You need to study up on this issue a bit. The disputed issue isn't a database, by which you presumably mean the published MUNI schedules. The issue is the *arrival prediction information* which NBIS claims is covered by patents. The arrival information is determined based on realtime reported GPS position of the MUNI vehicles. Then, presumably, NBIS applies some algorithm taking into account traffic patterns to predict when the vehicle will reach each of its stops.
The basic issue is that since this is a *publicly funded* project, can NBIS keep the public from using this information in any way they, and San Francisco, desire.
New architecture has to recognize current strength
on
Do We Need a New Internet?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The concern that I have with any so-called 'Clean Slate' approach to reinventing the Internet, is that it would tend to focus on problems perceived in the current Internet (security, mobility, etc.). The danger is that the strengths of the current architecture are likely to be overlooked.
Any new Internet architecture should hold true to the principles articulated in RFCs 1958 and 3439.
A focus on security issues without respecting current Internet architecture strengths is likely to result in something more closely resembling the PSTN or Cable TV networks. Both those networks are highly secure (relative to the Internet) and both are centrally managed. Of course, the downside is that the network manager exerts a large degree of control over what can be done on their network. This naturally has an negative impact on innovation. Innovation can only occur within the limits of what the network owner can currently think of and allow.
Internet architecture (in broad terms) differs from PSTN or Cable networks in using intelligent end-points and a relatively simple network core. PSTN and Cable networks are just the opposite: The 'intelligence' is contained in the network core and end-points are relatively 'dumb'.
I'm all for blue-sky investigation into all possibilities, but lets not rush forward with a focus on current problems without recognition of exactly what has made the current Internet a success.
This illustrates how Microsoft has taken User Interface development down a very bad path.
The original Mac OS UI standardized on a single location to find actions: The Menu Bar. Whatever you had to do, you knew where to look. This was in direct contrast to command line applications where you either had to keep the commands in your head, or look them up in documentation. Now, we have a proliferation of places to look for actions in a graphical interface: Menu Bar, multiple Toolbars, contextual menus, etc. This proliferation of places to look for actions is leading to greater UI confusion, and back to the UI problem of command line applications, as evidenced by the poster who didn't realize there was a way to mark an email as 'read' in the new Hotmail. The graphical interface is supposed to show you what you can do, you're not supposed to have to 'just know'. I find contextual menus particularly egregious, as there is no 'affordance' to indicate to the user that there's anything to look for. Does one just randomly right-click on everything to see if it has a contextual menu associated with it? Bah. UI design at its worst.
Unfortunately, due to the monopoly position of Windows, even the Mac OS has been forced to go down this path of providing toolbars and contextual menus. One mitigating trend I've observed in some (not all) Macintosh software is the use of contextual menus to duplicate operations presented in the menu bar.
UI design needs to return to a single canonical location to find operations (the Menu Bar). If UI designers want to use Toolbars and contextual menus, use them only as shortcuts for operations that are already presented in the Menu Bar.
Yes, in some ways, Mac OS X is better for hacking, including an Open Source kernel. However, Apple has shown a desire for ensuring the quality of the entire user experience, and in some ways this leads to more limited hacking.
I remain hopeful that the Unix roots, Darwin, and the inclusion of numerous Open Source projects (Apache, Perl, etc) as a standard part of Mac OS, will eventually win over the IT crowd.
Windows remains a constant frustration. For one, the Windows Registry is probably the worst aspect of the whole system. If the Registry simply worked as a cache, it would be ok, but all to often it is the single repository for some information. If that information becomes outdated, corrupt, or out of sync with other aspects of the system, you're seriously screwed.
While I may be comfortable mucking around in the Windows Registry, I'm not about to try to talk my parents through this over the phone, and I'm certainly not about to tell managment types to muck with the registry.
This is just one such example of the horrible design of the Windows system. The Windows Kernel may have great capabilities, but as a complete system, it's really, really bad.
There's a big reason why the 55+ crowd would be attracted to a Mac: It Just Works. These people don't have the desire to fight with a computer to get something done. The Mac is the system you choose when you want to get real work done. A Windows PC is a machine you pick if you're a hobbyist and want to muck around with the system, or if you're in an IT department and want the job security that comes from managing a system that people who have to get real work done don't have the time to deal with.
This product is a UWB Wireless USB Hub, but I don't see any indication on the web site that this product complies with Certified Wireless USB.
There has been a long running battle between two opposing UWB groups that each have incompatible UWB implementations. If you're going to get any Wireless USB products, make sure to look for the product's compliance to "Certified Wireless USB". More information at Certified Wireless USB. Certified Wireless USB is built on top of the WiMedia UWB standard. The WiMedia UWB platform is an ECMA standard, and certification by other standards bodies has been in the works.
Disclaimer: Until this past April, I worked for one of the Certified Wireless USB developers & promoters, and I was deeply involved in this standardization effort.
Apple needs to be more than "the Cult of Steve". Having Phil Schiller and other members of the management team participate in keynotes is a good step in Apple's maturity. For years after the return of Steve Jobs' return to Apple, it really did need a strong charismatic leader. As the company and its products mature, it is necessary for the public (including investors and analysts) to see that there is more to the company than just one individual. IMO, Mr. Jobs is very smart to get his management team out in front of the public now. I'm just thankful that Apple doesn't have anyone on their management team like Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer. I would feel far more comfortable in the Apple managment team leadership in Steve Jobs' absence than I do with MS.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to study up on this issue a bit. The disputed issue isn't a database, by which you presumably mean the published MUNI schedules. The issue is the *arrival prediction information* which NBIS claims is covered by patents. The arrival information is determined based on realtime reported GPS position of the MUNI vehicles. Then, presumably, NBIS applies some algorithm taking into account traffic patterns to predict when the vehicle will reach each of its stops.
The basic issue is that since this is a *publicly funded* project, can NBIS keep the public from using this information in any way they, and San Francisco, desire.
The concern that I have with any so-called 'Clean Slate' approach to reinventing the Internet, is that it would tend to focus on problems perceived in the current Internet (security, mobility, etc.). The danger is that the strengths of the current architecture are likely to be overlooked.
Any new Internet architecture should hold true to the principles articulated in RFCs 1958 and 3439.
A focus on security issues without respecting current Internet architecture strengths is likely to result in something more closely resembling the PSTN or Cable TV networks. Both those networks are highly secure (relative to the Internet) and both are centrally managed. Of course, the downside is that the network manager exerts a large degree of control over what can be done on their network. This naturally has an negative impact on innovation. Innovation can only occur within the limits of what the network owner can currently think of and allow.
Internet architecture (in broad terms) differs from PSTN or Cable networks in using intelligent end-points and a relatively simple network core. PSTN and Cable networks are just the opposite: The 'intelligence' is contained in the network core and end-points are relatively 'dumb'.
I'm all for blue-sky investigation into all possibilities, but lets not rush forward with a focus on current problems without recognition of exactly what has made the current Internet a success.
The original Mac OS UI standardized on a single location to find actions: The Menu Bar. Whatever you had to do, you knew where to look. This was in direct contrast to command line applications where you either had to keep the commands in your head, or look them up in documentation. Now, we have a proliferation of places to look for actions in a graphical interface: Menu Bar, multiple Toolbars, contextual menus, etc. This proliferation of places to look for actions is leading to greater UI confusion, and back to the UI problem of command line applications, as evidenced by the poster who didn't realize there was a way to mark an email as 'read' in the new Hotmail. The graphical interface is supposed to show you what you can do, you're not supposed to have to 'just know'. I find contextual menus particularly egregious, as there is no 'affordance' to indicate to the user that there's anything to look for. Does one just randomly right-click on everything to see if it has a contextual menu associated with it? Bah. UI design at its worst.
Unfortunately, due to the monopoly position of Windows, even the Mac OS has been forced to go down this path of providing toolbars and contextual menus. One mitigating trend I've observed in some (not all) Macintosh software is the use of contextual menus to duplicate operations presented in the menu bar.
UI design needs to return to a single canonical location to find operations (the Menu Bar). If UI designers want to use Toolbars and contextual menus, use them only as shortcuts for operations that are already presented in the Menu Bar.
Yes, in some ways, Mac OS X is better for hacking, including an Open Source kernel. However, Apple has shown a desire for ensuring the quality of the entire user experience, and in some ways this leads to more limited hacking. I remain hopeful that the Unix roots, Darwin, and the inclusion of numerous Open Source projects (Apache, Perl, etc) as a standard part of Mac OS, will eventually win over the IT crowd. Windows remains a constant frustration. For one, the Windows Registry is probably the worst aspect of the whole system. If the Registry simply worked as a cache, it would be ok, but all to often it is the single repository for some information. If that information becomes outdated, corrupt, or out of sync with other aspects of the system, you're seriously screwed. While I may be comfortable mucking around in the Windows Registry, I'm not about to try to talk my parents through this over the phone, and I'm certainly not about to tell managment types to muck with the registry. This is just one such example of the horrible design of the Windows system. The Windows Kernel may have great capabilities, but as a complete system, it's really, really bad.
There's a big reason why the 55+ crowd would be attracted to a Mac: It Just Works. These people don't have the desire to fight with a computer to get something done. The Mac is the system you choose when you want to get real work done. A Windows PC is a machine you pick if you're a hobbyist and want to muck around with the system, or if you're in an IT department and want the job security that comes from managing a system that people who have to get real work done don't have the time to deal with.
This product is a UWB Wireless USB Hub, but I don't see any indication on the web site that this product complies with Certified Wireless USB.
There has been a long running battle between two opposing UWB groups that each have incompatible UWB implementations. If you're going to get any Wireless USB products, make sure to look for the product's compliance to "Certified Wireless USB". More information at Certified Wireless USB. Certified Wireless USB is built on top of the WiMedia UWB standard. The WiMedia UWB platform is an ECMA standard, and certification by other standards bodies has been in the works.
Disclaimer: Until this past April, I worked for one of the Certified Wireless USB developers & promoters, and I was deeply involved in this standardization effort.
The article said 'n' was just around the corner. It didn't say how far away that corner is.
Apple needs to be more than "the Cult of Steve". Having Phil Schiller and other members of the management team participate in keynotes is a good step in Apple's maturity. For years after the return of Steve Jobs' return to Apple, it really did need a strong charismatic leader. As the company and its products mature, it is necessary for the public (including investors and analysts) to see that there is more to the company than just one individual. IMO, Mr. Jobs is very smart to get his management team out in front of the public now.
I'm just thankful that Apple doesn't have anyone on their management team like Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer. I would feel far more comfortable in the Apple managment team leadership in Steve Jobs' absence than I do with MS.