Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Week 8 Web2.0 Tools--Flickr my Bicr

Flickr my bicr (—remember the flick my bic (lighter) commercials?) ok, ok, I'm showing my age again...

The week 8 web2.0 activity for exploring Flickr begins at www.flickr.com

After creating a new account, I went back to the start page because something had caught my eye.

The page gives some simple statistics regarding how popular this social network website/service is getting to be:

Seemingly astonishing numbers to me, of course I am very much an introvert and somewhat anti-social so it boggles my mind how these networking sites are proliferating.

First, the item that really caught my eye was the astounding number of geotagged photos – 2.8 MILLION this month!! For those who keep track of webpage hits, this is an amazing number to me. Second, 3,293 photos uploaded in the LAST MINUTE! Give me a break—that’s incredible!

The geotagging feature really swept me from the get-go so I had to check it out.

I clicked on the link to find the above picture representation of the locations of the geotagged photos. Just looking at the map, you can see that they have a database of over 2.5 MILLION geotagged pictures that people have actually taken the time to tag with locations so others can find them.

Then, I saw the search window which allows users to search for locations and it shows you a listing of pictures associated with that location. So I input Tulsa and came up with the following picture map:

In the past, I have always used Google/Images for my picture searches, but now if I’m looking for a place, I’m probably starting here…

By taking the Flickr “tour” you can find out why they say you should use them:

“Flickr is almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world. Let us show you why!”

“Flickr is a way to get your photos to the people who matter to you. And since basic accounts are free, there's no reason not to explore further...”

With Flickr, You CAN

Upload

Upload from your desktop, send by email, or use your camera phone.

Organize

Use collections, sets, and tags to organize your photos.

Share

Use groups and privacy controls to share your photos.

Maps

Share where your photos were taken, and see photos taken near you.

Make Stuff

Cards, photo books, framed prints, Target pick up, DVDs, etc.

Keep in Touch

Get updates from family and friends.

I’m only going to briefly show you the flexible, user-friendly ways to upload—the rest of the site you can go explore on your own!

Upload

There are 5 simple ways to upload your photos to Flickr

  • via the Flickr Uploadr (available for both PC and Mac)
  • via iPhoto, Aperture, or Windows XP plugins
  • via our upload web page
  • via email
  • via various free third-party desktop programs

And if you're not near a computer? Snap a photo on your mobile phone, email it to Flickr, and have it appear on the site in seconds.

SWEET...

Week 8 Think Tanks Part 2

Don’t tank with your think when you discuss Think Tanks…


The week 8 activity (part 2) for exploring Think Tanks begins at our friend and guest lecturer from the last residency—Dr. William Halal and his own think tank, TechCast.


The underlying premise of the TechCast think tank is the common belief that “People everywhere sense the world is passing through a technological revolution, but they lack convenient, reliable information.”

A Virtual Think Tank

The folks at TechCast have ‘solved’ this problem by pooling knowledge of experts working online and automatically distributing authoritative forecasts to corporate managers, government officials, scientists, and the general public—anywhere in the world, on any prominent technology, in real time.

The TechCast business pitch is that “All organizations need technology forecasts for their strategic planning because the technology revolution threatens the creative destruction of markets, alters the way people work, and restructures the world itself. Most managers try to develop their own forecasts or assemble them from limited outside sources, but the time and cost are considerable and the results are mediocre.” TechCast claims to offer convenient, authoritative forecasts at far lower cost and time savings. Our clients tell us "There is nothing else like it."

The TechCast system was developed by Dr. Halal and his colleagues at George Washington University and George Mason University. (sounds like a bunch of George-isms to me…)

They have had their results of forecasts and predictions published in scientific journals, widely reported in the media (or is that wildly?), and used by paying clients around the world. Previously, the reports were distributed as the GW Forecast in print version via snail mail, but they have been online exclusively since 1998 and have reached over 1,000,000 hits per year in recent years.


The group scans literature and media, interview authorities, and draw on other sources to identify emerging trends and other background data on each technology. The data is then summarized in a “Breakthrough Analysis” and used to guide estimates of technology officers (CTOs), scientists, and engineers, scholars, and other ‘experts’. Their results are automatically aggregated to forecast the most likely year each breakthrough will occur, the potential economic demand, and confidence levels. They claim to have a success rate of +/- 3 years on their forecasts.

Week 8 Think Tanks Part 1

My opinion of what a think tank should be is very vague, the only real input that I can remember is when the news or TV would proclaim that some grand decision or new idea has come out of a think tank. So my impressions have always been that it was generally a bunch of old guys (experts and scientists mainly) that get together in some confined space (a tank) and hammer out ideas or solve problems. I was first under the impression that they were called together at short notice to solve some crisis like the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Apollo 13 Crisis. Later on I gleaned bits and pieces of information that led me to believe that this was not necessarily true of think tanks. My original impressions of the tanks were strictly “black box” “top secret” secluded and highly secretive. I think I used to believe they were mainly covert operations.

To get a better grasp of the concept, I turned to the usual first stop for new info (for me) – Wikipedia. According to the source, a think tank is an “organization, institute, corporation, or group that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, science, or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice.”

It appears that many think tanks are non-profit organizations (some with tax-exempt status in some countries), special interest groups, or perhaps funded by some government. Some have very specific and limited purposes, while others tackle all problems within their specialty. Many people admit the benefits of the use of great minds together are exceptional, however there are critics that claim they are "little more than public relations fronts...generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors.", and some even question their bias towards the sponsoring or funding agency.


Although the term “Think Tank” is a relatively new term (only in vogue since the 1950s) there have been many fine examples from the early nineteenth century such as the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI), founded in 1831 at the initiative of the Duke of Wellington. Another is the Fabian Society of Britain, founded in 1884 to promote gradual social change. The Brookings Institution, founded in the US in 1916 is another candidate for the first think tank. The term think tank itself, however, was originally used in reference to organizations that offered military advice, most notably the RAND Corporation, formed originally in 1946 as an offshoot of Douglas Aircraft and which became an independent corporation in 1948.


Critics such as Ralph Nader have suggested that because of the private nature of the funding of think tanks their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results that ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors. This risk of distortion similarly threatens the reputation and integrity of organizations such as universities, once considered to stand wholly within the public sector. Some critics go further to assert think tanks are little more than propaganda tools for promoting the ideological arguments of whatever group established them. They charge that most think tanks, which are usually headquartered in state or national seats of government, exist merely for large-scale lobbying to form opinion in favor of special private interests.


Think tanks in the United States play an important role in forming both foreign and domestic policy. Typically, an issue such as national missile defense will be debated within and among think tanks and the results of these debates will influence government policy makers. Think tanks in the United States generally receive funding from private donors, and members of private organizations. Think tanks may feel more open to propose and debate controversial ideas than people within government.

The Robots are Coming! The Robots are Coming!

The Robots are Coming! (Aibo’s, Furby’s, and Pleo’s oh my!) Apologies to L. Frank Baum’s Lions, Tigers and Bears…

Forbes magazine has been doing a series for a few years that examines the hottest trends in technology and innovation where they annually pick a group of tech innovators to watch (colloquially known as their “E-Gang”).

In the current series, they have presented masters of robotic invention and innovation:entrepreneurs and researchers who fuse advances in biomechanics, software, sensor technology, materials science and computing to create new generations of robotic assistants.”

The “robots” of today are more on the move than ever before—walking, climbing, rolling, even leaping and flying. The premise is still virtually the same as it has been since 1400BC when the Babylonians developed the “Clepsydra”, (a clock that measured time using the flow of water). Some consider it to be one of the first “robotic” devices in history, although it seems that throughout time the notion of automation devices has evolved into robotics as we know it. The underlying premise then, is to help mankind. Some of this help comes in the form of protection, some comes from labor-saving, some from doing jobs that are too dangerous for humans, and even some is to amuse and entertain us. The Forbes article states that “…some even do floors…”

See the slideshare below for the Great Robotic Moments in History

Since as early as 322BC man has recorded thoughts of the use of a helper or robot when Aristotle wrote about the great utility of robots:

"If every tool, when ordered, or even of its own accord, could do the work that befits it … then there would be no need either of apprentices for the master workers or of slaves for the lords."

Within our generations, since 1921 when playwright Karel Capek popularized the term “Robota” (robota means “forced labor” in Capek’s native Czech) which evolved directly into “Robot”, we have imagined and fantasized about what robots could do for us.

So far, reality has fallen short of our imagination—Honda’s most world-reknown robot Asimo, who was introduced in 2000, has now been relegated to car shows, doing temp work as a receptionist at Honda, and shows at Disneyland.

The bulk of the remainder of the worlds’ robots are relegated to permanent spots on factory floors where they perform mundane existences as laborers: welding, stamping, and cutting.

The future though looks extremely bright. Learning has been the key for both the robots and their designers. Carnegie Mellon’s Robotics Institute has been an incubator for much of the current work on robots in America. MIT scientist Rodney Brooks pushed the envelope of the field in 1990 when he showed how robots could make faster decisions by responding to sensory data rather than relying on complex sets of programmed instructions and rules.

The people working on these robotic projects are as diverse as the reasons for wanting robots. Some have been pioneers devoting their whole lives to developing robots such as Colin Angle and Helen Greiner who founded iRobot with help from the aforementioned Rodney Brooks. In the medical world, Russell Taylor has contributed to innovations in surgical robots for decades.

Others are relative newcomers such as Sebastian Thrun from Stanford who last year won a US DoD race of autonomous vehicles through the desert, and Mark Cutkoski (also of Stanford) who collaborated with an insightful biologist, Robert Full of Cal-Berkely to create a research device for studying nature called the “StickBot” who can crawl.

Still others are bringing robotics to the masses like Soren Lund at Lego with the Lego NXT robot which was once considered a kind of “esoteric” engineering. Yoskiyuki Sankai at the University of Tsukuba in Japan is continuing the proud Japanese tradition of innovative and surprising humanoid robots.

And the group called UGobe headed by Caleb Chung that reminds us that creativity and playfulness has long been a hallmark of robot-human interaction.

The market for robots is “small” according to Forbes at a paltry $18 billion (including the software and peripherals) but growing rapidly—growth predictions by the International Federation of Robots (IFR), estimate we will see some 7 million service robots in service by 2008. (Prediction?!)

The most interesting story here about the robots coming is that they (their technology and innovation) are calling on the ingenuity of people from wildly diverse backgrounds (biologists, teachers, entertainers, scientists) who are shaping the ways we interact and create them.

For more, see the 7 Amazing Robots that will change your life slideshare on my blog here

The general manager of Microsoft’s robotics group (you know Bill Gates would have his nose directly in the middle of this competition [as does Steve Jobs I’m sure]) Tandy Trower (ok, I had to comment on his name too—“Tandy” in charge of robotics? Remember the Tandy TRS-80??) anyway, Mr. Trower proclaims that “…robotics today, remind him of the early days of the PC—chock-full of ideas, opportunities and too many different operating systems!”

The robots are coming—expect them EVERYWHERE…

Week 6 - SlideShare Web2.0 experiment

SlideShare

The week 6 web2.0 activity for exploring SlideShare begins at www.SlideShare.net and I have now created an account and logged-in.

It appears that SlideShare is a social networking website that allows users to share their presentations (colloquially known as slide shows, hence the name slide-share) on any subject.


The tool allows users to upload presentations using various software such as MS PowerPoint, OpenOffice, Keynote (Mac), or Adobe. The presentations are created on the user’s software, and then uploaded to the SlideShare website for sharing.


Users can further tag their presentations with keywords making them easier to find by others or even “Ping” others (a short public message sent to a user’s “SlideSpace”) to allow them to know you are sharing a new presentation.

The “SlideSpace” is similar to a user’s homepage with contacts and email information for Pinging others with. The user can also elect to send private messages using their ‘message user’ feature on the SlideSpace which sends a single email to the specific user.

Users can also embed their presentations into blogs or websites, browse others’ presentations, and comment on them as well—even on individual slides! One aspect that helps user connect is the tool indexes presentations by transcripts and allows search engines to find these indexes. Another useful social tool is the “Zing” which allows users or guests to “vote” or rate your presentations to show its popularity!

And it’s FREE! They have plans for future paid accounts with more features, but state that will not affect the free accounts (seems like we’ve heard this before, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how popular this becomes…)

The process for uploading/adding a slideshow or presentation seems to be pretty straightforward, although the instructions were a bit hard to find. As a “newbie” I expected some help right on the front page that told me what this tool was and how to use it, but NO, I had to go looking for that. Anyway, I don’t want to be a whiner, so here are the simple two-step instructions for uploading:

Step 1: The first step is the actual uploading of the PowerPoint/OpenOffice/Keynote/PDF file to our servers. During this upload process, the blue progress bar will keep you informed that the uploading process is going on.

Step 2: The second step is converting the uploaded file to SlideShare's format for sharing it online. Once the file is uploaded successfully, it is placed in the queue for conversion. The SlideShare people would like you to note that “…if there are a lot of slideshows in the queue, then this might take a while. You can move away from the page and come back to check later. Look in the "My SlideSpace" page for the converted file. If there was an error in the conversion stage, these files will not show up in the front of your "My SlideSpace". You will need to go to the "My SlideSpace/Edit All" to find the files that were not successfully converted.”

Personal note: This uploading process does take a few MINUTES, be patient.

Here’s a link to the SlideShare blog on new features:

http://blog.SlideShare.net/2007/01/24/rolling-out-new-features-in-SlideShare/

To embed the SlideShare presentation into your blog or website, the process seems to be equally simple

From the SlideShare.net website:

  • First view the slideshow on SlideShare.
  • On the right of the slideshow player you, you'll see a text box called Embed into your blog, with funny looking code in it.

  • It should look something like this--object type"="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="blah blah blah" width="425" height="348"--param name="movie" value="blah blah blah">:/object">!!>
  • If you take that code and paste it into a blog posting or web site, then you would get a little embedded slideshow there.
  • And now, without further adieu, here is my first SlideShare:

    These slides are taken from (courtesy of) the Forbes magazine article “Seven Amazing Robots that will Change your Life” They are ONLY for educational purposes to test the SlideShare Web2.0 tool’s ease of use and effectiveness.




Monday, September 3, 2007

Math Rules the Stars too!

Week 5 successful prediction.

Math Rules the Stars too!

Successful Predictions Part 2: A real success story.

The discovery of the planet Neptune was the first planet discovered purely by mathematical prediction rather than standard observation and telescopes.

Discovered on September 23, 1846 Neptune was the first planet discovered by mathematical prediction rather than regular observation. Perturbations in the orbit of Uranus led astronomers to deduce Neptune's existence.

Although not receiving credit for the official finding of Neptune, Galileo Galilei (Galileo) created drawings show that he first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613. These findings come some 230 years prior to the “official” discovery!

Sadly, on both occasions, Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close (in conjunction) to Jupiter in the night sky. Believing it to be a fixed star, he is not credited with its discovery. Unfortunately for Galileo, at the time of his first observation in December 1612, it was stationary in the sky because it had just turned retrograde that very day; and since it was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, Neptune's motion was far too slight to be detected with Galileo's small telescope and technology of his day.

In 1821, Alexis Bouvard published astronomical tables of the orbit of Uranus.

Subsequent observations revealed substantial deviations from the tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesize some perturbing body. In 1843, John Couch Adams

calculated the orbit of an eighth planet that would account for Uranus' motion. He sent his calculations to Sir George Airy, the Astronomer Royal, who asked Adams for a clarification. Adams reportedly began to draft a reply but never sent it.

In 1846, Urbain Le Verrier, independently of Adams, produced his own calculations but also experienced difficulties in encouraging any enthusiasm in his compatriots. However, in the same year, John Herschel started to champion the mathematical approach and persuaded James Challis

to search for the planet and assit his quest for proof.

After much procrastination, Challis began his search in July 1846. However, in the meantime, Le Verrier had convinced Johann Gottfried Galle to search for the planet also to confirm his findings.

The most overlooked factor that led to the discovery was actually made by a student at the Berlin Observatory; Heinrich d'Arrest suggested that a recently drawn chart of the sky, in the region of Le Verrier's predicted location, could be compared with the current sky to seek the displacement characteristic of a planet, as opposed to a fixed star.

Neptune was discovered that very night, September 23, 1846, within 1° of where Le Verrier had predicted it to be, and about 10° from Adams' prediction. Challis later realized that he had observed the planet twice in August, failing to identify it owing to his uninterested approach to the work.

In the wake of the discovery, there was allegedly much nationalistic rivalry between the French and the British over who had priority and deserved credit for the discovery. Eventually an international consensus emerged that both Le Verrier and Adams jointly deserved credit.

However, the issue is now being re-evaluated by historians with the rediscovery in 1998 of the so-called "Neptune papers" (historical documents from the Royal Greenwich Observatory), which had apparently been “misappropriated” by astronomer Olin Eggen for nearly three decades and were only rediscovered immediately after his death in 1998.

(Librarians at the RGO discovered that the Neptune papers were missing in the late 1960s, and there has been no sign of them since. One American astronomer has even alleged that the disappearance of the papers was part of a deliberate cover-up to protect the reputation of Adams, who never published his predictions, unlike Urbain Leverrier.)

HINT: For those of us tasked to (or feel compelled to) forecast our predictions--Get them down on paper or online for posterity asap!

After reviewing the documents, some historians now suggest that Adams does not deserve equal credit with Le Verrier. This strikes me as odd since Adams predicted the discovery some three years before Le Verrier, however his calculations were about 9° apart from the actual location…

Shortly after its discovery, Neptune was referred to simply as "the planet exterior to Uranus" or as "Le Verrier's planet". The first suggestion for a name came from Galle. He proposed the name Janus. In England, Challis put forth the name Oceanus. In France, François Jean Dominique Arago suggested that the new planet be called Leverrier, a suggestion which was met with stiff resistance (expectedly) outside French borders. Interestingly, French almanacs promptly and prematurely reintroduced the name Herschel for Uranus and Leverrier for the new planet.

Meanwhile, on separate dates, Adams suggested altering the name Georgian to Uranus,

while Leverrier (through the Board of Longitude) suggested Neptune for the new planet. Struve came out in favor of that name on December 29, 1846, to the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Soon Neptune became the internationally accepted nomenclature. In Roman mythology, Neptune was the god of the sea,

identified with the Greek Poseidon. The demand for a mythological name seemed to be in keeping with the nomenclature of the other planets, all of which, except for Uranus, were named in antiquity.

Congratulations to Msrs. LeVerrier, Adams, and more prominently Galileo(in my opinion)!

But I’m still not a math fanatic although I do know for certain that mathematics are the key to most technology—Kids take note! Take more math classes!!

Successful Predictions win prizes?

Week 5 & 6 combined—successful predictions and my forecast of predictions.
Successful Predictions win prizes?

Actually yes, in some cases the successful predictionist will win the Nobel prize for a correct prediction in economics or science…

Such as Robert Engle and Clive Granger ‘s 2003 Nobel prize in economics based upon their path-breaking discovery of a method for analyzing unpredictable movements in financial market prices and interest rates. Accurate characterization and prediction of these volatile movements are essential for quantifying and effectively managing risk. For example, risk measurement plays a key role in pricing options and financial derivatives. Previous researchers had either assumed constant volatility or had used simple devices to approximate it. They developed new statistical models of volatility that captured the tendency of stock prices and other financial variables to move between high volatility and low volatility periods (“Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity: ARCH”). These statistical models have become essential tools of modern asset pricing theory and practice.

Successful Predictions Part 1: Overview

There have been numerous, various famous and infamous predictions made throughout history, including those by scientists, sociologists, technologists, futurologists, economists, philosophers, prophets, and even the fictional predictions of science fiction.

Predictions can be further categorized as good or bad, successful or failed.
For some, the jury is still out, such as those of the Malthusian camp…

I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, that food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, that the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio.
– Malthus 1798


Malthus’s prophets of doom regarding sustainability and overpopulation and the Cornucopian and Utopian futures of abundance and perfection are the two major views on such “powers”.

Conversely, a cornucopian is someone who believes that continued progress and provision of material items for mankind can be met by advances in technology. Fundamentally there is enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide plenty for the estimated peak population of about 9 billion in 2050.

However, this must also mean that there is enough for the current world population but starvation and fuel poverty have not been eradicated, suggesting that the problem is not a lack of resources but the distribution of said resources by the current economic and political system. Looking further into the future the abundance of matter, energy and lebensraum in space would appear to give humanity almost unlimited room for growth.
The term comes from the cornucopia, the mythical "horn of plenty" of the Greek mythology which supplied its owners with endless food and drink magically. The cornucopians are sometimes known as "Boomsters", and their philosophic opponents --- Malthus and his school --- are called "Doomsters."

I don’t know about you, but every time I hear the predictions that seem to come every few years regarding the sustainability of human life, overpopulation, and our non-renewable resources and how we’re headed for catastrophe, my mind immediately conjures up one of my favorite movies growing up -- “Soylent Green”.
It’s not really that I’m morbid or anything, but the things I liked about that movie were that
  • – Charlton Hesston was such a ‘cool’ cop character (Detective Robert Thorn) in that flick. (The character is eerily similar to his character two years previous in “The Omega Man”. But he always was a tough guy with lots of class…)
  • – It was Edward G. Robinson’s last movie—he died 9 days after filming. (I tried to find a sound clip of his character “Sol the Book” talking about how they used to eat real food [back in the day] after Thorn brought home strawberries and beef from the crime scene, but I could only find clips of Hesston)
  • – And the idea of the “renewable” food supply did seem kind of ingeniously logical in a strange way… (but in my defense, I was only a teenager then too!)

Often, the difference between pessimistic and optimistic prediction depends on attitudes such as technophilia, technophobia, and political / social bias. Some of these attributes plague technology still today and the result of this bias determines in many cases success or failure of new products and services—the key (as they say in comedy) is timing. If the public believes the “magic” (see my post of fodder for the foolish for the magic test) of new technology it is embraced and adopted, when the magic is not believable for whatever reason or attitude, the idea is shunned and failure is declared.

Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke is famous for his three laws of prediction (Profiles of the Future, 1961 ). British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously argued that to understand the future it was necessary to understand the past. Patrick Henry once said, "I have but one lamp to guide my life. I only know the future from the past."

Nostradamus is perhaps the world's most famous author of prophecies (predictions).
A range of quite different views regarding Nostradamus are expressed in printed literature and on the Internet. At one end of the spectrum, there are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus' Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind. Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are numerous fairly recent popular books, and thousands of private websites, suggesting not only that the Prophecies are genuine but that Nostradamus was a true prophet. Thanks to the vagaries of interpretation, no two of them agree on exactly what he predicted, whether for our past or for our future.

There is somewhat of a consensus among these works, however, that he predicted the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, both world wars, and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is also a consensus that he predicted whatever major event had just happened at the time of each book's publication, from the Apollo moon landings, through the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, and the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, to the events of 9/11: this 'movable feast' aspect appears to be characteristic of the genre.

Possibly the first of these books to become truly popular in English was Henry C Roberts' The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1947, reprinted at least seven times during the next 40 years, which contained both transcriptions and translations, with brief commentaries. This was followed in 1961 by Edgar Leoni's unusually dispassionate Nostradamus and His Prophecies, which is universally regarded as by far the best and most comprehensive treatment and analysis of Nostradamus in English prior to 1990. After that came Erika Cheetham's well-known The Prophecies of Nostradamus, incorporating a reprint of the posthumous 1568 edition, which was reprinted, revised and republished several times from 1973 onwards, latterly as The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus. This went on to serve as the basis for Orson Welles' celebrated film/video The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. Apart from a two-part translation of Jean-Charles de Fontbrune's Nostradamus: historien et prophète of 1980, the series could be said to have culminated in John Hogue's well-known books on the seer from about 1994 onwards, including Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies (1999) and, most recently, Nostradamus: A Life and Myth (2003).

With the exception of Roberts, these books and their many popular imitators were almost unanimous not merely about Nostradamus' powers of prophecy, but also about various aspects of his biography. He had been a descendant of the Israelite tribe of Issachar; he had been educated by his grandfathers, who had both been physicians to the court of Good King René of Provence; he had attended Montpellier University in 1525 to gain his first degree: after returning there in 1529 he had successfully taken his medical doctorate; he had gone on to lecture in the Medical Faculty there until his views became too unpopular; he had supported the heliocentric view of the universe; he had travelled to the north-east of France, where he had composed prophecies at the abbey of Orval; in the course of his travels he had performed a variety of prodigies, including identifying a future Pope; he had successfully cured the Plague at Aix-en-Provence and elsewhere; he had engaged in 'scrying' using either a magic mirror or a bowl of water; he had been joined by his secretary Chavigny at Easter 1554; having published the first installment of his Propheties, he had been summoned by Queen Catherine de' Medici to Paris in 1556 to discuss with her his prophecy at quatrain I.35 that her husband King Henri II would be killed in a duel; he had examined the royal children at Blois; he had been buried standing up; and he had been found, when dug up at the French Revolution, to be wearing a medallion bearing the exact date of his disinterment.

From the 1980s onwards, however, an academic reaction set in, especially in France. The publication in 1983 of Nostradamus' private correspondence and, during succeeding years, of the original editions of 1555 and 1557 discovered by Chomarat and Benazra, together with the unearthing of much original archival material revealed that much that was claimed about Nostradamus simply didn't fit the documented facts. The academics pointed out that not one of the claims just listed was backed up by any known contemporary documentary evidence. Most of them had evidently been based on unsourced rumours retailed as 'fact' by much later commentators such as Jaubert (1656), Guynaud (1693) and Bareste (1840), on modern misunderstandings of the 16th-century French texts, or on pure invention. Even the often-advanced suggestion that quatrain I.35 had successfully prophesied King Henri II's death did not actually appear in print for the first time until 1614, 55 years after the event.

On top of that, the academics, who themselves tend to eschew any attempt at 'interpretation', complained that the English translations were usually of poor quality, seemed to display little or no knowledge of 16th-century French, were tendentious and, at worst, were sometimes twisted to fit the events to which they were supposed to refer (or vice versa). None of them, certainly, were based on the original editions: Roberts had based himself on that of 1672, Cheetham and Hogue on the posthumous edition of 1568. Even the relatively respectable Leoni accepted on his page 115 that he had never seen an original edition, and on earlier pages indicated that much of his biographical material was unsourced.

However, none of this research and criticism was originally known to most of the English-language commentators, by function of the dates when they were writing and, to some extent, of the language it was written in. Hogue, admittedly, was in a position to take advantage of it, but it was only in 2003 that he accepted that some of his earlier biographical material had in fact been 'apocryphal'. Meanwhile the scholars were particularly scathing about later attempts by some lesser-known authors (Hewitt, 1994; Ovason, 1997; Ramotti, 1998) to extract 'hidden' meanings from the texts with the aid of anagrams, numerical codes, graphs and other devices.

The bottom line is this: although Nostradamus’s “prophecies” seem to predict either correctly or incorrectly the future, they are generally too vague and ambiguous to be factual with regard to specific events. Seemingly, only those who want to believe they were true predictions have attempted to “prove” them to be successful.

My predictions however are more specific and are located here for posterity:
http://profhinkle.blogspot.com/2007/09/my-latest-predictions-fodder-for.html

1. I feel that Computational grids (including CPU Scavenging grids) which focuses primarily on computationally-intensive operations, or Data grids -- the controlled sharing and management of large amounts of distributed data will come into personal computing usage in the mainstream (not just reserved for large companies anymore).
2. Computers will not replace humans with complex problem-solving skills since humans use logic mixed with illogic (mainly due to their human perspective and experiences) to create success. Note: this one is contrary to the 205 BT technology timeline that predicts “Expert systems surpass average human learning and logic abilities – 2011-2015”
3. Computers will control basic functions such as self-monitoring of simple systems (communication, comfort, entertainment, facilities) and some self-maintenance in homes widespread globally in civilized countries by 2025.
4. People will have more personal computers (in their homes, cars, and clothing) than televisions by 2020. Remember the movie “Back to the Future” when the 50’s family flatly stated that “nobody has two TVs”?
5. A “new” major computer programming language (or perhaps a NanoLanguage) will emerge prior to 2030 that will replace many of the older languages. I expect Ted Vera, Steve Chadwick, Alex Probst, or Michelle Hammonds to be involved in this project somehow…
6. New ways will be invented to harness the power of the human brain using some type of technology or devices (e.g. nanotechnology). In the 2005 BT technology timeline, they refer to this as “Brain add-on’s” and I agree with them, although I believe we will see them prior to (at least one decade sooner than) the forecasted 2030’s date.
Check back often to see what others are saying about these!