A more advanced approach is selective forgetfulness. Humans cannot go on with their lives if they do not forget memories and experiences that are irrelevant and useless. They become unable to set and act on new targets. I think  that a slightly less naive digital life would contain a measure of deletion. Deletion of files, old e-mails that have probably become useless, “friends” on social networks who are mere acquaintances or even less, and so on. Taking away the old makes space for the new. It can be especially powerful to see the number of files in your home directory reduced from 50 to 5. A lot of confusion and ambivalence is immediately removed.

Part of taking the next step step deeper into the digital age should be deciding, each for themselves, what one’s personal thresholds and principles of deletion are. What should be deleted, when and why? In our brains it has been managed by evolution for us. Now we must manage it by ourselves.

On the whole blogging in this format and at this frequency has been a pretty fun and fulfilling process. I get to practice writing free-form, nonscientific texts, and even if many of them might not be read by so many people, the idea that they might be turns it into a useful exercise.

Recently Flattr buttons were added to this blog, which allows users who use the service to donate money and show appreciation for my texts (some such people indeed exist – thanks a lot, all two of you!). Initially I had a single button for the entire blog, but now I am trying out a format where I have one button per post.

I’ve noticed, on this blog and elsewhere, that I can’t quite decide if I should write with British or American English. I feel culturally uncertain as a writer of this language. But recently I’ve come to think that I should embrace my European background, so more of the British variety in the future is a likely prospect.

Topics have been varied. The tag and category systems have been used in an attempt to bring some order to the table, but they’ve become too chaotic to be useful. A restructuring is perhaps in order during the next 13 months.

One of the most popular topics I’ve written about has been the Scala language. People tend to google Scala a lot, and it’s actually really uplifting to see the interest in it (since I hold it to be a way forward). If you are a blogger who wants to get a billion page views, write about Scala. I don’t want to consciously pander to the readers too much, so in itself it is not a reason for me to write about the topic. I will write about Scala when I want to say something about it. (A difficult principle to really practice.)

I’ve tried out some different WordPress themes occasionally, but so far I haven’t found anything I like better than this “Infinimum” theme. It feels very clean, functional and modern.

That will be enough of the reflections for now.

But even though the Internet is built on a decentralized architecture, it also supports applications/services that are highly centralized in their architecture and in their intended use. Google and Facebook are two very famous such applications. On the other extreme are applications that might be called P2P, including notorious file sharing systems such as Bittorrent, and also simple email (which was designed for decentralized use but is becoming heavily centralized with services like Gmail).

In recent days there’s been much discussion about Facebook’s role, particularly since it has been taking more and more liberties with the vast amounts of data about it users that it holds, scaling back the notions of privacy and integrity as they see fit. Many people are calling for decentralized alternatives to Facebook to rear their heads, and I suppose people have been calling for decentralized search engines as well for some time.

Much seems to be at stake here. What’s the future direction of the internet? A few giants holding all the data, monopolising certain functions, or a distributed network of peers, creating functionality together? The debate is ideologically charged and could be mapped into a big government/small government discussion, although I think it would be fruitless to do so. What is certain is that radically different applications can be created using the centralized/decentralized models and that it is rarely a case of merely “porting” an app from one architecture to another, the way you port an application from C to Java. On an abstract level, the two models could serve as substrates for the same functionalities (such as social network services), but the concrete implementations would have very different characteristics.

Do we create centralized applications because our legal systems, property rights systems, and so on, have not evolved at the same pace as our infrastructure, so that our tendencies, habits and ideals from a brick-and-mortar world are preserved in the world of fiber and switches, appearing ever more outdated?

In Sweden this debate has been especially pronounced recently with companies like Flattr being firmly on the side of decentralized models. Flattr is trying to be a universal donation system for content on the internet, and the vision behind it is a large number of decentralized creators of “content” (which are themselves consumers).

I’m not sure which model will win in the long run. I prefer to think that both models have a role to play and that they can coexist nicely. But lately it seems as if the centralized model has had a bit too much momentum. Let’s dig deeper into the decentralizing potential of the internet!

There is now an opportunity to do a paid internship for 2-6 months at Japan’s National Institute of Informatics in this project. If you are a masters or Ph.D. student who is interested in programming languages and software engineering, and you think the project sounds interesting, please do consider applying. Unfortunately the internship is only open to students of institutions who have signed MOU agreements with NII. The list of such universities, which includes many institutions from around the world, as well as more formal information, is available here. If you know or want to learn Scala, all the better!

Nomura's Jellyfish. Picture by Kenpei at the Osaka aquarium. GFDL license.

Nomura’s jellyfish, a species frequently encountered in Japan and China, is one of the largest in the world. The body can reach a diameter of 2 m. Since they create big problems for the fishing industry, Japan has now sought China’s help on the issue. It is thought that a recent proliferation of the species, huge swarms appearing every year since 2000, originates at the mouth of the Yangtze river.

Evolution can do fascinating things sometimes. Upon reading about this, a doubtlessly romantic and delusional notion entered my mind. What if the sea ecosystem, or a subset of it, say 10-100 species, perceive the human fishing industry as a threat that needs to be defended against, and in response create an evolutionary niche where a new kind of species can thrive, a species whose only purpose is to obstruct fishing? A romantic notion since it plays off the mythical idea that human beings are at war with nature, or that nature is good and man is evil, something I don’t really believe in. But an interesting one nonetheless. Is such a development possible?

Recently I watched a friend give a presentation on a research topic he’s been working on for years. I found the presentation to be fascinating, and the clearest explanation of his work that I have seen to date. But I felt compelled to criticise him on one point.

In order to lighten up the speech a bit, he had chosen to include characters from a popular science fiction movie on every other slide, using them to explain the results he had attained in theoretical computer science. The link between the characters and the results was nearly non-existent; the pictures were clearly only there to lighten the presentation up a bit. I had been irritated by people’s tendency to do these things for some time, so I decided to point it out. One extreme example of this tendency gone too far occurred recently in a presentation about the database CouchDB – readers can Google for the slides to see the full controversy, though they are somewhat NSFW. (I don’t want to make moral judgments in this context, but I think the academic/professional domain can be kept free of these controversies. Save those battles for where they belong!)

So there’s a tendency for people to sugarcoat their presentation topic sometimes. The arguments in favor of doing this are that it can lighten an intrinsically heavy subject a lot, and save people from nearly falling asleep from compounded boredom (such as a conference where 30+ presentations about results in theoretical computer science are given). Essentially it mixes in some sugar with the sour stuff, yielding what might be called a sweet and sour talk. The medicine becomes easier to swallow.

But isn’t there something essentially contradictory about mixing contemporary pop culture so freely with results that, in this case, were about essentially pure mathematical theory? For one thing it takes the essentially perennial and debases it, linking it up with images that are hopelessly stuck in a short timeframe. For another, it can be seen a vote of non-confidence in your own ideas. It can be seen as saying “I know this is boring and useless to you, so please bear with me, and look at these amusing pictures until it’s over.” I’m not a good presenter, but in order to become one, I think I need to have sufficient confidence in my ideas to present them unsweetened unless the circumstances are extreme. I need to make my audience see the value in my ideas. Also, it’s quite different if the sugar coating is of the kind that helps people get into your idea, or if it’s the kind that just distracts (this case).

My view is therefore that one should use one’s lumps of sugar with restraint. Maybe a situation where this is called for is when the audience necessarily contains some people who are on the level that you need to be talking to, and many other people who are not on that level, and cannot possibly be brought up to it. In this situation, the sugar might be used to keep the second group somewhat alive and alert. And this is in fact the kind of situation my friend wrote the presentation for originally. So, no scorn on him, just a word of warning to the general public!

Examples cited by Reuters UK include surf science, golf management and winemaking. I agree that these are probably vocational qualifications rather than fields meriting university study. But for blue skies projects in the natural sciences or the humanities, the payoff and effects on society are very hard to judge in advance. After all, we very often conduct the research precisely to evaluate these benefits.

The incentive situation with basic research is different today from what it was during the cold war era. When basic research was a national affair, not to be shared freely in the scientific community, it was probably possible to gain a national advantage by investing more in basic research. Today it’s all too easy to make the argument that other countries will reap the benefits, so why pay for the investment? Essentially a reverse prisoner’s dilemma: out of selfishness, you are tempted not to invest, but everybody benefits more if everybody invests. But surely this is too simple a view of the situation.

Where will countries that cut down on basic research be in the league tables of the future?

In order to evaluate Mendeley, let’s ask ourselves what we want from a bibliography management system in the modern research environment. At a bare minimum, we want an easy way to catalogue and search PDF documents, and of course compile the all-important reference list at the end of the laborious writing process. Mendeley does this, as well as bring a social networking aspect into the picture. It tries to recommend papers that are relevant to your work, as well as give you an easy way of sharing interesting papers with colleagues.

In contrast to Aigaion, which I wrote about previously, Mendeley is not a web based system but a desktop application. This definitely has benefits as the interface is quite slick. I can set the application to watch my “papers folder”, and any PDFs I save to that folder, or its subfolders, will automatically be scanned and entered into Mendeley. Metadata, such as author, title and references, is automatically extracted from the document in most cases, though I found I had to manually revise it sometimes. There’s a built in command that searches for the metadata by paper title on Google Scholar, which comes in very handy in such cases.

Mendeley is built around an internal PDF viewer where the user can highlight text, add little stickies with notes, and so on. This works quite smoothly, but on the Mac platform, it’s definitely not as polished as the Mac’s built in Preview PDF viewer. Mendeley is using its own PDF rendering layer, and it shows in the slower loading times when you scroll the documents. Some additional work could be done here. This is my only major complaint so far, though.

Much like the Evernote application, Mendeley has the option of storing all the papers on a central server, so that I can easily access them (and any annotations I might have made) from a different computer by signing in with my user name and password and then syncing the files. This means I don’t have to give up the benefits I get from a centralized server. It might be nice, however, to have the option of running my own Mendeley server, so I’m not dependent on the Mendeley company’s server somewhere – but then I would forgo the social networking benefits of course.

This application has similarities to how last.fm is used for music, in that people build a profile based on what they consume. Indeed, Mendeley is describing itself as a last.fm for research (video presentation). Let’s compare research and music as forms of media.

• Most music listeners probably don’t make their own music – most people who read research papers probably write their own papers.
• Songs sample other songs (the remix culture), but it’s relatively recent – researchers have always done this in order to establish basic credibility.
• The atomic unit of music is the song. The atomic unit of research is the research paper (the PDF in today’s internet based world, at least in my discipline) – but could this change in the future? Do we have to constrain ourselves to the article format?

In summary, Mendeley is probably the most useful, workflow friendly bibliography system I’ve tried so far. If you’re in research, I’d recommend you give it a try. If I get time, I plan to also investigate a more Mac-centric tool called Sente in the future.

The Savage Minds blog recommends that you don’t use Mendeley as your main tool yet due to its relative immaturity, but I have seen no showstopper bugs so far.

When exactly did the web browser make the transition from being a hypertext viewer to an application platform? This transition seems in retrospect to have been a very fluid affair. Forms with buttons, combo boxes and lists were supported very early. Javascript came in not too long after. When the XmlHttpRequest was introduced it wasn’t long until AJAX took off, paving the way for today’s “rich” web browser applications.

A couple of years ago I had a personal project ongoing for some time. I had decided that web browsers weren’t designed for the kind of tasks they were being made to do (displaying applications), and I wanted to make a new kind of application platform for delivering applications over the web. Today I’m convinced that this would never have succeeded. Even if I had gotten the technology right (which I don’t think I was ever close to), I would have had no way of achieving mass adoption. Incremental developments of the web browser have, however, placed a new kind of application platform in the hands of the masses. Today the cutting edge seems to be browsers like Google’s Chrome, aggressively optimised for application delivery. But some new vegetables have been added to the browser soup.

Google’s GWT web toolkit has been available for some time. This framework makes it easier to develop AJAX applications. Some hardcore AJAX developers may consider it immature, but these frameworks are going to be increasingly popular since they bridge the differences between browsers very smoothly, I think. What’s interesting is that the same company is developing GWT and Chrome though. The two sides of the browser-application equation have a common creator. This helps both: GWT can become more popular if Chrome is a popular browser, and Chrome can become more popular if GWT is a popular framework. Google can make and has made GWT apps run very fast with the Chrome browser (I tested this personally with some things I’ve been hacking on). The sky is the limit here; they can easily add special native features in the browser that GWT alone can hook into.

Microsoft have something a little bit similar with their Silverlight, which while not playing quite the same role, has a co-beneficial relationship with Internet Explorer.

Everyone’s favorite browser, Firefox, recently passed 1 billion downloads. Firefox doesn’t really have a web development kit of their own as I understand it. It just tries to implement the standards well. Which is fair and good, but it demotes FF from the league of agenda setters to people who play catch up, in some sense. Though, it must be said, the rich variety of plugins available for FF might go a long way to remedy this.

All this, and I haven’t even touched on Google’s recent foray into the OS market with “Chrome OS”…

I started using Aigaion for mine. Then I found out that there’s an open system called bibsonomy, which is potentially much better since it lets you tag and share bibliographies socially, and it seems to already know about all the major computer science papers.

Again (see: The problem with standards), I’m frustrated by the fact that I can’t move my data around between applications as I like without lots of manual effort. A worthy research problem would be making data truly application independent once and for all.