Should all printed archive research litterature go to the Recycle Bin?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/11/23/group_think/

I don't know about you, but I honestly can't remember the last time I've been to a library to do any form of research (academic, professional, or personal). Not to say that's a good thing, but it is a fact. As the majority of people these days, my first step in researching anything is typing in the letters "g-o-o-g-l-e" into my web browser.

This article from the Sunday Globe had a very interesting and controversial view of the advancement of online research, specifically focused on academic research. Based on a study done at the University of Chicago, this article argues that the use of internet search engines may actually be narrowing the results of our research rather than expanding it. This is counter-intuitive of the "long tail" theory of the internet broadening our search and allowing individuals to find their niche of whatever they're looking for. Infact a recent study on DVD/Music sales at Harvard Business School demonstrated the exact opposite of the long tail, finding "The importance of individual best sellers is not diminishing over time. It is growing." (Elberse, Anita, Harvard Business School)

So, what does all of this mean? Which theory is correct? I see it more as a function of human nature than technology. I don't think anyone can argue the fact that the internet CAN greatly broaden the amount of information available to us. If we as a society choose not to use it for it's full capacity, then that is our issue (not technology's). The major search engines such as Google simply respond to what people want. Since the mass majority of people want to be steered to the most popular and most recent sites on the internet, that is how Google ranks it's hits from a search. That doesn't mean we all have to follow the herd.

As long as we understand the basics of how the technology and tools work, we can use it accordingly. If we're searching for breaking news reports, the Google algorithm is going to work perfectly as-is. However, if we're searching for an old article in an unusual journal or looking for a strange bootleg music recording, we may need to dig a little deeper into the long tail of the 100+ hits Google may list.

As far as true academic research material goes, I think similar principles apply. If we want to grab the low hanging fruit on the related topic (#1 through #10) on the Google search, then we're going to get the mainstream results. If we want something outside the norm, we're going to need to work harder for it. In order to make this a reality, action will be required on the part of publishers and researchers who wish to have their work seen by others. The published piece must contain the proper "tags" or keywords associated with it, so that it will be picked up in an internet search. Otherwise, it may never be seen by anyone. As for brick and mortar libraries, I do feel that their use will unfortunately continue to diminish over time. This was reinforced for me on election day when the initiative to build a new library in my town of Walpole was drastically defeated. This could have obviously been biased because of the current economic state, but I do not see a library holding the same sense of necessity that it once did.

So, similar to the work required for new publications, the same will be required in digitizing and posting old archives; they need to be uploaded, tagged, and associated in proper context so that searchers can find the piece relatively easily. Perhaps this opens doors for new business opportunities of modernizing old research journals and periodicals? It also may create opportnities for different types of search engines for different applications (if they don't already exist). Maybe Google could create sub-set searches such as "Google History" or "Google Science" that would hone the individual searches into research periodicals and journals in those specific categories (and shut off their page rank algorithm for those types of searches)? So, it may not be time to physically burn (or recycle) the archives yet, but we can't fool ourselves into thinking that mainstream society is reading them either.

Healthcare 2.0

http://www.newsweek.com/id/164231

Whether republican, democrat, or independent, we can all acknowledge that the US healthcare system is in dire needs of a makeover! The first step may be to centralize and digitize the entire process, from individual's medical records, to tracking unpaid medical invoices and insurance coverage. What better way to accomplish this than to think about utilizing some of the Web 2.0 tools that are already available to us?

I know- your first reaction is probably, "Wait, aren't medical records private?". Yes, security is certainly a concern. Somehow, we've managed to come around to that fact that most of our personal financial information is online. I would argue that health and finances are the two matters most people tend to guard most closely. It is sad that our health system still relies on good old paper (which really isn't secure either). Imagine if we still had to go to the bank each time we wanted to check our account balances? The healthcare system is suffocating with inefficiencies and preventable errors. In fact, once records are digitized, a mechanism to track health matters could be similar to the system that credit bureaus use, albeit with greater restrictions on what parties have access. Just like we can monitor our credit records, we could challenge and correct our medical records if we found an inaccuracy.

If the right security measures are in place, we'll actually be safer than we are with printed records. Think about it- next time you land yourself in the ER, the doctors would know within seconds what your blood type is, or if you are allergic to peanuts or hazelnuts. Your specialist(s) could see what your primary care doctor has prescribed to you to make sure there aren't any risky drug interactions. You could have access to the complete medical history of your parents. This will all undoubtedly lead to improved health and efficiency. The best part is that the technology is already here to make this a reality (and is actually already outdated and being improved upon every day!); we just need to learn an efficient and open-sourced way to utilize it.

Digitalizing and sharing medical information also empowers the patient. They can track their own health concerns more easily (i.e. is my blood pressure higher or lower than it was last month?); they can ask questions in an interactive setting when they get a diagnosis (should I get a second opinion?); they can get in touch with their medical providers quickly with a concern; they can share side effects that a pharmaceutical company is tracking. Most importantly, it allows the patient to take ownership over their own health in a way that was impossible with records that were decentralized.

Regardless of who wins the election, this WILL happen; it's just a question of how quickly, how transparent medical records will become, and how receptive the public is.

i-Phone leash may make the holiday list, but what next?

http://amandagramse.blogspot.com/

Great post Amanda! Having recently pondered the thought if investing in one of those fancy things myself, losing it was defintely one of the things that crossed my mind. However, it was more of a concern of simply being out a few hundred dollars. I didn't even condsider the far reaching ramifications you bring up. These are some real concerns if you were to accidentally lose or break an i-phone, but much scarier if it was intentionally targetted for theft! If someone had an agenda to gather personal information about you (or anyone that is close to you), having that device would make the task pretty easy.

Good news is: we're not the only ones that are paranoid... After reading your post, I Google'd the subject and found a few interesting hits, including the following "wish list" article on MSNBC, where a leash is already on the list as #14 for future improvement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19816720/ Digging a bit further, I came across this blog post where the author has rigged up a home-made lanyard, using an old snowboard leash. http://www.xanga.com/kevina/660136578/item.html. Pretty creative way to improvise. But if people are already asking for this and coming up with their own solutions, I would expect Apple and other fancy phone makers will respond quickly with a factory solution.

The question I have though: Is a leash enough? Considering the amount of information potentially stored in an i-phone, will society eventually demand greater security measures for cell phones and PDAs? We live in a time where everything on the web is password protected and we have even moved to retinal scanners at some airports and high security buildings. Should our pocket sized phone/contact list/photo-album/gps/calendar (aka i-phone) not carry the same levels of security? It will definitely be a sad and annoying day when we have to enter a personalized PIN every time we make or receive a call, but I think that's what we've gotten ourselves into...

Google at Sea

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/09/18/computer.navy/index.html?eref=rss_tech

The mighty google is now looking to expand to the open sea, by introducing barge-based data centers. This certainly will not be an easy (or quick) endeavor, but shows huge promise considering the current cost of energy and the almost sickening bandwagon of all major corporations trying to appear "green" (whether they truly are or not).

So, what better way for a server-heavy organization such as google to accomplish both of these goals in one shot? As a mechanical engineer working in the HVAC and process cooling industry, I am very aware of the energy required to power and cool data centers. In a traditional brick and mortar setting, these massive data storage devices need to be powered and mechanically cooled (typically by an electric driven chilled water system), 24/7, 365 days a year, no exceptions. According to this article, the annual worldwide electricity bill for data centers was $7.2 billion back in 2005, and we all know that the amount of servers hasn't decreased since then, and certainly won't start decreasing any time soon.

Traditional data centers also requires a good deal of real estate, which incurs a lot of first construction cost as well as daily/monthly operating costs. Moving this entire function to an offshore barge would reduce the overhead costs by eliminating rent and/or property taxes and could potentially eliminate operating costs of the actual servers, by harnessing wave energy to power them and using seawater to cool them.

Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen immediately. There are plenty of issues and concerns that need to be worked out before going live with such a venture. Security and mother nature are the first 2 things that come to my mind as potential difficulties. Would this new data center setting increase the risk of attack? If this eventually became the "norm" and these barges were strategically placed around the globe, set up specifically to serve their respective geographic region(s), I think that could be a possibility, but hopefully a remote one. The bigger challenge, I believe, will be adapting this sensitive equipment for long term survival at sea. But at the rapid rate of technological advances in electronics, surely this will be perfected over time.

So, what's the next step? I think Google needs to put a bid on their first barge before someone else beats them to this game! It proves to be a logical and pro-active step in regards to saving energy, reducing their carbon footprint, and would serve as a catylyst for wave-energy research/technology.

I'll stick with the paper.... or my Laptop...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157580
This is an article on paperless newspapers that caught my eye. To me, putting current efforts into creating and marketing yet another electronic device customized purely to read an electronic newspaper is a major step backwards in today's Web 2.0 platform. In the age of trying to make everything compatible (or at least interoperable to some degree), why would we want to buy another proprietary device to carry around in our bag every day to read our newspaper(s)?

Proponents of this technology feel that people will be willing to pay for (or buy into) this monthly e-service because of it's convenience. Users wouldn't have to wrestle with a traditional newspaper on a train or in the car. They wouldn't miss the paper if they were traveling on business.. and this standalone device would give them a change of pace from staring at their computer screen to read a newspaper on-line. All of these reasons are logical and indisputable from the consumer's standpoint. From the newspaper's standpoint, this device would cut tremendous costs in printing, distribution, and traditional home delivery. The overall motivation mirrors that of Amazon's Kindle, geared towards textbooks (as covered in last week's Web 2.0 reading at http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/09/open-source-tex.html), which I DO believe will sustain longterm.

So, why won't e-newspapers work??? My position is simply the need for consolodating devices. We've been living through the lightning-speed advancements over the past 5-10 years in cellular phones, PDAs, and all consumer electronics for that matter. We've all seen basic cell phones, pagers, MP3 players, electronic organizers, blackberries, all hanging from people's belt clips, oftentimes multiple devices to serve multiple functions. Now, Apple's iPhone (just as one example) can perform all of these functions from a single device smaller than a typical cell phone was just 5 years ago! I see the exact same issue with launching another "new" device to handle only e-newspaper media. People have enough stuff to load in their bag on their way out the door every morning. If the argument is that a laptop is an inconvenient user interface for scrolling through a paper, then perhaps a new software application could be developed (and sold by the major newspapers for $$) to enhance the reader's experience?? I'm confident that someone will eventually figure out a sustainable solution. In the meantime, I think I'll make do with just my laptop for reading the paper...