Josh Bruno

Silicon Valley traffic sucks. If you’ve ever ridden with me, you know that I like to get from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible. This involves pseudo-legal red-light skipping techniques and constant lane changing. In Austin I can turn a 20min drive into a 10 min drive. Although it is a physically and mentally intense 10 minutes for me, I feel that it is worth it.

However, here in Silicon Valley, my driving techniques turn a 22 min drive into a 20 min drive. Hardly worth it considering the mental and physical exertion and the increased chance of an accident. Therefore I have decided to do something else with this brain time. I am considering putting a real effort into learning Spanish via audio books. To do this ( and I can’t believe I’m saying this), I will pick a lane and stay in it all the way to work instead of the usual zigzag pattern. I’ll lose 4min a day, but gain 44 min of learning.

Combining this with increased use of Spanish con mis amigos en Tejas, and I will be well on my way to learning another language. I’m going to kick into gear a lazy part of my mind and make my commute even more efficient.

Researchers have found a way to detect moving objects in video which then to allows you to time shift the video by dragging the moving object. TechCrunch describes how it works a little more. The second clip is a bit dry but really shows the strengths of the system, whereas it’s not so clear in the first.

 Video1

Video2 

While the research applications are obvious, I would love to see this implemented in consumer video services. I watch most of my movies on my computer, and it is always difficult to scroll back and forth. Imagine time shifting a car chase or action sequence by dragging the object itself. Services that allow the streaming of movies over the internet are starting to gain a little traction, so adding this feature would be relatively easy. It may also be possible to add this to Blue-Ray. At the very least, I have to find a way to plug this in to VLC.

While interviewing with Yahoo I was asked a simple question, “Are you familiar with the idea of the Semantic Web?” Embarrassingly enough, I did not know the answer. Luckily I still got the job, and later I did my research. Here’s the answer:

Modern computing has evolved over many generations that are defined by how we store, search, and view our data. To understand the next generation, what is being called the “Semantic Web,” we must first look at its origins.

Desktop Computers

Remember before everyone had the internet? Data was stored in local directory structures and databases.

Web 1.0 - 1994 to 2004

In the early days of the internet, information was only transmitted one way. Companies focused on broadcasting their information via a static website, and the entire web experience was controlled by the companies who created and hosted web pages.

Web 2.0 - 2004 to Present

Social networking, blogging, tagging, sharing, and updating. Information is no longer one-way. Gone are websites, now we have web applications. Bloggers create their own news and information sources. Users choose their news via RSS feeds. Communities collectively write their own encyclopedia. Videos and pictures are hosted, shared, and commented, and tagged. Networks are created by interpersonal connections. Widgets and add-ons are created by individuals to expand their favorite web applications.

Thus, vast amounts of data are available on the web, in orders of magnitude above what was available in the Web 1.0. The problem we currently have is how to make sense of this information and allow the user to search it all. Industry leaders such as Google and Yahoo use keyword searching. The problem is that keyword searching returns a haystack of web pages that contain the keyword(s), and you are left to look for the needle. This because the web 2.0 is built on technologies that focus on user interaction and ignore putting their data into some sort of universal underlying structure.

The Semantic Web - The Future

The web 3.0 won’t make the web more social or more interactive. Instead it will turn this giant cloud of user generated information into something meaningful and easily searchable. Currently the web is meant to be read by humans and is stored in a way that computers cannot understand.

For example, a simple storefront web page selling something is easily human readable, but a computer can not understand. This is because the information is simply thrown onto the page with HTML, and then styled to be human readable with CSS. Thus, you have <div>’s, <table>’s, and <span>’s, but imagine if you had <item for sale> <item cost> <item description> <item benefit> <item use> where each object is part of a huge interconnecting description of human knowledge.

The entire web would then be written in a universally understandable format. Display to the user will not be changed, just the underlying structure. The major problem facing the Semantic Web is that all web pages will have to be carefully designed, and the usage of semantic techniques will have to be widespread for there to be any real benefit.

If these challenges can be overcome, then the internet will evolve into a large artificial knowledge system. The obvious next step is to overlay some form of universal decision making…

Google announced their App Engine yesterday. This is huge news for startup web developers, and an amazing move by Google.

Essentially, the service allows developers to write applications on Google’s platform, a platform that allows for extreme scalability and distributed processing power. Think of the storage, bandwidth, and processing required to run Gmail, well now developers have access to this. Also, unless your web application becomes extremely popular, its free!

This is a perfect environment for web startups, who can now avoid server and bandwidth fees ($1,000s a month) while not having to worry about migration if their application becomes the next YouTube. Also, Google’s API will allow for faster development as it covers the issues of user account management and data redundancy.

Google will profit because developers will use Google’s user API and thus be integrated into Google’s system. If XYZ software were to become famous using the Google App platform, ALL users would be required to login using a google account. Although developers could potentially write custom login scripts, Google’s API will speed up development and add security.

Universal, Sony, and Warner joined with Myspace to distribute online music. Apparently the new website will allow you to stream songs for free, download them for a fee, or pay a monthly fee to access them all. This is similar to what I said two days ago, not bad for a first post. EMI Group, who recently grabbed Google’s CIO, is not in on the deal although rumors say they may jump in.

This looks to be good news for us consumers. Especially those who already use MySapce. As far as the record companies, one of them should have taken the initiative and created their own site. The internet community would have flocked to a site that streamed full songs and was Record Company backed. Throw in a super bowl commercial, and they would have left the competition behind. Unfortunately for themselves, the record companies seem like four old men huddled around a computer trying to figure this “internet thing” out.

Overall, I’m not too excited about the new site because they’ll probably screw it up in the following ways:

1. Not all free streams will be full songs
2. Mandatory MySpace registration
3. Excessive DRM

When I saw the announcement of Photoshop Express I thought, “Oh cool, now I can pay a fee and use a web-based version of Photoshop anywhere I may be.” I was way off.

Photoshop Express is free, web based, offers 2GB of storage, and integrates well with Facebook,; however, the editing options are very very basic. This is only for casual users.

Now, if you are looking for a web-based photo editing application with more power, there is Splashup.com. It is similar to the standard Photoshop, and has a reasonable feature set, including layers. Finally, a replacement for MS Paint when editing on public computers.

Google’s CIO Douglas Merrill and Yahoo’s Music VP Ian Rogers announced their resignations Wednesday. They are both leaving for CEO / President positions in the music label industry.

This caught my attention because both Merrill and Rodgers are influential in the industry, but they have chosen opposite paths. Merril’s EMI Group is the 4th largest record company with a traditional business model while Rodger’s Topspin Media is a startup that caters to independent artists. The music industry has yet to find its feet in the digital age.

Because music files can be copied and distributed with ease (the old Napster, and now Bittorrent), it is hard to generate sales. Large Record companies are switching to a pay-per-download system, but are struggling with Digital Rights Management. Smaller companies are embracing the connectivity of the internet and using it to spread the news of small bands. These companies generate revenue on ads or the popularity of their network. For example, Bebo.com recently sold for $850 million. However, the problem with this model is that these small bands do not get a share of the royalties.

I’d like to see a company take a hybrid approach. Promote your big stars with your label. After all, where would we be without 50-Cent or Brittney Spears? Then use social networking to let your users simultaneously generate ad revenue and discover your next big stars. Once an artist is popular on your social network, bump him up to rock star status and start charging for downloads. As of now, the only companies capable of such a thing seem to be afraid of the connectivity of the internet. If only I had a few big-name rappers, $50 million, and some spare time…