Corante: technology, business, media, law, and culture news from the blogosphere
OUR PUBLICATIONS:
Corante is a trusted, unbiased source on technology, business, law, science, and culture that’s authored by leading commentators and thinkers in their respective fields. Corante also produces premium conferences and publications that help decision-makers better understand their industries and the world around them.
Corante Blogs
Corante Blogs examine, through the eyes of leading observers, analysts, thinkers, and doers, critical themes and memes in technology, business, law, science, and culture.
Vin Crosbie, on the challenges, financial and otherwise, that newspaper publishers are facing: "The real problem, Mr. Newspaperman, isn't that your content isn't online or isn't online with multimedia. It's your content. Specifically, it's what you report, which stories you publish, and how you publish them to people, who, by the way, have very different individual interests. The problem is the content you're giving them, stupid; not the platform its on."
by Vin Crosbie in Rebuilding Media
There's a problem in the drug industry that people have recognized for some years, but we're not that much closer to dealing with it than we were then. We keep coming up with these technologies and techniques which seem as if they might be able to help us with some of our nastiest problems - I'm talking about genomics in all its guises, and metabolic profiling, and naturally the various high-throughput screening platforms, and others. But whether these are helping or not (and opinions sure do vary), one thing that they all have in common is that they generate enormous heaps of data.
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline
Now that the Web labor market is saturated and Web design a static profession, it's not surprising that 'user experience' designers and researchers who've spent their careers online are looking for new worlds to conquer. Some are returning to the “old media” as directors and producers. More are now doing offline consulting (service experience design, social policy design, exhibition design, and so on) under the 'user experience' aegis. They argue that the lessons they've learned on the Web can be applied to phenomena in the physical and social worlds. But there are enormous differences...
by Bob Jacobson in Total Experience
Clay Shirky, in deconstructing Second Life hype: "Second Life is heading towards two million users. Except it isn’t, really... I suspect Second Life is largely a 'Try Me' virus, where reports of a strange and wonderful new thing draw the masses to log in and try it, but whose ability to retain anything but a fraction of those users is limited. The pattern of a Try Me virus is a rapid spread of first time users, most of whom drop out quickly, with most of the dropouts becoming immune to later use."
by Clay Shirky in Many-to-Many
Over the last few years we've seen old barriers to creativity coming down, one after the other. New technologies and services makes it trivial to publish text, whether by blog or by print-on-demand. Digital photography has democratised a previously expensive hobby. And we're seeing the barriers to movie-making crumble, with affordable high-quality cameras and video hosting provided by YouTube or Google Video and their ilk... Music making has long been easy for anyone to engage in, but technology has made high-quality recording possible without specialised equipment, and the internet has revolutionised distribution, drastically disintermediating the music industry... What's left? Software maybe? Or maybe not."
by Suw Charman in Strange Attractor
Derek Lowe on the news that the Nobel Prize for medicine has gone to Craig Mello and Andrew Fire for their breakthrough work: "RNA interference is probably going to have a long climb before it starts curing many diseases, because many of those problems are even tougher than usual in its case. That doesn't take away from the discovery, though, any more than the complications of off-target effects take away from it when you talk about RNAi's research uses in cell culture. The fact that RNA interference is trickier than it first looked, in vivo or in vitro, is only to be expected. What breakthrough isn't?"
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline
Andrew Phelps: "Recently my WoW guild has been having a bit of a debate on the merits of Player-vs.-Player (PvP) within Azeroth. My personal opinion on this is that PvP has its merits, and can be incredible fun, but the system within WoW is horridly, horribly broken. It takes into account the concept of the battle, but battle without consequence, without emotive context, and most importantly, without honor..."
From later in the piece: "When I talk about this with people (thus far anyway) I typically get one of two responses, either 'yeah, right on!' or 'hey, it’s war, and war isn’t honorable – grow the hell up'. There is a lot to be said for that argument – but the problem is that war in the real historical world has very different constraints that are utterly absent from fantasized worlds..."
by Andrew Phelps in Got Game
Derek Lowe: "So, you're developing a drug candidate. You've settled on what looks like a good compound - it has the activity you want in your mouse model of the disease, it's not too hard to make, and it's not toxic. Everything looks fine. Except. . .one slight problem. Although the compound has good blood levels in the mouse and in the dog, in rats it's terrible. For some reason, it just doesn't get up there. Probably some foul metabolic pathway peculiar to rats (whose innards are adapted, after all, for dealing with every kind of garbage that comes along). So, is this a problem?.."
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline
Bob Jacobson, on shopping at his local Albertsons supermarket where he had "one of the worst customer experiences" of his life: "Say what you will about the Safeway chain or the Birkenstock billionaires who charge through the roof for Whole Foods' organic fare, they know how to create shopping environments that create a more pleasurable experience, at its best (as at Whole Foods) quite enjoyable. Even the warehouses like Costco and its smaller counterpart, Smart & Final, do just fine: they have no pretentions, but neither do they dump virtual garbage on the consumer merely to create another trivial revenue stream, all for the sake of promotions in the marketing department..."
by Strange Attractor in Total Experience
Kevin Anderson: "First off, I want to say that I really admire the ambition of the Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free. It is one of the boldest statements made by any media company that participation needs to be central to a radical revamp of traditional content strategies... It is, therfore, not hugely surprising to find that Comment is Free is having a few teething troubles..."
by Kevin Anderson in strange
Corante Developments
Here you will find the latest news from Corante including updates on upcoming events, new initiatives, product and publication launches, and more.
It was with shock that I returned home from a night out last night to hear the news of Russell's passing. How terribly, terribly sad. Most of all for him, as he'd seemed buoyant, healthier, and content when I'd last seen him several months ago when he was in town - he was happy that work was busy and rewarding and was having fun with it but most of all was thrilled about how things were going with his girlfriend, Ellen.
I've known Russ for what seems like ages now (in a good way) though in fact it's only been about six or seven years since the early days of "commercial" blogging when he started working on various projects at and around Corante. He was a diligent, committed, and prolific journalist who had impressively and more ably than others been able to make the transition from the old-school way of doing things to the new. He had his quirks, as we all do, but I greatly valued that he was good-natured, collegial, reliable, quick to adopt, trustworthy, eager to learn, and earnest in his interest in helping others better understand what he wrote about.
He was also, it should be said, a kind and thoughtful soul and it was the rare conversation in which he didn't ask, with sincerity, about what he knew of my life, e.g. our new babe, and we didn't talk as seemingly old friends about our lives and respective paths. I can't say I knew him very well, of course, but in our half-dozen get-togethers over the years and dozens of conversations I got a good sense of the man: he cared about learning and sharing and his bearing was earnest and ego-less and we'll miss him for that and more.
We wanted to let you know about a discount to New Comm Forum, the annual event event put on by our friends at the Society for New Communications Research. The conference, which runs from April 22-25, will feature many of the field's leading observers and is an important event for those looking, in the words of SNCR, to "better understand new communications tools, technologies and emerging modes of communication, and their effect on traditional media, professional communications, business, culture and society."
Check out the event's website and, if you're interested in attending, be sure to use the code supplied below for a special discount.
EARLY BIRD PRICING - NOW UNTIL FEB. 15th
NewComm Forum Conference - $995.
Pre-conference or post-conference session - $195.
SNCR Jam only - $75.
REGULAR PRICING - AFTER FEB. 15th
NewComm Forum Conference - $1095.
Pre-conference or post-conference session - $249.
SNCR Jam only - $75.
CORANTE READER DISCOUNTS
NewComm Forum Conference - save an additional $100
Use discount code: NCF08100
Pre-conference or post-conference session - save an additional $45.
Use discount code: NCF0845
We've been remiss in letting you know about two new independent blogs we've helped launch in the past month or so.
The first - the ConversationHub - is a companion blog to Supernova 2007, the latest edition of Kevin Werbach's excellent conference on all things connected. As the conference site says: "Supernova examines the effects of an increasingly connected world on business, life, and public policy. As disparate physical and social networks link with one another, a new societal network is rapidly evolving... The New Network is greater than the sum of its parts. It challenges us to re-create everything from the software and hardware we use...to the business models we employ...to the information and entertainment we encounter...to the ways we work and play."
Visit the ConversationHub and you'll find several dozen leading thinkers and doers, led by a few notable ringleaders, weighing in on the themes and trends of the day in technology and business. We encourage you to tune in - feel free to comment and even suggest topics and ideas for posts.
The second blog - Mobile Messaging 2.0 - convenes about a dozen top observers of the mobile messaging space for an intense discussion of the industry and where it's headed. Among its contributors are leading commentators, journalists and players in the field - tune in and you'll find them touching on topics such as mobile device design, messaging platforms, market pressures, user-generated content, interface design, and much, much more.
Also, if you visit the site, which is sponsored by Airwide Solutions, this week, you'll find live coverage and commentary from Global Messaging 2007, to which several of our contributors have traveled to hear about the latest developments from a broad spectrum of the industry's players and providers.
Be sure to catch the Office 2.0 Conference and hear from and engage with leading thinkers and doers in this exciting new market. Find out more here and be sure to use the code "GLDRK" for a special discount for Corante readers.
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline
Readers were busy this weekend, posting over fifty comments to my last post about HIV. Much of the discussion was sparked by the comments of a young-Earth creationist who claims that the evolutionary tree I presented was merely an example of microevolution, which--apparently--creationists have no trouble with. This claim, which has been around for a long time, holds that God created different "kinds" of plants and animals (and viruses, I guess), and since then these kinds have undergone minor changes, but have never become another "kind."
Some readers expressed frustration that the comments were getting side-tracked into arguments about creationism. I take a pretty relaxed attitutde to what goes on in the comment threads, though. Part of that attitude, I'll admit, comes from the fact that I don't have the time to hover over the comments all day. But I also don't relish the thought of shutting down discussion, except of course when comments come from pornography-peddling bots.
I myself find that objections to evolution frequently turn into good opportunities to discuss interesting scientific research. For example, let's take the claim that an evolutionary tree of HIV merely documents microevolution.
Here's the tree from my last post, published in The Lancet. It compares a new aggressive, resistant strain of HIV to strains taken from other patients. These viruses all descend from a common ancestor. The descendants mutated, many mutants died, and some mutants thrived, thanks to their ability to evade the immune systems of their hosts. Strains that share a closer common ancestor fall on closer branches.
This new strain belongs to a group of strains known collectively as HIV-1. What happens if you compare HIV-1 to viruses found in animals? Is it impossible to link these viruses together on a single tree? Were they all created separately, each to plague its own host? That's what one might expect if indeed the "microevolution-yes, macro-evolution no" idea was true. After all, viruses that infect different animals are generally different from one another. They can only survive if they have biological equipment suited to their host species, and different species offer different challenges to a virus.
It turns out that the same approach used to compare HIV strains found in individual people works on this larger scale. Scientists can draw a tree.
Here is the most up-to-date version of the tree, which appears in the latest issue of the Journal of Virology. The different branches of HIV-1 are marked in black. The red branches are viruses known as Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) found in certain populations of chimpanzees. The blue branches also represent chimp SIV's, but these are more distantly related to HIV-1. (A side note: the Lancet paper doesn't specify exactly which HIV-1 group the nasty new strain belongs to. That's a matter of ongoing research.)
It appears, then, that HIV-1 evolved into a human scourge not once but several times from chimp SIV ancestors. One likely route is the increasing trade in chimpanzee meat in western Africa. Hunters who get chimpanzee blood in their own wounds can become infected, and certain strains that manage to survive in our species can then evolve into better-adapted forms.
Of course, tracing back HIV-1 evolution this far leads to the question, where did the ancestors of HIV-1 come from? The authors of the review in Journal of Virology takes another step back, comparing chimpanzee SIV to SIVs from other monkeys. Does this enterprise now finally collapse? Does "microevolution" finally hit the wall, unable to explain "macroevolution"?
Nope. Here's what they find. The tree on the left is based on studies of one HIV/SIV gene called Pol, and the one on the right is based on another called Env. SIVcpz refers to chimp SIV, and the other abbreviations refer to SIV's found in various monkeys.
It turns out that different genes in chimp SIV have different evolutionary histories. This is no big surprise. Virologists have known for a long time that a single animal can get infected by two different viruses, which--on rare occassion--may combine their genetic material into a single package. The scientists hypothesize that chimp SIV evolved from SIV found in red-capped sooty mangabeys as well as SIV that infects greater spot-nosed, mustached, and mona monkeys. Just as humans hunt chimpanzees, chimpanzees hunt and eat monkeys. So they may have been infected in this manner.
You can take the same walk back in time with any virus that's been studied carefully--or any species of animal or plant. Take us. Scientists publish evolutionary trees all the time in which they compare the DNA of individual people. They also use the same methods to demonstrate that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, that primates descend from small shrew-like mammal ancestors, that mammals and other land vertebrates descend from fish, and so on. (I don't have time this morning to grab examples of these trees, but if I have time tonight I will.) Certainly there are parts of these trees that are still difficult to make out. DNA sometimes evolves so much that a gene can wind up obscuring its own history, for example. But scientists have never hit the wall that creationists claim exists.
1. Daniel Newby on March 21, 2005 01:31 PM writes...
"DNA sometimes evolves so much that a gene can wind up obscuring its own history, for example. But scientists have never hit the wall that creationists claim exists."
I would say they do hit a wall. Consider the DNA that codes for ribosomal RNA. The comparative genetic evidence is clear that all rRNA genes descend from a single common ancestor. No other genes are as clearly and highly conserved across all protein-synthesizing species. However the evidence is, and I choose this word deliberately, agnostic regarding just what that ancestor descended from. The snake eats its own tail.
So far there is no fossil evidence, very little in the way of living fossils**, only the beginnings of a decent theory, and a few experiments that are suggestive. The Primordial Soupists are no better off than the Creationists, who at least have simplicity on their side. The Creationists also have the advantage of positing a falsifiable hypothesis: you can prove them wrong by mixing nonliving gunk in a flask and having living cells stochastically assemble.
**Such as (1) viriods, naked RNA parasites that do not code for protein, (2) retroviruses, which translate from the RNA to the DNA world, and (3) various other RNA-based viruses with rather ancient genes. These do tend to suggest an ancient RNA-based way of life preceeded ribosomes, but are also consistent with RNA being a goofy and catalytically-active molecule.
2. Steve Russell on March 21, 2005 03:52 PM writes...
I think Mr. Newby is missing Carl's point--the creationists claim that evolution has failed to produce evidence of "macroevolution"--transitions between overarching groups of animals. As with everything creationist, exactly what degree of small-scale evolution is "acceptable" to them, and what isn't, remains vague and ill-defined, but presumably evidence of a transition from fish to fowl, from sea creature to land animal, would meet the test.
Despite the plethora of transitional forms, the creationists continue to point to whatever "gaps" persist in the fossil record, and claim--apparently--that all the transitional forms themselves represent independent "kinds" that never evolved into each other. (The designer either "planted" them there, for mysterious reasons, or they somehow--even goofier!--represent the expression of information that has been contained in the genetic code since the "beginning," just waiting to unfold...)
Since the fossil record will apparently never satisfy the creationists, Carl suggests looking at the genetic record. Whether or not the history of the ultimate ancestor has been "overwritten" by subsequent evolution, the genetic record documents in great detail the common descent of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians from fishy forebears. This is certainly potent evidence of "macro-evolution," whatever vagaries of definition the creationists hope to hide behind, regardless of whether the process can be unraveled all the way to its origins.
Of course, the creationists will simply respond that the "designer" fiddled with the code to make it look that way, because "he" wanted all the critturs to be similar enough to eat each other, or some other hokum... But there's always the hope that some genuinely-confused individual out there may "grok" what Carl is saying.
3. Ken Shackleton on March 21, 2005 04:43 PM writes...
Carl....I read your blog every day and I must say that I find it very detailed and informative. Your arguments are compelling, but I am afraid that the Creationist [which I am definitely NOT] will still simply parrot "It is still just a virus" without any real knowledge of what they are saying.
The fuzzy boundaries of their "kinds" will always give them a refuge to protect their ignorance.
If they do reply with "It's still a virus"...wouldn't that be in much the same class as saying "It is still a metazoan" when they are given supporting evidence for the evolution of more familiar creatures?
4. Daniel Newby on March 21, 2005 10:14 PM writes...
Steve Russell said "I think Mr. Newby is missing Carl's point--the creationists claim that evolution has failed to produce evidence of 'macroevolution'..."
Any "creationist" who claims that is obviously an idiot. A true believer would not presume to tell God that He could not create creatures that evolve, for His will is mysterious and beyond the ken of man. In any event the answer the macroevolution leaves unanswered the question of the origination of life.
My point was that the fossil record has a mighty big gap between supernova-remnant and DNA-coding-for-rRNA. We have unquestionable objective science for both, and almost zero for the gap. It certainly has enough room for a little divine intervention. I'm mystified why self-appointed creationists ignore such an "embarrassing" corner of paleontology and spend all their effort contradicting basic hard science.
5. Thomas Palm on March 22, 2005 06:49 AM writes...
Newby, the current crop of creationists tend to be fundamentalists who believe that genesis is a exact description of how God created the Earth. Thus retreating to the position that God created the first organisms and let them evolve from that isn't enough, this is still in contradiction to the bible.
Nor is "God in the gaps" a viable theory in the long run as science has a tendency to fill in more and more gaps forcing religion into more and more obscure corners of the world. Once the Gods lived on top of the highest mountain, but as people climbed it and found none they have been forced to imagine them as more and more remote.
Not too long ago it was believed that there was some mysterious life force in all organic matter, and it came as a surprise that organic compounds could be synthesized from inorganic. You think creationism could be disproved if only people were able to make a living organism in a test tube, but I think you underestimate the ingenuity of the creationists. They will be able to come up with excuses such as that even if life *can* evolve by chance that is not how it really happened, as the Bible clearly states that God created the species.
It strikes me that until you find a creationist that is not part of an organized religion that you haven't got any one to have a real debate with. Religious belief is belief based on faith. Faith is recursively unshakeable, and the more evidence you place against it the more self-righteous a religious person gets to feel as they withstand this latest "test". You ought to send them to the library not for Mayr and Lewontin, but for Camus, Kafka, Beckett, and Joyce. They made a pretty damn convincing case for me. The Castle is highly recommended. Shoot...tell'em to stop protesting and making a racket in school board meetings and just start praying that creationism is taught in schools. If they're right about God then I'm sure what they want will be borne out. I have a prior commitment to materialism.
BTW, has anyone here read Edward Hooper's "The River"? It has a rather more provocative answer than chimp meat for the transfer of SIV to HIV. I'm curious whether Mr. Zimmer has read it and made a decision that chimp meat is still most likely.
7. Zhiyun Chen on March 22, 2005 11:57 AM writes...
I am more and more convinced that religiousness is genetic, based on some recent studies. There are alwyas little mystries in life that science can not explain. And some people will always atrribute to supernatural causes. Hence there is no point arguing with them. The only solution seems to be evolutional, to "displace" the religious population with enlightened one. But, sadly, guess who are having more babies?
8. Jeremy Human on March 22, 2005 02:22 PM writes...
Taking a step back, I just wish the religious would demand the same amount and quality of proof in their own beliefs that they demand of evolution. I've never seen such hypocrisy. It's quite amazing.
Great contrast between the explanatory power and sheer hard-headed, hands-on practicality of actual science, compared to the the fuzzy-headedness of religion being forced to masquerade as science . . .
Corante: technology, business, media, law, and culture news from the blogosphere
OUR PUBLICATIONS:
Corante is a trusted, unbiased source on technology, business, law, science, and culture that’s authored by leading commentators and thinkers in their respective fields. Corante also produces premium conferences and publications that help decision-makers better understand their industries and the world around them.
Corante Blogs
Corante Blogs examine, through the eyes of leading observers, analysts, thinkers, and doers, critical themes and memes in technology, business, law, science, and culture.
Vin Crosbie, on the challenges, financial and otherwise, that newspaper publishers are facing: "The real problem, Mr. Newspaperman, isn't that your content isn't online or isn't online with multimedia. It's your content. Specifically, it's what you report, which stories you publish, and how you publish them to people, who, by the way, have very different individual interests. The problem is the content you're giving them, stupid; not the platform its on."
by Vin Crosbie in Rebuilding Media
There's a problem in the drug industry that people have recognized for some years, but we're not that much closer to dealing with it than we were then. We keep coming up with these technologies and techniques which seem as if they might be able to help us with some of our nastiest problems - I'm talking about genomics in all its guises, and metabolic profiling, and naturally the various high-throughput screening platforms, and others. But whether these are helping or not (and opinions sure do vary), one thing that they all have in common is that they generate enormous heaps of data.
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline
Now that the Web labor market is saturated and Web design a static profession, it's not surprising that 'user experience' designers and researchers who've spent their careers online are looking for new worlds to conquer. Some are returning to the “old media” as directors and producers. More are now doing offline consulting (service experience design, social policy design, exhibition design, and so on) under the 'user experience' aegis. They argue that the lessons they've learned on the Web can be applied to phenomena in the physical and social worlds. But there are enormous differences...
by Bob Jacobson in Total Experience
Clay Shirky, in deconstructing Second Life hype: "Second Life is heading towards two million users. Except it isn’t, really... I suspect Second Life is largely a 'Try Me' virus, where reports of a strange and wonderful new thing draw the masses to log in and try it, but whose ability to retain anything but a fraction of those users is limited. The pattern of a Try Me virus is a rapid spread of first time users, most of whom drop out quickly, with most of the dropouts becoming immune to later use."
by Clay Shirky in Many-to-Many
Over the last few years we've seen old barriers to creativity coming down, one after the other. New technologies and services makes it trivial to publish text, whether by blog or by print-on-demand. Digital photography has democratised a previously expensive hobby. And we're seeing the barriers to movie-making crumble, with affordable high-quality cameras and video hosting provided by YouTube or Google Video and their ilk... Music making has long been easy for anyone to engage in, but technology has made high-quality recording possible without specialised equipment, and the internet has revolutionised distribution, drastically disintermediating the music industry... What's left? Software maybe? Or maybe not."
by Suw Charman in Strange Attractor
Derek Lowe on the news that the Nobel Prize for medicine has gone to Craig Mello and Andrew Fire for their breakthrough work: "RNA interference is probably going to have a long climb before it starts curing many diseases, because many of those problems are even tougher than usual in its case. That doesn't take away from the discovery, though, any more than the complications of off-target effects take away from it when you talk about RNAi's research uses in cell culture. The fact that RNA interference is trickier than it first looked, in vivo or in vitro, is only to be expected. What breakthrough isn't?"
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline
Andrew Phelps: "Recently my WoW guild has been having a bit of a debate on the merits of Player-vs.-Player (PvP) within Azeroth. My personal opinion on this is that PvP has its merits, and can be incredible fun, but the system within WoW is horridly, horribly broken. It takes into account the concept of the battle, but battle without consequence, without emotive context, and most importantly, without honor..."
From later in the piece: "When I talk about this with people (thus far anyway) I typically get one of two responses, either 'yeah, right on!' or 'hey, it’s war, and war isn’t honorable – grow the hell up'. There is a lot to be said for that argument – but the problem is that war in the real historical world has very different constraints that are utterly absent from fantasized worlds..."
by Andrew Phelps in Got Game
Derek Lowe: "So, you're developing a drug candidate. You've settled on what looks like a good compound - it has the activity you want in your mouse model of the disease, it's not too hard to make, and it's not toxic. Everything looks fine. Except. . .one slight problem. Although the compound has good blood levels in the mouse and in the dog, in rats it's terrible. For some reason, it just doesn't get up there. Probably some foul metabolic pathway peculiar to rats (whose innards are adapted, after all, for dealing with every kind of garbage that comes along). So, is this a problem?.."
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline
Bob Jacobson, on shopping at his local Albertsons supermarket where he had "one of the worst customer experiences" of his life: "Say what you will about the Safeway chain or the Birkenstock billionaires who charge through the roof for Whole Foods' organic fare, they know how to create shopping environments that create a more pleasurable experience, at its best (as at Whole Foods) quite enjoyable. Even the warehouses like Costco and its smaller counterpart, Smart & Final, do just fine: they have no pretentions, but neither do they dump virtual garbage on the consumer merely to create another trivial revenue stream, all for the sake of promotions in the marketing department..."
by Strange Attractor in Total Experience
Kevin Anderson: "First off, I want to say that I really admire the ambition of the Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free. It is one of the boldest statements made by any media company that participation needs to be central to a radical revamp of traditional content strategies... It is, therfore, not hugely surprising to find that Comment is Free is having a few teething troubles..."
by Kevin Anderson in strange
Corante Developments
Here you will find the latest news from Corante including updates on upcoming events, new initiatives, product and publication launches, and more.
It was with shock that I returned home from a night out last night to hear the news of Russell's passing. How terribly, terribly sad. Most of all for him, as he'd seemed buoyant, healthier, and content when I'd last seen him several months ago when he was in town - he was happy that work was busy and rewarding and was having fun with it but most of all was thrilled about how things were going with his girlfriend, Ellen.
I've known Russ for what seems like ages now (in a good way) though in fact it's only been about six or seven years since the early days of "commercial" blogging when he started working on various projects at and around Corante. He was a diligent, committed, and prolific journalist who had impressively and more ably than others been able to make the transition from the old-school way of doing things to the new. He had his quirks, as we all do, but I greatly valued that he was good-natured, collegial, reliable, quick to adopt, trustworthy, eager to learn, and earnest in his interest in helping others better understand what he wrote about.
He was also, it should be said, a kind and thoughtful soul and it was the rare conversation in which he didn't ask, with sincerity, about what he knew of my life, e.g. our new babe, and we didn't talk as seemingly old friends about our lives and respective paths. I can't say I knew him very well, of course, but in our half-dozen get-togethers over the years and dozens of conversations I got a good sense of the man: he cared about learning and sharing and his bearing was earnest and ego-less and we'll miss him for that and more.
We wanted to let you know about a discount to New Comm Forum, the annual event event put on by our friends at the Society for New Communications Research. The conference, which runs from April 22-25, will feature many of the field's leading observers and is an important event for those looking, in the words of SNCR, to "better understand new communications tools, technologies and emerging modes of communication, and their effect on traditional media, professional communications, business, culture and society."
Check out the event's website and, if you're interested in attending, be sure to use the code supplied below for a special discount.
EARLY BIRD PRICING - NOW UNTIL FEB. 15th
NewComm Forum Conference - $995.
Pre-conference or post-conference session - $195.
SNCR Jam only - $75.
REGULAR PRICING - AFTER FEB. 15th
NewComm Forum Conference - $1095.
Pre-conference or post-conference session - $249.
SNCR Jam only - $75.
CORANTE READER DISCOUNTS
NewComm Forum Conference - save an additional $100
Use discount code: NCF08100
Pre-conference or post-conference session - save an additional $45.
Use discount code: NCF0845
We've been remiss in letting you know about two new independent blogs we've helped launch in the past month or so.
The first - the ConversationHub - is a companion blog to Supernova 2007, the latest edition of Kevin Werbach's excellent conference on all things connected. As the conference site says: "Supernova examines the effects of an increasingly connected world on business, life, and public policy. As disparate physical and social networks link with one another, a new societal network is rapidly evolving... The New Network is greater than the sum of its parts. It challenges us to re-create everything from the software and hardware we use...to the business models we employ...to the information and entertainment we encounter...to the ways we work and play."
Visit the ConversationHub and you'll find several dozen leading thinkers and doers, led by a few notable ringleaders, weighing in on the themes and trends of the day in technology and business. We encourage you to tune in - feel free to comment and even suggest topics and ideas for posts.
The second blog - Mobile Messaging 2.0 - convenes about a dozen top observers of the mobile messaging space for an intense discussion of the industry and where it's headed. Among its contributors are leading commentators, journalists and players in the field - tune in and you'll find them touching on topics such as mobile device design, messaging platforms, market pressures, user-generated content, interface design, and much, much more.
Also, if you visit the site, which is sponsored by Airwide Solutions, this week, you'll find live coverage and commentary from Global Messaging 2007, to which several of our contributors have traveled to hear about the latest developments from a broad spectrum of the industry's players and providers.
Be sure to catch the Office 2.0 Conference and hear from and engage with leading thinkers and doers in this exciting new market. Find out more here and be sure to use the code "GLDRK" for a special discount for Corante readers.
1. Daniel Newby on March 21, 2005 01:31 PM writes...
"DNA sometimes evolves so much that a gene can wind up obscuring its own history, for example. But scientists have never hit the wall that creationists claim exists."
I would say they do hit a wall. Consider the DNA that codes for ribosomal RNA. The comparative genetic evidence is clear that all rRNA genes descend from a single common ancestor. No other genes are as clearly and highly conserved across all protein-synthesizing species. However the evidence is, and I choose this word deliberately, agnostic regarding just what that ancestor descended from. The snake eats its own tail.
So far there is no fossil evidence, very little in the way of living fossils**, only the beginnings of a decent theory, and a few experiments that are suggestive. The Primordial Soupists are no better off than the Creationists, who at least have simplicity on their side. The Creationists also have the advantage of positing a falsifiable hypothesis: you can prove them wrong by mixing nonliving gunk in a flask and having living cells stochastically assemble.
**Such as (1) viriods, naked RNA parasites that do not code for protein, (2) retroviruses, which translate from the RNA to the DNA world, and (3) various other RNA-based viruses with rather ancient genes. These do tend to suggest an ancient RNA-based way of life preceeded ribosomes, but are also consistent with RNA being a goofy and catalytically-active molecule.
Permalink to Comment2. Steve Russell on March 21, 2005 03:52 PM writes...
I think Mr. Newby is missing Carl's point--the creationists claim that evolution has failed to produce evidence of "macroevolution"--transitions between overarching groups of animals. As with everything creationist, exactly what degree of small-scale evolution is "acceptable" to them, and what isn't, remains vague and ill-defined, but presumably evidence of a transition from fish to fowl, from sea creature to land animal, would meet the test.
Despite the plethora of transitional forms, the creationists continue to point to whatever "gaps" persist in the fossil record, and claim--apparently--that all the transitional forms themselves represent independent "kinds" that never evolved into each other. (The designer either "planted" them there, for mysterious reasons, or they somehow--even goofier!--represent the expression of information that has been contained in the genetic code since the "beginning," just waiting to unfold...)
Since the fossil record will apparently never satisfy the creationists, Carl suggests looking at the genetic record. Whether or not the history of the ultimate ancestor has been "overwritten" by subsequent evolution, the genetic record documents in great detail the common descent of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians from fishy forebears. This is certainly potent evidence of "macro-evolution," whatever vagaries of definition the creationists hope to hide behind, regardless of whether the process can be unraveled all the way to its origins.
Of course, the creationists will simply respond that the "designer" fiddled with the code to make it look that way, because "he" wanted all the critturs to be similar enough to eat each other, or some other hokum... But there's always the hope that some genuinely-confused individual out there may "grok" what Carl is saying.
Permalink to Comment3. Ken Shackleton on March 21, 2005 04:43 PM writes...
Carl....I read your blog every day and I must say that I find it very detailed and informative. Your arguments are compelling, but I am afraid that the Creationist [which I am definitely NOT] will still simply parrot "It is still just a virus" without any real knowledge of what they are saying.
The fuzzy boundaries of their "kinds" will always give them a refuge to protect their ignorance.
If they do reply with "It's still a virus"...wouldn't that be in much the same class as saying "It is still a metazoan" when they are given supporting evidence for the evolution of more familiar creatures?
Permalink to Comment4. Daniel Newby on March 21, 2005 10:14 PM writes...
Steve Russell said "I think Mr. Newby is missing Carl's point--the creationists claim that evolution has failed to produce evidence of 'macroevolution'..."
Any "creationist" who claims that is obviously an idiot. A true believer would not presume to tell God that He could not create creatures that evolve, for His will is mysterious and beyond the ken of man. In any event the answer the macroevolution leaves unanswered the question of the origination of life.
My point was that the fossil record has a mighty big gap between supernova-remnant and DNA-coding-for-rRNA. We have unquestionable objective science for both, and almost zero for the gap. It certainly has enough room for a little divine intervention. I'm mystified why self-appointed creationists ignore such an "embarrassing" corner of paleontology and spend all their effort contradicting basic hard science.
Permalink to Comment5. Thomas Palm on March 22, 2005 06:49 AM writes...
Newby, the current crop of creationists tend to be fundamentalists who believe that genesis is a exact description of how God created the Earth. Thus retreating to the position that God created the first organisms and let them evolve from that isn't enough, this is still in contradiction to the bible.
Nor is "God in the gaps" a viable theory in the long run as science has a tendency to fill in more and more gaps forcing religion into more and more obscure corners of the world. Once the Gods lived on top of the highest mountain, but as people climbed it and found none they have been forced to imagine them as more and more remote.
Not too long ago it was believed that there was some mysterious life force in all organic matter, and it came as a surprise that organic compounds could be synthesized from inorganic. You think creationism could be disproved if only people were able to make a living organism in a test tube, but I think you underestimate the ingenuity of the creationists. They will be able to come up with excuses such as that even if life *can* evolve by chance that is not how it really happened, as the Bible clearly states that God created the species.
Permalink to Comment6. mccm on March 22, 2005 09:28 AM writes...
It strikes me that until you find a creationist that is not part of an organized religion that you haven't got any one to have a real debate with. Religious belief is belief based on faith. Faith is recursively unshakeable, and the more evidence you place against it the more self-righteous a religious person gets to feel as they withstand this latest "test". You ought to send them to the library not for Mayr and Lewontin, but for Camus, Kafka, Beckett, and Joyce. They made a pretty damn convincing case for me. The Castle is highly recommended. Shoot...tell'em to stop protesting and making a racket in school board meetings and just start praying that creationism is taught in schools. If they're right about God then I'm sure what they want will be borne out. I have a prior commitment to materialism.
BTW, has anyone here read Edward Hooper's "The River"? It has a rather more provocative answer than chimp meat for the transfer of SIV to HIV. I'm curious whether Mr. Zimmer has read it and made a decision that chimp meat is still most likely.
Permalink to Comment7. Zhiyun Chen on March 22, 2005 11:57 AM writes...
I am more and more convinced that religiousness is genetic, based on some recent studies. There are alwyas little mystries in life that science can not explain. And some people will always atrribute to supernatural causes. Hence there is no point arguing with them. The only solution seems to be evolutional, to "displace" the religious population with enlightened one. But, sadly, guess who are having more babies?
Permalink to Comment8. Jeremy Human on March 22, 2005 02:22 PM writes...
Taking a step back, I just wish the religious would demand the same amount and quality of proof in their own beliefs that they demand of evolution. I've never seen such hypocrisy. It's quite amazing.
Permalink to Comment9. Dan S. on March 23, 2005 09:50 PM writes...
Great contrast between the explanatory power and sheer hard-headed, hands-on practicality of actual science, compared to the the fuzzy-headedness of religion being forced to masquerade as science . . .
Permalink to Comment10. Michael Williams on April 2, 2005 08:57 PM writes...
I linked to this via my post titled "Evolution: Similiarity Implies Common Ancestry" but was unable to send a trackback ping.
Permalink to Comment