Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Douglas Roberts]

Cool it guys.  I'm in Vegas.  Sex on every corner.  Sex at every table.
 Sex in the lobby.  Sex, sex, sex.


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Just to get it in before Doug can...
>
> I don't think it would have included a "happy ending".
>
> And would things have gone the way they did if they kept the 'BackRub'
> name?
> -Arlo James Barnes
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
* 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] What is Google?

[Marcus G. Daniels]

So here's a question.Suppose you're Casey Anthony or some person 
featured on Dateline NBC.   What happens if you're not a U.S. search 
engine user?  Say you choose to use Yandex or Seznam or some other 
international search engine.   What do the feds do to extend their reach 
into these countries, if anything?  Would it have been sufficient for 
Casey just to use those engines, with .cz, or .ru suffixes?


Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Steve Smith]

Just to get it in before Doug can...

I don't think it would have included a "happy ending".
And would things have gone the way they did if they kept the 'BackRub' 
name?

-Arlo James Barnes



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Arlo Barnes]

And would things have gone the way they did if they kept the 'BackRub' name?
-Arlo James Barnes

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Gary Schiltz]

How about altavista.digital.com?

On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Gillian Densmore  wrote:

> Anyone else remember when google was this small internet search engine that 
> hardly anyone had heard of because they were off using yahoo? (or possible 
> lycos?)


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Gillian Densmore]

Anyone else remember when google was this small internet search engine that
hardly anyone had heard of because they were off using yahoo? (or possible
lycos?)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

> Chrome is nice, unless you need to run Java 7 applets or web start apps on
> a Mac. Chrome for Mac is 32-bit only, and Java 7 for Mac is 64-bit only.
>
> On Feb 26, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:
>
> Where I think google does have identity is in the browser.  Chrome is abs
> fab, must have, and way ahead of the pack.  V8 redefined javascript.  So
> they do own their destiny there, although unfortunately for them, chrome is
> not pre-installed on mac and windows.  No problem for us but quite an issue
> for others.
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] What is Google?

[Steve Smith]

Doug -

Just to add fuel to your fire, Bechtel Corp was estimated to have $27B 
in revenues in 2010, by now they may also be $50B though without their 
cronies running the (top levels) of the gov't, maybe their revenues are 
down.  Couldn't find a current estimate and of course, they are a 
privately held corp so no disclosures required!


Aside from "owning" the US nuclear complex (via contracts and 
partnerships), and having a huge presence in petroleum and military 
engineering, it isn't clear they have any vision or "technical" agenda 
except to make money.  In fact, I think Stephen Bechtel was quoted 
saying almost exactly that during the competition for the LANL 
contract.   For better or worse.


Saudi Aramco is roughly 10 times Google in Revenue ($500Bish?) but is 
also a *state-owned* corporation in a state which is essentially owned 
by a royal family... hmm...  Bechtel corp is owned pretty much by a 
single family...  and controls much of the energy (and weapons?) of a 
nation... hmmm...?


- Steve






What is Google? It is a $50 billion company. That's what it is.
Who gets 96% of its revenue from advertising...  which makes it 
abundantly NOTHING like any other company in the game at that scale?


Clear channel owns a lot of billboards... radio stations, XM, etc... 
but at $6B revenue and no active founder(s) and no significant 
technology corner?


Amazon is maybe the closest thing to compare to Google @ $62B revenue, 
no bricks and mortar, and only a few years older, still run by it's 
founder?


Virgin Records/Atlantic/Galactic might be nearly as *eclectic* if a 
bit lower in revenue?  I don't know what Branson's role is... beyond 
being the token Knight with a flambouyant  reputation?  I assume he 
calls the shots around Galactic if not Atlantic. Records has long 
since gotten folded into Capitol... I"m sure he's still making money 
from there, but not calling any shots?


Apple, of course, while Jobs was still alive, had a tiny bit of the 
same breadth/depth/focus. $150B?


Microsoft?  Lumbering beast, getting bogged down by it's own (former) 
leadership.   Who would have thought Apple would ever exceed MS in 
revenues?   $75B?


Apologies if I fumbled any numbers or facts here... it was a quick 
scan...  I'm just not ready to sweep Google's behaviour, presence, 
circumstance under the carpet of "big corporation can't help itself".


- Steve

- Steve


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] What is Google?

[Steve Smith]

What is Google? It is a $50 billion company. That's what it is.
Who gets 96% of its revenue from advertising...  which makes it 
abundantly NOTHING like any other company in the game at that scale?


Clear channel owns a lot of billboards... radio stations, XM, etc... but 
at $6B revenue and no active founder(s) and no significant technology 
corner?


Amazon is maybe the closest thing to compare to Google @ $62B revenue, 
no bricks and mortar, and only a few years older, still run by it's founder?


Virgin Records/Atlantic/Galactic might be nearly as *eclectic* if a bit 
lower in revenue?  I don't know what Branson's role is... beyond being 
the token Knight with a flambouyant  reputation?  I assume he calls the 
shots around Galactic if not Atlantic.  Records has long since gotten 
folded into Capitol... I"m sure he's still making money from there, but 
not calling any shots?


Apple, of course, while Jobs was still alive, had a tiny bit of the same 
breadth/depth/focus. $150B?


Microsoft?  Lumbering beast, getting bogged down by it's own (former) 
leadership.   Who would have thought Apple would ever exceed MS in 
revenues?   $75B?


Apologies if I fumbled any numbers or facts here... it was a quick 
scan...  I'm just not ready to sweep Google's behaviour, presence, 
circumstance under the carpet of "big corporation can't help itself".


- Steve

- Steve


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] What is Google? was [Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4]

[Jochen Fromm]

Well, yes. If an individual struggles with a $50 billion company,
the individual will always lose, right? The post from Owen was
not bad. Let us take a look at the origins and the good sides.
They will have noticed your frustration by now.

I think Google is (still) awesome.
Google has the best software engineers, the best search
engine, the best maps, and it tries to keep a balance
between engineering (good) and marketing (evil).
Apple had that balance in the beginning, too, when
Jobs and Wozniak complemented each other perfectly.
Much later after Wozniak left and Jobs took control, it
shifted strongly towards marketing.

It is questionable if the approach Apple uses now, i.e.
offering the full stack from hardware to software wrapped
in beautiful design does have a future, see for example
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2013/02/22/mac/

During the history of mankind, full stack solutions and
totalitarian control in other systems lead to all kinds
of evil *ism's. For example if we bring the political system
in line with the economy ("Gleichschaltung"), then we get
a kind of communism:

- nationalism (merging of culture+political),
- imperialism (merging of military+political),
- rascism (merging of biology+political/ideological),
- communism (merging of economy+political),
- nazism, totalitarianism (merging of everything above)

-J.


On 02/26/2013 11:30 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

What is Google? It is a $50 billion company. That's what it is.

--Doug


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Eric Charles > wrote:


Owen,
Based on your analysis, Google is a venture-capital company that
likes to play things close to the chest, and sometimes pretends to
be an advertising agency. Their core stregnth is seeing projects
through to deployment, and so long as individual project's R&D
budgets stay in line with the proportion of projects that succeed,
then who needs focus?

So... Those phones didn't work? Well, we can always try again,
because the majority of consumers have short memories. Or we can
drop it and transition the resources to one of our 815 other
projects that seem more promising. The only way to loose is to
commit too much to a project that fails, so being less committed
to follow-through is a form of protection!

If that is what they are doing, you are right that their business
model is structured screwy. On the other hand, if they were
"Google Group LLC" then they would have to officially close
companies when projects fail. Certainly they would be viewed more
negatively if they "closed 7 companies last year" then if they
"ended 7 beta-tests". Never mind that the beta-tests were 8 years
long and had a dedicated staff of 350 people; carry on, nothing to
see here.

Eric


Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State, Altoona


*From: *"Bruce Sherwood" 
*To: *"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

*Sent: *Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:13:44 PM
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

Nice analysis, Owen. Makes a lot of sense.

Bruce


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Owen Densmore
mailto:o...@backspaces.net>> wrote:

Doug: I've been thinking about the google difficulty with
managing their own hardware.

It occurred to me that its history .. i.e. Apple didn't just
invent a phone out of the blue, but instead had a long history
of small personal devices.  Their mp3 players.  And they
eventually evolved into a the iPod, a very sophisticated mp3
player plus much more.  Then the iPhone.

This is also true for the Palm Treo.  Palm had the PDA .. the
Palm Pilot which had years of evolution and maturity.  Only
then did they attempt the jump to a phone.

In google's case, nada.  No hardware history to speak of.  So
its not surprising that they did not succeed.

Also, google as a company lacks the coherence and focus that
both apple and palm had.  They knew their markets and they
knew their customers.  They had considerable experience
directly connecting to the customer.  Apple even went so far
as to have stores .. very direct connection with their customers.

As much as I love the "google ecology" for mail, docs, search
etc .. and admire their 2-factor authentication, I don't think
of them as a single entity .. but a bunch of "loosely coupled,
tightly aligned" services.  But the internet is not a market,
its a utility like water.

So a google phone is sorta like a Facebook phone, or a Twitter
phone.  Indeed, because they are both greatly engaged with
communication, they make more sense to me than a google phone.

Android came

Re: [FRIAM] What is Google? was [Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4]

[Steve Smith]

I appreciate the fresh view of the situation, while I thoroughly admire 
Doug's "Pester Power" (admire, not envy, nor aspire to), I think it 
assumes something that is not neccesarily true about Google.   They just 
are not who we want them to be, and perhaps not even who we think they are?


Owen's analysis is very pointed and I find it convincing for the most 
part.  For what it is worth, Google is still a very YOUNG company, 
despite it's breadth and depth.   Think Apple and Microsoft *back* in 
the 80s, maybe early 90's.   The founders are still clearly driving and 
apparently with NO contention (as opposed to Apple/Jobs in the 80s).   I 
don't follow tech news closely, so I could be missing something.


They claim that their model is to "do one thing really well", when in 
fact, they either do that one thing (search) really well, and dozens of 
others pretty well, and a few things poor to middling (but not for very 
long?), or they just keep expanding what they mean by that "one thing"?


While they operate within the existing economy and technical landscape, 
they are also redefining it by their existence as well as their nature. 
Whatever we may think about their play in the telephone market, it *has* 
significantly changed the game all around.   Would the iPhone be what it 
is if Android hadn't been introduced?


   "The best way to predict your future is to create it" - Abraham Lincoln

For some reason, I have often heard this attributed to Steve Jobs...  in 
any case, it would seem that Brin and Page (and Schmidt?) are doing 
their best to re-invent the concept.



- Steve

Owen,
Based on your analysis, Google is a venture-capital company that likes 
to play things close to the chest, and sometimes pretends to be an 
advertising agency. Their core stregnth is seeing projects through to 
deployment, and so long as individual project's R&D budgets stay in 
line with the proportion of projects that succeed, then who needs focus?


So... Those phones didn't work? Well, we can always try again, because 
the majority of consumers have short memories. Or we can drop it and 
transition the resources to one of our 815 other projects that seem 
more promising. The only way to loose is to commit too much to a 
project that fails, so being less committed to follow-through is a 
form of protection!


If that is what they are doing, you are right that their business 
model is structured screwy. On the other hand, if they were "Google 
Group LLC" then they would have to officially close companies when 
projects fail. Certainly they would be viewed more negatively if they 
"closed 7 companies last year" then if they "ended 7 beta-tests". 
Never mind that the beta-tests were 8 years long and had a dedicated 
staff of 350 people; carry on, nothing to see here.


Eric


Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State, Altoona


*From: *"Bruce Sherwood" 
*To: *"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" 


*Sent: *Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:13:44 PM
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

Nice analysis, Owen. Makes a lot of sense.

Bruce


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Owen Densmore > wrote:


Doug: I've been thinking about the google difficulty with managing
their own hardware.

It occurred to me that its history .. i.e. Apple didn't just
invent a phone out of the blue, but instead had a long history of
small personal devices.  Their mp3 players.  And they eventually
evolved into a the iPod, a very sophisticated mp3 player plus much
more.  Then the iPhone.

This is also true for the Palm Treo.  Palm had the PDA .. the Palm
Pilot which had years of evolution and maturity.  Only then did
they attempt the jump to a phone.

In google's case, nada.  No hardware history to speak of.  So its
not surprising that they did not succeed.

Also, google as a company lacks the coherence and focus that both
apple and palm had.  They knew their markets and they knew their
customers.  They had considerable experience directly connecting
to the customer.  Apple even went so far as to have stores .. very
direct connection with their customers.

As much as I love the "google ecology" for mail, docs, search etc
.. and admire their 2-factor authentication, I don't think of them
as a single entity .. but a bunch of "loosely coupled,
tightly aligned" services.  But the internet is not a market, its
a utility like water.

So a google phone is sorta like a Facebook phone, or a Twitter
phone.  Indeed, because they are both greatly engaged with
communication, they make more sense to me than a google phone.

Android came out of google's several attempts to gain traction in
the web/internet world, a "web os".  But even there, they really
didn't go the extra mile.  I'd expect Comca

Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Gary Schiltz]

Chrome is nice, unless you need to run Java 7 applets or web start apps on a 
Mac. Chrome for Mac is 32-bit only, and Java 7 for Mac is 64-bit only.

On Feb 26, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:
> Where I think google does have identity is in the browser.  Chrome is abs 
> fab, must have, and way ahead of the pack.  V8 redefined javascript.  So they 
> do own their destiny there, although unfortunately for them, chrome is not 
> pre-installed on mac and windows.  No problem for us but quite an issue for 
> others.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] What is Google? was [Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4]

[Douglas Roberts]

What is Google? It is a $50 billion company. That's what it is.

--Doug


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Eric Charles  wrote:

> Owen,
> Based on your analysis, Google is a venture-capital company that likes to
> play things close to the chest, and sometimes pretends to be an advertising
> agency. Their core stregnth is seeing projects through to deployment, and
> so long as individual project's R&D budgets stay in line with the
> proportion of projects that succeed, then who needs focus?
>
> So... Those phones didn't work? Well, we can always try again, because the
> majority of consumers have short memories. Or we can drop it and transition
> the resources to one of our 815 other projects that seem more promising.
> The only way to loose is to commit too much to a project that fails, so
> being less committed to follow-through is a form of protection!
>
> If that is what they are doing, you are right that their business model is
> structured screwy. On the other hand, if they were "Google Group LLC"
> then they would have to officially close companies when projects fail.
> Certainly they would be viewed more negatively if they "closed 7 companies
> last year" then if they "ended 7 beta-tests". Never mind that the
> beta-tests were 8 years long and had a dedicated staff of 350 people; carry
> on, nothing to see here.
>
> Eric
>
> 
> Eric Charles
> Assistant Professor of Psychology
> Penn State, Altoona
>
> --
> *From: *"Bruce Sherwood" 
> *To: *"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"  .com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:13:44 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.
>
> Nice analysis, Owen. Makes a lot of sense.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
>> Doug: I've been thinking about the google difficulty with managing their
>> own hardware.
>>
>> It occurred to me that its history .. i.e. Apple didn't just invent a
>> phone out of the blue, but instead had a long history of small personal
>> devices.  Their mp3 players.  And they eventually evolved into a the iPod,
>> a very sophisticated mp3 player plus much more.  Then the iPhone.
>>
>> This is also true for the Palm Treo.  Palm had the PDA .. the Palm Pilot
>> which had years of evolution and maturity.  Only then did they attempt the
>> jump to a phone.
>>
>> In google's case, nada.  No hardware history to speak of.  So its not
>> surprising that they did not succeed.
>>
>> Also, google as a company lacks the coherence and focus that both apple
>> and palm had.  They knew their markets and they knew their customers.  They
>> had considerable experience directly connecting to the customer.  Apple
>> even went so far as to have stores .. very direct connection with their
>> customers.
>>
>> As much as I love the "google ecology" for mail, docs, search etc .. and
>> admire their 2-factor authentication, I don't think of them as a single
>> entity .. but a bunch of "loosely coupled, tightly aligned" services.  But
>> the internet is not a market, its a utility like water.
>>
>> So a google phone is sorta like a Facebook phone, or a Twitter phone.
>>  Indeed, because they are both greatly engaged with communication, they
>> make more sense to me than a google phone.
>>
>> Android came out of google's several attempts to gain traction in the
>> web/internet world, a "web os".  But even there, they really didn't go
>> the extra mile.  I'd expect Comcast to build a more effective web device ..
>> internet is a core competency for them.  Google uses the internet and
>> has data centers, but they are not in control of the network aspect.
>>
>> So google has an identity problem.  They apparently make their jack on
>> advertisement.  Would you expect an advertisement agency to build a good
>> phone?
>>
>> Where I think google does have identity is in the browser.  Chrome is
>> abs fab, must have, and way ahead of the pack.  V8 redefined javascript.
>>  So they do own their destiny there, although unfortunately for them,
>> chrome is not pre-installed on mac and windows.  No problem for us but
>> quite an issue for others.
>>
>> Google really should be called Google Group, LLC with several separate
>> competency centers that go whole hog after single, focused markets.  G+ is
>> a winner, but they need to treat it like Facebook, not part of google.
>>  Android is an OS.  Sun found out selling OSs doesn't work.  And worse,
>> android, in the phone market, is split between the Unholy Trinity of
>> carrier, handset provider, and google as OS.
>>
>> So either google catches up with history, slowly, as done by apple and
>> palm .. and plans for that type of evolutionary progress, or google will
>> distract itself into other ventures like "big media" and even "banking"
>> like google wallet.
>>
>> Here's a question that focuses: which industry would google do best to
>> acquire dominance?  Should they buy Verizon or Comcast to own the
>> internet they

[FRIAM] What is Google? was [Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4]

[Eric Charles]

Owen, 
Based on your analysis, Google is a venture-capital company that likes to play 
things close to the chest, and sometimes pretends to be an advertising agency. 
Their core stregnth is seeing projects through to deployment, and so long as 
individual project's R&D budgets stay in line with the proportion of projects 
that succeed, then who needs focus? 

So... Those phones didn't work? Well, we can always try again, because the 
majority of consumers have short memories. Or we can drop it and transition the 
resources to one of our 815 other projects that seem more promising. The only 
way to loose is to commit too much to a project that fails, so being less 
committed to follow-through is a form of protection! 

If that is what they are doing, you are right that their business model is 
structured screwy. On the other hand, if they were " Google Group LLC " then 
they would have to officially close companies when projects fail. Certainly 
they would be viewed more negatively if they "closed 7 companies last year" 
then if they "ended 7 beta-tests". Never mind that the beta-tests were 8 years 
long and had a dedicated staff of 350 people; carry on, nothing to see here. 


Eric 

 
Eric Charles 
Assistant Professor of Psychology 
Penn State, Altoona 

- Original Message -

From: "Bruce Sherwood" < bruce . sherwood @ gmail .com> 
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" < friam @ redfish 
.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:13:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [ FRIAM ] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post. 


Nice analysis, Owen. Makes a lot of sense. 


Bruce 



On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Owen Densmore < owen @backspaces.net > wrote: 


Doug: I've been thinking about the google difficulty with managing their own 
hardware. 


It occurred to me that its history .. i.e. Apple didn't just invent a phone out 
of the blue, but instead had a long history of small personal devices. Their 
mp3 players. And they eventually evolved into a the iPod , a very sophisticated 
mp3 player plus much more. Then the iPhone . 


This is also true for the Palm Treo . Palm had the PDA .. the Palm Pilot which 
had years of evolution and maturity. Only then did they attempt the jump to a 
phone. 


In google's case, nada . No hardware history to speak of. So its not surprising 
that they did not succeed. 


Also, google as a company lacks the coherence and focus that both apple and 
palm had. They knew their markets and they knew their customers. They had 
considerable experience directly connecting to the customer. Apple even went so 
far as to have stores .. very direct connection with their customers. 


As much as I love the " google ecology" for mail, docs, search etc .. and 
admire their 2-factor authentication, I don't think of them as a single entity 
.. but a bunch of "loosely coupled, tightly aligned" services. But the internet 
is not a market, its a utility like water. 


So a google phone is sorta like a Facebook phone, or a Twitter phone. Indeed, 
because they are both greatly engaged with communication, they make more sense 
to me than a google phone. 


Android came out of google's several attempts to gain traction in the web/ 
internet world, a "web os ". But even there, they really didn't go the extra 
mile. I'd expect Comcast to build a more effective web device .. internet is a 
core competency for them. Google uses the internet and has data centers, but 
they are not in control of the network aspect. 


So google has an identity problem. They apparently make their jack on 
advertisement. Would you expect an advertisement agency to build a good phone? 


Where I think google does have identity is in the browser. Chrome is abs fab, 
must have, and way ahead of the pack. V8 redefined javascript . So they do own 
their destiny there, although unfortunately for them, chrome is not 
pre-installed on mac and windows. No problem for us but quite an issue for 
others. 


Google really should be called Google Group, LLC with several separate 
competency centers that go whole hog after single, focused markets. G+ is a 
winner, but they need to treat it like Facebook , not part of google . Android 
is an OS. Sun found out selling OSs doesn't work. And worse, android, in the 
phone market, is split between the Unholy Trinity of carrier, handset provider, 
and google as OS. 


So either google catches up with history, slowly, as done by apple and palm .. 
and plans for that type of evolutionary progress, or google will distract 
itself into other ventures like "big media" and even "banking" like google 
wallet. 


Here's a question that focuses: which industry would google do best to acquire 
dominance? Should they buy Verizon or Comcast to own the internet they so well 
understand .. google fiber to the home? Should they buy Disney or CBS or MSNBC 
or Sony to become a media giant? Should they buy Amazon to become e-commerce 
giants? Should they buy AWS to own internet IT? Amazon is a

[FRIAM] Fwd: MathCortex - Calculator and Programming with Matrices

[Owen Densmore]

Another interesting JS based math stunt.  This has its own language which
compiles into JS, and uses the NumericJS math package.
http://www.mathcortex.com/

This appears to be the Next Big Thing so to speak .. JS math.  It has a
long way to go to replace Sage but who knows!

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Literate CoffeeScript

[mar...@snoutfarm.com]

Microsoft's take on reactive programming, LINQ-style.  
(Includes a JavaScript implementation, among others..)

  http://rx.codeplex.com/

And Netflix's Java implementation

  http://techblog.netflix.com/search/label/FRP
  https://github.com/Netflix/RxJava



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Literate CoffeeScript

[glen e. p. ropella]

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 02/25/2013 09:19 PM:
> Here's an example taken from YampaSynth, a domain-specific language for
> sound synthesis built using the concepts of Functional Reactive
> Programming.  The pipeline is all in Haskell, all the way to the OpenAL
> output.  (No cheating with an external command line program.)
> 
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Arrow
> http://www.cs.rit.edu/~eca7215/frp-independent-study/Survey.pdf
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Yampa
> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/YampaSynth

VERY nice!  That's the coolest and most useful thing I've learned this
year.  Thanks.

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 02/25/2013 09:21 PM:> On 2/25/13 5:31 PM,
glen wrote:
>> "main(t){for(t=0;;t++)putchar(t*((t>>9|t>>13)&25&t>>6));}" | gcc -xc
>> - && ./a.out | aplay
>
> I should not let this slip-by without acknowledging that this is a
> functional program.  +1 for that!

I'm still ashamed I couldn't find a way to execute the a.out content to
a pipe without saving it to disk. 8^(

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of
cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom. -- Bertrand Russell



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Literate CoffeeScript

[Barry MacKichan]

Very interesting.

I have been using Docco to document a project in JavaScript, and this is an 
interesting enhancement.

Embedding code in documentation was only half of Knuth's Web (Wow! This dates 
back to when the word 'web' had no other meaning in software). The part I don't 
see is the macro expansion that Knuth used. Is this implemented, or is the 
feeling that it is the wrong thing to use with modern languages?

Also, does it apply markdown or multi markdown; the latter has support for math 
and footnotes, etc. I would guess it is configurable.

Do you know if the screenshot in http://cl.ly/LxEu is of Sublime Text 2? If so, 
is a special package required, or are they using the CoffeeScript package?

I know I could look all of this up, but I'm hoping you could save me some time. 
Also, the answers could be useful to others on this list.

--Barry

On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> (This may be a bit odd for some of us, but I wanted to pass on a novel 
> innovation)
> 
> The latest release of coffeescript has a new Literate "mode": if you use the 
> extension .litcoffee it is also treated as markdown!  This is a modern 
> extension to Knuth's Literate Programming:
>   http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/lp.html
> 
> This is likely brought about by the coffeescript docco documentation tool, 
> but now integrated into the coffeescript compiler.  
> 
> I've been imbedding markdown in agentscript for docco use once the project 
> "got real".  You can see it here:
>   
> http://htmlpreview.github.com/?https://raw.github.com/backspaces/agentscript/master/docs/model.html
> I wasn't sure initially, but now am entirely sold on the approach.  For one 
> thing it has been invaluable for discussing the project with other 
> programmers wishing to modify the code.
> 
> The literate coffeescript announcement is here, with links showing the source 
> in various formats:
>  http://coffeescript.org/#literate
> 
> As odd as it may seem, I recommend use of similar stunts in all languages 
> that support it.  Knuth has quite a following in this area.  The idea of 
> markdown comments certainly has a lot of traction.
> 
> ( Now back to our scheduled .. er.. programming! :)
> 
>-- Owen
> Literate CoffeeScript
> 
> Besides being used as an ordinary programming language, CoffeeScript may also 
> be written in "literate" mode. If you name your file with a .litcoffee 
> extension, you can write it as a Markdown document — a document that also 
> happens to be executable CoffeeScript code. The compiler will treat any 
> indented blocks (Markdown's way of indicating source code) as code, and 
> ignore the rest as comments.
> 
> Just for kicks, a little bit of the compiler is currently implemented in this 
> fashion: See it as a document, raw, and properly highlighted in a text editor.
> 
> I'm fairly excited about this direction for the language, and am looking 
> forward to writing (and more importantly, reading) more programs in this 
> style. As 1.5.0 is the first version of CoffeeScript that supports it, let us 
> know if you have any ideas for improving the feature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole days without a Nexus 4 post.

[Owen Densmore]

Doug: I've been thinking about the google difficulty with managing their
own hardware.

It occurred to me that its history .. i.e. Apple didn't just invent a phone
out of the blue, but instead had a long history of small personal devices.
 Their mp3 players.  And they eventually evolved into a the iPod, a very
sophisticated mp3 player plus much more.  Then the iPhone.

This is also true for the Palm Treo.  Palm had the PDA .. the Palm Pilot
which had years of evolution and maturity.  Only then did they attempt the
jump to a phone.

In google's case, nada.  No hardware history to speak of.  So its not
surprising that they did not succeed.

Also, google as a company lacks the coherence and focus that both apple and
palm had.  They knew their markets and they knew their customers.  They had
considerable experience directly connecting to the customer.  Apple even
went so far as to have stores .. very direct connection with their
customers.

As much as I love the "google ecology" for mail, docs, search etc .. and
admire their 2-factor authentication, I don't think of them as a single
entity .. but a bunch of "loosely coupled, tightly aligned" services.  But
the internet is not a market, its a utility like water.

So a google phone is sorta like a Facebook phone, or a Twitter phone.
 Indeed, because they are both greatly engaged with communication, they
make more sense to me than a google phone.

Android came out of google's several attempts to gain traction in the
web/internet world, a "web os".  But even there, they really didn't go the
extra mile.  I'd expect Comcast to build a more effective web device ..
internet is a core competency for them.  Google uses the internet and has
data centers, but they are not in control of the network aspect.

So google has an identity problem.  They apparently make their jack on
advertisement.  Would you expect an advertisement agency to build a good
phone?

Where I think google does have identity is in the browser.  Chrome is abs
fab, must have, and way ahead of the pack.  V8 redefined javascript.  So
they do own their destiny there, although unfortunately for them, chrome is
not pre-installed on mac and windows.  No problem for us but quite an issue
for others.

Google really should be called Google Group, LLC with several separate
competency centers that go whole hog after single, focused markets.  G+ is
a winner, but they need to treat it like Facebook, not part of google.
 Android is an OS.  Sun found out selling OSs doesn't work.  And worse,
android, in the phone market, is split between the Unholy Trinity of
carrier, handset provider, and google as OS.

So either google catches up with history, slowly, as done by apple and palm
.. and plans for that type of evolutionary progress, or google will
distract itself into other ventures like "big media" and even "banking"
like google wallet.

Here's a question that focuses: which industry would google do best to
acquire dominance?  Should they buy Verizon or Comcast to own the internet
they so well understand .. google fiber to the home?  Should they buy
Disney or CBS or MSNBC or Sony to become a media giant?  Should they buy
Amazon to become e-commerce giants?  Should they buy AWS to own internet
IT?  Amazon is actually a great example .. I really do "get" Amazon and
understand their evolution.  Kindle, sure obvious.  AWS, sure why not
outsource IT if your already the best?  Cloud music?  Sure, already sell it
so make it a "library in the sky".

Google refuses both history and evolution and focus.  They say they're and
advertisement company.  Would you buy a phone from an advertisement company?

Until coherence, no success.

   -- Owen

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> There, fixed that.
>
> http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/02/96-days-and-counting.html
>
> --
> *Doug Roberts
> d...@parrot-farm.net*
> *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
> * 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com