Thanks for testing us out with some real queries -- it's the best way to get the Powerset experience. But, if you only ask NL questions then you don't get to see all of Powerset's features.
Powerset is not token matching. In fact, we read every sentence from every page in Wikipedia that we index. For examples of how we understand syntax, check out queries like "who did texaco acquire" vs. "who acquired texaco". Note that Powerset understands the difference between being acquired by and acquiring, that "buying" is equivalent to "acquiring", and that we are often able to highlight the actual answer to your question. Traditional search engines can do none of these things. Powerset is trying to match the meaning of your query to the meaning of a sentence in Wikipedia.
However, Powerset is very aware that: 1) Users shouldn't be expected to use natural language and 2) We only search Wikipedia and 3) Our algorithms aren't perfect yet. Powerset's release isn't intended to replace your regular keyword search engine. But, we do hope that you come back to Powerset when you have a question that might be answered in Wikipedia.
So, try some topical queries in Powerset, like "kurt godel." In the Factz section, Powerset knows that Kurt Godel proved theorems. If you click on "theorems," you'll see all the sentences in Wikipedia from which we derived that fact (be sure to click on "more"). Note that none of these Factz come from the Kurt Godel page. Powerset's ability to aggregate Factz from across Wikipedia is unique to our technology.
Now try, search for the Presidency of Bill Clinton and click through to the enhanced Wikipedia page (http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton?query=presidency+of+bill+clinton). Note that we also have Factz in the article outline, which helps to summarize long articles. Check out the second term during the Lewinsky affair: the Factz are an amazingly accurate description of the situation.
Sorry to be a bit lengthy, but I wanted to make it clear the Powerset isn't just about asking questions. We've got a video that identifies all of the features: http://vimeo.com/994819
Check out MoralDefense.com for some excellent Objectivist rhetoric.
I run Linux at home. And my personal boycott against MSFT products has been active since Windows 95. There's no reason to reiterate how much MSFT sucks to the/. community.
But, I also feel that a boycott should be the extent of my ability to limit Microsoft's power. Only the individual can lash out against a corporation: by not buying a product. The government has no place in this matter.
If you don't like Windows, be a geek, go to Fry's, and build your own friggin' computer so that Bill never gets his greasy hands on your prized possession. What's the issue?
Don't invite the government to save "the public" on this one. If you bought a MSFT product, you only hurt yourself. I hardly think that "the public" needs protection from MSFT.
Even worse with the case of MSFT is that they've actually provided a decent product to fill a market niche (albeit an incredibly large niche). MSFT has been offering a superior consumer product for years at an excellent price. Windows has brought law and order to the consumer computer market and helped to make computers useful for grandma smith and uncle bob. Windows is an excellent product in that regard.
Even worse, it's obvious that MSFT has had competition through the entire battle. As I recall, AAPL's headquarters are smack-dab in the middle of Silicon Valley; and SUNW's headquarters aren't far down the road. And SGI's and even the now defunct SCO (Tarantella?). There were plenty of choices out there if you really wanted an alternate. But, again: MSFT was providing a product that better suited people's needs at a much better price. Even today one can argue that Windows ME/2000 provides most people with more functionality than they'll ever need.
If you want to destroy Microsoft, don't waste your time with the government. Hack Eazel, GNOME, KDE; or some other Linux component that threatens the power or Redmond.
I'm totally surprised by this article. Rather than predicting that Linux will destroy Apple's marketshare, I think that there is a reasonable argument the other way around.
I challenge you to look at Aqua and then look at GNOME or KDE. There is absolutely no comparison. Aqua is by far the most advanced GUI out there. Windows is lagging by at least 2 years and KDE and GNOME are, at minimum, 3 years behind. Obviously, Mac takes honors in this arena.
Then, look at the Kernel. I'm not well versed in the differences between BSD and Linux, but I do know that BSD is a popular and solid choice. Darwin, by all accounts, has inhereted all of the qualities that make BSD great.
Integration? Simplicity? Hmmm. Those things don't come to mind with any Linux flavour right now. Ugly RPM dependencies and installs and half-baked software. Don't get me wrong: I run Helix-Code and I love their update utility. But when's Linux going to have a solid e-mail client? Or a top-notch browser? Or even a decent Word processor? For geekier types (like me) Linux works just fine. But "just fine" doesn't cut it for the desktop market. Microsoft still has an edge in variety of software, but the new Apple platform could begin to woo developers. Where Apple has succeeded is in merging a rock solid kernel with an amazing interface. Wow!
So you've got an advanced desktop, a solid kernel, and seamless integration between the two. Sounds like a real challenge to both Linux and MSFT. Don't predict the death of Mac quite yet.
From my own experience, Stanford is definitely a good choice. You've got a world class computer-science department alongside incredible "fuzzy" liberal arts departments. Since we are right in the middle of Silicon Valley and the technical departments are so strong, course offerings in the economics, history, and sociology departments often have a technology slant. Last year, there was a seminar which detailed the history of the Valley. A course in the communications department on the effects of digital media (which I couldn't take because class size was limited!). And even the computer science department hasn't forgotten its history. Gates (ugh) Computer Science building is full of computer artifacts, notwithstanding Don Knuth:)
If not Stanford, find another top computer science department: UIUC, Carnagie-Mellon, MIT, etc. If the CS department is strong, it will flow into other departments who want to ride the wave.
As far as coursework goes, most schools allow majors to be designed if they don't have one which follows your exact path. Definitely take some CS courses to broaden your knowledge of technology, but a couple of history and economics courses wouldn't do any harm either. Just remember to get as much out of college as possible, since it's only four years.
OK. I'm on my soapbox; but I am a senior, so nostalgia has set in. Good luck and feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions.
Napster has urged its fans to run a "buy-cott" this weekend. Oh, Napster! Why have you turned your backs on your fans like this! This is a classic example of an ends-justify-the-means tactic; even when the means contradict the ends you are trying to reach. They can't ask us to support the institution that is trying to destroy them!
Napster changed the face of music distribution. No longer are fans forced to buy a $15+ dollar Britney Spears CD in order to listen to one or two "decent" songs. The digital music revolution gives fans the choice to download and play the exact songs that they want. And yes, under current laws, it's probably illegal. But, the problem is that it's entirely unstoppable. Laws will have to adapt to the digital landscape. Everyone knows the obvious conclusion.
But, the Napster case isn't about Napster proving to the industry that they'll drive more sales into a sinking institution or that digital music will give Hilary Rosen new sales channels. It's about a new paradigm in music distribution. It's about the collapse of the music industry as we know it.
Napster has an arsenal of arguments at its disposal, probably the most effective is that they're just hosting a platform and can't be held responsible for what is traded. But, the underlying theme is that the control of information has changed in the digital world. Without an effective way to control distribution, information is becoming virtually free. Music is just the first controlled digital substance to be unleashed.
It saddens me that Napster won't stand up for this inevitable stance. They have to resort to begging their users to give more money to Hilary Rosen so she can fight Napster with even more lawyers. Is Napster crazy?
Napster has failed: and they have proven that they are not strong enough to stand up to the challenge. But we know that the revolution isn't dead. Use Napster for all it's worth until its shut down. But when it is, don't go out and buy CDs. Download Gnutella and continue as your were.
A couple of things that would be shut down if all US nodes were bleeped off the map. . .
First, Exodus Communications would go down. The number of sites that are hosted by Exodus is astounding
Most key news sites: C|Net, ZDNet, Slashdot, CMP, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, et al. would most likely be kaput
All US Universities would be shut down: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, just to name the best.
You couldn't get quotes from the Nasdaq or the NYSE; and E*Trade, Ameritrade, and other trading companies would not exist
Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, and other popular free e-mail services would not work
You couldn't send e-mail to any US business location
In essence, all of the services that the Internet provides would be kaput. All of the Information that seems so ubiquitous would be gone. And the world would, indeed, stand still for the day.
The Internet would probably still work, but the utility would be marginal.
I'm sure that you can name many other services, which would be inaccessible should the US be removed from the map. The following day, the stock market would crash and the tech world would probably launch an all-out attack on whoever made the decision. Not a pretty situation.
"Past issues with first-release operating systems from Microsoft have caused organizations to rein in their Windows 2000 deployment plans," said William Peterson, research manager for IDC's Client Infrastructure Software programs. "This is not to say Windows 2000 will not be a success...IDC believes Windows 2000 will succeed--over time."
TRANSLATION: "The releases of Windows 95 and 98 were late and extremely buggy. Companies are scared to deploy Win2000 immediately, because Micrsoft will surely rush it out the door with serious flaws, just to compete with Linux. However, Windows 2000 will win in the end because of Microsoft's monopolistic power."
There's a problem with Microsoft's theory of a rent-to-own software world: security. The only reason that companies can continue to keep software on the shelves of stores today is that people don't have to bandwidth for mass Warez, like we do with mp3z. An SDMI-like software-based solution for Windows, or even Office, could not work and would eventually be cracked, as all software protection mechanisms have been in the past.
Check out a little company called Wave Systems (Nasdaq: WAVX). Note, I have no affiliation with Wave, but I used to work for a company that was acquired by them. The idea is to start by endowing computers with a secure computing environment on the motherboard, giving the computers an easy way to distrubute "rent-to-own" software. That is, you could get a CD with 500 games on it, but you only pay for the ones that you play. If you play it for 5 minutes and decide that it sucks, you pay twenty cents. However, if you play it for 4 hours a day for the next month, you pay the regular $29.95.
Obviously, this paradigm could be extended to a lot of different areas. For example, if it were easy to have a customer pay through the secure local environment via SET with a smart card, a content provider such as ZDNet could conceivably charge a nominal fee for each viewed article (a penny, or the like). Since Web companies are still losing a lot of money, Wave thinks that this will be an attractive solution to financial woes.
However, I think that this model is inherently flawed. As information becomes easier to disseminate and the cost of distribution approaches zero, control is virtually impossible. SDMI will fail. Software protection has failed, since Warez sites are plentiful. Paying for content seems absurd, when it's as easy as copying and pasting the text. A good business model does not reside on charging consumers for something which they once got for free.
The problems herein -- of universal accessibility and unlimited bandwidth -- could be harbingers of the Open Source movement. Linux and other open source project may survive, in part, because Microsoft won't be able to make money as their power to control the distribution of their OS becomes nill. The existence of free publications on the Web has basically destroyed the idea of charging to read atricles online.
In any case, software metering and / or secure computing environments on a host are interesting and worthy topics which could spawn many applications. I think, in the end, SET and secure logins -- applications which facilitate security and the exchange of information -- will win out over functionality that impedes the consumer, such as operating systems that don't work very well and cost a lot of money.
I am concerned with the blasé response I got from my mother who said both:
* Why should I care? I don't engage in any of this activity. * I don't want people online to be doing these things.
That's disturbing from a philosophical perspective. However, I think that AOL is engaging in the practice of entrapment for greedy corporate purposes.
Should you have AOL (I don't thankfully), I challenge you to find a larger area than the "perverted" message boards and to find a member created chat room that has nothing to do with sex. Find me all of the profile advertising escort services. AOL could easily crack down on behavior that would bother mothers. But they don't. Why? I'll bet that 25% of their revenue stream comes from this areana.
Should someone be allowed to open up a house where no one yells at you for smoking crack and then later calls the police after you've been smoking there for a year? Something is clearly wrong.
AOL creates a forum in which "perverts" can exchange information extremely easily. They provide message boards which are hardly regulated, rooms which run rampant with sex requests, and eventhe ability to send e-mail from an "anonymous" account (you don't have to input any person information to create additional accounts!). AOL has a way of separating the parents from the perverts: Terms of Service (TOS). This keeps illicit behavior out of the Moms' chatrooms, but who is going to TOS someone in a memeber created chatroom like "LittleGirlPics."
Another concern I have is the implication of AOL users being cited for online activity that occurs outside of the AOL domain. If you do something within the proprietary service, AOL certainly has a right to stop you. But, if you are surfing Usenet or the Web and come across salacious material, does AOL have any jurisdiction? I think not.
I think that users should send a message to AOL: prosecute everyone and stop facilitating illicit activity or allow it to happen and do not cooperate with law enforcement agencies.
There's a solution: use online service where you are afforded more freedom.
I agree with Eric Raymond: Shut up and show me the code!
Theoretical ideas about how an Open Source project will develop are inherently flawed. We are entering new territory and no one is really sure how the industry, developers, and users will react. Prior to Linux, who would have thought that an operating system would gain so much support?
The Time City Project received over 300 e-mails within 48 hours of being announced. If this isn't proof that people want to work on a serious gaming project, I don't know what is.
Anyway, come and visit us at http://www.timecity.org and send comments to mark@timecity.org if you have any questions or comments about how we're trying to shake up the industry =-)
The point of a chip like this is to have authentication happen on secure hardware, not an insecure host. This is useful in a lot of applications, especially smart card readers.
For example, monetary transactions - your smart card holds your key and the smart card reader does all of the authentication and sends a signed request to the merchant. That way, you don't have to worry about credit card numbers flopping around all over the place. The transaction takes place between your card and the vendor.
Another possible use could be for logging in - no more worrying about passwords because you can sign in with your key (stored on the smart card) and pin number.
Besides, we in America already have cool stuff like this. Check out http://www.nabletech.com and their N*Click chip
So, AMD has produced decent product in the past, but I don't think that they've ever spent a significant amount of money on marketing or PR. Kudos to them for making the decision to bring their products away from techie-dom and into the mainstream.
For geeks, names like "K7" and "Windows v3.4.2" are great. We want to know where it fits into the product line and whether it's new or old. However, for mainstream folk, they want a friendly product that's going to make that tan box on their desk go.
AMD and Cyrix (may she rest in peace) have always had branding problems. The seeming omnipotence of Intel comes from their incredible marketing machine. Remember the $100 million spent on the marketing of the PIII?
Perception is key in the eyes of the public and there's always been a skewed understanding of "underdog" chips. Perhaps with a new vision, AMD will be able to shake their "second-best" image and gain some steam with the American public.
AOL is the next MSFT. Why no one has started a crusade against them, I'll never know. The department of Justice is surely on their heels.
AOL, right now, commands over 50% of Internet access in this country - and the next ISP behind them is at only a fraction of that (MSN, incidentally).
Note: I do not dislike AOL because they are a corporate behemoth, but rather that I don't trust AOL as a technology company. Like MSFT (and unlike another large company, such as IBM), they are basically a marketing machine. AOL Internet access is shoddy and unreliabe at best - a documented fact. However, millions of people sign on every day because it is so "easy" to use. They've been taken in by the commercials, the endless bombardment of CDs, and "You've got mail!"
AOL has committed 3 acts of hubris: 1) They bought Mirabilis 2) They bought Netscape 3) They bought Nullsoft
AOL controls chat software, two major portals on the Web, and now they are trying, as any wise Internet behemoth should, to be a major player in the online music space.
Although AOL has a tradition of keeping the companies it buys intact and producing good software (well, ICQ still has a few glitches), I, personally, will go home tonight and find an alternate mp3 player.
If you guys tout "free software," it's time for a GNU MP3 player. Any takers?
See my posting. But the short of it is this: AOL is a slow, clunky, behemoth. Even after all of these years, my mother still needs a separate ISP to get reliable service on AOL because it kicks her off all of the time.
But, beyond that, AOL is becoming HUGE, as you noted. Too huge. It's time that we nipped these companies in the bud before we let them grow too large (MSFT) and become unmanageable (MSFT).
SUITS make the world go round. No one would have taken Red Hat seriously until money was thrown at it. Not everyone who uses Linux needs to contribute to the kernel. I'm glad that someone is trying to explain to the suits what open source is all about, because the sooner they learn, the quicker this movement will fly into high gear. We are in a grass roots movement - but it is currently only applicable to those who don't mind getting dirty. The great mass of people don't want to get dirty, they just want their lawn to grow green and fresh. Remember that and get off your technological high-horse. Thats why AOL and MSFT are technologically some of the worst, and monetarily some of the best.
Slashdot Mirror
LOLZ
{mark} powersetz product managerz
It takes Powerset less than 3 days to index all of the english pages in Wikipedia. And we're getting faster and faster.
{mark} powerset product manager
Note that Powerset gets an exact semantic match in the second result. And, Powerset reads every sentence from every (English) page in Wikipedia.
{mark} powerset product manager
Thanks for testing us out with some real queries -- it's the best way to get the Powerset experience. But, if you only ask NL questions then you don't get to see all of Powerset's features.
Powerset is not token matching. In fact, we read every sentence from every page in Wikipedia that we index. For examples of how we understand syntax, check out queries like "who did texaco acquire" vs. "who acquired texaco". Note that Powerset understands the difference between being acquired by and acquiring, that "buying" is equivalent to "acquiring", and that we are often able to highlight the actual answer to your question. Traditional search engines can do none of these things. Powerset is trying to match the meaning of your query to the meaning of a sentence in Wikipedia.
However, Powerset is very aware that: 1) Users shouldn't be expected to use natural language and 2) We only search Wikipedia and 3) Our algorithms aren't perfect yet. Powerset's release isn't intended to replace your regular keyword search engine. But, we do hope that you come back to Powerset when you have a question that might be answered in Wikipedia.
So, try some topical queries in Powerset, like "kurt godel." In the Factz section, Powerset knows that Kurt Godel proved theorems. If you click on "theorems," you'll see all the sentences in Wikipedia from which we derived that fact (be sure to click on "more"). Note that none of these Factz come from the Kurt Godel page. Powerset's ability to aggregate Factz from across Wikipedia is unique to our technology.
Now try, search for the Presidency of Bill Clinton and click through to the enhanced Wikipedia page (http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton?query=presidency+of+bill+clinton). Note that we also have Factz in the article outline, which helps to summarize long articles. Check out the second term during the Lewinsky affair: the Factz are an amazingly accurate description of the situation.
Sorry to be a bit lengthy, but I wanted to make it clear the Powerset isn't just about asking questions. We've got a video that identifies all of the features: http://vimeo.com/994819
{mark} powerset product manager
Check out MoralDefense.com for some excellent Objectivist rhetoric.
/. community.
I run Linux at home. And my personal boycott against MSFT products has been active since Windows 95. There's no reason to reiterate how much MSFT sucks to the
But, I also feel that a boycott should be the extent of my ability to limit Microsoft's power. Only the individual can lash out against a corporation: by not buying a product. The government has no place in this matter.
If you don't like Windows, be a geek, go to Fry's, and build your own friggin' computer so that Bill never gets his greasy hands on your prized possession. What's the issue?
Don't invite the government to save "the public" on this one. If you bought a MSFT product, you only hurt yourself. I hardly think that "the public" needs protection from MSFT.
Even worse with the case of MSFT is that they've actually provided a decent product to fill a market niche (albeit an incredibly large niche). MSFT has been offering a superior consumer product for years at an excellent price. Windows has brought law and order to the consumer computer market and helped to make computers useful for grandma smith and uncle bob. Windows is an excellent product in that regard.
Even worse, it's obvious that MSFT has had competition through the entire battle. As I recall, AAPL's headquarters are smack-dab in the middle of Silicon Valley; and SUNW's headquarters aren't far down the road. And SGI's and even the now defunct SCO (Tarantella?). There were plenty of choices out there if you really wanted an alternate. But, again: MSFT was providing a product that better suited people's needs at a much better price. Even today one can argue that Windows ME/2000 provides most people with more functionality than they'll ever need.
If you want to destroy Microsoft, don't waste your time with the government. Hack Eazel, GNOME, KDE; or some other Linux component that threatens the power or Redmond.
I'm totally surprised by this article. Rather than predicting that Linux will destroy Apple's marketshare, I think that there is a reasonable argument the other way around.
I challenge you to look at Aqua and then look at GNOME or KDE. There is absolutely no comparison. Aqua is by far the most advanced GUI out there. Windows is lagging by at least 2 years and KDE and GNOME are, at minimum, 3 years behind. Obviously, Mac takes honors in this arena.
Then, look at the Kernel. I'm not well versed in the differences between BSD and Linux, but I do know that BSD is a popular and solid choice. Darwin, by all accounts, has inhereted all of the qualities that make BSD great.
Integration? Simplicity? Hmmm. Those things don't come to mind with any Linux flavour right now. Ugly RPM dependencies and installs and half-baked software. Don't get me wrong: I run Helix-Code and I love their update utility. But when's Linux going to have a solid e-mail client? Or a top-notch browser? Or even a decent Word processor? For geekier types (like me) Linux works just fine. But "just fine" doesn't cut it for the desktop market. Microsoft still has an edge in variety of software, but the new Apple platform could begin to woo developers. Where Apple has succeeded is in merging a rock solid kernel with an amazing interface. Wow!
So you've got an advanced desktop, a solid kernel, and seamless integration between the two. Sounds like a real challenge to both Linux and MSFT. Don't predict the death of Mac quite yet.
From my own experience, Stanford is definitely a good choice. You've got a world class computer-science department alongside incredible "fuzzy" liberal arts departments. Since we are right in the middle of Silicon Valley and the technical departments are so strong, course offerings in the economics, history, and sociology departments often have a technology slant. Last year, there was a seminar which detailed the history of the Valley. A course in the communications department on the effects of digital media (which I couldn't take because class size was limited!). And even the computer science department hasn't forgotten its history. Gates (ugh) Computer Science building is full of computer artifacts, notwithstanding Don Knuth :)
If not Stanford, find another top computer science department: UIUC, Carnagie-Mellon, MIT, etc. If the CS department is strong, it will flow into other departments who want to ride the wave.
As far as coursework goes, most schools allow majors to be designed if they don't have one which follows your exact path. Definitely take some CS courses to broaden your knowledge of technology, but a couple of history and economics courses wouldn't do any harm either. Just remember to get as much out of college as possible, since it's only four years.
OK. I'm on my soapbox; but I am a senior, so nostalgia has set in. Good luck and feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions.
Napster has urged its fans to run a "buy-cott" this weekend. Oh, Napster! Why have you turned your backs on your fans like this! This is a classic example of an ends-justify-the-means tactic; even when the means contradict the ends you are trying to reach. They can't ask us to support the institution that is trying to destroy them!
Napster changed the face of music distribution. No longer are fans forced to buy a $15+ dollar Britney Spears CD in order to listen to one or two "decent" songs. The digital music revolution gives fans the choice to download and play the exact songs that they want. And yes, under current laws, it's probably illegal. But, the problem is that it's entirely unstoppable. Laws will have to adapt to the digital landscape. Everyone knows the obvious conclusion.
But, the Napster case isn't about Napster proving to the industry that they'll drive more sales into a sinking institution or that digital music will give Hilary Rosen new sales channels. It's about a new paradigm in music distribution. It's about the collapse of the music industry as we know it.
Napster has an arsenal of arguments at its disposal, probably the most effective is that they're just hosting a platform and can't be held responsible for what is traded. But, the underlying theme is that the control of information has changed in the digital world. Without an effective way to control distribution, information is becoming virtually free. Music is just the first controlled digital substance to be unleashed.
It saddens me that Napster won't stand up for this inevitable stance. They have to resort to begging their users to give more money to Hilary Rosen so she can fight Napster with even more lawyers. Is Napster crazy?
Napster has failed: and they have proven that they are not strong enough to stand up to the challenge. But we know that the revolution isn't dead. Use Napster for all it's worth until its shut down. But when it is, don't go out and buy CDs. Download Gnutella and continue as your were.
In essence, all of the services that the Internet provides would be kaput. All of the Information that seems so ubiquitous would be gone. And the world would, indeed, stand still for the day.
The Internet would probably still work, but the utility would be marginal.
I'm sure that you can name many other services, which would be inaccessible should the US be removed from the map. The following day, the stock market would crash and the tech world would probably launch an all-out attack on whoever made the decision. Not a pretty situation.
"Past issues with first-release operating systems from Microsoft have caused organizations to rein in their Windows 2000 deployment plans," said William Peterson, research manager for IDC's Client Infrastructure Software programs. "This is not to say Windows 2000 will not be a success...IDC believes Windows 2000 will succeed--over time."
TRANSLATION: "The releases of Windows 95 and 98 were late and extremely buggy. Companies are scared to deploy Win2000 immediately, because Micrsoft will surely rush it out the door with serious flaws, just to compete with Linux. However, Windows 2000 will win in the end because of Microsoft's monopolistic power."
There's a problem with Microsoft's theory of a rent-to-own software world: security. The only reason that companies can continue to keep software on the shelves of stores today is that people don't have to bandwidth for mass Warez, like we do with mp3z. An SDMI-like software-based solution for Windows, or even Office, could not work and would eventually be cracked, as all software protection mechanisms have been in the past.
Check out a little company called Wave Systems (Nasdaq: WAVX). Note, I have no affiliation with Wave, but I used to work for a company that was acquired by them. The idea is to start by endowing computers with a secure computing environment on the motherboard, giving the computers an easy way to distrubute "rent-to-own" software. That is, you could get a CD with 500 games on it, but you only pay for the ones that you play. If you play it for 5 minutes and decide that it sucks, you pay twenty cents. However, if you play it for 4 hours a day for the next month, you pay the regular $29.95.
Obviously, this paradigm could be extended to a lot of different areas. For example, if it were easy to have a customer pay through the secure local environment via SET with a smart card, a content provider such as ZDNet could conceivably charge a nominal fee for each viewed article (a penny, or the like). Since Web companies are still losing a lot of money, Wave thinks that this will be an attractive solution to financial woes.
However, I think that this model is inherently flawed. As information becomes easier to disseminate and the cost of distribution approaches zero, control is virtually impossible. SDMI will fail. Software protection has failed, since Warez sites are plentiful. Paying for content seems absurd, when it's as easy as copying and pasting the text. A good business model does not reside on charging consumers for something which they once got for free.
The problems herein -- of universal accessibility and unlimited bandwidth -- could be harbingers of the Open Source movement. Linux and other open source project may survive, in part, because Microsoft won't be able to make money as their power to control the distribution of their OS becomes nill. The existence of free publications on the Web has basically destroyed the idea of charging to read atricles online.
In any case, software metering and / or secure computing environments on a host are interesting and worthy topics which could spawn many applications. I think, in the end, SET and secure logins -- applications which facilitate security and the exchange of information -- will win out over functionality that impedes the consumer, such as operating systems that don't work very well and cost a lot of money.
I am concerned with the blasé response I got from my mother who said both:
* Why should I care? I don't engage in any of this activity.
* I don't want people online to be doing these things.
That's disturbing from a philosophical perspective. However, I think that AOL is engaging in the practice of entrapment for greedy corporate purposes.
Should you have AOL (I don't thankfully), I challenge you to find a larger area than the "perverted" message boards and to find a member created chat room that has nothing to do with sex. Find me all of the profile advertising escort services. AOL could easily crack down on behavior that would bother mothers. But they don't. Why? I'll bet that 25% of their revenue stream comes from this areana.
Should someone be allowed to open up a house where no one yells at you for smoking crack and then later calls the police after you've been smoking there for a year? Something is clearly wrong.
AOL creates a forum in which "perverts" can exchange information extremely easily. They provide message boards which are hardly regulated, rooms which run rampant with sex requests, and eventhe ability to send e-mail from an "anonymous" account (you don't have to input any person information to create additional accounts!). AOL has a way of separating the parents from the perverts: Terms of Service (TOS). This keeps illicit behavior out of the Moms' chatrooms, but who is going to TOS someone in a memeber created chatroom like "LittleGirlPics."
Another concern I have is the implication of AOL users being cited for online activity that occurs outside of the AOL domain. If you do something within the proprietary service, AOL certainly has a right to stop you. But, if you are surfing Usenet or the Web and come across salacious material, does AOL have any jurisdiction? I think not.
I think that users should send a message to AOL: prosecute everyone and stop facilitating illicit activity or allow it to happen and do not cooperate with law enforcement agencies.
There's a solution: use online service where you are afforded more freedom.
I agree with Eric Raymond: Shut up and show me the code!
Theoretical ideas about how an Open Source project will develop are inherently flawed. We are entering new territory and no one is really sure how the industry, developers, and users will react. Prior to Linux, who would have thought that an operating system would gain so much support?
The Time City Project received over 300 e-mails within 48 hours of being announced. If this isn't proof that people want to work on a serious gaming project, I don't know what is.
Anyway, come and visit us at http://www.timecity.org and send comments to mark@timecity.org if you have any questions or comments about how we're trying to shake up the industry =-)
The point of a chip like this is to have authentication happen on secure hardware, not an insecure host. This is useful in a lot of applications, especially smart card readers.
For example, monetary transactions - your smart card holds your key and the smart card reader does all of the authentication and sends a signed request to the merchant. That way, you don't have to worry about credit card numbers flopping around all over the place. The transaction takes place between your card and the vendor.
Another possible use could be for logging in - no more worrying about passwords because you can sign in with your key (stored on the smart card) and pin number.
Besides, we in America already have cool stuff like this. Check out http://www.nabletech.com and their N*Click chip
So, AMD has produced decent product in the past, but I don't think that they've ever spent a significant amount of money on marketing or PR. Kudos to them for making the decision to bring their products away from techie-dom and into the mainstream.
For geeks, names like "K7" and "Windows v3.4.2" are great. We want to know where it fits into the product line and whether it's new or old. However, for mainstream folk, they want a friendly product that's going to make that tan box on their desk go.
AMD and Cyrix (may she rest in peace) have always had branding problems. The seeming omnipotence of Intel comes from their incredible marketing machine. Remember the $100 million spent on the marketing of the PIII?
Perception is key in the eyes of the public and there's always been a skewed understanding of "underdog" chips. Perhaps with a new vision, AMD will be able to shake their "second-best" image and gain some steam with the American public.
~mnj
BOYCOTT WINAMP
AOL is the next MSFT. Why no one has started a crusade against them, I'll never know. The department of Justice is surely on their heels.
AOL, right now, commands over 50% of Internet access in this country - and the next ISP behind them is at only a fraction of that (MSN, incidentally).
Note: I do not dislike AOL because they are a corporate behemoth, but rather that I don't trust AOL as a technology company. Like MSFT (and unlike another large company, such as IBM), they are basically a marketing machine. AOL Internet access is shoddy and unreliabe at best - a documented fact. However, millions of people sign on every day because it is so "easy" to use. They've been taken in by the commercials, the endless bombardment of CDs, and "You've got mail!"
AOL has committed 3 acts of hubris:
1) They bought Mirabilis
2) They bought Netscape
3) They bought Nullsoft
AOL controls chat software, two major portals on the Web, and now they are trying, as any wise Internet behemoth should, to be a major player in the online music space.
Although AOL has a tradition of keeping the companies it buys intact and producing good software (well, ICQ still has a few glitches), I, personally, will go home tonight and find an alternate mp3 player.
If you guys tout "free software," it's time for a GNU MP3 player. Any takers?
I look forward to hearing replies.
Best of luck,
Markus
See my posting. But the short of it is this: AOL is a slow, clunky, behemoth. Even after all of these years, my mother still needs a separate ISP to get reliable service on AOL because it kicks her off all of the time.
But, beyond that, AOL is becoming HUGE, as you noted. Too huge. It's time that we nipped these companies in the bud before we let them grow too large (MSFT) and become unmanageable (MSFT).
BOYCOTT WINAMP!
~mnj
Boyz and Girlz:
SUITS make the world go round. No one would have taken Red Hat seriously until money was thrown at it. Not everyone who uses Linux needs to contribute to the kernel. I'm glad that someone is trying to explain to the suits what open source is all about, because the sooner they learn, the quicker this movement will fly into high gear. We are in a grass roots movement - but it is currently only applicable to those who don't mind getting dirty. The great mass of people don't want to get dirty, they just want their lawn to grow green and fresh. Remember that and get off your technological high-horse. Thats why AOL and MSFT are technologically some of the worst, and monetarily some of the best.
~mnj