As someone who also works with large amounts of data every day, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You may want to reread what I actually wrote.
Hadoop is a decent technology and is one approach to dealing with "Big Data" problems. There are other products out there, and for the most part they have all been around a lot longer than Hadoop. The problems all these products address have been around for quite some time, as most people know.
So what is the difference at this point in time? Did everyone's data suddenly get fat or something? No. What has happened is that Google published their version of a map and reduce algorithm (with ideas for dealing with associated things like storage), someone else built an open source engine around it, and some other people started publicizing it. There is no problem with any of this.
But then some companies mistakenly believe that their one-million-row MySQL database is "Big Data" and get their IT staff to adopt this shiny -- and it is shiny, you know, compared to the older systems -- technology for their OMG Huge Database. This is what I was talking about. This is a misapplication of technology. It's as bad as using a poorly-tuned Oracle RAC on true "Big Data" databases. Sure, it works. But it's the wrong solution and eventually the company pays a much bigger price than they originally thought.
My bet is that most of Hadoop's growth is due to the marketing and "me too" effects rather than true technological need.
Research firm IDC recently predicted that worldwide revenues from Hadoop and MapReduce will hit $812.8 million in 2016, up from $77 million in 2011.
Notice that the revenue is directed toward the few companies supporting and extending Hadoop. If you're working for one of those companies, congratulations. If you're working for one of the companies that is spending its money on this new shiny thing, you're probably in for a ride (one way or another). The technology is definitely good, I'll grant you that. But it is not the solution (or, not a very good solution) for many of the problems IT/data shops have. It really seems that a lot of people are jumping on the Hadoop bandwagon because "everyone else is getting it" and not because it will solve particular, concrete, existing problems. Or, it will solve exactly one relatively small, concrete, existing problem while erecting a complex infrastructure that must be supported for several years, making it more of a PITA than a solution.
Anyway, back to my original point: I think this revenue citation is more of an indication of a technology bubble and successful marketing than anything else. The price IT will pay for that bubble will probably far exceed the original cost.
Of course those of us who drink massive quantities of coffee won't die from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, or infections. We'll die by lunging at the coffee machine early one morning, slipping on the wet floor, then failing to catch our jittery selves because we're busy protecting the ceramic mug our child gave us fifteen years ago.
If you replace 'the bonobos' with 'management' and make other, similar simple changes to the summary, you'd get a fairly accurate description of the office where I work.
"Ken Schweller, a computer scientist and psychologist, and also the chairman of the Business Trust in Des Moines, Iowa, has a vision: He wants to put wireless Android tablets in the hands of management. The Business Trust Sanctuary is home to seven managers, including the world-famous Kanzi, and two MBAs. So far the Sanctuary has focused almost exclusively on language, with management and the Board of Directors communicating through lexigrams on a touch-screen TV. Now Schweller wants to go one step further and outfit management with wireless tablets running custom Management Chat software, allowing the managers to communicate with their keepers (and other managers!) from anywhere in the Sanctuary, and to remotely control devices such as vending machines, doors, and the RoboManager. If all this wasn't weird (cool?) enough, the RoboManager is even outfitted with a water cannon (so the telepresent managers can play "chase games" with the staff) and Schweller is trying to fund the whole thing with Kickstarter. If you're a big fan of managers (or Darwinism), be sure to donate."
It's uncanny, I tell you. I wonder if those security cameras are something other than what they seem?
Three or four months ago, my wife told my 16-year old stepson to call and see if the person that cuts his hair was working that day. There was a big to-do that day about him not wanting to do anything for himself, and one of the results of that was the need for him to make this call rather than relying on his mom. Anyway, after some typical teenage bitching he went off to his room to call the place with his cell phone. A few minutes pass and comes out again.
Him: "The phone isn't working."
Us: "It's not working. Really. Did you dial the right number?"
Him: "Yeah! Of course I did! I'm not that stupid. It's just making some weird noise."
Us: "What number did you dial?"
Him: [He told us.]
I got my cell and called that number. [beeeeep] [pause] [beeeeep] [pause] [beeeeep]
Umedachi modeled his latest version on the 'true' slime mold, which has been shown to achieve a 'human-like' decision-making capacity through properties emerging from the interactions of its individual spores.
Are we absolutely certain that some slime molds achieves 'human-like' decision-making capacity rather than some humans achieving slime mold-like decision-making capacity?
Sorry. I probably shouldn't bring U.S. politics into the discussion so early in the threads.
Can I use that excuse when I get pulled over for rolling through a stop sign? "But I was just too lazy to stop, officer! Surely you can understand that!"
No, your excuse should be, "I had no malicious intent." This is apparently different from, "It was an accident."
Willfully performing an action, or willfully not performing an action you are supposed to perform, with a smile and a wave translates into a Stay Out Of Jail And Retain Your Job card.
I wish I would have known that when I was a teenager.
A method of controlling a portable electronic device including an image capturing device, the method comprising: detecting, via the image capturing device, motions of an object over the image capturing device; determining a type of the detected motions using timing information related to the detected motions, the timing information comprising duration of at least one of the detected motions; and controlling the portable electronic device based on the determined motion type.
Claim 2 then says:
The method of claim 1, wherein the type of the detected motions comprises single tapping, double tapping, hovering, holding and swiping.
Then there is a lot of refinement, talking about edge detection, direction of movement, the usual definition of a computing device with memory, and finally kicking off predetermined actions based on recognized motions.
But look at Claim 2: "... comprises single tapping, double tapping, hovering, holding and swiping." To me, this patent seems to be a simple extrapolation of the gestures Apple made popular with their mobile UI, with the addition of "hovering" (assuming I understand the definition of that word, here). Same gestures, different input control.
Is there a significant difference between, say, swiping across a phone's screen and making the same gesture a few inches away? (I'm thinking that if the device interpreted motions from a larger distance then the only thing that will reliably happen is a serious of hilarious DoS attacks via interpretive dance.)
Do you want Big Data solutions to appeal to the masses? For open source hackers to tackle petabyte-size problems? Hundreds or thousands of possible solutions for each variation of a problem, like what is found on SourceForge?
It's dead simple.
Rename the problem to Big Porn and create a couple of frameworks as examples. The technology will just take right off.
Try napping for shorter periods of time - 20 to 30 minutes in order to not drop into deeper REM sleep. Works for some people. It's the 'power nap' idea. YMMV, of course.
I wholeheartedly recommend 'power naps' or whatever you want to call them. After some experimenting, I found that a 25 minute nap is perfect for me. It's enough sleep to make me feel rested and not enough sleep to make me foggy when I get up. Everyone would be different, of course, but I think most people would benefit from some kind not-quite-deep-sleep period in the middle of the day.
So is the proper response here to: 1) allow a government organization determine what everyone can and cannot do; or 2) train drivers better so they can make educated choices and avoid bad behaviors on their own?
Personally, I doubt the average American would Do The Right Thing. But I want to make that decision, not my government.
Reading The Fine Article provides some links to follow. If you did, you would wind up on their KickStarter Page. That page includes a short trailer as well.
If I wanted to stage an attack, this would be the perfect chance.
Indeed! Particularly when the FCC itself is saying that what the public sees and hears could vary:
What will people hear and see during the test?
During the test, viewers will hear a message indicating that “This is a test.” Although the National EAS Test may resemble the periodic, monthly EAS tests that most Americans are already familiar with, there will be some differences in what viewers will see and hear, which is one reason for conducting a national EAS test. The audio message will be the same for all EAS Participants; however, due to limitations in the EAS, the video test message scroll may not be the same or indicate that “This is a test.” This is due to the use of a “live” national code – the same code that would be used in an actual emergency. In addition, the background image that appears on video screens during an alert may indicate that “This is a test,” but in some instances there might not be an image at all....
Larry Niven is rubbing his hands with glee and saying, "I knew it!"
... Even if this medicine turns out to be affordable, the treatments to keep the body going beyond its designed lifespan most likely will be very expensive. So on what basis will this life-extending drug be given out?... Or will anyone able to pay for it be able to obtain it?
Niven's future problem revolved around the perfection of organ transplants. In a world where everything but the brain and spinal column can be successfully transplanted, and life thereby extended indefinitely, what kinds of problems would arise? Organlegging was one such problem.
However, most of the problems actually had to do with the upper class hoarding the technology for themselves (the rich were the ones in power, which means they could pass new laws governing the technology, etc.). Niven's excellent The Jigsaw Man short story dealt with that from the "criminal's" point of view, and his book A Gift From Earth introduces an entire culture built around this problem (and what happens when better technology comes along to upset the applecart).
While the problem is slightly different, Niven's ideas of the problems and consequences of this kind of technology are amazing. I heartily recommend reading his Known Space collection, which is where this problem is addressed.
After all, I planned to use my tablet like a netbook-- handing it off to other people who need to use it when I don't. I can't do that, though, because all someone has to do is hit that GMAIL icon and be automatically signed into my accounts.
Excellent point. All tablet vendors seem to be missing the multi-user feature, and they really need to add it. As you pointed out, tablets are less intensely personal and the owner is more apt to loan a tablet than they would a phone. A tablet is expensive enough to be a "family device" as well, where many people use it for slightly different things, like that desktop system sitting in the corner of the living room used to be, 15 years ago.
In addition to supporting multiple users, I'd like to have a "no user" setting. That setting would disable all the personal apps (like an email or address book app) but leave the generic network surfing stuff visible. Maybe have which apps enabled/disabled setup as a preference. That would be handy when loaning the device to other people.
Space X already has something a lot more concrete than the NASA plan. While lifting less, Falcon Heavy costs way less money per launch. $30B would go a long way to making Space X a reality, faster. I, as a taxpayer/investor, would definitely vote for that over funding NASA's idea.
For all those people complaining about jobs lost due to retiring the shuttle components: Get them jobs associated with Space X. Maybe part of that $30B could go into employee reeducation and retraining for Falcon assembly.
Moreover, the obviousness analysis is based on prior art.
Within the article, the contention is that the prior art corpus is basically already-issued patents. Art that has not been patented is largely not checked. This leads to patents being issued for obvious art, as defined by other practitioners of that art.
Stupid example:
Me: I'm letting people patent innovative integers. Any takers?
You: Sure, I'll do that. How about '3'?
Me: (Checks database that is, at the moment, completely empty.) Looks good. No one else has that one. You got it!
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who also works with large amounts of data every day, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You may want to reread what I actually wrote.
Hadoop is a decent technology and is one approach to dealing with "Big Data" problems. There are other products out there, and for the most part they have all been around a lot longer than Hadoop. The problems all these products address have been around for quite some time, as most people know.
So what is the difference at this point in time? Did everyone's data suddenly get fat or something? No. What has happened is that Google published their version of a map and reduce algorithm (with ideas for dealing with associated things like storage), someone else built an open source engine around it, and some other people started publicizing it. There is no problem with any of this.
But then some companies mistakenly believe that their one-million-row MySQL database is "Big Data" and get their IT staff to adopt this shiny -- and it is shiny, you know, compared to the older systems -- technology for their OMG Huge Database. This is what I was talking about. This is a misapplication of technology. It's as bad as using a poorly-tuned Oracle RAC on true "Big Data" databases. Sure, it works. But it's the wrong solution and eventually the company pays a much bigger price than they originally thought.
My bet is that most of Hadoop's growth is due to the marketing and "me too" effects rather than true technological need.
From TFS:
Notice that the revenue is directed toward the few companies supporting and extending Hadoop. If you're working for one of those companies, congratulations. If you're working for one of the companies that is spending its money on this new shiny thing, you're probably in for a ride (one way or another). The technology is definitely good, I'll grant you that. But it is not the solution (or, not a very good solution) for many of the problems IT/data shops have. It really seems that a lot of people are jumping on the Hadoop bandwagon because "everyone else is getting it" and not because it will solve particular, concrete, existing problems. Or, it will solve exactly one relatively small, concrete, existing problem while erecting a complex infrastructure that must be supported for several years, making it more of a PITA than a solution.
Anyway, back to my original point: I think this revenue citation is more of an indication of a technology bubble and successful marketing than anything else. The price IT will pay for that bubble will probably far exceed the original cost.
"The whole advertising industry, which in many ways still resembles the Mad Men-era old boy's network, simply may not be equipped to cope."
Or vagina.
Of course those of us who drink massive quantities of coffee won't die from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, or infections. We'll die by lunging at the coffee machine early one morning, slipping on the wet floor, then failing to catch our jittery selves because we're busy protecting the ceramic mug our child gave us fifteen years ago.
My favorite barten^h^h^h^h^h^htherapist always used to say that Goldschläger worked wonders. Now I know why.
If you replace 'the bonobos' with 'management' and make other, similar simple changes to the summary, you'd get a fairly accurate description of the office where I work.
It's uncanny, I tell you. I wonder if those security cameras are something other than what they seem?
Three or four months ago, my wife told my 16-year old stepson to call and see if the person that cuts his hair was working that day. There was a big to-do that day about him not wanting to do anything for himself, and one of the results of that was the need for him to make this call rather than relying on his mom. Anyway, after some typical teenage bitching he went off to his room to call the place with his cell phone. A few minutes pass and comes out again.
Him: "The phone isn't working."
Us: "It's not working. Really. Did you dial the right number?"
Him: "Yeah! Of course I did! I'm not that stupid. It's just making some weird noise."
Us: "What number did you dial?"
Him: [He told us.]
I got my cell and called that number. [beeeeep] [pause] [beeeeep] [pause] [beeeeep]
Us: "That, son, is a busy signal."
Him: "A what?"
Are we absolutely certain that some slime molds achieves 'human-like' decision-making capacity rather than some humans achieving slime mold-like decision-making capacity?
Sorry. I probably shouldn't bring U.S. politics into the discussion so early in the threads.
Can I use that excuse when I get pulled over for rolling through a stop sign? "But I was just too lazy to stop, officer! Surely you can understand that!"
No, your excuse should be, "I had no malicious intent." This is apparently different from, "It was an accident."
Willfully performing an action, or willfully not performing an action you are supposed to perform, with a smile and a wave translates into a Stay Out Of Jail And Retain Your Job card.
I wish I would have known that when I was a teenager.
From Claim 1 of the patent filing:
Claim 2 then says:
Then there is a lot of refinement, talking about edge detection, direction of movement, the usual definition of a computing device with memory, and finally kicking off predetermined actions based on recognized motions.
But look at Claim 2: "... comprises single tapping, double tapping, hovering, holding and swiping." To me, this patent seems to be a simple extrapolation of the gestures Apple made popular with their mobile UI, with the addition of "hovering" (assuming I understand the definition of that word, here). Same gestures, different input control.
Is there a significant difference between, say, swiping across a phone's screen and making the same gesture a few inches away? (I'm thinking that if the device interpreted motions from a larger distance then the only thing that will reliably happen is a serious of hilarious DoS attacks via interpretive dance.)
Do you want Big Data solutions to appeal to the masses? For open source hackers to tackle petabyte-size problems? Hundreds or thousands of possible solutions for each variation of a problem, like what is found on SourceForge?
It's dead simple.
Rename the problem to Big Porn and create a couple of frameworks as examples. The technology will just take right off.
Try napping for shorter periods of time - 20 to 30 minutes in order to not drop into deeper REM sleep. Works for some people. It's the 'power nap' idea. YMMV, of course.
I wholeheartedly recommend 'power naps' or whatever you want to call them. After some experimenting, I found that a 25 minute nap is perfect for me. It's enough sleep to make me feel rested and not enough sleep to make me foggy when I get up. Everyone would be different, of course, but I think most people would benefit from some kind not-quite-deep-sleep period in the middle of the day.
Curunir_wolf likes this
:popcorn:
Ah, the electronic version of the infamous Mountain Three Wolf Moon t-shirt. Not the price, but the reviews.
It's nice to see people working together like that.
So is the proper response here to: 1) allow a government organization determine what everyone can and cannot do; or 2) train drivers better so they can make educated choices and avoid bad behaviors on their own?
Personally, I doubt the average American would Do The Right Thing. But I want to make that decision, not my government.
Reading The Fine Article provides some links to follow. If you did, you would wind up on their KickStarter Page. That page includes a short trailer as well.
With apologies to Scott Adams:
And next week we'll have a doctor with a flashlight show you just where economic models come from.
Go ahead, laugh. It's funny because it's true.
Indeed! Particularly when the FCC itself is saying that what the public sees and hears could vary:
Good times to be had by all!
They list 1318 firms, and then 147 super-connected...and then (arbitrarily) only list the top 50.
Their report is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
Why the top 50? Was there some discontinuity in control that made 50 a relatively discrete bunch? Is #51 significantly different than #49?
Where's the rest of the list?
I don't think there is any hidden purpose behind listing only the top 50. However, the paragraph preceding the list in the report says, in part:
That begs the question: Which governments, and which natural persons, are listed past that first 50?
Larry Niven is rubbing his hands with glee and saying, "I knew it!"
Niven's future problem revolved around the perfection of organ transplants. In a world where everything but the brain and spinal column can be successfully transplanted, and life thereby extended indefinitely, what kinds of problems would arise? Organlegging was one such problem.
However, most of the problems actually had to do with the upper class hoarding the technology for themselves (the rich were the ones in power, which means they could pass new laws governing the technology, etc.). Niven's excellent The Jigsaw Man short story dealt with that from the "criminal's" point of view, and his book A Gift From Earth introduces an entire culture built around this problem (and what happens when better technology comes along to upset the applecart).
While the problem is slightly different, Niven's ideas of the problems and consequences of this kind of technology are amazing. I heartily recommend reading his Known Space collection, which is where this problem is addressed.
Pfffft. That screen is nothing compared to what you need just to handle development in Eclipse. Pansies.
After all, I planned to use my tablet like a netbook-- handing it off to other people who need to use it when I don't. I can't do that, though, because all someone has to do is hit that GMAIL icon and be automatically signed into my accounts.
Excellent point. All tablet vendors seem to be missing the multi-user feature, and they really need to add it. As you pointed out, tablets are less intensely personal and the owner is more apt to loan a tablet than they would a phone. A tablet is expensive enough to be a "family device" as well, where many people use it for slightly different things, like that desktop system sitting in the corner of the living room used to be, 15 years ago.
In addition to supporting multiple users, I'd like to have a "no user" setting. That setting would disable all the personal apps (like an email or address book app) but leave the generic network surfing stuff visible. Maybe have which apps enabled/disabled setup as a preference. That would be handy when loaning the device to other people.
Take that $30B and invest it in Space X.
Space X already has something a lot more concrete than the NASA plan. While lifting less, Falcon Heavy costs way less money per launch. $30B would go a long way to making Space X a reality, faster. I, as a taxpayer/investor, would definitely vote for that over funding NASA's idea.
For all those people complaining about jobs lost due to retiring the shuttle components: Get them jobs associated with Space X. Maybe part of that $30B could go into employee reeducation and retraining for Falcon assembly.
I just applied the fix and now I have to restart my Mac. What the hell? Is my MacBook masquerading as a Windows machine all of the sudden?
It just works. After a slight delay.
Moreover, the obviousness analysis is based on prior art.
Within the article, the contention is that the prior art corpus is basically already-issued patents. Art that has not been patented is largely not checked. This leads to patents being issued for obvious art, as defined by other practitioners of that art.
Stupid example: