mathoda.com

It seems to me that some ideas succeed not because they are true, but because the audience attracted to the idea will by its composition be inclined to agree. An example is a statement that Plato ascribes to Socrates, that “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Socrates meant that he must be free to examine the wisdom of his actions, without the restrictions Athenian voters wished to place upon him, or he would not find it worth living (thus the drinking of the hemlock). That’s certainly a point of view that may be widely shared, although different people and cultures would disagree as to what level of restriction on thoughts or speech might make life not worth living.

While Socrates’ decision is defensible, subsequent philosophers tend to take Socrates’ statement a bit further. They conclude from his statement that it is the process of examining life that gives life its value. Of course philosophers find value in examining the wisdom of ideas and lives, and feel their study of the matter gives them special insights. A philosopher who was unwilling to examine life is a bit of a contradiction in terms. That Socrates was willing to die rather than give up his right to examine his own life has made philosophers sing his praises ever after.

Personally, I have found great value in examining the wisdom of many acts in my life, yet there are many types of people in this world, and if some do not ponder the wisdom of their actions much at all, must we (or particularly they) conclude their life is less worth living? It seems awfully condescending. The people who don’t examine their lives much probably aren’t examining Socrates statement. If they did, they might object to the interpretation with which it is adopted by philosophers.

A less strongly phrased statement might be, “Until you examine your life, you are ignorant of whether it is worth living,” but is even that statement true? Perhaps life is always worth living because of something innate, because of the experiences even an unexamined life gives, or because of the effects a life can have. We ascribe a value to the life of a pet regardless of how unaware the pet is of itself or the wisdom of its own actions.

Whether a life is worth living is a subjective judgment imposed by an observer, not an objective fact. Given the many attributes that might make us conclude a life is worth living, to rest all of a judgment on whether the life is “examined” seems rather excessive. That may be what gives Socrates’ statement its power, but it may also be what robs it of some important truth.

In the spirit of Socrates, here’s a bit of parting wisdom (but even without it I bet your life is worth living): Never trust an audience who are made more self important by their admiration.

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Edufire.com founder Jon Bischke asks a great question: How close is Google to attaining their mission?

There appear to be three components to Google’s mission: (1) getting access to all of the world’s information, (2) organizing the world’s information in a useful way, and (3) making sure everyone can access the information.

How much of the world’s information does Google access presently and how can this be expected to change in the future? Google faces a number of problems in getting access to the world’s information. These challenges vary based on where the information is stored (in the Internet cloud, on a computer, or generated in real life but not stored), the privacy of the information (public, private, secret), the legal status of the information (public domain, copyright but shareable, copyright but illegal to share), and the type of media (text, audio, video).

According to a paper on Google’s storage system (pdf), as of November of 2006 Google stored approximately 850 terabytes of information for its search crawler, 70.5 terabytes of information for its maps software, 4 terabytes of information in terms of what users search history is, 2 terabytes in Google Base, and 9 terabytes in Google’s Orkut. This sounds like alot, but as of today, the Internet is 3,000 to 5,000 petabytes of Internet traffic (with about 3 gigabytes of that data being monthly American usage) (see MINTS survey). Even accounting for the discrepancy between 2006 and 2008, and for traffic generated versus actual content of websites, that’s a more than 3,000 fold gap.

One significant problem Google faces with the Internet are that there are significant parts of the Internet that it is prevented from accessing. For example, Google is not allowed by Facebook to crawl most of the information on Facebook’s pages. Google doesn’t know your click history on Yahoo’s websites. Also, alot of our usage of the Internet isn’t actually captured in the Internet very well. Patterns of mouse movements and web page navigation, for example. Furthermore, as Jon Bischke points out, Google is also not very good at indexing audio and video files (although they certainly are working on such problems; see NYTimes on Google’s new image search).

To Google’s benefit, the utility of the Internet keeps pulling more and more information into it. Yet there is a tremendous amount of information that is generated every moment that is on only personal computers or mobile devices, and that amount of information is dwarfed by the information that is not on any computer. While these challenges can be tackled with new tools (like Google’s book scanner, or Google desktop search, or a Google backup service for your computer), Google is far from having access to all of the world’s information. There’s plenty of information companies generate each day that they do not put where Google’s tools can reach the information, from oil company geological data to a consumer products company’s internal documents. For Google the solution likely lies in helping create new tools to capture (life recorders) and manipulate (personal computer software, Google enterprise search) that information, even if the information is never put into Google’s cloud infrastructure.

Will Google be the place people go to find the world’s information organized in a useful way?

The second problem that Google faces is that no matter how useful it is in creating easy to use methods to organize information, there are new ways of organizing information that Google won’t control (Facebook, Friendfeed, etc.). To some extent Google is trying to route around this problem by encouraging software developers to create programs that interface easily with Google’s systems (Google Apps Engine) but such a solution seems limited at best. Like Apple, Google can try to create powerful interfaces that have the best utility for users, but they will be competing against the whole world, including their own former employees. They will never have the best system for accessing all information.

Can everyone access Google’s services?

The third problem Google has is that as ubiquitous as it is, and the Internet allows it to be, Google is not the most commonly used search system everywhere. Google has taken a number of steps to make sure it is easily accessible, from placing their search box wherever they can (including on Dell computers, the Firefox web browser, and the iPhone), to creating their own cell phone software (Android). Although much of the world is not on the Internet yet, technological development proceeds, wireless technology is proliferating across the developing world, and Google may have a shot at being the mobile device of choice in the developing world. The challenge for Google will be to create the best tools, both on the Internet and off it, both connected to Google’s overall architecture and stand alone so people can maintain their privacy, in a world of consistently expanding choice.

For all of the utility that Google provides to people every day, their mission statement is beyond a stretch goal. They are far from achieving it, and likely never will. Perhaps the economics of storage and access mean that it’s not worth storing certain kinds of information at all. Yet it is great that Google has such an audacious goal. Without trying to solve significant problems, no great accomplishments would ever be made. Clearly organizing and making useful even a small portion of the information generated by the world can be fantastically worthwhile and rewarding.

To see if a person is addicted to an activity or substance try performing the CAGE test. The test is often used to judge whether someone is an alcoholic, but can be just as easily applied to addictions to email, instant messaging, the web, coffee, etc.

1. Have you ever felt you should Cut down on the activity?
2. Have people Annoyed you by criticizing your doing the activity?
3. Have you ever felt bad or Guilty about doing the activity?
4. Have you ever done the activity first thing in the morning as an Eye opener to get yourself started on the day?

The test was developed by Dr. John Ewing, founding Director of the Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to Dr. Ewing, two yes answers is considered a clinically significant sign of addiction.