underlying population genetics.

The PNAS article by Lynch is over a year old but has some really interesting things to say about evolution, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. It has some nice figures exploring misconceptions of evolution.

It provides some very important insights and is well worth reading. But the page also had something that can only be appreciated in the new medium of the Web. Scroll to the bottom and find links to papers published AFTER this paper. Whereas references show papers published before, the Web also permits the linking of papers that were published after, ones that reference the Lynch paper.

Click the Garvin-Doxas paper on Understanding Randomness, a paper which just came out in February. This is a very interesting study of the misconceptions that arise in biology by students. People want to ascribe a direction to it all; they fail to understand what randomness really is. There has to be a reason for almost everything. From the abstract:

They are therefore quick to propose their own rational explanations for various processes, from diffusion to evolution. These rational explanations almost always make recourse to a driver, e.g., natural selection in evolution or concentration gradients in molecular biology, with the process taking place only when the driver is present, and ceasing when the driver is absent. For example, most students believe that diffusion only takes place when there is a concentration gradient, and that the mutational processes that change organisms occur only in response to natural selection pressures. An understanding that random processes take place all the time and can give rise to complex and often counterintuitive behaviors is almost totally absent. Even students who have had advanced or college physics, and can discuss diffusion correctly in that context, cannot make the transfer to biological processes, and passing through multiple conventional biology courses appears to have little effect on their underlying beliefs.

The inability to understand randomness, probability and the contingent nature of biology is a huge problem, not only for University students but also for people with advanced degrees. This is a fascinating study, which I only found because of its connection to the Lynch paper which was only in the full body of the ‘Adaptive Complexity’ blog.

I was lucky that I happened to click through and scan the whole thing. Otherwise, I would have missed some really important information, information that will change how I present my stories on biology.

The Web is all about quickly scanning for information, following links to gather the data needed to solve problems or to learn or just to have fun. Excerpts in newsfeeds short circuit that.

I hate excerpts.

Technorati Tags: General, Science, Web 2.0

A broken model

by elroySF
Lyle Lovett: Albums Sold? 4.6 Million. Money Made From Album Sales? $0:
[Via Techdirt]

Every time we talk about music industry business models, we get some folks who have to chime in with some claim about how musicians should be able to sell their music just like they have for years. Of course, the truth is that it’s quite rare for any musician to make money from selling their albums, as has been pointed out for years. The latest to make that point is Lyle Lovett. Reader Rose M. Welch sends us this link to a story about Lyle Lovett, pointing out that in two decades of making music, selling 4.6 million albums, he’s “never made a dime” from album sales, but has instead used those record sales to make money on tour:

“Records are very powerful promotional tools to go out and be able to play on the road…”

It used to be that touring helped sell albums but this apparently only helped the recording studios. The only thing they can really control is the digital represetation of the music. They can’t replicate the artist.

Looks like Lovett has found out that the albums help market his live performances, which the recording studios can not replicate.Digital wants to be free but people will pay for live.

He does go on to say, however, that he thinks music sales should be self-sustaining. Of course, if he can make money from playing on the road, and giving away the music means it’s an even more “powerful promotional tool,” then why not focus on that? At least he seems open to new ideas:

“If a major label is interested in working with me after these next two records and is able to come up with a strategy that does engage some of the new technology in a way that can benefit everybody, I’d be very interested in that.”

The difficulty arises from the business models adopted by the recording studios. It is viewed purely as a zero sum game. Win-win never enters into the picture.

The problem, of course, is that most record labels aren’t looking at using technology in a way that can benefit everyone. In the mind of your typical record exec, it’s the recording industry against anyone else — and if others are benefiting, that’s a sign that the industry is losing. The idea that everyone can benefit doesn’t even register.

And the real problem for the studios appears because, with the Internet, the artist and their fans can connect directly, without the broker that was the recording studio.

Technorati Tags: Entertainment

Adobe helps

by annais
To Serif or Not To Serif? Regarding Online Readability:
[Via The Acrobat.com Blog]

There are myriad different opinions on what the best conditions are for reading text on a screen. Debates rage about whether or not to use serif fonts and how long a line of text should be. A surprisingly sensitive issue, and possibly without a clear resolution.ﾠ

Here we’ve tried to delineate a few of the more widely accepted tips on how to optimize readability. Although they can be forsaken in the name of personal style, they’re generally considered the most conducive to easy reading. Here are a few key points plucked from various takes on the subject:ﾠ

Regardless of medium, high contrast between type color and page color always contributes to optimal reading conditions. Not surprisingly, readers show a strong preference for black text on a white background (though it’s not strictly necessary; if you simply loathe the combination of white and black, any reasonably contrasting color duo will do). When in doubt, check your color scheme on Snook’s Color Contrast Check.
[More]

Presenting text on a web page has different requirements than on a written page. Its lower resolution, which allows pages to download faster, makes text harder to read. Line spacing is another important aspect to understand. Lots of good tips here.

Technorati Tags: Web 2.0

Medicine 2.0

by D’Arcy Norman
[Crossposted at SpreadingScience]

Why Health or Medicine 2.0? [ScienceRoll]:
[Via The DNA Network]

While medicine is usually at the forefront of new technology for diagnosis and treatment, the patient-doctor interface has not followed. Perhaps that might change soon.

Some interesting statistics have recently been published. According to Pharma 2.0:

99% of physicians are online for personal or professional purposes
85% of offices have broadband
83% consider the Internet essential to their practice

So doctors are online.

At The Deloitte Center, you will find even more details about the web usage of health consumers. Yes, there will be much more patients who seek health-related information on the web and who want to communicate with their doctors via e-mail or Skype.

And patients are ready.

We have tools to work with:



And we have concepts.

So it will happen because patients and doctors need to have contact. The question is how long will it take?

Technorati Tags: Health, Web 2.0