Oh yeah, AT&Ts famed certification testing specs. Right. The one that have made sure they pushed Motorola handsets out into their market, handsets that so royally screwed up DTMF signaling that nothing worked. Wow. AT&Ts integration testing on the handset side is nothing to worry about. And if the same neurotic people are still working on the network integration testing on the system side, let's just say that the backends aren't much better off.
I can tell you that NO development that is outside of core network componens (I have only limited insight there) is done in Erlang. Not the billing systems, the messaging components (SMS/MMS/Voicemail), not the IVRs. But sure. Whatever. If you really want to build an old school exchange then by all means, get your SS7 stack and Erlang away. Unfortunately the movements towards IMS aren't really helping Erlang internally. And neither is LTE.
There's a whole lot more to corporate networking and considering that a LOT of the guys out there in the IT departments know nothing about other OS:es (imagine getting them to get kerberos working without Active Directory to help them) not to mention a whole load of other pieces of software that people use and need.... Well, let's just say it will take longer than you think.
Interesting. I wrote two grammars without much hassle after buying the book last spring and they are now part of our commercial product. Sure, the book isn't exactly Dr Seuss but I much prefer a book by someone who is actually enthusiastic about his/her own subject and that goes into core concepts. And considering that I had very little previous knowledge about formal languages and/or compiler theory I find your comments about the "overly complicated application" and "arcane drivel" to be off the mark by quite a bit. Oh, and don't get going on the "but we wanted to do it for.NET" because we are generating for both Java and C# depending on environment. Seriously, if someone like me who hasn't studied for a second beyond high school can handle it and you can't then you have to wonder.
Yeah, this sort of thing really makes Linux look like a true contender. I have got to say that with this type of thing going on inside the open source crowd, the closed source people have absolutely nothing to fear. Because nobody wants to deal with a crazy zealot. They want a "sure thing, we can fix that" attitude, and if they can't have that then at least not a lecture.
Remember the JavaStation? No? Remember how all the applications would reside on the network? No? Well, it's been said like seven billion times before and the problem is that the real trend is exactly the opposite one. Applications are becoming increasingly personal. And that, my dumplings, will just continue. Fine, it's just those personalized menus now (which generally are just annoying because it really pisses you off not to be able to find that one thing that you need for that one particular document when you actually do need it) but it will become oh so much more. And this is something which you will want to carry with you. Yes. On you keychain. Together with your desktop. And applications. And documents. You don't want to end up somewhere in Guangzho without your desktop. That would be horrendous. Storage is cheap and becoming cheaper. CPU cycles are cheap and becoming cheaper. Software is expensive. So what. Most companies don't really mind. And it's not Joe Blow that is earning Microsoft their Office dollars. It's JB Inc. And JB Inc doesn't care if it pays Microsoft 200 dollars. They care if it makes their employees efficient or not. Get dependent on the network in order to do business. I think any company would kill that one in the first SWOT they did.
Correct. At my last employer we found this out the hard way. Most servers were getting great performance but the one that actually did some (and it wasn't much really) FP work was horrible. This should really remedy that problem.
On the other hand, SUN still suffers from the fact that ETCA is getting more and more mindshare in the telco arena which has been one of their major cash cows. It will be real interesting to see how that pans out in the end.
Well, we tend to have jobs that are somewhat interesting and potentially even what is commonly known as "a life". This may be an unfamiliar concept but it includes things that are more important than the processing capability of the latest SUN processor (though not by much) but a lot of the added value comes from the fact that conversations with a two year old are generally more interesting than debates here.
Ummm, I am sorry to rain on your parade but yes you can. Walk along. Move the mouse (Camera moves), move the mouse with right button down and you move with the camera (oh yes baby, the camera loves you).
Humans certainly understand intent. They will - as you point out - ask if they don't know the intent. You always know what you intend. If someone you know asks you a question, chances are you will have enough commonality, so to speak, to intuitively grasp the intent (or context). Your example with the librarian is interesting but pointless since you are talking about another centralised knowledge solution whereas I am talking about a decentralised model that starts with the user and - if you will - a "context model".
There is a huge problem with the argument made in the article - one which is plainly visible in the "Palladium" example. The meaning of "Palladium" is related to an internal state (i.e. my internal state). What am *I* thinking about when I write "Palladium"? Am I referring to the element Palladium? Am I referring to the DRM technologies from Microsoft? This is dependent on three things primarily: 1: my "role". What am I? Am I a journalist at a newspaper? Am I a private citizen with a large collection of illgotten mp3s? 2: my "context". Am I discussing something? Is this a query related to a conversation I am having with someone else? God only knows how many Google queries actually stem from ongoing IM-conversations where a, to the reader, previously unknown term/subject is brought forward. 3: my "personality". What am I primarily interested in? What is my preferred format of consumtion? If I am 7 years old - what the hell does "Palladium" really mean?
To me it is obvious that the idea of a semantic web, the promise if you will, can never be delivered upon without a framework that is usercentric rather than centralistic in the current Googlefashion. Desktop search is interesting to some extent as a way of tying our personal space with the dataspace outside of our local control but that is still a very limited tool. Since much of what is very simplistically covered in 1 and 2 above is related to interpersonal communication it becomes obvious that what is necessary is data structures that learn from ongoing conversation, eg the intersection of Person A and Person B is described in a way that can give us guidance as to what the appropriate (or most likely) interpretation of the term used is.
There is much that can be said about this but suffice to say that the semantic web people are ignoring the real needs that have to be met in order to create something that is truly semantic and carries a knowledge of what the end user actually intends. Because if we don't understand the intent, we don't really understand anything.
The Internet was designed originally as a means of communication in the event of nuclear war.
No it WASN'T. It was certainly financed through DoD but go read a book on the subject instead of talking out of your ass. Where wizards stay up late is recommended, nay required reading.
You can't compare the US cellular market to anything else. It is a quagmire. Compare India (with it's administrative circles, weird government regulations and crappy operators) with something in Europe instead. In fact, India is so far behind on the scale it isn't even funny.
As pathetic as it may sound - I still reread the Earthsea cycle from time to time. It still has something to say although the first book in the series is a bit too clumsy not as multifaceted as the later ones.
Fritz Leiber Philip K Dick Clifford D Simak Iain Banks Alfred Bester Greg Egan Neal Stephenson Rudy Rucker John Barnes Samuel Delaney Greg Bear Something by dumbass William Gibson just to understand why he's an idiot. Robert Heinlein (not everything but at least The Beast, The Rolling Stones and some of the other novels targeted towards the younger audience - this is where heinleins storytelling really shines)
What else...
Robert Holdstock Alan Garner Ursula K LeGuin Mostly brit fantasy but has had an impact on the sf scene as well
The weirdo that wrote Lanarch is readable as well as is Chris Priest and a bunch of others I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, AT&Ts famed certification testing specs. Right. The one that have made sure they pushed Motorola handsets out into their market, handsets that so royally screwed up DTMF signaling that nothing worked. Wow. AT&Ts integration testing on the handset side is nothing to worry about. And if the same neurotic people are still working on the network integration testing on the system side, let's just say that the backends aren't much better off.
I can tell you that NO development that is outside of core network componens (I have only limited insight there) is done in Erlang. Not the billing systems, the messaging components (SMS/MMS/Voicemail), not the IVRs. But sure. Whatever. If you really want to build an old school exchange then by all means, get your SS7 stack and Erlang away. Unfortunately the movements towards IMS aren't really helping Erlang internally. And neither is LTE.
There's a whole lot more to corporate networking and considering that a LOT of the guys out there in the IT departments know nothing about other OS:es (imagine getting them to get kerberos working without Active Directory to help them) not to mention a whole load of other pieces of software that people use and need.... Well, let's just say it will take longer than you think.
Interesting. I wrote two grammars without much hassle after buying the book last spring and they are now part of our commercial product. Sure, the book isn't exactly Dr Seuss but I much prefer a book by someone who is actually enthusiastic about his/her own subject and that goes into core concepts. And considering that I had very little previous knowledge about formal languages and/or compiler theory I find your comments about the "overly complicated application" and "arcane drivel" to be off the mark by quite a bit. .NET" because we are generating for both Java and C# depending on environment. Seriously, if someone like me who hasn't studied for a second beyond high school can handle it and you can't then you have to wonder.
Oh, and don't get going on the "but we wanted to do it for
Yeah, this sort of thing really makes Linux look like a true contender.
I have got to say that with this type of thing going on inside the open source crowd, the closed source people have absolutely nothing to fear. Because nobody wants to deal with a crazy zealot. They want a "sure thing, we can fix that" attitude, and if they can't have that then at least not a lecture.
Remember the JavaStation? No? Remember how all the applications would reside on the network? No? Well, it's been said like seven billion times before and the problem is that the real trend is exactly the opposite one. Applications are becoming increasingly personal. And that, my dumplings, will just continue. Fine, it's just those personalized menus now (which generally are just annoying because it really pisses you off not to be able to find that one thing that you need for that one particular document when you actually do need it) but it will become oh so much more. And this is something which you will want to carry with you. Yes. On you keychain. Together with your desktop. And applications. And documents. You don't want to end up somewhere in Guangzho without your desktop. That would be horrendous.
Storage is cheap and becoming cheaper. CPU cycles are cheap and becoming cheaper. Software is expensive. So what. Most companies don't really mind. And it's not Joe Blow that is earning Microsoft their Office dollars. It's JB Inc. And JB Inc doesn't care if it pays Microsoft 200 dollars. They care if it makes their employees efficient or not. Get dependent on the network in order to do business. I think any company would kill that one in the first SWOT they did.
The two year old here wants me to tell you that "you are mister poo head".
Correct. At my last employer we found this out the hard way. Most servers were getting great performance but the one that actually did some (and it wasn't much really) FP work was horrible. This should really remedy that problem.
On the other hand, SUN still suffers from the fact that ETCA is getting more and more mindshare in the telco arena which has been one of their major cash cows. It will be real interesting to see how that pans out in the end.
Well, we tend to have jobs that are somewhat interesting and potentially even what is commonly known as "a life". This may be an unfamiliar concept but it includes things that are more important than the processing capability of the latest SUN processor (though not by much) but a lot of the added value comes from the fact that conversations with a two year old are generally more interesting than debates here.
Ummm, I am sorry to rain on your parade but yes you can. Walk along. Move the mouse (Camera moves), move the mouse with right button down and you move with the camera (oh yes baby, the camera loves you).
Humans certainly understand intent. They will - as you point out - ask if they don't know the intent. You always know what you intend. If someone you know asks you a question, chances are you will have enough commonality, so to speak, to intuitively grasp the intent (or context). Your example with the librarian is interesting but pointless since you are talking about another centralised knowledge solution whereas I am talking about a decentralised model that starts with the user and - if you will - a "context model".
There is a huge problem with the argument made in the article - one which is plainly visible in the "Palladium" example. The meaning of "Palladium" is related to an internal state (i.e. my internal state). What am *I* thinking about when I write "Palladium"? Am I referring to the element Palladium? Am I referring to the DRM technologies from Microsoft? This is dependent on three things primarily:
1: my "role". What am I? Am I a journalist at a newspaper? Am I a private citizen with a large collection of illgotten mp3s?
2: my "context". Am I discussing something? Is this a query related to a conversation I am having with someone else? God only knows how many Google queries actually stem from ongoing IM-conversations where a, to the reader, previously unknown term/subject is brought forward.
3: my "personality". What am I primarily interested in? What is my preferred format of consumtion? If I am 7 years old - what the hell does "Palladium" really mean?
To me it is obvious that the idea of a semantic web, the promise if you will, can never be delivered upon without a framework that is usercentric rather than centralistic in the current Googlefashion. Desktop search is interesting to some extent as a way of tying our personal space with the dataspace outside of our local control but that is still a very limited tool. Since much of what is very simplistically covered in 1 and 2 above is related to interpersonal communication it becomes obvious that what is necessary is data structures that learn from ongoing conversation, eg the intersection of Person A and Person B is described in a way that can give us guidance as to what the appropriate (or most likely) interpretation of the term used is.
There is much that can be said about this but suffice to say that the semantic web people are ignoring the real needs that have to be met in order to create something that is truly semantic and carries a knowledge of what the end user actually intends. Because if we don't understand the intent, we don't really understand anything.
The Internet was designed originally as a means of communication in the event of nuclear war.
No it WASN'T. It was certainly financed through DoD but go read a book on the subject instead of talking out of your ass. Where wizards stay up late is recommended, nay required reading.
I for one welcome our new homeless overlords
Right, the fact that Israel has publicly admitted to STARTING THE WAR apparently makes absolutely no sense to you.
You can't compare the US cellular market to anything else. It is a quagmire. Compare India (with it's administrative circles, weird government regulations and crappy operators) with something in Europe instead. In fact, India is so far behind on the scale it isn't even funny.
As pathetic as it may sound - I still reread the Earthsea cycle from time to time. It still has something to say although the first book in the series is a bit too clumsy not as multifaceted as the later ones.
Oh well.
Everything by:
Fritz Leiber
Philip K Dick
Clifford D Simak
Iain Banks
Alfred Bester
Greg Egan
Neal Stephenson
Rudy Rucker
John Barnes
Samuel Delaney
Greg Bear
Something by dumbass William Gibson just to understand why he's an idiot.
Robert Heinlein (not everything but at least The Beast, The Rolling Stones and some of the other novels targeted towards the younger audience - this is where heinleins storytelling really shines)
What else...
Robert Holdstock
Alan Garner
Ursula K LeGuin
Mostly brit fantasy but has had an impact on the sf scene as well
The weirdo that wrote Lanarch is readable as well as is Chris Priest and a bunch of others I guess.