I realize that this thing was intended as a "look at me!" publicity stunt, but it is indicative of a trend that I'm really fascinated by: the notion of Internet-enabled "glance-able" technologies. More mainstream examples (if you can call these mainstream) include the Microsoft SPOT technology as implemented in Fossil and Sunto watches, as well as the more elegant implementations by Ambient technologies. (They sell an excellent "dashboard" device that has analog "VU" style meters that respond to various configurable events--web traffic, weather, etc. I want one. That's a hint, ThinkGeek folks. You need to carry these.)
As a user of the SPOT watch, I can say that the argument "Yeah, but I can look that information up in my web browser or on my cell phone" doesn't hold up in the real world: there's a difference between actively looking something up and simply glancing at an object on the wall, or being peripherally aware of a more subtle way of indicating the status of something important to you. (Another great ambient device, the Orb, glows in a different color based on Internet-based information.) Do you pull up a web page to see what time it is? Of course not--you look at a wall clock, or your watch... why not do the same for weather? For stock quotes? For Instant Messages? For traffic information? Heck... your Slashdot karma?:)
I hope that this kind of technology (in less gaudy form than this hideous chandelier) takes off. I really think it is useful. However, in terms of text messaging or Instant Messages, they are less useful because of the inherent one-way nature of the devices. However, my wife sends IMs to my SPOT watch all the time.
You'll be a lot happier with a bottom of the line projector than anything home-brew... especially if you're talking about a modern DLP projector. Much has been done in the last couple years to improve the quality of projectors-- take advantage of it.
I recommend scouring ebay-- take your time-- for a good deal on a projector manufactured in the last year or two. They retail at about a grand to start, so $300-500 on ebay should be possible.
You know, I've always had a fantasy that someday, people will yell my name as Shatner yelled "Khhaaaaannnnnnn!!!!" however, I've yet to piss someone off enough to inspire such beautiful overacting.:)
While the typos and spelling errors in the article were entertaining ("STAR TRKE" and "the future of their first series remains in limo") I'm not sure what to make of this. When they talk "prequel" are they talking about Pre-Enterprise? It seems like any earlier and there wouldn't be much opportunity to explore other species, etc. Can a Star Trek movie without existing characters/actors be successful? I mean Nemesis, which was based on the much-loved TNG crew, made about $53 at the box office. (OK, that might be a slightly low estimate.)
I think a Starfleet Academy movie (mentioned in the article) could be compelling, but I'm losing interest in the whole franchise. I'd like to see another season of Enterprise despite the fact that it's a fairly weak show (in my opinion) but I think that Gene Roddenberry's vision is running out of gas without his input. I have mixed feelings: on one hand, Trek has gotten pretty lame, and it is probably time for them to stop producing it for a while, but on the other hand I'd miss even bad Trek... Is bad Trek better than no Trek at all? Am I even making any sense?:)
Drooling fanboys will be happy to read this line from the article, though:
"...insiders suggest Berman and/or Braga might take a reduced role in a fourth season of ENTERPRISE, though this is entirely speculation."
This assumes it's a bomb (as opposed to a change of underwear and some toiletries) but you're right. My thinking was more along the forensic side (gathering fingerprints) being a fairly benign act, as opposed to actually retrieving a package and ascertaining whether or not it is actually dangerous, which seems like the better job for a bot.
Wow! A robotic Axl Foley! (I am surprised to hear that super glue actually works to pick up fingerprints.)
Seriously, though... do we need a robotic fingerprint gatherer? Doesn't it make more sense to use robots in more dangerous assignments, and leave the forensics to human officers?
It's tough to say. My first programming gig was more than a decade ago working on the campus while I was going to school... I made just over minimum wage (which, at the time, was around 4.25/hr.) However, within my first year as a professional developer I was earning well into the 60K/year range. During the dot-com boom, wages went insane--I was no longer a junior programmer by that time, but I hired and managed several. There were guys (and a couple women) on my teams fresh out of college--some hadn't even finished their degrees--that were making in excess of 100K per year. (I should note that I live in Seattle, which is a fairly high-dollar market.)
Things have toned down quite a bit--mostly as a result of the dot-crash and Indian outsourcing. I've been able to hire smart junior developers with a year or two of post-college experience for $20/hr or around 40K a year. And at that rate I am considered to be paying pretty well. Many of them left jobs where they were making as little as 35K a year. I should also mention that many hiring managers (myself included) are trepidatious about hiring people streight out of college with zero real world experience... this may limit the numbers on your first gig.
The middle of the market is pretty low right now as well--it used to be that a solid software engineer with 5-10 years of good experience made 150-200K a year, but that's no longer the case, with these folks settling in the 80K/year range.
The top of the market, however, hasn't been impacted as much. The sky is still the limit for a really good developer. The reason, of course is that smart managers know that one EXCELLENT developer can produce more per week than ten GOOD developers. (yes, really.) It's fairly easy for someone who views crafting a good algorithm in much the same way as a poet turning a phrase--who understands the nuances of data structures and algorithms AS WELL AS how to put that knowledge to work in the real world, and can work effectively on a team as the architect of a midsize-to-large project (say 150-250 thousand lines of code, not that LOC is a good measure) to make a quarter to a half million a year in total compensation. However, for every one of these there is 1000 that will never get to this level.
I suggest taking a real mental inventory of your skills and your drive--if you think you can be one of the best this is still a great industry. Otherwise it's fun and you can earn a good living, but you won't make money hand-over-fist like you did in the late 90's. My experience is that the vast majority of developers in their first 5 years or so of their career vastly over-estimate their abilities. It takes time to hone this particular craft... be patient. One way to accelerate the process is to read everything you can get your hands on, and not just language books. At the very least, pick up the Pragmatic Programmer, and you should also read Writing Solid Code, Rapid Development, Code Complete, and other great books. Reaching the top of the market in terms of salary is about more than writing code--it's about understanding the software development lifecycle, how to run a project, and how to work with people. Also, learning to understand requirements gathering will give you a leg up.
I think it was a major strategic blunder not to do the IPO last time around. I like Google as much as the next guy, but even the most loyal Google supporters have to admit that their search results pages (SERPS) are now filled with spam. Half the pages found with high-profit keywords are total fluff and pages crafted by Search Engine Optimizers to grab as much Google traffic as possible without providing any real content. Google's algorithm, (and its reliance on inbound links) has been reverse engineered to a point where it is no longer valuable for the most coveted (and high-competition) keywords.
So they need to do their IPO as soon as possible, as there's more competition coming down the pike... and Google's place in the universe is far from secure. To draw a gambling analogy, it's time for these guys to cash in their chips. I'm not saying that they are going to go away (or even that they will lose the war) but there will very likely never be another time where their company's name is on the tip of the tongue of every American, and where their company is held in such high regard (which provides a perfect environment for a successful IPO.)
I'm rooting for them, but if their SERPS don't get cleaned up soon I'll be taking a serious look at their competition. I doubt I'm alone.
Earthlink has their own spyware removal sofware, but I'm amazed it doesn't get caught in an infinite loop installing and removing itself, since Earthlink's software includes spyware.
Oooh! Oooh! It's the year that Linux is finally going to take over the desktop... again. Just like 1997 was. And 1998. Oh, and 1999. 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? Sensing a trend?
As Bill Gates himself says, we often over-estimate the impact of a given technology will have in 5 years time, but we tend to UNDER-estimate its impact over 10 years. I think that the Linux on the desktop is similar: it will gain marketshare, but MUCH more slowly than people on/. (or even Linux-friendly journalists) assume.
Let's stop measuring progress in years, and start measuring it in decades-- only then will we see the impact that Free software is having. Revolutions take time.
Oh... and balls through windows? Could you have come up with a weaker punn?:)
OK, fair enough... but we're talking relative value here: if the song itself is worth a dollar then how much is the NAME of the song worth? It just doesn't seem like a good value for my money.
What they need to do is offer 100 songs for $10 or something, or add it as a flat-fee monthly addition to your service. (or, dare I say, a free value-add to distinguish their cell phone service from others!) Obviously, nobody at AT&T has read Seth Godin's Free Prize Inside.
I've done extensive development work in the area of audio watermarking and audio fingerprinting, and I'm amazed that AT&T can make this happen, given the reduced fidelity of a wireless phone connection. Music fingerprinting technology is a smaller (and more approachable) problem domain than open-ended speech recognition, but still this is quite an achievement.
I congratulate them on the technical achievement, but I think that $0.99 (which is the price quoted in the review) is way too high a price for this service-- for that I could actually buy the song on iTunes or Napster. Unless they drop the price, I don't think this service will be terribly successful.
On an interesting note, it is not clear from their TOS whether or not you still have to pay for a song recognition even if the service is unable to accurately provide you with the song title.
Some info about the application
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 2, Informative
OK, I installed it in a closed-lab scenario, and poked, prodded, and port-scanned to get some info. Here are some basics:
CPU time is, indeed, CPU time. It is based on the amount of time the CPU actually spends on the given process ID. I cranked everything for 60 minutes, and the total CPU time was 41 seconds.
It sends traffic on port 25 as expected.
SMTP failure does not seem to have a short-term impact on the calculated CPU time. I ran it for 30 minutes where it was being tricked into thinking the messages were sent, and 30 minutes where it WASN'T being tricked into thinking the messages were sent. The CPU time was about the same for each of those half hour segments. (19 seconds for the first, 23 second for the second.) They don't seem to be checking. These numbers WERE reflected on the web site's management area as well.
based on the above info (i.e. that they are not checking to see if the messages are actually being sent) I have to assume that they don't plan to pay anyone. I can't imagine they would have made that mistake otherwise.
Their backend (which handles the requests) seems to be web services based, and doesn't seem to have any form of authentication in place.
The app is pretty configurable. I've posted some informative screenshots on my blog.
I've read a lot of comments here expressing a fear that broadcasters/advertisers will resort to product placement in leu of traditional advertising oportunity. I for one don't think that product placements (when done in moderation) are all that bad.
For example, I find it much less distracting when a character drinks a Coke than when he/she drinks an obviously generic softdrink.
Bottom line, I think that this kind of advertising can be both effective and fairly harmless to the content if done right. (Not that I have a lot of confidence in the industry's ability to do it right.)
The other thing is that I see a lot of people here saying that they think that getting rid of ad-supported TV would be good-- that they wouldn't mind paying for content. While I agree that profits are not guaranteed by the constitution, I DO think that free (or EXTREMELY inexpensive) television content is something I'd hate to see go. While most programming is CRAP, there's some good stuff to be found, as well as the occasional guilty pleasure. (Terrible shows that we secretly enjoy.) Would you pay for this stuff? Would you REALLY? Or would you find technical workarounds to paying while posting on/. about how the technical workarounds weren't hurting the industry?
I've been telecommuting for the last few years. Last year, I decided to get an office (more practical for me because my consulting practice had grown to include a few employees.) I love it... I still work from home most of the time, but go to the office 2-3 days per week.
The bottom line is this: I don't EVER miss having to go to an office... but I defintely missed having an office to go to.
Creating web apps since the 70s, huh? I'm sure TBL, who invented the web in the late 80's and early 90's (without Al Gore's or your help) will be surprised to hear that.
Go ahead and mod me down for trolling... but saying things like "I've been doing X since 15 years before X existed" is a major pet peeve of mine.
Slashdot Mirror
>Why not just take a look out of the window?
:)
Geek-heretic.
---JRJ
For some reason, my links to Ambient got munged...
Just go to AmbientDevices.com to check out the orb and the dashboard.
I realize that this thing was intended as a "look at me!" publicity stunt, but it is indicative of a trend that I'm really fascinated by: the notion of Internet-enabled "glance-able" technologies. More mainstream examples (if you can call these mainstream) include the Microsoft SPOT technology as implemented in Fossil and Sunto watches, as well as the more elegant implementations by Ambient technologies. (They sell an excellent "dashboard" device that has analog "VU" style meters that respond to various configurable events--web traffic, weather, etc. I want one. That's a hint, ThinkGeek folks. You need to carry these.)
:)
As a user of the SPOT watch, I can say that the argument "Yeah, but I can look that information up in my web browser or on my cell phone" doesn't hold up in the real world: there's a difference between actively looking something up and simply glancing at an object on the wall, or being peripherally aware of a more subtle way of indicating the status of something important to you. (Another great ambient device, the Orb, glows in a different color based on Internet-based information.) Do you pull up a web page to see what time it is? Of course not--you look at a wall clock, or your watch... why not do the same for weather? For stock quotes? For Instant Messages? For traffic information? Heck... your Slashdot karma?
I hope that this kind of technology (in less gaudy form than this hideous chandelier) takes off. I really think it is useful. However, in terms of text messaging or Instant Messages, they are less useful because of the inherent one-way nature of the devices. However, my wife sends IMs to my SPOT watch all the time.
That's great... but if they do anything to enforce it they'll get a nasty "Your Rights online" post about the evils of intellectual property law.
:)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.
--- JRJ
You'll be a lot happier with a bottom of the line projector than anything home-brew... especially if you're talking about a modern DLP projector. Much has been done in the last couple years to improve the quality of projectors-- take advantage of it.
I recommend scouring ebay-- take your time-- for a good deal on a projector manufactured in the last year or two. They retail at about a grand to start, so $300-500 on ebay should be possible.
I agree-- I think that the time between TOS and TNG is ripe for new Trek. Alternatively, just move forward another couple hundred years.
You know, I've always had a fantasy that someday, people will yell my name as Shatner yelled "Khhaaaaannnnnnn!!!!" however, I've yet to piss someone off enough to inspire such beautiful overacting. :)
While the typos and spelling errors in the article were entertaining ("STAR TRKE" and "the future of their first series remains in limo") I'm not sure what to make of this. When they talk "prequel" are they talking about Pre-Enterprise? It seems like any earlier and there wouldn't be much opportunity to explore other species, etc. Can a Star Trek movie without existing characters/actors be successful? I mean Nemesis, which was based on the much-loved TNG crew, made about $53 at the box office. (OK, that might be a slightly low estimate.)
:)
I think a Starfleet Academy movie (mentioned in the article) could be compelling, but I'm losing interest in the whole franchise. I'd like to see another season of Enterprise despite the fact that it's a fairly weak show (in my opinion) but I think that Gene Roddenberry's vision is running out of gas without his input. I have mixed feelings: on one hand, Trek has gotten pretty lame, and it is probably time for them to stop producing it for a while, but on the other hand I'd miss even bad Trek... Is bad Trek better than no Trek at all? Am I even making any sense?
Drooling fanboys will be happy to read this line from the article, though:
"...insiders suggest Berman and/or Braga might take a reduced role in a fourth season of ENTERPRISE, though this is entirely speculation."
--- JRJ
> But if it isn't dangerous you don't need prints.
Point taken.
--- JRJ
This assumes it's a bomb (as opposed to a change of underwear and some toiletries) but you're right. My thinking was more along the forensic side (gathering fingerprints) being a fairly benign act, as opposed to actually retrieving a package and ascertaining whether or not it is actually dangerous, which seems like the better job for a bot.
--- JRJ
Wow! A robotic Axl Foley! (I am surprised to hear that super glue actually works to pick up fingerprints.)
Seriously, though... do we need a robotic fingerprint gatherer? Doesn't it make more sense to use robots in more dangerous assignments, and leave the forensics to human officers?
--- JRJ
It's tough to say. My first programming gig was more than a decade ago working on the campus while I was going to school... I made just over minimum wage (which, at the time, was around 4.25/hr.) However, within my first year as a professional developer I was earning well into the 60K/year range. During the dot-com boom, wages went insane--I was no longer a junior programmer by that time, but I hired and managed several. There were guys (and a couple women) on my teams fresh out of college--some hadn't even finished their degrees--that were making in excess of 100K per year. (I should note that I live in Seattle, which is a fairly high-dollar market.)
Things have toned down quite a bit--mostly as a result of the dot-crash and Indian outsourcing. I've been able to hire smart junior developers with a year or two of post-college experience for $20/hr or around 40K a year. And at that rate I am considered to be paying pretty well. Many of them left jobs where they were making as little as 35K a year. I should also mention that many hiring managers (myself included) are trepidatious about hiring people streight out of college with zero real world experience... this may limit the numbers on your first gig.
The middle of the market is pretty low right now as well--it used to be that a solid software engineer with 5-10 years of good experience made 150-200K a year, but that's no longer the case, with these folks settling in the 80K/year range.
The top of the market, however, hasn't been impacted as much. The sky is still the limit for a really good developer. The reason, of course is that smart managers know that one EXCELLENT developer can produce more per week than ten GOOD developers. (yes, really.) It's fairly easy for someone who views crafting a good algorithm in much the same way as a poet turning a phrase--who understands the nuances of data structures and algorithms AS WELL AS how to put that knowledge to work in the real world, and can work effectively on a team as the architect of a midsize-to-large project (say 150-250 thousand lines of code, not that LOC is a good measure) to make a quarter to a half million a year in total compensation. However, for every one of these there is 1000 that will never get to this level.
I suggest taking a real mental inventory of your skills and your drive--if you think you can be one of the best this is still a great industry. Otherwise it's fun and you can earn a good living, but you won't make money hand-over-fist like you did in the late 90's. My experience is that the vast majority of developers in their first 5 years or so of their career vastly over-estimate their abilities. It takes time to hone this particular craft... be patient. One way to accelerate the process is to read everything you can get your hands on, and not just language books. At the very least, pick up the Pragmatic Programmer, and you should also read Writing Solid Code, Rapid Development, Code Complete, and other great books. Reaching the top of the market in terms of salary is about more than writing code--it's about understanding the software development lifecycle, how to run a project, and how to work with people. Also, learning to understand requirements gathering will give you a leg up.
--- JRJ
Finally, the Internet will be able to compete on a level playing field in terms of bandwidth with carrier pigeons. :)
--- JRJ
I think it was a major strategic blunder not to do the IPO last time around. I like Google as much as the next guy, but even the most loyal Google supporters have to admit that their search results pages (SERPS) are now filled with spam. Half the pages found with high-profit keywords are total fluff and pages crafted by Search Engine Optimizers to grab as much Google traffic as possible without providing any real content. Google's algorithm, (and its reliance on inbound links) has been reverse engineered to a point where it is no longer valuable for the most coveted (and high-competition) keywords.
So they need to do their IPO as soon as possible, as there's more competition coming down the pike... and Google's place in the universe is far from secure. To draw a gambling analogy, it's time for these guys to cash in their chips. I'm not saying that they are going to go away (or even that they will lose the war) but there will very likely never be another time where their company's name is on the tip of the tongue of every American, and where their company is held in such high regard (which provides a perfect environment for a successful IPO.)
I'm rooting for them, but if their SERPS don't get cleaned up soon I'll be taking a serious look at their competition. I doubt I'm alone.
--- JRJ
In related news, a recent study found that the average computer user is an idiot. Film at 11.
That's not fair, of course. For example, try searching for spyware removal software like "Spybot Search and Destroy." Almost all the links you'll find are for imposters that are themselves spyware. Evil.
Earthlink has their own spyware removal sofware, but I'm amazed it doesn't get caught in an infinite loop installing and removing itself, since Earthlink's software includes spyware.
--- JRJ
Of course your concept assumes that Microsoft has actually invented something. (Cheap shot, couldn't resist)
--- JRJ
Oooh! Oooh! It's the year that Linux is finally going to take over the desktop... again. Just like 1997 was. And 1998. Oh, and 1999. 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? Sensing a trend?
/. (or even Linux-friendly journalists) assume.
:)
As Bill Gates himself says, we often over-estimate the impact of a given technology will have in 5 years time, but we tend to UNDER-estimate its impact over 10 years. I think that the Linux on the desktop is similar: it will gain marketshare, but MUCH more slowly than people on
Let's stop measuring progress in years, and start measuring it in decades-- only then will we see the impact that Free software is having. Revolutions take time.
Oh... and balls through windows? Could you have come up with a weaker punn?
--- JRJ
Don't get me started on how audio fingerprinting works. :)
--- JRJ
Not if you don't know the name of it...
OK, fair enough... but we're talking relative value here: if the song itself is worth a dollar then how much is the NAME of the song worth? It just doesn't seem like a good value for my money.
What they need to do is offer 100 songs for $10 or something, or add it as a flat-fee monthly addition to your service. (or, dare I say, a free value-add to distinguish their cell phone service from others!) Obviously, nobody at AT&T has read Seth Godin's Free Prize Inside.
I've done extensive development work in the area of audio watermarking and audio fingerprinting, and I'm amazed that AT&T can make this happen, given the reduced fidelity of a wireless phone connection. Music fingerprinting technology is a smaller (and more approachable) problem domain than open-ended speech recognition, but still this is quite an achievement.
I congratulate them on the technical achievement, but I think that $0.99 (which is the price quoted in the review) is way too high a price for this service-- for that I could actually buy the song on iTunes or Napster. Unless they drop the price, I don't think this service will be terribly successful.
On an interesting note, it is not clear from their TOS whether or not you still have to pay for a song recognition even if the service is unable to accurately provide you with the song title.
Cool idea, but not for a buck.
--- JRJ
OK, so if you had invested your life savings at a dollar, you'd be rich today... so don't make the same mistake again-- the oportunity still exists!
Just short the stock at 20, and cover when it goes back to a buck (or gets delisted)
You KNOW it is coming.
I've read a lot of comments here expressing a fear that broadcasters/advertisers will resort to product placement in leu of traditional advertising oportunity. I for one don't think that product placements (when done in moderation) are all that bad.
/. about how the technical workarounds weren't hurting the industry?
For example, I find it much less distracting when a character drinks a Coke than when he/she drinks an obviously generic softdrink.
Bottom line, I think that this kind of advertising can be both effective and fairly harmless to the content if done right. (Not that I have a lot of confidence in the industry's ability to do it right.)
The other thing is that I see a lot of people here saying that they think that getting rid of ad-supported TV would be good-- that they wouldn't mind paying for content. While I agree that profits are not guaranteed by the constitution, I DO think that free (or EXTREMELY inexpensive) television content is something I'd hate to see go. While most programming is CRAP, there's some good stuff to be found, as well as the occasional guilty pleasure. (Terrible shows that we secretly enjoy.) Would you pay for this stuff? Would you REALLY? Or would you find technical workarounds to paying while posting on
I've been telecommuting for the last few years. Last year, I decided to get an office (more practical for me because my consulting practice had grown to include a few employees.) I love it... I still work from home most of the time, but go to the office 2-3 days per week.
The bottom line is this: I don't EVER miss having to go to an office... but I defintely missed having an office to go to.
http://www.jrj.org/
Creating web apps since the 70s, huh? I'm sure TBL, who invented the web in the late 80's and early 90's (without Al Gore's or your help) will be surprised to hear that.
Go ahead and mod me down for trolling... but saying things like "I've been doing X since 15 years before X existed" is a major pet peeve of mine.
--- JRJ