I had never seen this video before. It’s a great clip about Chris Paul, his grandfather and a classic game. It’s a great example of how sometimes sports can transcend the game
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxwyE5m44x4]
I had never seen this video before. It’s a great clip about Chris Paul, his grandfather and a classic game. It’s a great example of how sometimes sports can transcend the game
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxwyE5m44x4]
I only played around with it a little bit, but here are my initial thoughts:
The good:
Got a good piece of knowledge dropped on me this weekend by Drew Mowery.
Check out what he said:
Now, you are probably aware that beers can be grouped by the type of fermentation that produces them (ale vs. lager), their flavor (porter vs. IPA vs. amber ale), and even their strength (dubbel vs. trippel vs. imperial). Apparently they can also be grouped by their intended drinking style.
One of the more interesting designations that exists is that of a “session beer” — a beer of ~3-5 % alcohol with a with a good balance between malt and hop characters and a clean finish that gives it “high drinkability”. Basically, one good beer to drink when you’re drinking more than one — literally a beer designed to be consumed in high volumes without overwhelming your palate or getting you so drunk that you can’t continue drinking.
The term originated in England during World War I when factory managers imposed two allowable drinking periods on shell production workers. They had two 4 hour sessions each day when they were allowed to take a break and hit the bar. Since they frequently went back to work after one of these sessions, the workers sought beer that they could drink for hours on end and still remain relatively coherent. Thus, the session beer.
Proper grammatical usage: “I went to the liquor store and picked up an imperial porter for a night cap, but wanted a good session beer for Saturday, so I grabbed a twelver of PBR” or “let’s session some Guinness tonight”

In the same NY Times article i just wrote about, there’s a great section the “hard-wired upper limit on the number of people he or she can personally know at one time” and compares that number between humans and apes. It reads:
In 1998, the anthropologist Robin Dunbar argued that each human has a hard-wired upper limit on the number of people he or she can personally know at one time. Dunbar noticed that humans and apes both develop social bonds by engaging in some sort of grooming; apes do it by picking at and smoothing one another’s fur, and humans do it with conversation. He theorized that ape and human brains could manage only a finite number of grooming relationships: unless we spend enough time doing social grooming — chitchatting, trading gossip or, for apes, picking lice — we won’t really feel that we “know” someone well enough to call him a friend. Dunbar noticed that ape groups tended to top out at 55 members. Since human brains were proportionally bigger, Dunbar figured that our maximum number of social connections would be similarly larger: about 150 on average. Sure enough, psychological studies have confirmed that human groupings naturally tail off at around 150 people: the “Dunbar number,” as it is known.
The big question then is: Are people who use Facebook and Twitter increasing their Dunbar number, because they can so easily keep track of so many more people?
I find my social networks work against/for this number in 2 ways:
There is an article in the NY Times a few weeks ago called “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy” and i think it’s one of the best pieces i’ve read in a long time at explaining why Facebook Status, News Feed, Twitter and other new digital platforms are useful and popular.

The online area that the article talks about is “incessant online contact” or as some call it, “ambient awareness.” In the offline world people pick up on moods by little things like body language, sighs, little comments, etc.. In the online world this is being done by microblogging tools like Twitter (140 character updates), Dopplr (where are you traveling?), Tumblr (what web items do you like), and Facebook’s Status Feed. The article asks the question that i get asked all the time, Who cares?:
For many people — particularly anyone over the age of 30 — the idea of describing your
blow-by-blow activities in such detail is absurd. Why would you subject your friends to your daily minutiae? And conversely, how much of their trivia can you absorb? The growth of ambient intimacy can seem like modern narcissism taken to a new, supermetabolic extreme — the ultimate expression of a generation of celebrity-addled youths who believe their every utterance is fascinating and ought to be shared with the world.
This is indeed how many people view it. But the genius of the article is how it explains the subtle usefulness of the information:
Each day, Haley logged on to his account, and his friends’ updates would appear as a long page of one- or two-line notes. The updates were indeed pretty banal. One friend would post about starting to feel sick; one posted random thoughts like “I really hate it when people clip their nails on the bus”; another Twittered whenever she made a sandwich — and she made a sandwich every day. Each so-called tweet was so brief as to be virtually meaningless.
But as the days went by, something changed. Haley discovered that he was beginning to sense the rhythms of his friends’ lives in a way he never had before. When one friend got sick with a virulent fever, he could tell by her Twitter updates when she was getting worse and the instant she finally turned the corner. He could see when friends were heading into hellish days at work or when they’d scored a big success. Even the daily catalog of sandwiches became oddly mesmerizing, a sort of metronomic click that he grew accustomed to seeing pop up in the middle of each day.
This is the paradox of ambient awareness. Each little update — each individual bit of social information — is insignificant on its own, even supremely mundane. But taken together, over time, the little snippets coalesce into a surprisingly sophisticated portrait of your friends’ and family members’ lives, like thousands of dots making a pointillist painting. This was never before possible, because in the real world, no friend would bother to call you up and detail the sandwiches she was eating. The ambient information becomes like “a type of E.S.P.,” as Haley described it to me, an invisible dimension floating over everyday life.
This is exactly how it works. Now, i don’t have ESP through this but i do enjoy the knowledge of how my friends’ lives are progressing. These tools have enabled that to happen and it has certainly enhanced my relationships with them.
I did some changes today to the blog. I’m changing the name from Sideways8 to Loo.me. I’m doing this for a couple of reasons.
Why Loo.me:
The two together make sense to me. Let me know what you think
This just made my morning. Sometimes cats are just fickin’ hilarious. I love the arrogance about them. George Carlin used to say that cats felt no guilt and the reason for this was because they lack eyebrows. Dogs, who have huge eyebrows were always feeling guilty when they did something wrong. Funny. Check this out:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muLIPWjks_M]
A few weeks ago Google release a product called Chrome which is their own web browser. Only it is really so much more. At first it doesn’t look like much – and it isn’t, just yet. However it’s the direction Chrome is going and the intent behind the release that matters. Google doesn’t want a competitor to IE or Firefox, they want a new OS – a web OS that competes and beats Microsoft Windows.
Chris Messina who worked both a Mozilla and Flock – both browser companies – has a great post about how Chrome came to be and what it means (post is here). Chrome is the future of browsers. It’s one that embraces web applications and has Gears, an engine that enhances the internal code of apps to make them more powerful and quick.

On interesting piece of the post is pointing out WHO is working on Chrome. He paints Google as cohesive team of folks in the pennisula who are laser focused on delivering a next generation browser:
Google is a well-oiled, well-heeled machine. The Webkit team, as a rhizomatic offshoot from Apple, has a similar development pedigree and has consistently produced a high quality — now cross-platform — open source project, nary engaging in polemics or politics. They let the results speak for themselves. They keep their eyes on the ball.
Ultimately this has everything to do with people; with leadership, execution and vision.
When Mozilla lost Ben Goodger I think the damage went deeper than was known or understood. Then Blake Ross and Joe Hewitt went over to Facebook, where they’re probably in the bowels of the organization, doing stuff with FBML and the like, bringing Parakeet into existence (they’ve recently been joined by Mike Schroepfer, previously VP of Engineering at Mozilla). Brad Neuberg joined Google to take Dojo Offline forward in the Gears project (along with efforts from Dylan Schiemann and Alex Russell). And the list goes on.
A few more points he expands in the original and subsequent post:


Not in terms of functionality or ease of use but check this out:
Yahoo dominates e-mail with 88.4 million users in the United States in August, according to comScore. That is far more than Microsoft’s Windows Live Hotmail at 45.2 million and AOL at 44.8 million, not to mention Gmail at 26.0 million.
When you look at how much time people spend reading their e-mail, Yahoo mail users spend the most time (286 minutes a month), Gmail users the least (82 minutes), with AOL and Microsoft in the middle (229 and 204 minutes, respectively).
Wow. As a Gmail-lover, i would have never thought that was the case. You read the whole article here.