<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google and the end of everything</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: JoeDuck</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/#comment-339858</link>
		<dc:creator>JoeDuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2528#comment-339858</guid>
		<description>A great big think item Matt, and unless he qualifies his idea more I&#39;m with you on this one.   &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However it seemed to me he&#39;s making a more reasonable and subtle point than a wrong suggestion that correlation=causation.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Generally science bases descriptions of behavior or biology or other phenomena on data *samples*.   As the sample size approaches 100% our models become closer to the full reality rather than just a model of that reality.   I don&#39;t agree that we are anywhere near the point of having enough data to do much more than target ads a little better, but in the areas where we have huge data sets I think we will start to find that Google analysis may be able to predict and describe things better than any previous models. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Far more significant will be conscious computing, which is likely to change the game for everything and everybody almost as soon as that Genie&#39;s out of the bottle - probably in about 15 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A great big think item Matt, and unless he qualifies his idea more I&#39;m with you on this one.   </p>
<p>However it seemed to me he&#39;s making a more reasonable and subtle point than a wrong suggestion that correlation=causation.  </p>
<p>Generally science bases descriptions of behavior or biology or other phenomena on data *samples*.   As the sample size approaches 100% our models become closer to the full reality rather than just a model of that reality.   I don&#39;t agree that we are anywhere near the point of having enough data to do much more than target ads a little better, but in the areas where we have huge data sets I think we will start to find that Google analysis may be able to predict and describe things better than any previous models. </p>
<p>Far more significant will be conscious computing, which is likely to change the game for everything and everybody almost as soon as that Genie&#39;s out of the bottle - probably in about 15 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mathewi</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/#comment-339857</link>
		<dc:creator>mathewi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2528#comment-339857</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Alistair -- good post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Alistair &#8212; good post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alistair Croll</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/#comment-339856</link>
		<dc:creator>Alistair Croll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2528#comment-339856</guid>
		<description>Matthew -- I think you have a point. Even if the technology finds every correlation, we still need science to prove causality.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I started to write an increasingly long comment here after reading this, then went and stuck it at &lt;a href="http://www.bitcurrent.com/does-big-search-change-science/"&gt;http://www.bitcurrent.com/does-big-search-chang...&lt;/a&gt; instead. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Besides, this way I got to post a Google LOLcat ad.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks for getting me thinking!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matthew &#8212; I think you have a point. Even if the technology finds every correlation, we still need science to prove causality.</p>
<p>I started to write an increasingly long comment here after reading this, then went and stuck it at <a href="http://www.bitcurrent.com/does-big-search-change-science/"></a><a href="http://www.bitcurrent.com/does-big-search-chang.." rel="nofollow">http://www.bitcurrent.com/does-big-search-chang..</a>. instead. </p>
<p>Besides, this way I got to post a Google LOLcat ad.</p>
<p>Thanks for getting me thinking!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ianbetteridge</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/#comment-339855</link>
		<dc:creator>ianbetteridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2528#comment-339855</guid>
		<description>Well, they sell books, don&#39;t they? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, they sell books, don&#39;t they? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: simoncast</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/06/29/google-and-the-end-of-everything/#comment-339851</link>
		<dc:creator>simoncast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2528#comment-339851</guid>
		<description>Flippant answer is "know what you are doing" :)  I&#39;ve not looked into it for a while but there are a lot of techniques in more esoteric math that will probably find usage here.  I think branches such as topography and set theory could yield some interesting results.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I expect we&#39;ll see lots of bloggers trotting out their high school math without really understanding the limitations of the techniques.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Flippant answer is &#8220;know what you are doing&#8221; :)  I&#39;ve not looked into it for a while but there are a lot of techniques in more esoteric math that will probably find usage here.  I think branches such as topography and set theory could yield some interesting results.</p>
<p>I expect we&#39;ll see lots of bloggers trotting out their high school math without really understanding the limitations of the techniques.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
