Google's latest wheeze: Work out these blurry house numbers for us

Google, the pride of open everything, uses real blurry house number images as its Captchas, so that the general public can tell them what the number really is.

An openly available image of Sergey Brin in the open air.

(Credit: Google+,Sergey Brin)

 

I have spent much of the day blurry-eyed, moved by Google's Sergey Brin declaring his company the only great defender of the open Web.

The tears have, it has come to my attention, mainly emerged from laughter at Google's sweet, thoughtful gall that everything it claims the world desires just happens coincidentally to benefit it commercially.

Still, no sooner had my eyes dried a little when the Telegraph offered me Google' latest exemplar of sheer, beautiful openness.

For it seems that Google is using real images from Street View as security checks. Yes, if you want to access your own Google account, the company is asking you to decipher a slightly blurry image of a real house number.

It seems that if enough people decide on a particular number, then Google sharpens up the image on Street View.

Yes, you are being asked to work for Google, Openly. For free. And if you don't, well, you may not be able to access your own Google account.

The Telegraph naturally declares that certain privacy groups are foaming at the lips on hearing of this little scheme -- which, according to a Google spokesman, only occurs in 10 percent of security questions.

But surely some people, on hearing of this and Google being fined $25,000 by the FCC for, um, non-compliance with its inquiry into Wi-Fi eavesdropping, might feel that openness has a highly subjective definition in Google's complex collective cranium.

Google's version of the open Web seems very simple: let us get at everything. Whether it's books, streets, houses, Facebook accounts, iPhoto accumulations or perhaps even the remains of your spaghetti bolognese.

Something is open if Google can see it and scrape it. And when Google sees it and scrapes it, it can create a fuller picture of every element of your life -- just in case, you know, some lonely advertiser might pass by and show interest.

Some might call this freedom. There again, doesn't freedom sometimes entail being free not to let rapacious, baby-faced organizations peer into your life?

by Chris Matyszczyk 
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
.
Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related posts & articles:
Google's Business Experiment: Nothing but Web
Google+ face-lift triggers jibes over extra white space
Google plans major revamp for search engine
Google acquires more IBM patents
FCC Proposes: Fine for Google Wi-Fi snooping 'obstruction' 
Google testing Google News tweaks
Sergey Brin, Google: Web freedom faces greatest threat ever. 'It's scary.' (nextlevelofnews.com)
Google's Sergey Brin: China, SOPA, Facebook Threaten the 'Open Web' (wired.com)

Teamwork made Man brainier, say scientists

 Enlarge

Learning to work in teams may explain why humans evolved a bigger brain, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

Compared to his hominid predecessors, Homo sapiens is a cerebral giant, a riddle that scientists have long tried to solve.

The answer, according to researchers in Ireland and Scotland, may lie in social interaction.



Working with others helped Man to survive, but he had to develop a brain big enough to cope with all the social complexities, the experts believe. – Reuters Photo

In a computer model, the team simulated the human brain, allowing a network of neurons to evolve in response to a series of social challenges.

There were two scenarios. The first entailed two partners in crime who had been caught by the police, each having to decide whether or not to inform on the other.

The second had two individuals trapped in a car in a snowdrift and having to weigh whether to cooperate to dig themselves out or just sit back and let the other do it.

In both cases, the individual would gain more from selfishness.

But the researchers were intrigued to find that as the brain evolved, the individual was likelier to choose to cooperate.

"We cooperate in large groups of unrelated individuals quite frequently, and that requires cognitive abilities to keep track of who is doing what to you and change your behaviour accordingly," co-author Luke McNally of Dublin's Trinity College told AFP.

McNally pointed out, though, that cooperation has a calculating side. We do it out of reciprocity.

"If you cooperate and I cheat, then next time we interact you could decide: 'Oh well, he cheated last time, so I won't cooperate with him.' So basically you have to cooperate in order to receive cooperation in the future."

McNally said teamwork and bigger brainpower fed off each other.

"Transitions to cooperative, complex societies can drive the evolution of a bigger brain," he said.
"Once greater levels of intelligence started to evolve, you saw cooperation going much higher."

The study appears in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a journal published by Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.

Commenting on the paper, Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oxford University, said the findings were a valuable add to understanding brain evolution.

But he said there were physiological limits to cooperation.

Man would need a "house-sized brain" to take cooperation to a perfect level on a planet filled with humans.

"Our current brain size limits the community size that we can manage ... that we feel we belong to," he said.
Our comfortable "personal social network" is limited to about 150, and boosting that to 500 would require a doubling of the size of the brain.

"In order to create greater social integration, greater social cohesion even on the size of France, never mind the size of the EU, never mind the planet, we probably have to find other ways of doing it" than wait for evolution, said Dunbar.

By Mariette le Roux AFP

Give but be gracious in receiving as well

IT'S a common enough scene at restaurants, diners fighting to pay the bill. Some say it's a Malaysian thing.

We also know that some people give the impression of wanting to pay and are able to cleverly ensure that the wallet would conveniently stay in the pocket when the bill arrives.

I was having lunch with my wife at a restaurant recently and two gentlemen at an adjoining table, after finishing their meal, did just that. It was quite a scene, though in a good-humoured way, with the waiter caught in the middle.

I was quite tempted to tell them that if they were both so keen about paying, how about settling my bill as well.

I am not sure who paid in the end but it got me thinking about the joy of giving and receiving.
You cannot have one without the other.

And while we may say that it is better to give than to receive, without the act of receiving, you cannot let the other person experience the joy of giving.

Let me be clear here that I am not talking about bribery where it is absolutely wrong to be either the giver or the receiver, even if the corrupt think there is much joy in the process.

It is part of our human nature to give, be it of our time or our money. We feel good when we help someone who is going through a bad patch, donate to a charity or volunteer to teach at an orphanage.

And it is even better when we do all this without drawing attention to ourselves.

A wise saying puts it this way: “When you give to someone in need, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

But what about receiving?

People who are very generous in their giving are sometimes highly uncomfortable when it comes to receiving.

Perhaps they think there is an ulterior motive involved.

So, instead of simply saying thanks, they give us the impression that the reason for our giving is suspect.

And then there are those who, even if they receive your gift, will take the next opportunity to give you something back, often of equivalent value.

So, the true spirit of giving and receiving is totally lost here.

A general rule of thumb when we are blessed by someone is to pass on the blessing, not to reciprocate or pay for it.

Because of my stints as a full-time househusband and also working for a charity organisation, it is quite normal for my friends to pay whenever we have a meal together.

Perhaps, out of habit, they still do so and I have to remind them that I can now afford to pay the bill.

Normally, to avoid a scene, I would leave my credit card or money with the waiter ahead of the meal.

Last Sunday, I was having breakfast with two dear friends when an elderly man at the next table recognised me although we had never met before. He was reading The Sunday Star and we had a nice chat.

He said goodbye and then the waiter came up to us and said our bill had been settled. Thank you Mr Wong, I certainly receive this breakfast treat from you with a grateful heart.

So, friends, today as you go out for a meal, remember this. Though it is better to give than to receive, be gracious in receiving as well. You could make someone really happy. There really is no need to fight over the bill.

> Deputy executive editor Soo Ewe Jin appreciates being on the receiving end of kind words, sincere fellowship and heart-to-heart conversations, underscoring the fact that the best things in life are not only free, but priceless.

Related posts:
Give, you should receive! 
Recognise talent and help others to soar