Why Is Data Mining Still A Frontier?

bbsguru writes "How much do we know that we still don't know? A story in The Register points out that little has changed since Francis Bacon proposed combining knowledge to learn new things 400 years ago, despite all the computer power we now have. Scientific (and other) data is still housed in unrelated collections, waiting for some enterprising Relational Database Programmer to unlock the keys to understanding. Is RDBMS still a Brave New Frontier, or will Google make the art obsolete once they finish indexing everything?"

Comments

Re:Aristotle

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Bah! Aristotle couldn't tell a horse's head from an animal's head!

Re:Shot in the dark:

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the very same thing about my pr0n collection.

Re:Shot in the dark:

[Shimmer]

Doesn't sound very normalized to me. Those "identical fields" should have been moved into their own table.

Let the monkeys mine that data

[suv4x4]

Data Mining is still a frontier for the same reason monkeys are still having trouble reproducing Hamlet despite all the theoretical knowledge of all the incredible opportunities.

Too much assumption, too much possibilities, too little knowdledge, and not enough monkeys. You can never have enough friggin' monkeys.