Don't Miss Nikki Finke's Snarky Oscar Smackdown

To contact us Click HERE
This is the ultimate takedown, "Nikki Finke's Oscar Live-Snark.

"Uh-oh. Seth MacFarlane opens the show with a lame joke. No one laughs. He does an impression. No one knows who he’s imitating. Does this guy even have any experience doing standup? Obviously not. This is one of the lamest show openings I’ve ever watched. The worst part is that Seth is killing every punchline by laughing over it. And here comes the inevitable Mel Gibson putdown.

This is going to be a loooooong night. “The room is dead,” says one agent from inside the Dolby Theatre.

Thank God, William Shatner (as Capt Kirk) is saying what I’m thinking; “The show is a disaster.” And I agree with that newspaper headline, “Seth MacFarlane Is Worst Oscar Host Ever.”

Read it all at the link.

And more from Ed Driscoll, "Hollywood Sucker Punch."

Google's Really Advanced Search

To contact us Click HERE
You've know doubt heard of Advanced Search. How about Really Advanced Search?

I spotted this at the bottom of a Google Search Results page today and had to take a look.

Among the search features, including the usual ones, are:

• words almost, but not quite entirely unlike:
• rhyming slang for:
• this exact word or phrase, whose sum of unicode code points is a mersenne prime:
• subtext or innuendo for:

and this:

• the words , but not , unless they contain either the intersection of phrases , , and or a gerund in which case the disjunction of and will also be taken into account (on Tuesdays). 

At the bottom of the page are also several links:

You can also... Tickle a unicorn Download our ranking code so you can run Google at home Search by odor Some of the features of really advanced search might make a good coding project. They might also be a challenge to explain. But they really make a better April Fools Joke.

Tips from Google: What's Missing?

To contact us Click HERE
One of my colleague's recent bookmarks caught my eye:  How to solve impossible problems.  
The link is to a story by John Tedesco of the San Antonio Times about Google search guru Daniel Russell who posed a daunting challenge to a room full of investigative journalists:

What’s the phone number of the office where this picture was snapped?

Here's the photo:
What makes this challenge difficult is that there is no direct information about the office from which the picture was snapped.
According to the article, "(Russell) wasn’t asking for a phone number for the skyscraper in the picture, which sounds hard enough. He wanted the phone number of the precise office where the photographer was standing when the picture was taken.  Nothing in that office was even in the photo. Yet in a few minutes, Russell, a research scientist at Google, revealed the answer by paying attention to small details and walking us through a series of smart Google searches."

Yes, most of us don't put Google's full power to use. Advanced features can make searching more surgical.  The article goes on to illustrate Boolean modifiers (what works and doesn't) as well as operators many people haven't tried lately, if ever. It's a good summary; take a look.
But Google is all about finding. Nothing about how good a result may be. This is typical of most students. We laugh when we hear "If it's on the Internet, it must be true," but that's how students actually behave. We're getting better at finding. We've made little progress at evaluating.
It's really not Google's business to tell us what to believe. And we resist attempts at interference when it comes to second-guessing what we want to see--although search engines are paying attention to what we click and are influenced by our choices.  Which is why it becomes all the more important that we develop good investigative habits.
Spoiler Alert
I managed to find an answer I'm pretty sure is right, but there is still some conjecture involved. If you'd like to solve Russell's challenge, go ahead. Answers are easy to find, thanks to Google.  Here's Russell's blog, and some answers.  Did I/they get it right?

A Search I Couldn't Find

To contact us Click HERE
I'm certain it happens to all of us.  We just can't find something we're looking for. We run out of options and/or energy and have to give up (for now or for good). It's one reason why I consider information research mastery on the Internet to be somewhere around 80%.

This happened to me recently while looking online for information about a musical score. A member of my church (where I'm the music director) recommended an arrangement of a hymn she heard while on vacation. Here's an excerpt from her email:

"I was in Albuquerque in May for my granddaughter's high school graduation; she played a recital on violin accompanied on piano. There was a beautiful arrangement of "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing, arranged by Paul Bailey and Charles Romer.  It would be a beautiful piece to play on a Sunday morning if you know of a violinist."

Normally, this would be plenty of information to track the piece down to a source.  I was hoping to find a copy to download (for free or a license), but would have settled to find the publisher and order a copy.

A sensible query would be:  come thou font of every blessing paul bailey charles romer.  It's pretty long, but to find the song title and the arrangers, this seems like the best path.  But it doesn't work. In Google, you get about six relevant entries matching the title and arrangers before Charles Dickens references start popping up--apparently the most popular match for Charles. None of the results is a musical score or a path to a score.

Putting quotes around the title is risky. Am I sure the title is spelled correctly or includes only these words?  There is another spelling for fount (font). Putting quotes around the arrangers names may also eliminate all the instances where a middle initial is used. But it's worth a try. Quotes around the title returns 2 results, neither of which is relevant. Quotes around the arrangers names (separately) returns about 6 results, none of which is a musical score. The results are mainly bulletins that shows the song was performed in a service.

Hmm.

I thought I would try a Deep Web search by going to a database of scores and publishers. The biggies in this field (e.g., www.sheetmusicplus.com, jwpepper.com, etc.) don't list the song with these arrangers. There are plenty of arrangements of the song, but by different arrangers. This is starting to feel like looking for a needle in a haystack. But which Deep Web haystack?

Advanced search filters didn't help, limiting results to violin and title or arrangers produced no relevant results that lined up all the information.


I did find the music online and downloaded it. But the granddaughter first had to share a link with me. Sometimes the quickest way is still to ask someone who knows.

There are other clues such as the publisher of the music that may be found just with good searching.  I found that before I gave up. I'll leave that as the challenge. Who published the music? And if you're up for a tough challenge, where can you download a copy?

Searching isn't as hard as Thinking.

To contact us Click HERE
Just google it. You're bound to find something you're looking for.
Finding is no longer the challenge it once was. Knowing what you are looking for remains no easy matter.

Asking the right question usually precedes touching a computer. What are the hours of the Louvre? Go to the computer. What is 4 degrees Celsius in degrees Fahrenheit? Go to the computer.

These are the average one-off questions an Internet search is really good--and fast--at answering.

But what about the occasional harder question? Harder questions include: a) those that lack precision in what is being asked, b) those with competing or rival answers and c) those with no known answers.  Googling the Internet is not particularly useful at answering this last type.

A and B type questions occur frequently and make easy searching harder. I've blogged before on the need to fact check B type questions to avoid trusting misleading and/or malicious information. Investigative searching is a remedy for establishing the credibility of answers.

Let's focus on A, ambiguous questions. These are questions that may be answered different ways (with different answers) and still be right. An example used on our web site is for the search challenge: What is the top speed of earth's fastest animal? Like most ambiguous questions, this question is unintentionally ambiguous. Only after searching and finding rival answers does its ambiguity become increasingly apparent. This requires real thinking.

Skimming the top ten Google results for the query speed fastest animal, possible answers include:

• cheetah (3)
• peregrine falcon (2)
• sailfish (2)
• pronghorn antelope
• wildebeest
• lion
• thompson's gazelle
• quarter horse
• man
• cow dropped from a helicopter

The student is confronted by a common problem: which one is right? The underlying problem is not that there are multiple answers (which one is right?) but that these are answers to different questions (which question am I supposed to answer?).

The problem could be simplified by rethinking the question: what animal travels the fastest? Now the differences between air, water and land don't factor in (cheetah is fastest on land, sailfish is fastest in water and peregrine falcon is fastest in air). The fastest speed belongs to the falcon.

But another search result--a cow dropped from a helicopter--reveals further ambiguity in the question. The originator of the question may have assumed the animal needs to travel under its own power. In that case, the falcon, which 'cheats' by virtue of gravity, could be bested by the cheetah. By the same token, what prevents an astronaut orbiting the earth from beating the falcon? It ultimately depends on the question.

The example is ridiculous but illustrates how 'right' answers may differ depending on how a question is interpreted and how thinking is aided by searching. Questions that leave room for interpretation make Internet searching more difficult (and may be more interesting). Teachers are advised to try the searches their students are likely to use in an attempt to avoid asking ambiguous questions and inviting 'smart' answers in return.

For the individual, questions may be improved the same way: try a search and see what happens. Don't expect the best answer the first time because the right question has not yet been asked. It's very hard to think of a question you haven't though of yet. Iterative queries are good at helping discover and refine questions.

So, how would you ask the fastest speed question? Go ahead and post your response.

Here are a couple more ambiguous questions that need refinement. See if you can figure out an unambiguous question without searching; then try a search.

• How many buffalo are living in North America today? link
• Between 1918 and 2012, in what year did Americans pay the most for a gallon of gas? link

'CBS' Used to Be Followed by 'News'

To contact us Click HERE
[UPDATED]

When the lights unaccountably went out at the preposterously named Mercedes-Benz Superdome last night during the biggest sports event of the year,  you might have thought that CBS, broadcasting the game, would have made at least a minimal effort to address for viewers what had just happened.

You would have been wrong. Instead, in a shocking example of journalistic malfeasance, the CBS Sports flunkies on site (and the CBS News people on site or in New York) at first punted in panic  and went to commercial, and then took the position that, well, we'll wait till the NFL suits tell us what to say before we explain anything. What had happened? What was happening in the stands, where tens of thousands of spectators were in the dark in more ways than one?

Broadcast sports journalism has long been mostly a bad joke, with print sports journalism not far behind. Witness the weak response to this remarkable event this morning among our vaunted sportswriters, a breed that I once respected in general but now associate with one phrase: "When're they going to bring out more free shrimp?"

There were some exceptions, like Bob Raissman in today's New York Daily News:

"At a time when they should have been aggressively gathering news, CBS’ crew was satisfied with the crumbs the NFL dropped on them. And they swallowed the scraps gladly. Not once during the 34-minute delay did a representative of the National Football League appear on camera to attempt to explain what caused half the Superdome to lose power.

Why should they? No one from CBS put any pressure on them.

Instead of having anyone with a microphone express a hint of outrage, they accepted what was going down. ..."

Yes they did, like the house stooges they actually are.

But where was CBS News, which presumably had at least one news reporter there among the 5,000 media hacks sent to New Orleans, many by news organizations that otherwise wouldn't cover the Second Coming if it required paying for a flight and a hotel room?

As the blackout stretched on, what were they doing at CBS News headquarters in New York? Did it not occur to those descendants of Walter Cronkite to perhaps elbow their way onto the air, you know, like in the old days, with a brief news report that at least indicated that something very unusual had happened, and questions were being asked?

If it did, there was no sign of it last night. No, the attitude was clearly: We'll wait till we're told what to say.

This, from Will Leitch at Sportsdonearth.com, is worth reading on the subject.

Also, while we're on the subject of lackey reporting, when might it occur to the media that the real advertising story last night wasn't who had the best or worst ad (the perennial narrative), but rather, why couldn't CBS sell advertising time?  I wasn't counting, but it seemed to me that most of the ads aired last night during the Super Bowl (with the exception of the cheap local ads slotted in during the regular segments where the local TV stations get their allotted time)  were non-revenue CBS house-ads -- promos for CBS shows -- and barter-deal promos for the NFL.

That might be a story, it seems to me. That is, if any actual journalists were covering this, rather than just swooning over the content of the relatively few beer, car and junk-food ads that did actually air.

Meanwhile, it went unnoted by the NFL handmaidens who CBS trots out to broadcast the game, but hey, how about that murder suspect down there on the field?

Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis was described by a CBS stooge last night as "an extraordinary individual who has impacted sports and community."

Why yes, how true, how true.

That would underscore the recent incident after the Ravens beat the Broncos in postseason, when Ravens players jeered a USA Today reporter who had the temerity to ask the glowering Mr. Lewis about an unfortunate incident in which he, Lewis, was accused in a still-unsolved double murder. Inconveniences for Lewis in that 2000 murder case were that a victim's blood was found in his limo, where Lewis had instructed fellow passengers to keep their mouths shut about the incident.

"... Lewis pleaded guilty in relation to the case: for obstruction of justice, a misdemeanor. He originally was charged with two counts of murder but struck a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony against two of his companions that night..."

That's from Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today, who has some journalistic guts, and who had this to say about Mr. Lewis and his misadventure.
 
I'll provide a little more background on the Lewis case in a bit. But gotta go now! I see they're bringing out more free shrimp and king crab claws to the buffet table, and you know how the line forms, up in the press box.

[UPDATE: An angry anonymous commenter who claims to have some knowledge of CBS (shooting from ambush, the way all anonymous flamers do, of course) scoffs that I didn't do my homework, that CBS "sold" all of its ad slots for the Super Bowl. Right, just like USA Today "sells" 1.7 million copies a day, when in fact more than half are given away, with the numbers cooked through in-house barter deals. That fact is, most of the Super Bowl commercial air time -- a total of 47 minutes -- was devoted to house ads promoting CBS or affiliated shows ("sold" and accounted for in-house) or barter-deal promos for the NFL and affiliates. Media reporters noted weeks before the game ago that CBS said it had "sold" all of its ad slots for the Super Bowl-- but they didn't ask questions about to whom and under what circumstances. They didn't ask how many of those ads sold for the the real-cash price of $3.8 million for 30 seconds, which is what CBS was said to be charging. I guarantee you, financial analysts are asking the right questions, and they're not depending on CBS flacks for the answers.]

###
 

###

Google's Really Advanced Search

To contact us Click HERE
You've know doubt heard of Advanced Search. How about Really Advanced Search?

I spotted this at the bottom of a Google Search Results page today and had to take a look.

Among the search features, including the usual ones, are:

• words almost, but not quite entirely unlike:
• rhyming slang for:
• this exact word or phrase, whose sum of unicode code points is a mersenne prime:
• subtext or innuendo for:

and this:

• the words , but not , unless they contain either the intersection of phrases , , and or a gerund in which case the disjunction of and will also be taken into account (on Tuesdays). 

At the bottom of the page are also several links:

You can also... Tickle a unicorn Download our ranking code so you can run Google at home Search by odor Some of the features of really advanced search might make a good coding project. They might also be a challenge to explain. But they really make a better April Fools Joke.

Tips from Google: What's Missing?

To contact us Click HERE
One of my colleague's recent bookmarks caught my eye:  How to solve impossible problems.  
The link is to a story by John Tedesco of the San Antonio Times about Google search guru Daniel Russell who posed a daunting challenge to a room full of investigative journalists:

What’s the phone number of the office where this picture was snapped?

Here's the photo:
What makes this challenge difficult is that there is no direct information about the office from which the picture was snapped.
According to the article, "(Russell) wasn’t asking for a phone number for the skyscraper in the picture, which sounds hard enough. He wanted the phone number of the precise office where the photographer was standing when the picture was taken.  Nothing in that office was even in the photo. Yet in a few minutes, Russell, a research scientist at Google, revealed the answer by paying attention to small details and walking us through a series of smart Google searches."

Yes, most of us don't put Google's full power to use. Advanced features can make searching more surgical.  The article goes on to illustrate Boolean modifiers (what works and doesn't) as well as operators many people haven't tried lately, if ever. It's a good summary; take a look.
But Google is all about finding. Nothing about how good a result may be. This is typical of most students. We laugh when we hear "If it's on the Internet, it must be true," but that's how students actually behave. We're getting better at finding. We've made little progress at evaluating.
It's really not Google's business to tell us what to believe. And we resist attempts at interference when it comes to second-guessing what we want to see--although search engines are paying attention to what we click and are influenced by our choices.  Which is why it becomes all the more important that we develop good investigative habits.
Spoiler Alert
I managed to find an answer I'm pretty sure is right, but there is still some conjecture involved. If you'd like to solve Russell's challenge, go ahead. Answers are easy to find, thanks to Google.  Here's Russell's blog, and some answers.  Did I/they get it right?

A Search I Couldn't Find

To contact us Click HERE
I'm certain it happens to all of us.  We just can't find something we're looking for. We run out of options and/or energy and have to give up (for now or for good). It's one reason why I consider information research mastery on the Internet to be somewhere around 80%.

This happened to me recently while looking online for information about a musical score. A member of my church (where I'm the music director) recommended an arrangement of a hymn she heard while on vacation. Here's an excerpt from her email:

"I was in Albuquerque in May for my granddaughter's high school graduation; she played a recital on violin accompanied on piano. There was a beautiful arrangement of "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing, arranged by Paul Bailey and Charles Romer.  It would be a beautiful piece to play on a Sunday morning if you know of a violinist."

Normally, this would be plenty of information to track the piece down to a source.  I was hoping to find a copy to download (for free or a license), but would have settled to find the publisher and order a copy.

A sensible query would be:  come thou font of every blessing paul bailey charles romer.  It's pretty long, but to find the song title and the arrangers, this seems like the best path.  But it doesn't work. In Google, you get about six relevant entries matching the title and arrangers before Charles Dickens references start popping up--apparently the most popular match for Charles. None of the results is a musical score or a path to a score.

Putting quotes around the title is risky. Am I sure the title is spelled correctly or includes only these words?  There is another spelling for fount (font). Putting quotes around the arrangers names may also eliminate all the instances where a middle initial is used. But it's worth a try. Quotes around the title returns 2 results, neither of which is relevant. Quotes around the arrangers names (separately) returns about 6 results, none of which is a musical score. The results are mainly bulletins that shows the song was performed in a service.

Hmm.

I thought I would try a Deep Web search by going to a database of scores and publishers. The biggies in this field (e.g., www.sheetmusicplus.com, jwpepper.com, etc.) don't list the song with these arrangers. There are plenty of arrangements of the song, but by different arrangers. This is starting to feel like looking for a needle in a haystack. But which Deep Web haystack?

Advanced search filters didn't help, limiting results to violin and title or arrangers produced no relevant results that lined up all the information.


I did find the music online and downloaded it. But the granddaughter first had to share a link with me. Sometimes the quickest way is still to ask someone who knows.

There are other clues such as the publisher of the music that may be found just with good searching.  I found that before I gave up. I'll leave that as the challenge. Who published the music? And if you're up for a tough challenge, where can you download a copy?

Searching isn't as hard as Thinking.

To contact us Click HERE
Just google it. You're bound to find something you're looking for.
Finding is no longer the challenge it once was. Knowing what you are looking for remains no easy matter.

Asking the right question usually precedes touching a computer. What are the hours of the Louvre? Go to the computer. What is 4 degrees Celsius in degrees Fahrenheit? Go to the computer.

These are the average one-off questions an Internet search is really good--and fast--at answering.

But what about the occasional harder question? Harder questions include: a) those that lack precision in what is being asked, b) those with competing or rival answers and c) those with no known answers.  Googling the Internet is not particularly useful at answering this last type.

A and B type questions occur frequently and make easy searching harder. I've blogged before on the need to fact check B type questions to avoid trusting misleading and/or malicious information. Investigative searching is a remedy for establishing the credibility of answers.

Let's focus on A, ambiguous questions. These are questions that may be answered different ways (with different answers) and still be right. An example used on our web site is for the search challenge: What is the top speed of earth's fastest animal? Like most ambiguous questions, this question is unintentionally ambiguous. Only after searching and finding rival answers does its ambiguity become increasingly apparent. This requires real thinking.

Skimming the top ten Google results for the query speed fastest animal, possible answers include:

• cheetah (3)
• peregrine falcon (2)
• sailfish (2)
• pronghorn antelope
• wildebeest
• lion
• thompson's gazelle
• quarter horse
• man
• cow dropped from a helicopter

The student is confronted by a common problem: which one is right? The underlying problem is not that there are multiple answers (which one is right?) but that these are answers to different questions (which question am I supposed to answer?).

The problem could be simplified by rethinking the question: what animal travels the fastest? Now the differences between air, water and land don't factor in (cheetah is fastest on land, sailfish is fastest in water and peregrine falcon is fastest in air). The fastest speed belongs to the falcon.

But another search result--a cow dropped from a helicopter--reveals further ambiguity in the question. The originator of the question may have assumed the animal needs to travel under its own power. In that case, the falcon, which 'cheats' by virtue of gravity, could be bested by the cheetah. By the same token, what prevents an astronaut orbiting the earth from beating the falcon? It ultimately depends on the question.

The example is ridiculous but illustrates how 'right' answers may differ depending on how a question is interpreted and how thinking is aided by searching. Questions that leave room for interpretation make Internet searching more difficult (and may be more interesting). Teachers are advised to try the searches their students are likely to use in an attempt to avoid asking ambiguous questions and inviting 'smart' answers in return.

For the individual, questions may be improved the same way: try a search and see what happens. Don't expect the best answer the first time because the right question has not yet been asked. It's very hard to think of a question you haven't though of yet. Iterative queries are good at helping discover and refine questions.

So, how would you ask the fastest speed question? Go ahead and post your response.

Here are a couple more ambiguous questions that need refinement. See if you can figure out an unambiguous question without searching; then try a search.

• How many buffalo are living in North America today? link
• Between 1918 and 2012, in what year did Americans pay the most for a gallon of gas? link

The Funny Thing About Mergers

To contact us Click HERE
We've seen a couple very high profile, large scale mergers get announced in the last week or so.

American Airlines and USAir.  Office Max and Office Depot.

Now generally, mergers make a lot of sense.  Two companies, two brands if you will, come together to form something bigger and better than they were when apart.  They combine assets and complimentary skills to create a new total that is greater than the sum of their parts.  The synergy between the two brands make for a greater impact in the marketplace.  Two strong brands come together to make an even stronger one.  You probably get the point!

The funny thing about the mergers announced this week is that this impact is not readily apparent ... certainly not on the surface.

Does anyone really know the difference between Office Max and Office Depot?  Do you realize that they are distinct brands that come from different companies?  Does anyone really know the difference between American Airlines and USAir?  Are those two airline brands really all that different?

Now admittedly, I am sure that there are synergies to be had financially and operationally - or maybe even in market coverage and purchasing leverage. I am sure there's a reason why the mergers make sense, if not only to protect their shareholder assets in tough categories within a tough economy.

But from a consumer and brand perspective, the benefit is not readily apparent.  That's the funny thing about mergers sometimes, they can have nothing to do with consumer branding and I believe that's a lost opportunity.  The brands together should make for a better consumer proposition, a better consumer experience.  It will be interesting to see if that's the case over time for these two mergers.  In the meantime, best of luck to them both.

What's your experience?  Jim.

Jim Joseph
President, Cohn & Wolfe NA
Author, The Experience Effect series
Marketing Professor, NYU

PS - Join us Sunday night at 6:00pm EST for live tweeting during The Academy Awards at #OscarExp.  We'll be talking marketing, movies, makeup!

Google's Really Advanced Search

To contact us Click HERE
You've know doubt heard of Advanced Search. How about Really Advanced Search?

I spotted this at the bottom of a Google Search Results page today and had to take a look.

Among the search features, including the usual ones, are:

• words almost, but not quite entirely unlike:
• rhyming slang for:
• this exact word or phrase, whose sum of unicode code points is a mersenne prime:
• subtext or innuendo for:

and this:

• the words , but not , unless they contain either the intersection of phrases , , and or a gerund in which case the disjunction of and will also be taken into account (on Tuesdays). 

At the bottom of the page are also several links:

You can also... Tickle a unicorn Download our ranking code so you can run Google at home Search by odor Some of the features of really advanced search might make a good coding project. They might also be a challenge to explain. But they really make a better April Fools Joke.

Tips from Google: What's Missing?

To contact us Click HERE
One of my colleague's recent bookmarks caught my eye:  How to solve impossible problems.  
The link is to a story by John Tedesco of the San Antonio Times about Google search guru Daniel Russell who posed a daunting challenge to a room full of investigative journalists:

What’s the phone number of the office where this picture was snapped?

Here's the photo:
What makes this challenge difficult is that there is no direct information about the office from which the picture was snapped.
According to the article, "(Russell) wasn’t asking for a phone number for the skyscraper in the picture, which sounds hard enough. He wanted the phone number of the precise office where the photographer was standing when the picture was taken.  Nothing in that office was even in the photo. Yet in a few minutes, Russell, a research scientist at Google, revealed the answer by paying attention to small details and walking us through a series of smart Google searches."

Yes, most of us don't put Google's full power to use. Advanced features can make searching more surgical.  The article goes on to illustrate Boolean modifiers (what works and doesn't) as well as operators many people haven't tried lately, if ever. It's a good summary; take a look.
But Google is all about finding. Nothing about how good a result may be. This is typical of most students. We laugh when we hear "If it's on the Internet, it must be true," but that's how students actually behave. We're getting better at finding. We've made little progress at evaluating.
It's really not Google's business to tell us what to believe. And we resist attempts at interference when it comes to second-guessing what we want to see--although search engines are paying attention to what we click and are influenced by our choices.  Which is why it becomes all the more important that we develop good investigative habits.
Spoiler Alert
I managed to find an answer I'm pretty sure is right, but there is still some conjecture involved. If you'd like to solve Russell's challenge, go ahead. Answers are easy to find, thanks to Google.  Here's Russell's blog, and some answers.  Did I/they get it right?

A Search I Couldn't Find

To contact us Click HERE
I'm certain it happens to all of us.  We just can't find something we're looking for. We run out of options and/or energy and have to give up (for now or for good). It's one reason why I consider information research mastery on the Internet to be somewhere around 80%.

This happened to me recently while looking online for information about a musical score. A member of my church (where I'm the music director) recommended an arrangement of a hymn she heard while on vacation. Here's an excerpt from her email:

"I was in Albuquerque in May for my granddaughter's high school graduation; she played a recital on violin accompanied on piano. There was a beautiful arrangement of "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing, arranged by Paul Bailey and Charles Romer.  It would be a beautiful piece to play on a Sunday morning if you know of a violinist."

Normally, this would be plenty of information to track the piece down to a source.  I was hoping to find a copy to download (for free or a license), but would have settled to find the publisher and order a copy.

A sensible query would be:  come thou font of every blessing paul bailey charles romer.  It's pretty long, but to find the song title and the arrangers, this seems like the best path.  But it doesn't work. In Google, you get about six relevant entries matching the title and arrangers before Charles Dickens references start popping up--apparently the most popular match for Charles. None of the results is a musical score or a path to a score.

Putting quotes around the title is risky. Am I sure the title is spelled correctly or includes only these words?  There is another spelling for fount (font). Putting quotes around the arrangers names may also eliminate all the instances where a middle initial is used. But it's worth a try. Quotes around the title returns 2 results, neither of which is relevant. Quotes around the arrangers names (separately) returns about 6 results, none of which is a musical score. The results are mainly bulletins that shows the song was performed in a service.

Hmm.

I thought I would try a Deep Web search by going to a database of scores and publishers. The biggies in this field (e.g., www.sheetmusicplus.com, jwpepper.com, etc.) don't list the song with these arrangers. There are plenty of arrangements of the song, but by different arrangers. This is starting to feel like looking for a needle in a haystack. But which Deep Web haystack?

Advanced search filters didn't help, limiting results to violin and title or arrangers produced no relevant results that lined up all the information.


I did find the music online and downloaded it. But the granddaughter first had to share a link with me. Sometimes the quickest way is still to ask someone who knows.

There are other clues such as the publisher of the music that may be found just with good searching.  I found that before I gave up. I'll leave that as the challenge. Who published the music? And if you're up for a tough challenge, where can you download a copy?

Searching isn't as hard as Thinking.

To contact us Click HERE
Just google it. You're bound to find something you're looking for.
Finding is no longer the challenge it once was. Knowing what you are looking for remains no easy matter.

Asking the right question usually precedes touching a computer. What are the hours of the Louvre? Go to the computer. What is 4 degrees Celsius in degrees Fahrenheit? Go to the computer.

These are the average one-off questions an Internet search is really good--and fast--at answering.

But what about the occasional harder question? Harder questions include: a) those that lack precision in what is being asked, b) those with competing or rival answers and c) those with no known answers.  Googling the Internet is not particularly useful at answering this last type.

A and B type questions occur frequently and make easy searching harder. I've blogged before on the need to fact check B type questions to avoid trusting misleading and/or malicious information. Investigative searching is a remedy for establishing the credibility of answers.

Let's focus on A, ambiguous questions. These are questions that may be answered different ways (with different answers) and still be right. An example used on our web site is for the search challenge: What is the top speed of earth's fastest animal? Like most ambiguous questions, this question is unintentionally ambiguous. Only after searching and finding rival answers does its ambiguity become increasingly apparent. This requires real thinking.

Skimming the top ten Google results for the query speed fastest animal, possible answers include:

• cheetah (3)
• peregrine falcon (2)
• sailfish (2)
• pronghorn antelope
• wildebeest
• lion
• thompson's gazelle
• quarter horse
• man
• cow dropped from a helicopter

The student is confronted by a common problem: which one is right? The underlying problem is not that there are multiple answers (which one is right?) but that these are answers to different questions (which question am I supposed to answer?).

The problem could be simplified by rethinking the question: what animal travels the fastest? Now the differences between air, water and land don't factor in (cheetah is fastest on land, sailfish is fastest in water and peregrine falcon is fastest in air). The fastest speed belongs to the falcon.

But another search result--a cow dropped from a helicopter--reveals further ambiguity in the question. The originator of the question may have assumed the animal needs to travel under its own power. In that case, the falcon, which 'cheats' by virtue of gravity, could be bested by the cheetah. By the same token, what prevents an astronaut orbiting the earth from beating the falcon? It ultimately depends on the question.

The example is ridiculous but illustrates how 'right' answers may differ depending on how a question is interpreted and how thinking is aided by searching. Questions that leave room for interpretation make Internet searching more difficult (and may be more interesting). Teachers are advised to try the searches their students are likely to use in an attempt to avoid asking ambiguous questions and inviting 'smart' answers in return.

For the individual, questions may be improved the same way: try a search and see what happens. Don't expect the best answer the first time because the right question has not yet been asked. It's very hard to think of a question you haven't though of yet. Iterative queries are good at helping discover and refine questions.

So, how would you ask the fastest speed question? Go ahead and post your response.

Here are a couple more ambiguous questions that need refinement. See if you can figure out an unambiguous question without searching; then try a search.

• How many buffalo are living in North America today? link
• Between 1918 and 2012, in what year did Americans pay the most for a gallon of gas? link

Milton Friedman on C-Span's 'Book Notes' in 1994

To contact us Click HERE
I hadn't planned to watch the whole thing --- and this interview's an hour long --- but I got sucked in after just a couple of minutes listening to Dr. Friedman. The other day, when I was renewing my kid's colonial history books at the library, I bought a paperback copy of Friedman's "Free to Choose" for 25 cents at the library's bookstore. I'm just getting into the book, but I've been watching videos online and came across this one. Friedman's laments about the creeping socialization of democratic societies --- a trend seemingly inexplicable in 1994, since "everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure" --- are particularly relevant in the age of Obama.

Watch this video in full. If you don't have time, bookmark it for later. It's amazing.

And buy the book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.

Geert Wilders' Right to Speak

To contact us Click HERE
Dutch parliamentary leader Geert Wilders is speaking in Australia this week. Here's the editorial on the controversy, at the Australian, "Geert Wilders's right to speak":

FOR a liberal democracy that thrives on liberty, plurality and vigorous political discourse, the visit by controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders to these shores presents an opportunity to reaffirm these fundamental principles. When Mr Wilders was granted a visa last year, then immigration minister Chris Bowen rightly argued that Australian multiculturalism, our political system and our commitment to freedom of speech were strong enough to survive a visit by the Dutch MP.

Mr Wilders's views on the impact of large-scale Islamic immigration in Europe and the challenge that it presents to established cultures and the obligations of citizenship in Western countries are part of an important debate that Australians should be aware of.

Mr Wilders is the founder and leader of The Netherlands Party for Freedom. His political mission is to halt what he says is the "Islamisation" of his country. He argues that Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology enforced by violence and rigid adherence to it, quite different from the faith of Islam. In his article in The Australian earlier this week, Mr Wilders outlined his views that many will find challenging, but they were respectfully put and hardly deserve the vilification he has received from extremists. Mr Wilders's visit provides Australians with a window into a sociopolitico challenge in the northern hemisphere. How Islam can be absorbed into Western democracies, given the cultural differences between the two, is being debated and discussed in journals such as the centre-left magazine Prospect, where a recent contributor argued: "Islam's accommodation with the liberal-democratic societies of Europe and North America is one of the most urgent questions of our times."

Mr Wilders is welcome here, provided that he abides by the law, as all visitors must. Our laws include prohibiting racial vilification and inciting violence, but there is no suggestion he has come close to violating them. So far, it is his opponents who have displayed the illiberalism they accuse him of. A core duty of citizens in a free society is to welcome debate on contentious subjects. A mature country that is comfortable with its own laws, cultures and traditions would defend the right to express views that some of its citizens may not agree with. Last year, British preacher Taji Mustafa addressed a gathering in Sydney and argued for Islam to be spread throughout Australia, not as a religion but as a system of government. These views are repugnant to most Australians, yet they were allowed to be expressed. Moreover, a group of Muslims marched through the streets of Sydney last year under the black flag of jihad - also the flag of al-Qa'ida - spreading a message of religious hatred. Muslim leaders quickly denounced the vile protests.

While we do not face the same challenges that exist in Europe, flashes of Islamic extremism surface from time to time. The lesson is that our non-discriminatory immigration policy and the continuation of our largely harmonious multi-ethnic society - one of the most diverse in the world - depends on a tolerance for this diversity and a commitment to Australian values. Citizenship is not only about rights; it is also about civic responsibility, whether the citizens are Muslim, Christian or neither. Not everyone will agree with Mr Wilders's views, but we should all defend his right to express them.

More at Tundra Tabloids, "GEERT WILDERS SPEAKS IN AUSTRALIA, PEOPLE LISTEN…"

Also at Bare Naked Islam, "GEERT WILDERS IN AUSTRALIA," and Bill Muehlenberg's, "Why Geert Wilders is Right."

And at PA Pundits International, "Geert Wilders In Australia – If You Need This Much Security For Criticising Islam ..."

PHOTO: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

Washington's Ruling Class Orphans Millions of Voters

To contact us Click HERE
Angelo Codevilla updates his theory of American's morally bankrupt politics of the ruling class.

At Forbes, "As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned":

On January 1, 2013 one third of Republican congressmen, following their leaders, joined with nearly all Democrats to legislate higher taxes and more subsidies for Democratic constituencies. Two thirds voted no, following the people who had elected them. For generations, the Republican Party had presented itself as the political vehicle for Americans whose opposition to ever-bigger government financed by ever-higher taxes makes them a “country class.”  Yet modern Republican leaders, with the exception of the Reagan Administration, have been partners in the expansion of government, indeed in the growth of a government-based “ruling class.” They have relished that role despite their voters. Thus these leaders gradually solidified their choice to no longer represent what had been their constituency, but to openly adopt the identity of junior partners in that ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the identity of Republican voters and of the majority of Republican elected representatives, the Republican leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans. In short, at the outset of 2013 a substantial portion of America finds itself un-represented, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

By the law of supply and demand, millions of Americans, (arguably a majority) cannot remain without representation. Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old. This marks these political orphans as a “country class.” In 1776 America’s country class responded to lack of representation by uniting under the concept: “all men are created equal.” In our time, its disparate sectors’ common sentiment is more like: “who the hell do they think they are?”

The ever-growing U.S. government has an edgy social, ethical, and political character. It is distasteful to a majority of persons who vote Republican and to independent voters, as well as to perhaps one fifth of those who vote Democrat. The Republican leadership’s kinship with the socio-political class that runs modern government is deep. Country class Americans have but to glance at the Media to hear themselves insulted from on high as greedy, racist, violent, ignorant extremists. Yet far has it been from the Republican leadership to defend them. Whenever possible, the Republican Establishment has chosen candidates for office – especially the Presidency – who have ignored, soft-pedaled or given mere lip service to their voters’ identities and concerns.

Thus public opinion polls confirm that some two thirds of Americans feel that government is “them” not “us,” that government has been taking the country in the wrong direction, and that such sentiments largely parallel partisan identification: While a majority of Democrats feel that officials who bear that label represent them well, only about a fourth of Republican voters and an even smaller proportion of independents trust Republican officials to be on their side. Again: While the ruling class is well represented by the Democratic Party, the country class is not represented politically – by the Republican Party or by any other. Well or badly, its demand for representation will be met.

Representation is the distinguishing feature of democratic government. To be represented, to trust that one’s own identity and interests are secure and advocated in high places, is to be part of the polity. In practice, any democratic government’s claim to the obedience of citizens depends on the extent to which voters feel they are party to the polity. No one doubts that the absence, loss, or perversion of that function divides the polity sharply between rulers and ruled.

Continue reading.

And then check Gateway Pundit, "Rush Limbaugh: “For First Time in My Life, I’m Ashamed of My Country” (Video)."

And the introduction at this video is excellent (although you're on your own after that), from Greta Van Susteren, "Manufactured Mess? - Rush Limbaugh Says Sequester Crisis Is Bogus."

Dude Recreates '70's Pan-Am 747 in City of Industry Werehouse

To contact us Click HERE
You gotta love this story. I still daydream about the old 747s. As a kid, I was fascinated by the idea of a cocktail lounge in the sky. And now it turns out that a Southland man has recreated the Jumbo Jet '70's experience for guests to "fly" back in time.

At the Long Beach Press Telegram, "California man's lifelike model recreates Pan Am 747 in warehouse":

On an unusually warm December night, more than 25 years after her final flight with Pan American World Airways - 11 hours from Frankfurt to Los Angeles - Anna Gunther once again put on her pantyhose and blue uniform with white trim, so she could serve dinner on the upper deck of a Boeing 747.

But this airplane wasn't going anywhere. It was a model, like a child's playhouse, built by a man who had dreamed of re-creating the plane he loved as a boy.

This was a chance for Anthony Toth to unveil, for the first time, what he had created inside a 3,000-square-foot warehouse in the City of Industry. Here was his opportunity to show why he hired a contractor, spent more than $100,000 and used almost every vacation day he ever earned to reconstruct a major chunk of the interior of a Pan Am 747.
Sure, he had shown off airplane models before. He once even had a smaller replica inside the garage of his Redondo Beach condo. But at home there was no upper deck. And what's a 747, even a replica, without a second level?

There was another problem with his garage. Other than running to the kitchen, Toth had no way to prepare meals for his faux travelers. But the warehouse was different, and that's where Gunther came in.

She had never met Toth, a sales executive at United Airlines based in Los Angeles, but, almost on a lark, she agreed to help him. Toth wanted to pretend as if he were flying some of his co-workers and friends to another continent, and he wanted former Pan Am flight attendants to serve drinks and dinner, just as they might have three or four decades ago.

On the big day, Gunther arrived at 3 p.m., wearing high heels, a bowler hat and a uniform (white blouse, blue they walked into his warehouse and past the ticket counter with the bright blue Pan Am logo. They saw a sign indicating Flight 21 to Tokyo would leave soon. Then they walked onto a short jet bridge, through a real aircraft door and turned left into first class.

On board, they took amenity kits tucked in plastic and filled with goodies like slippers and a damp "refresher towel." They picked up a real set of Pan Am headphones, ones they could plug into a jack on their seats to listen to music or watch the movie projected overhead. They grabbed vintage magazines protected by a Pan Am branded sleeve.

They took their plush seats - the cabin has 18 of them arranged in an alternating blue and red pattern - raised their leg rests and reclined. They looked around. Everything was accurate, from the distance between seats to the overhead bins to the aircraft's shell to the galley Gunther and her three colleagues used to ready drinks. Using his iPad and hidden speakers, Toth had even piped in the humming of jet engines.

It was so true to the real thing, it blurred the line between reality and fiction.

It was as if Pan Am was flying again.

Continue reading.

'59% Think Most School Textbooks Put Political Correctness Ahead of Accuracy...'

To contact us Click HERE
Althouse has the report, from Rasmussen, and she writes:

Anybody putting together a schoolbook has to think about inspiring children and building ideals and character. I'm saying that even though I lean strongly in the direction of straightforward, factual information, and I think that it's a serious moral wrong to use compulsory education to indoctrinate children.

Well, my American government textbook is probably politically incorrect from the radical left's perspective. One of the main selling points is its strong emphasis on American exceptionalism and our founding beliefs in individualism, liberty, and self-government. Students are unfamiliar with these things when they get to my classrooms. They have only a passing acquaintance with what it means to be an American. Whether the problem's families or the schools, we have a lot of work to do in transmitting the democratic beliefs of our founding generation.

Bill Schmalfeldt is Disgusting

To contact us Click HERE
The Other McCain's continuing coverage of Bill Schmalfeldt, which is really just the residuals of the freedom to blog battles of last year, which generated a lot of attention nationwide at the time of the swattings, is endlessly fascinating. This is so especially since while Schmalfeldt is truly bizarre, he's not that bizarre in the context of the left-wing ideology that is the foundation of his evil. He's really quite representative of the depravity of progressivism.

See, "Dishonest Bill Schmalfeldt Got Banned from Daily Kos for Anal Rape 'Satire'."

Read it all at the link, but worth adding here is the link to Lee Stranahan's post, "Bill Schmalfeldt: Too Disgusting For Daily Kos":

R.S. McCain has been putting the career of Bill Schmalfeldt into proper perspective over at The Other McCain and it felt it was time to highlight another aspect of Schmalfeldt’s work and personality.

Bill Schmalfeldt is disgusting.

That sounds like a petty insult. It’s not. In the case of Mr. Schmalfeldt, it’s true and very specific.  He is intentionally sickeningly repulsive and his writings show a sexual obsession that is profoundly disturbing.

I’m not a prude. I’m not easily offended. This isn’t even a liberal / conservative thing. Bill Schmalfeldt actually managed to offend the readers at the Daily Kos so much that he was essentially run off the website back in May of this year in an article entitled The REAL Conservative Case Against Gay Marriage.

Here’s just one paragraph from that article. Welcome to the mind of Bill Schmalfeldt...

Keep reading both of those posts at the links.

Schmalfeldt's Photoshops are too disgusting to post here, and that's a lot, since I post just about anything.

President Armageddon

To contact us Click HERE
A great editorial on the sequester, at WSJ, "The Washington Monument ploy and other Obama gambits":

Americans need to understand that Mr. Obama is threatening that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's ready to inflict maximum pain on everybody else. He won't force government agencies to shave spending on travel and conferences and excessive pay and staffing. He won't demand that agencies cut the lowest priority spending as any half-competent middle manager would.

It's the old ploy to stir public support for all government spending by shutting down vital services first. Voters should scoff at the idea that a $3.6 trillion government can't save one nickel of every dollar that agencies spend. The $85 billion in savings is a mere 2.3% of total spending. The agencies that the White House says can't save 5% received an average increase in their budgets of 17% in the previous five years—not counting their $276 billion stimulus bonus.

Continue reading.

BONUS: Speaker Boehner's op-ed at the paper, "The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created" (via Memeorandum).

Milton Friedman on C-Span's 'Book Notes' in 1994

To contact us Click HERE
I hadn't planned to watch the whole thing --- and this interview's an hour long --- but I got sucked in after just a couple of minutes listening to Dr. Friedman. The other day, when I was renewing my kid's colonial history books at the library, I bought a paperback copy of Friedman's "Free to Choose" for 25 cents at the library's bookstore. I'm just getting into the book, but I've been watching videos online and came across this one. Friedman's laments about the creeping socialization of democratic societies --- a trend seemingly inexplicable in 1994, since "everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure" --- are particularly relevant in the age of Obama.

Watch this video in full. If you don't have time, bookmark it for later. It's amazing.

And buy the book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.