Nothing. But being cynical, we look at every intrusion into the technical field by amateurs as just begging to be abused. Because, based on something simple like email, it will be abused.
The question isn't how useful this technology will be when used properly, but how many resources it will tie up when being utterly abused by people uploading staged and/or doctored images and video through Tor. Because it will happen.
And probably by actual terrorists who want to tie up said resources in Northern London while they plant a bomb in Southern London.
Honestly, you just need to take an intro to policing course from a friendly sociology department to get that the likelihood is all too high.
(Yeah, yeah, I'm not providing any stats, either, but I don't think I could provide anything that'd convince you anyway, so I'm merely pointing to experts whom you might accept and inviting you to do your own research rather than believing some random nick on the internets.)
Editing xorg.conf. WTF? Unless you have some weirdo setup, a blank xorg.conf should pretty much suffice on modern distros. I only had to go mucking in there to start testing out the (still alpha) radeonhd driver, and again to get dual monitors working (which I could take out again now that I found krandr which will do the same thing for me post-login).
Failed file copy. WTF? Where are you copying to? C:\Program Files? Face it. In today's secure world, even Windows doesn't let you copy files just anywhere. If you're copying to/usr/share, I have to wonder what the heck you're actually doing. Why not copy to/home/bikehelmet/share? That'd probably work. Your desktop directory isn't the problem, it's the destination you want that is.
Copying to/usr/share. WTF? You're doing something that Gramma probably doesn't need to do (she'd get it via the distro installer, e.g., apt-get, which already has the appropriate privilege escalation built in to its gui)... so when you get to advanced things, it shouldn't shock anyone that advanced knowledge is required.
Poorly thought out programs. Ok, that one makes sense. Though I've seen enough of those on Windows to know that's not the sole domain of Linux. This is, however, getting better. Even on Windows:-P
As far as I recall, my courses (over ten years ago now) were pretty much all canned scripts. Except for when the idjuts started asking inane questions, and then the professor would carefully answer while the rest of the class got bored.
Pros (from my recollection) would include:
course time when I am awake enough and ready for it,
being able to "skip" a class, and still catch up later just as effectively as if I hadn't skipped in the first place, and
not being bored out of my skull by the idiot questions ("There is no such thing as a stupid question" - bull!)
Cons may include:
Missing the good questions that other students ask. Sure, you can have a wiki or forum or whatever, but it's not the same.
Asking questions in an on-line forum is not the same as face-to-face questions. Working from home means I resort to phone calls because they're vastly superior to instant messaging or email for many items (and not any better for other items - gotta know which tool is the best for each job). Learning on-line needs to be able to have "face-to-face" time with professors and/or teaching assistants ("office hours" - not 24/7). Even if it's via VoIP.
As you point out, social skills. Taking engineering, half the labs were about working in groups as much as the technical details they were trying to hammer home. Learning to give and take direction was important.
For those not fresh out of high-school, on-line learning (no interfering with your full-time job or whatever) is important. For those who are getting the education right after high school and before going into the job market, not so much, even if they may be the ones more comfortable with the technology.
They could have bought other companies cheaper, but how many of them would come with an operating system (Solaris/x86) or two (Java?), an office suite (OOo), a database server in a market they want into (MySQL), and the prestige of being able to buy out a powerhouse from the time period in which you started your own company? Nevermind the well-publicised spats between Oracle and MS where Larry can go after MS on its own turf (OS, but even more, the office suite)? Remember: there are some things that money can't buy, for everything else, there's Larry's personal Mastercard.
Re:SPARC going out...?
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why would you buy a company for billions of dollars and ditch it's most popular product?
Simple. You bought it for the profitable parts and/or the parts you think you can make profitable. Hardware margins are so low that even giants like IBM have been transitioning away from them, leaving it all to Intel, AMD, and others who are completely focused on that market. Oracle may abandon it, may try spinning it off and selling that unit, or may try making a go of it. Given Sun's decreased attention on SPARC prior to this, I'd have to guess that Oracle will continue the trend and try to get rid of it. Meanwhile, Oracle will have to concentrate on the real value adds for them, which is probably a) customer lists and b) software, probably in that order.
We were not usually able to both compose the song *and* sing it. We drew on the culture around us, and transformed it to enrich our lives. Now our entertainment is provided to us, and for the most part we don't contribute.
It's nice to know that some people are encouraging us to compose and sing again, contributing back to our culture. Oh, I suppose American Idol was precisely what you were talking about. Woops, nevermind.:-P
You know that. I know that. The question is: will the CEOs and CIOs of big business care long enough to grasp the subtleties, or will they go with something they understand: shelling out cash to Microsoft (or maybe Apple) for the indemnification against patents and copyrights that they provide? Will they sic a lawyer on it long enough to get legal advice that may or may not turn out in their favour (the C*O's don't know), or just go with the "safe" choice?
And that's only because your podcast website doesn't present a large enough target to warrant changing the bots' heuristics to spam it.
The "pay someone to answer" solution to captcha works just fine for breaking your site, too. It's just not worth it (yet?).
Of course, that's the same solution many have for spam: by diversifying the operating system landscape among desktops (not a monoculture of Windows), we break down the value of targeting any particular vulnerability. It's alleged that the only reason that Linux doesn't have viruses is that there aren't enough users out there to warrant making one, and, whether you buy that or not, it definitely holds true for limiting spam on the web: everyone latching on to the same phpbb captcha interface is going to end up with a monoculture of bulletin boards to hack. By having everyone make minor modifications to it, you render yourself effectively immune: even though each one is trivial to hack by itself, each one requires its own unique hack, decreasing its value.
If you use your "movie character" question, and a few dozen other sites use similar questions (with different characters), that's great. But it's about as effective as using "Type 'Bob' here:" and someone else using "'Bob' is what goes here:" and yet another site using "'Bob' is not the answer we want. 'Sue' is." It's also just as trivial to change once the spammers pay attention and modify their scripts to deal with your impertinence.
My daughter is big into Mary Poppins recently, so this makes me think of the song: "Feed the AP, tuppence a click / tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a click."
If a homosexual person were within earshot, or read the quote in a paper, and decided to be offended, then, yes.
Really. That's where the Canadian Human Rights Councils are at the moment. The Feds are looking at defanging them somewhat, feeling that they've overstepped their bounds. But, since we're talking about the present, then the answer very easily could be "yes."
Seriously, IBM didn't buy Sequent for Sequent. They bought it for NUMA. And that lives on in AIX (can't recall if it's iSeries or pSeries or both).
I'm trying to recall something that IBM has bought that died when IBM wanted the technology to live (as opposed to ransacking the company for technology and/or patents to integrate into other products). Lotus? Still alive and kicking (no matter how much some want it to die). Rational? Yup - even displaced some of IBM's software (ClearCase displaced IBM's CMVC). Cognos? Too new to tell. Informix? Still alive and kicking even though that one obviously is something IBM bought to ransack.
I suspect IBM is looking to buy Sun for Java and OpenOffice (which they're already rebranding as Lotus Symphony), and getting MySQL would be considered a freebie. This makes sense when you realise that IBM is still a little sore about losing the PC OS war, and are doing everything they can to combat Microsoft (e.g., pledging not to pursue patent claims against open-source software, defending Linux against SCO). Java is still seen as a platform to make desktop OS irrelevant, and OpenOffice is a direct attack on Microsoft's other main source of income. Cripple those two aspects of MS, and you've crippled all of MS.
This is where ssh access into the box from your own home comes in handy;-) If there's a bit extra RAM available, just set up a VNC server on the box (you can start it up when you need it, and take it down when you're done), ssh in and use VNC over ssh, if you need the GUI at all. Personally, if I set up my mother's machine with Linux, I'd just use Gentoo like I have for the rest of my machines, and be able to do 99% of it with the command line. I assume that Ubuntu and Fedora have full command-line interfaces to their system updates that you can use, too, which makes it even more trivial to remote-admin them. Remote-adminning Windows boxes is too much of a pain in the ass. I had to give up on that and actually fully disable XP's firewall to rdesktop into my wife's old machine. (Luckily, I don't need to do that anymore since switching her to Gentoo and KDE 4.2. Everything via ssh now.)
less energy efficient != less profitable. When solar, wind, etc., become more profitable than oil, Shell will be clamouring to get back in, don't worry.
I've been saying for years that the only way to get the planet to switch to "green" technologies is to find a way to make the energy derived from them cheaper than the alternatives. Even now, the only reason we're still on coal and natural gas for generation of power is that they're cheaper politically (partially due to being the status quo) than nuclear power.
Flippant remarks aside, the grand-parent is incorrect, legally, CO2 is considered a pollutant. Here's a copy of the supreme court decision agreeing with the stance that CO2 is a pollutant. Also, in at least one case a Superior court judge in Georgia has used the Supreme court decision to block the construction of a coal-fire power plant because the plans contained no provision for limiting CO2 emissions. The "CO2 ain't a pollutant" excuse doesn't work any more. That dog won't hunt.
Legally != scientifically. We're preaching to a geek group, which insists on the most factual representation of its topics (most of the time). CO2 is a fertiliser, whether the Supreme Court has seen fit to accept it as such or not. It helps plants grow, thus it definitively is a fertiliser.
Besides, there's nothing that says a fertiliser can't also be a pollutant. That the SC decided to only use one label does not preclude other labels from also applying. I think what the GP's point is, is that we need to evaluate CO2 holistically: all its pros and cons, and that too many people are focused on a single point. After all, if CO2 is a fertiliser, we should see steady growth in the amounts of plant life (and maybe even its diversity), which we are. And with more plant life, the planet will be able to convert more CO2 back into O2, which seems like a negative feedback loop, at the very least it's drag on overall CO2 growth. Which makes me suddenly wonder if that's taken into account by any of the models being used to predict temperature rise. Probably not by the SC, but perhaps the UN scientists who have created these models have taken it into account? If not, that's a serious deficiency.
That just embrazens the police to try again and again. Who is going to punish the officers when they don't find anything? The police? I know I don't trust the police that much. They've proven that they stick together, through their actions and through the actions of their unions.
The only people who can punish the police are the judges. Even they seem to have their hands in the cookie jar far too often (as many of the judges come from prosecutorial backgrounds, which means they probably have a too-close relationship with cops to begin with). But, when they do want to punish the cops, they have to have something in front of them. What's the likelihood of the owner of a house "accidentally" mistaken for a drug den or a gang hideout actually going and filing civil charges against the cops? Near zero. So the only time you get the cops in front of the judge for illegal searching is when the DA files charges, i.e., the cops actually found something. If the judge then okays the evidence, you end up with the cops being rewarded for their illegal behaviour, and they'll just do it again and again. Short of losing their badge, there is no punishment severe enough to get cops to only do illegal searches when they're right, and I'm not even sure that that is severe enough: cops often have superiority and god complexes, thinking that because they enforce the law, they're above it.
Of course, if they were heavily punished for not finding anything, I think KopBusters would suddenly get a lot of job offers. Probably mostly from gangs.
I personally despise the idea of "inadmissible" evidence. Optimally, the court is looking for the truth but an environment where critical information can be thrown out because of a technicality it is inherently flawed in finding said truth. The information that should be inadmissible is false information.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, we are going to ignore the fact that the accused was found at the scene of the crime with the bloody knife in his hand standing over the victim on the grounds that the arresting officer hit him with his night stick too many times...."
Right, because officers beating someone too many times would never take a homeless man, or other so-called "undesirable" and frame them?
Hearsay is false information because its authenticity can't be proven. "Bob told Sue who told Marge who told Sam who mentioned to my best friend's aunt's sister that he heard that the defendant did it." WTF? People are generally trusting, and juries would get tainted by this. It's thrown out for good reason, though the media is more than happy to print anything sensational.
Information gained by torture, or any other undue pressure, is also thrown out (though why evidence gained from 16-hour "interrogations" is admissable, I don't know). Entrapment is thrown out. Time and again, information that is thrown out is false, even if it happens to be truth. That's what inadmissible means. Stuff that naive people would believe, when the logic of the situation has failed.
Yes, it could be that the police illegally raided a house and found some sicko with child porn lining the walls. But that invasion of privacy is "false". They could have just as easily raided any other random house and broken the door of someone who was perfectly innocent, and thus, we, as a society, have determined that it is better for one person to go free than for everyone to live in fear of the police knocking down their doors.
First off, the market shows little rationality to begin with. However, a bit of an upward trend in a research & development corporation which has shown that their R&D is successful seems reasonable. The theory being that what they learned from Deep Blue could be used in other applications - and they're right. IBM has taken that technology deep inside various Life Sciences research: genomes, protein folding, etc., are all benefiting from the research that went into Deep Blue.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's all my cool Linux stuff on Solaris, though?
I'm sure you could just compile cygwin ... :-P
Nothing. But being cynical, we look at every intrusion into the technical field by amateurs as just begging to be abused. Because, based on something simple like email, it will be abused.
The question isn't how useful this technology will be when used properly, but how many resources it will tie up when being utterly abused by people uploading staged and/or doctored images and video through Tor. Because it will happen.
And probably by actual terrorists who want to tie up said resources in Northern London while they plant a bomb in Southern London.
Well I'll tell you why, because police actually INVESTIGATE a crime.
I'd like to know where this mythical place is where police are both sufficiently funded, and incorruptible.
(Maybe you've been watching too much CSI:NY?)
Honestly, you just need to take an intro to policing course from a friendly sociology department to get that the likelihood is all too high.
(Yeah, yeah, I'm not providing any stats, either, but I don't think I could provide anything that'd convince you anyway, so I'm merely pointing to experts whom you might accept and inviting you to do your own research rather than believing some random nick on the internets.)
Editing xorg.conf. WTF? Unless you have some weirdo setup, a blank xorg.conf should pretty much suffice on modern distros. I only had to go mucking in there to start testing out the (still alpha) radeonhd driver, and again to get dual monitors working (which I could take out again now that I found krandr which will do the same thing for me post-login).
Failed file copy. WTF? Where are you copying to? C:\Program Files? Face it. In today's secure world, even Windows doesn't let you copy files just anywhere. If you're copying to /usr/share, I have to wonder what the heck you're actually doing. Why not copy to /home/bikehelmet/share? That'd probably work. Your desktop directory isn't the problem, it's the destination you want that is.
Copying to /usr/share. WTF? You're doing something that Gramma probably doesn't need to do (she'd get it via the distro installer, e.g., apt-get, which already has the appropriate privilege escalation built in to its gui)... so when you get to advanced things, it shouldn't shock anyone that advanced knowledge is required.
Poorly thought out programs. Ok, that one makes sense. Though I've seen enough of those on Windows to know that's not the sole domain of Linux. This is, however, getting better. Even on Windows :-P
As far as I recall, my courses (over ten years ago now) were pretty much all canned scripts. Except for when the idjuts started asking inane questions, and then the professor would carefully answer while the rest of the class got bored.
Pros (from my recollection) would include:
Cons may include:
For those not fresh out of high-school, on-line learning (no interfering with your full-time job or whatever) is important. For those who are getting the education right after high school and before going into the job market, not so much, even if they may be the ones more comfortable with the technology.
They could have bought other companies cheaper, but how many of them would come with an operating system (Solaris/x86) or two (Java?), an office suite (OOo), a database server in a market they want into (MySQL), and the prestige of being able to buy out a powerhouse from the time period in which you started your own company? Nevermind the well-publicised spats between Oracle and MS where Larry can go after MS on its own turf (OS, but even more, the office suite)? Remember: there are some things that money can't buy, for everything else, there's Larry's personal Mastercard.
Why would you buy a company for billions of dollars and ditch it's most popular product?
Simple. You bought it for the profitable parts and/or the parts you think you can make profitable. Hardware margins are so low that even giants like IBM have been transitioning away from them, leaving it all to Intel, AMD, and others who are completely focused on that market. Oracle may abandon it, may try spinning it off and selling that unit, or may try making a go of it. Given Sun's decreased attention on SPARC prior to this, I'd have to guess that Oracle will continue the trend and try to get rid of it. Meanwhile, Oracle will have to concentrate on the real value adds for them, which is probably a) customer lists and b) software, probably in that order.
We were not usually able to both compose the song *and* sing it. We drew on the culture around us, and transformed it to enrich our lives. Now our entertainment is provided to us, and for the most part we don't contribute.
It's nice to know that some people are encouraging us to compose and sing again, contributing back to our culture. Oh, I suppose American Idol was precisely what you were talking about. Woops, nevermind. :-P
I think they're called "corporate attourneys." Or cops, but those aren't usually lawyers.
You know that. I know that. The question is: will the CEOs and CIOs of big business care long enough to grasp the subtleties, or will they go with something they understand: shelling out cash to Microsoft (or maybe Apple) for the indemnification against patents and copyrights that they provide? Will they sic a lawyer on it long enough to get legal advice that may or may not turn out in their favour (the C*O's don't know), or just go with the "safe" choice?
And that's only because your podcast website doesn't present a large enough target to warrant changing the bots' heuristics to spam it.
The "pay someone to answer" solution to captcha works just fine for breaking your site, too. It's just not worth it (yet?).
Of course, that's the same solution many have for spam: by diversifying the operating system landscape among desktops (not a monoculture of Windows), we break down the value of targeting any particular vulnerability. It's alleged that the only reason that Linux doesn't have viruses is that there aren't enough users out there to warrant making one, and, whether you buy that or not, it definitely holds true for limiting spam on the web: everyone latching on to the same phpbb captcha interface is going to end up with a monoculture of bulletin boards to hack. By having everyone make minor modifications to it, you render yourself effectively immune: even though each one is trivial to hack by itself, each one requires its own unique hack, decreasing its value.
If you use your "movie character" question, and a few dozen other sites use similar questions (with different characters), that's great. But it's about as effective as using "Type 'Bob' here:" and someone else using "'Bob' is what goes here:" and yet another site using "'Bob' is not the answer we want. 'Sue' is." It's also just as trivial to change once the spammers pay attention and modify their scripts to deal with your impertinence.
My daughter is big into Mary Poppins recently, so this makes me think of the song: "Feed the AP, tuppence a click / tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a click."
I think I have a picture of clickclickdrone somewhere... ah, here it is. HTH. HAND.
I bet he takes a date. And pays for her, too. (Even if it is dear old mom.) That makes £8.
And then a small popcorn and a small soda to share. That's another £12.
If a homosexual person were within earshot, or read the quote in a paper, and decided to be offended, then, yes.
Really. That's where the Canadian Human Rights Councils are at the moment. The Feds are looking at defanging them somewhat, feeling that they've overstepped their bounds. But, since we're talking about the present, then the answer very easily could be "yes."
Apparently, IBM wants that business back.
Seriously, IBM didn't buy Sequent for Sequent. They bought it for NUMA. And that lives on in AIX (can't recall if it's iSeries or pSeries or both).
I'm trying to recall something that IBM has bought that died when IBM wanted the technology to live (as opposed to ransacking the company for technology and/or patents to integrate into other products). Lotus? Still alive and kicking (no matter how much some want it to die). Rational? Yup - even displaced some of IBM's software (ClearCase displaced IBM's CMVC). Cognos? Too new to tell. Informix? Still alive and kicking even though that one obviously is something IBM bought to ransack.
I suspect IBM is looking to buy Sun for Java and OpenOffice (which they're already rebranding as Lotus Symphony), and getting MySQL would be considered a freebie. This makes sense when you realise that IBM is still a little sore about losing the PC OS war, and are doing everything they can to combat Microsoft (e.g., pledging not to pursue patent claims against open-source software, defending Linux against SCO). Java is still seen as a platform to make desktop OS irrelevant, and OpenOffice is a direct attack on Microsoft's other main source of income. Cripple those two aspects of MS, and you've crippled all of MS.
I think it was along the lines of "Big Boom." It's what they're always thinking.
And the main reason for her great time is because it wasn't together.
This is where ssh access into the box from your own home comes in handy ;-) If there's a bit extra RAM available, just set up a VNC server on the box (you can start it up when you need it, and take it down when you're done), ssh in and use VNC over ssh, if you need the GUI at all. Personally, if I set up my mother's machine with Linux, I'd just use Gentoo like I have for the rest of my machines, and be able to do 99% of it with the command line. I assume that Ubuntu and Fedora have full command-line interfaces to their system updates that you can use, too, which makes it even more trivial to remote-admin them. Remote-adminning Windows boxes is too much of a pain in the ass. I had to give up on that and actually fully disable XP's firewall to rdesktop into my wife's old machine. (Luckily, I don't need to do that anymore since switching her to Gentoo and KDE 4.2. Everything via ssh now.)
less energy efficient != less profitable. When solar, wind, etc., become more profitable than oil, Shell will be clamouring to get back in, don't worry.
I've been saying for years that the only way to get the planet to switch to "green" technologies is to find a way to make the energy derived from them cheaper than the alternatives. Even now, the only reason we're still on coal and natural gas for generation of power is that they're cheaper politically (partially due to being the status quo) than nuclear power.
Flippant remarks aside, the grand-parent is incorrect, legally, CO2 is considered a pollutant. Here's a copy of the supreme court decision agreeing with the stance that CO2 is a pollutant. Also, in at least one case a Superior court judge in Georgia has used the Supreme court decision to block the construction of a coal-fire power plant because the plans contained no provision for limiting CO2 emissions. The "CO2 ain't a pollutant" excuse doesn't work any more. That dog won't hunt.
Legally != scientifically. We're preaching to a geek group, which insists on the most factual representation of its topics (most of the time). CO2 is a fertiliser, whether the Supreme Court has seen fit to accept it as such or not. It helps plants grow, thus it definitively is a fertiliser.
Besides, there's nothing that says a fertiliser can't also be a pollutant. That the SC decided to only use one label does not preclude other labels from also applying. I think what the GP's point is, is that we need to evaluate CO2 holistically: all its pros and cons, and that too many people are focused on a single point. After all, if CO2 is a fertiliser, we should see steady growth in the amounts of plant life (and maybe even its diversity), which we are. And with more plant life, the planet will be able to convert more CO2 back into O2, which seems like a negative feedback loop, at the very least it's drag on overall CO2 growth. Which makes me suddenly wonder if that's taken into account by any of the models being used to predict temperature rise. Probably not by the SC, but perhaps the UN scientists who have created these models have taken it into account? If not, that's a serious deficiency.
That just embrazens the police to try again and again. Who is going to punish the officers when they don't find anything? The police? I know I don't trust the police that much. They've proven that they stick together, through their actions and through the actions of their unions.
The only people who can punish the police are the judges. Even they seem to have their hands in the cookie jar far too often (as many of the judges come from prosecutorial backgrounds, which means they probably have a too-close relationship with cops to begin with). But, when they do want to punish the cops, they have to have something in front of them. What's the likelihood of the owner of a house "accidentally" mistaken for a drug den or a gang hideout actually going and filing civil charges against the cops? Near zero. So the only time you get the cops in front of the judge for illegal searching is when the DA files charges, i.e., the cops actually found something. If the judge then okays the evidence, you end up with the cops being rewarded for their illegal behaviour, and they'll just do it again and again. Short of losing their badge, there is no punishment severe enough to get cops to only do illegal searches when they're right, and I'm not even sure that that is severe enough: cops often have superiority and god complexes, thinking that because they enforce the law, they're above it.
Of course, if they were heavily punished for not finding anything, I think KopBusters would suddenly get a lot of job offers. Probably mostly from gangs.
I personally despise the idea of "inadmissible" evidence. Optimally, the court is looking for the truth but an environment where critical information can be thrown out because of a technicality it is inherently flawed in finding said truth. The information that should be inadmissible is false information.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, we are going to ignore the fact that the accused was found at the scene of the crime with the bloody knife in his hand standing over the victim on the grounds that the arresting officer hit him with his night stick too many times...."
Right, because officers beating someone too many times would never take a homeless man, or other so-called "undesirable" and frame them?
Hearsay is false information because its authenticity can't be proven. "Bob told Sue who told Marge who told Sam who mentioned to my best friend's aunt's sister that he heard that the defendant did it." WTF? People are generally trusting, and juries would get tainted by this. It's thrown out for good reason, though the media is more than happy to print anything sensational.
Information gained by torture, or any other undue pressure, is also thrown out (though why evidence gained from 16-hour "interrogations" is admissable, I don't know). Entrapment is thrown out. Time and again, information that is thrown out is false, even if it happens to be truth. That's what inadmissible means. Stuff that naive people would believe, when the logic of the situation has failed.
Yes, it could be that the police illegally raided a house and found some sicko with child porn lining the walls. But that invasion of privacy is "false". They could have just as easily raided any other random house and broken the door of someone who was perfectly innocent, and thus, we, as a society, have determined that it is better for one person to go free than for everyone to live in fear of the police knocking down their doors.
First off, the market shows little rationality to begin with. However, a bit of an upward trend in a research & development corporation which has shown that their R&D is successful seems reasonable. The theory being that what they learned from Deep Blue could be used in other applications - and they're right. IBM has taken that technology deep inside various Life Sciences research: genomes, protein folding, etc., are all benefiting from the research that went into Deep Blue.