Science allows scientists to practice theory. Theory is when you know something, but it doesn’t work. Practice is when something works, but you don’t know why. Therefore, through programming, Computer Science allows computer scientists to combine theory and practice; nothing works and no one knows why. Therefore, let us not forget as stated quite sharply in Taligent’s Guide to Designing Programs, there is no code faster than no code.

This category, Unending Curiosity, is essentially for questions I can’t expect to answer but feel compelled to ask anyway. These questions seem like they’d go on for ever if you did try to answer them, and certainly just the asking could take a while.

So, one of these more interesting ideas is of course Technology, and I mean as a whole. However, it seems we rarely look at Technology from more than one, rather simple dimension. For most people, this dimension allows them to see a simple progression of tools or a linear release of innovations. But, technology has an interesting substance which I feel allows it to be better described as the evolution of human usage.

This, because without need there is no use, and vice versa. Moreover, there is little that can be innovated upon. Lacking these fundamental concerns, the idea of Technology slowly collapses , or at least, so does its underlying value.

What, and how we use it, is our Technology. And, Technology changes how existence, either in how skills or our uses are employed, improved and connected with each other and our existence, or through providing a platform for more innovative construction. Technology is an extension of our existence in this way.

None of this complexity dismisses the truth discovered though, in our single dimension view of things: as time changes, one might throw away tools for new one,s or replace tools with refined human skills.

This idea itself, specifically, is what I’m hung up on; this idea of the continuous refinement of human skills.

My question (read as Unending Curiosity) is: How does the mind integrate replacements for deprecated human skills and behaviors (as those mental tools are themselves Human Technologies)? Also, how, if at all, is the knowledge or wisdom accredited to obsolete or deprecated uses/behaviors/technologies retained or passed along (so as to ensure technologists are not working on the exactly same problem continuously, only being re-represented)?

( ref: http://www.tcf.ua.edu/AZ/ITHistoryOutline.htm )

Alright, so, what exactly is going on over at Wired? And, precisely what is Bruce Schneier smoking? Better yet, where can we all purchase some to sell to terrorists when we run into them (since thats what all the talk is lately)?

Talk about shitting the bed…

This is desire directing science and about as bad as it gets. The theory discussed in the article is used in quite a strange way. Mangled in order to make predictions about the resultant conditions of terrorism on a whole society, the corespondent inference theory, they say here, indicates terrorism doesn’t work. Certainly something scientists would like to believe, if you ask me, anyhow — I admit, that is just my opinion, about the only evidence I have of what I allege is the article and the way the idea is used.

Allow me though, using all my mighty force, to engage in a most epic debate. But, whilest I do this and rather quickly I might add, I will need… one, and only one piece of evidence, to make my case. Brace yourself, so you aren’t startled by the dramatic entrance of booming percussion, ladies and gentlemen.

I give you, my evidence: the United States of America.

Terrorism from the analytical perspective of the tactician offers clear and pure lines of thinking on the ultimate goal of the terrorist — to win. Terror is only a tactic, terrorist only a label. Terrorists employ as we’ve seen, extremely violent even self-violating acts to oppose enemies only hoping to create a viral air of concern — what we have also seen is that, that works just fine. This, in turn, leads to a progressive change in the way of life for said enemy, and change in their respective tactics. And, especially for Americans, who lived a very different way prior to the morning of September 11th, 2001. Or, did everyone forget that?

To say terrorism is ineffective, is to wash away any possible excuse for the behavior of the American public in our last two Presidential elections, that is for sure. Truly, it says then what about America if terror is entirely ineffective against us? How desensitized have we become? What then is the cause for our current state too?

I cannot believe this idea that the small demands of terrorism are not in some way met, when all is imbalanced in our country. You may run the circular argument that our country is this way because of corruption, but then, one must question, who is corrupting those politicians or leaders, if not the same kind of criminal element both foreign and domestic, each not worth the various labels prescribed them.

Look out! Run! Oh, no, sorry. Wait, stop. Oh, no, I was wrong, its coming straight for us, sorry… Run again! Hurry! Oops, hold on, something in my eye… oh, damn it all — Run! Run! Look out! The Terrorists are coming! The Terrorists are coming! Oh, wait, never you mind… stop a second… take a breather… the coast looks clear, guess my gut was wrong.

The above is fiction, for sure. Yet, at the risk of oversimplifying the process of reading a report, and explaining it to the American people, I wonder, do those statements sound like the kind of security advice you’d be willing to pay for? Probably not. But, that is probably because when it comes to security, the last thing anyone really wants is panic — the statements above smack of panic. And panic usually follows ignorance.

Well, the question of whether or not you would pay, friend, is moot to be sure. Because, you do pay so already. You pay for this wonderful service in taxes. Who’s giving us the advice? The Department of Homeland Security. That is right, the part of the government responsible for keeping our country secure, especially from people who want to terrorize us. Its an interesting irony then, how quickly members of our own government, but especially in this department, tend to use Terrorism as a political tool to meet points in their respective agendas — talk about terror — abusing the people who give you power might be the worst kind.

This little tidbit from AP shows Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff commenting about his gut feeling of the safety of our country. This sets a terrible precedent. This is the man tasked with making Americans feel confident about the country because the country is secure — thats what doing his job is all about. His key concern should be that Americans feel safe not panic.

Besides that, no one calls their boss — in this case the American people — to say what Chertoff is saying. Imagine, I might call up my boss and say, “Hey, so, $3,000,000 in the hardware you paid for, might go belly up this summer — I checked with my gut.” And there is a reason for this. I — you — we — would be fired. Not because we’re raising awareness to a problem, but for being aware of such a huge problem and not already involving the right people from jump — for letting the problems pile up.

See, its not my job to raise awareness of problems its my job to solve them — much like Secretary Chertoff. And, when a problem is too big for me, thats when I visit my bosses office. So, is that what Secretary Chertoff is telling us? He can’t secure our country? He can’t do the job? Thats information I’d be willing to “buy.” Because it takes me forward, I know who I do not want handling the problem, at least.

I mean, its only 2007; there have only been a few technological advances (*cough* Google *cough*) in information gathering in the past while. So seriously, the fact that our Secretary of Homeland Security is basing the safety of the free world on his gut feeling shouldn’t be an issue, should it?

Oddly enough, this all comes at the same time as political analysts determine the best bump in the poll numbers for the Republicans would come from announcing potential terrorist attacks in our near future — our President’s approval rating would rise especially — its suggested it would invigorate his base. And, various members of the Republican party have also come forward with this same “gut feeling.” For instance, the comments Rick Santorum recently gave.

I can’t help but believe this is all one big, heaping pile of Mistakes of The Day.

One question is, is it a mistake to listen to Secretary Chertoff’s gut?

I guess when it comes to security intelligence, you can’t have enough sources. So, of course, I’ll take heed. But, if you ruin my summer Mr. Chertoff, I’ll be alright. Its the whole summer session of the market I’m worried about. How exactly does your gut plan to repair the economic impact it just had on America through use of your mouth? I guess we’ll need to call in Vice President Cheney’s shooting hand in for help. All jokes aside, if its not too much trouble, mister Secretary, perhaps next time you might rely on your brain — that goes doubly for the American people.

Are we allowing the terrorists to act transparently through our government? It is certainly a possibility. Consider that the only true tactic of terrorists is creating terror.

A good question about the comments of Secretary Chertoff, and the terror they created, might be: is this intentional or accidental? And another is, is it a mistake to put the country in a position where concern for terrorist threats can be made a plaything for politicians or worse their gut feelings? Worst of all, who will we be able to trust to give us secure information to save our very lives?

These kinds of messages from government officials tend to destroy confidence, refute their own efforts, and can never solve any aspect of the problem, because (especially in this case) they offer up no facts. These kinds of messages are idle apparitions created by people who are looking for security of another kind: job security. And, if they’re not just idle apparitions and we are in danger, then, Secretary Chertoff , and Rick Santorum know something they’re not supposed to.

The idea of having a phobia probably causes most Americans to feel anxiety, that worry in itself though, in some cases, might just be another phobia — that is how I know, not all phobias are created equal. While the term phobia can mean having an irrational fear of something, lets not also exclude that it does also mean to have an irrational sensitivity to something.

Still, I feel warm considering the idea that “it all” began when I was just seven or eight years old, sitting behind a keyboard for the first time. Only because that idea itself, makes my progression over the last two decades, seem epic. Chances are, there was nothing epic going on. More than likely “it all”, as I so vaguely put it, was the result of a major case of infophobia.

Something we all suffer from… from time to time.

Now, I suspect, your mind will probably want to attack that word — infophobia — so allow me to do it first: there is no such word as infophobia, at least not in any English Dictionary that I have looked over.

Infophobia is not the battle-cry of some counterculture. Nor is it some industry’s new favorite buzzword. And, infophobia is not some fancy, underhanded term coined so that you’d land in the chair of a therapist either. In fact, infophobia is my very own term.

Let me clarify though, I don’t mean “my very own term” in the usual quaint sense. I mean, its my own term because I registered Infophobia as a trademarked business name. Surely though, shameless plugging is not the reason I brought the term up.

Infophobia describes the cause for (my) anyone’s irrational compulsion to know as much as possible at all times through as many mediums as he/she can find, and despite one’s physical limitations. The term is used to describe the cause for why someone seeks sources of information and information itself, only compulsively.

So, now you know what I mean, when I say, Infophobia. But, does it really mean anything — does such an “illness” exist?

Yes, it does.

We know this kind of behavior/phenomena has occurred in the past, because today, we see the results of the typical symptoms. For instance, one can directly correlate the advancements of information technology with a progressive trend toward open syndication of information. That is, starting with the advent of the Internet, one can find countless examples, on and including, the World Wide Web, or, through the birth of the Open Source Software Community, later leading to Web 2.0 philosophies of free use and collaboration — where one observes the complete transformation of these venues into Infophobic platforms. Clearly, members of these social networks are compelled, through the fear of missing some bit of data, and are motivated to stay connected, in order to remain having a sense of relevance — this is the very nature of popular culture.

We can consider almost any amount of demand in almost any form, with the purpose of information syndication, a typical result of one, or any combination of Infophobic symptoms. This demand is driven by what we can call the Principle of Ideal Preference. Simply stated that is, that the majority of the embodiment of a demand will always tend to prefer ideal results.

The best, simplest example is the “market shopper.” As consumers in a market, the embodiment of the demand is the ideal purchase of ideal products. No one goes shopping with the preference of buying something less than ideal, or in a less than ideal way. Even if it were suggested someone wanted to purchase something already broken, or from some far away place — already broken, or far away are restrictive and define the criteria by which the consumer has entitled the item, or the process ideal.

This is not simply a case of curiosity not so easily dismissed, either. Infophobia is a more deeply rooted part of the human pathology. And, understanding Infophobia, the fear of informational uncertainty itself, or of an awareness that avenues of information are potentially being missed, is integral to understanding the mindset applied during the development of innovative concepts. These fears, worries, and/or concerns invoke thought processes which help to sure up errors found at design time.

Infophobia promotes many of our current, and especially are most effective, analytical, human behaviors. Beyond just analysis, it is this pathological process that motivates, and re-enforces what would otherwise be a fleeting curiosity, and cements these impulses into evolving, problem-solving behaviors.

This picture of Sean Connery has me laughing hysterically.  “Bond… Gay Bond.”

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet is right!

Yesterday, I made it a point try and explain what experts all over the Internet have been discussing for the past few months, with an article called “Google To World: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet“. What the experts have been discussing are Google’s interests, and their shifting toward telecommunications — an area they have time and again refuted any interest. Normally, I’d not take the time to immediately follow-up on such a story — one with pie in the sky motives. However, it seems Google’s wasting no time.

Today, Google announced it purchased Grand Central Communications, a prime, Internet-based provider of telecommunications software solutions and services. Guess I only just managed to squeak-by with my “I told you so!”

All the experts turn out when it comes to our good friends over at “Don’t Be Evil.” — I mean Google. Have you ever wondered why? It may be because they’ve been doing a lot this year. Or, it could be, because despite all they have done in the the last year, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

In as many months, the publicity surrounding Google’s big-business activities, in the area of search, media advertising, and telecommunications have given body to Google’s business moves; a body which previously held a much more ghostly form — one buried in the cloaking power of the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). Still though, this is a body we now see only as eyes slowly peering from under a line of shadow — The Don’t Be Evil People, alright.

Lo, did I say telecommunications and Google in the same sentence? Sorry, Eric, I don’t mean to give away any major GooglePlans(tm) before they’re done being hatched… oh, and neither do you it seems.

Google has publicly denied plans to get into the lucrative business, valued at US$1.3-trillion globally, but industry experts say it is inevitable. The Mountain View, Calif.-based company already has its toes in it with offerings such as Google Talk and the hugely popular YouTube video service. A major splash is only a matter of time, and when Google — with its mammoth US$163-billion market capitalization — does dive in, phone company takeovers and Apple gizmos will look like quaint curiosities.

If Microsoft is the ever-apparent Goliath of the Information Technology Industry, than the world needs to stop right now and wonder, who is this David that we call Google with over 8 times the revenue per share? Way back, it seemed Google didn’t have any real reason to expand very far beyond search. The sudden domination of that area, gave them plenty of foot-room, and plenty of customers. In fact, domination over search for Google, because of the model they implemented, meant domination over advertising and brand building. These days, that model still sings. Free services and advertising sang something like a $10 billion dollar tune for the Don’t Be Evil People, and thats just in the last year.

You might say it seemed like Google had found a sufficient niche. Evolution though, leads to a new question: How to spend the windfall?

Google bought YouTube, of its many, many acquisitions, and made headlines. This purchase was quite shocking given the immense amounts changing hands. Still, besides the size of the sticker price, there are other reasons why the purchase shocked some experts. The internet-based video-medium employed by YouTube, in many ways just seeded in the minds of most internet users, could only be savored by pockets of enthusiasts. The bandwidth does not yet exist.

This meant a limit to the advertising audience and a limit to the visibility of Google’s brand as well as their clients. At least, thats how it seems when you’re dealing in billions.

A major factor; the ability of the general public to afford a source of high speed Internet access, in the form of emerging broadband, assisted greatly in YouTube’s adoption, or more generally the interim adoption of large file sharing in many formats — the kind that creates the demand for new network technology.

But, even now, within the flow of that demand, broadband Internet access is far from a universal given amongst Internet users. And, if we look purely in terms of the United States, while broadband penetration is considered high, the performance capacity of the penetrating networks themselves are extremely low (China’s transfer averages are around 100 times that of their US counterparts).

So, what could Google do? Seemingly it would appear a difficult market to enter. Or at least, one requiring time, money, strategy and/or perhaps innovation, to become competitive. It would seem unlikely of Google, or anyone for that matter, to be interested in spending the money to become competitive in such an arena. Doing that, would set a hard limit for growth within any company.

What if Internet TV doesn’t take off? (Not likely) What if Internet TV advertising doesn’t take off? No companies, or brands, big or small, will want to waste advertising dollars to have ads appear on your proprietary, side-show network — it makes them look only more small-time.

So, why go to all the trouble?

As it always is when looking down the long miles, it takes a bit of business longsight. If you’re Google, it is more than well worth your while to look far ahead. Lets put a name to our pain to help explain why we’re talking in such long time scales: custom… Telecommunications… Network…

This is what we need to build if we have Google’s “problem”. In short it means a lot of money up front. Building something as actual as a Telecommunications Network is very different from building software or an on-line service. But who knows how much fiber Google already has… What do the experts say?

TeleGeography’s Mr. Schoonover doubts Google will ever become a telephone company because the profit margins in businesses such as phone and broadband provision just aren’t worth it. But the company could save itself a ton in costs if it moves its web traffic off the networks owned by phone and cable firms and onto its own.

There is a hint here toward the end that explains why Google continues to build so many data centers, and just might be building the latest and greatest Internet backbone… saves itself a ton in costs if it moves its web traffic off of the networks owned by phone and cable firms and onto its own.

Now, you and me should be American about result number one, should Google build that network: Google can use those tons of savings to recuperate the building costs, over time — its just a form of deficit spending, and they are a company with a product: search. It is number two, on the other hand, that should stir perhaps a curiosity in anyone who has used a Google service: Google now owns the only proprietary network that runs the software everyone has been locked into using, only as a free segment of the Internet, for the better part of the last decade. Enter the private network segment: GoogleNet.

If Google moved all its traffic onto its own network, phone and cable firms would suddenly find the electronic equivalent of cobwebs and tumbleweeds blowing on their own networks. They would also find a gaping hole where big network usage revenue used to be and the roles could be reversed — the phone and cable firms could become customers of Google, selling access to its network.

This is now a great truth about the Internet — commercial networks would become increasingly unnecessary as they provide less sense of service, offering little more than bandwidth. Google means access to information services, content, cache, etc.

How much would you pay to be on? How much if you needed it to run your business?

As Google, you can now isolate your users and charge on any basis you like. You can create any deriving technology you like — you’re also the market leader in brand awareness and advertising. You can charge to peer with this network or just to make use of it temporarily. Also, you have isolated all your existing products and services onto this network. You can ensure security. You can ensure integrity. You can ensure availability. You can now choose how you plan to lease access to even your individual services finitely and with a greater sense of control and awareness.

Google may not want to be a phone company per se, Mr. Surtees says, but the old definition of what a phone company is no longer applies. Just as Google redefined search and advertising, so too is the company changing the definition of telecommunications. “Telecom is meshed and integral to what Google does and is becoming moreso,” he says. Mr. Enderle says Google won’t have to stretch its core business strategy — offering ad-based services for free to consumers - very far to offer telecommunications services. In fact, it’s exactly the business model the company is experimenting with in mobile phones.

Progressively, more Internet-based activities will rely on Google Services or results from some Google-based solution, as are so many already, irregardless of the network path taken to make use of them. This is why, in the end, Google will enter this arena of Telecommunications. For Google, shortening that path, securing the end-to-end communication through some retail Google device, say, means better, more reliable service, and a significant incentive to make that service come at price.