Hilary Clinton, Apple and 1984

How are they all linked (via The browser)?:

Its a classic. Couldn’t resist posting it.

They comment:

On the Web, the rules are much murkier. The standards set last yearfor Internet campaigning and advertising are largely untested. And they’re also largely irrelevant: the Hillary 1984 video has already been viewed some 400,000 times on YouTube, without anyone being able to say definitively who posted it. Even if we one day learn the person’s identity, whatever damage (or help!) the video might be able to achieve will have been done. With that kind of viral power, you can be assured we’ll be seeing a lot more “anonymous” videos like this one.

This kind of power really warps the political dynamic in a way that hasn’t really been tested before. The ability for videos like this to go viral and keep their makers anonymous gives the political operative another weapon to add to his arsenal.  With technology being used extensively in the run up to the 2008 elections, its going to be very interesting to gauge its impact on the voters.

Super Large Screens

  • I’ve seen not one, but two posts today about multi-monitor/super large screens.

The first is from Scott Hanselman on multimonitor setups:

While I was at the Eleutian offices last week I was impressed at their commitment to the multi-monitor lifestyle. I’m all about the Third Monitor (in case you haven’t heard, it’s one better than just two monitors) as areothers. If you value your time, you should think about getting the widest view possible.

The Dell 30-inch is amazing…they each had a Dell 30″ widescreen at 2560×1600 pixels, but they also had what appeared to be two 22″ widescreen’s also, rotated and butted up against the 30″ so their horizontal working space was 1050+2560+1050=4660 pixels wide. Glorious. I turned them on to (I hope) RealtimeSoft’s must-have Ultramon multimonitor tool. They were running x64, and Ultramon has a 64-bit version, so that was cool.

And Simon Brocklehurst points to this cool video of  the most advanced multi-touch, super large monitor setup I have ever seen:

The point is – we’ve been used to the desktop metaphor for user interfaces for a long time now, but still the “desktops” on our computers are incredibly small compared to our real, physical desktops. If someone gave you a desk in your work place that was 24 inches across, you wouldn’t be able to get much work done on it. And yet, a 24 inch LCD screen is seen as an extravagant luxury by many. Lots of companies give their employees 15 inch “computer desktops” to work on.

You can see his point. I have a 19″ myself that suites me most of the time. But somtimes its just so small.

I’m wondering, considering Simon’s point why there is still a stigma attached to multi-monitor setups in the work place? Cost can be out-weighed many times by the productivity benefits and its actually an incentive for businesses to do that. Space is a concern, but the setup Scott saw dosen’t take up thatmuch space. So I’m wondering why. Perhaps is slightly too hard for the bosses to believe that having an extra monitor or to check your emails or have a reference to what you’re working on in front of you is beneficial. It seems like a large outlay for little perceived return. Ha! Question answered.  Its a crisis of perception.  

As my PC is at home, I’m wondering whether the outlay for a new moitor is justified (given that productivity is not an issue) ?

Net Neutrality

Just read this post on Doc Searls about this.

Basically, the net should be a base service along with telephony and cable ( or, given the rise of VOIP and You Tube, as a service on which telephony and TV/cable runs) .

But that is not always the case simply becuase the wide variety of different companies who own different line networks each  work to keep the others off thier network. Confused? I sympathise. Thst may be the case in the US. Here in the Uk, the issue is slightly simpler, though no less touchy.

Till about 15 years ago, the whole telephone network was nationalised under British Telecommunications ( most other services such as gas and electricity were also nationalised). So today all the physical network  cables are owned by BT. But there is a huge number of companies that offer phone and broadband services. They do this by “buying” x thousand lines from BT every month that they ,in turn, sell to their customers. However, to get things done (i.e. installing an extra phone line or  a braodband line) thoise companies still have to work though BT. So even though the lines are guarenteed to thes carriers by law, BT discourages people from switching by dragging its feet when it comes to sending engineers out.

I know this becuase we just moved house two months ago. BT told us it would take them 3 days max to have our broadband line connected if we went with them. We went with another carrier and it took 6 weeks . In fact the reason why I had no broadband for 6 months was becuase BT dragged its feel replacing the Broadband line.

So, although the little guy might not see this as much of a big deal, business cannot rely on such service and are forced to go with BT in order to guarentee a phone and broadband line.

Doc Searls:

First, the Net is a vast set of connections on which countless services can be deployed. Telephony and television are just two. Because telephone and cable companies offer Internet connections as a secondary “service” on top of their primary businesses, we tend to think of the Net in the same terms. This is a mistake. The Internet will in the long run become a base-level utility, and we will come to regard telephony and television as two among many categories of data supported by that utility.

Second, the end-to-end nature of the Net puts everybody on it in a position to both produce and consume. It is not just about consumption. It is at least as much about production. In the U.S., telephone and cable companies have deployed Net services in asymmetrical and crippled forms from the beginning. While this crippling is easily rationalized (typical usage is asymmetrical, and turning off outbound mail and web service ports discourages spamming), it also serves to discourage countless small and home businesses. Worse, “business-grade service” (symmetrical with no port blockages) is so expensive in most cases that it is essentially prohibited.

Third, most customers in the U.S. face a choice of one or two Internet carriers: their local phone and cable companies. Other providers can only sell services that run on those carriers. (Since the Brand X decision in 2005, phone and cable companies can keep any of these other providers off their lines if they want to.) In many areas (such as mine), only one company provides “high speed” Net access. There is no choice, and there is no competition.

Yet another “The Network is the Computer” post

Johnathan Schwatrz, CEO of Sun Microsystems, just posted something interesting and something I’ve never thought about.

Nowdays, server-side hardware is tending to focus on unilisation rather than sheer clock speed. I guess the point is to make more use of each single clock pulse. if you have 8 cores with 32 threads executing 32 instructions per clock pulse, it beats the hell out of a single core with a single thread exectuting one instruction per clock pulse. This is known as server virtualization . Essentially because you can assign a different OS ( never mind application) to each core, effectivly getting 8 servers ( in the case of the Niagra chip) for the price one one physical server. Not that you’d find 8 server OS’s, which is beside the point. But all this fancy stuff is usually dedicated to servers ( Intel Core Duos and Quads to the contrary). And servers need to be networked. And you only have one physical network to use. Or do you:

That’s why we just introduced Project Neptune – a silicon project that marries the parallelism of the microprocessor (for Intel, AMD and SPARC systems), with the parallelism of the underlying operating system (Solaris, Linux or Windows), with parallelism in the network itself. Which in concert with some software magic (which goes by the name of the Crossbow project) allows enterprises to collapse cabling, ports, cards and spending – by bringing parallelism to basic network infrastructure (for geeks, you can take multiple TCP streams and allocate them to different processor threads, spreading out load and freeing up CPU’s/ports). Ports become a physical convenience, just like a server – what’s happening inside depends upon rules or policies set by the user/administrator to automate such decisions. Like I said, the network is the computer, and the computer’s virtualized, so why not the network?

Its simply too obvious to notice till its pointed out. For each physical port attached to your machine, you can have one physical connection. Here Sun engineers have turned that inside out, giving network engineers more bang for their buck ( or is that more connections for their ports?).

It really is an elegant solution.

Vista Licenceing and Web 2.0

I was scrolling though my feeds and came across this post over at the One Man Shouting blog.

MSFN is reporting that all Vista Editions will be included on the same DVD, but that the discs will be color coded to indicate which version the consumer purchased.  The good news is that consumers will be able to upgrade to a higher version of Vista if they decide they need more features.

I’m thinking. Perhaps Microsoft should go one better (or worse, you decide) and bill users according to the features not in their current license that they use. So, if I don’t usually use, say Media Centre, but suddenly need to use it one night when my friends come over, Microsoft could just bill my PayPal account for that time. So I would choose the features I want year round access to and anything extra gets billed ( at a higher rate, obviously, to encorage people to buy an Ultimate license). Sun Microsystems do something similar to this, I belive ( Salesforce.com?).

But then again, perhaps bothering people for their Paypal account details everytime they open Media Centre or send a fax mught just bring out the extremist side in Microsoft customers 😉 .

 Why I’m posting about a lame idea, I don’t know. Perhaps its just the novelty of it. Web 2.0 and the fact that most people are connected tot he internet 24/7 are the reasons why these kinds of things possible.  The idea is, in essence what Sun CEO Johnathan Schwartz calls “The Network is the Computer”, the idea that the exististance of a network beyond out immidiate hardrive  increases the amount of things that we can do.

So, although Web 2.0 is a concept, its a powerful concept. We use new tools and technologies to turn what uised to be a static web into an extension of an application. in other words, we can use web pages and services as if they we local applications running from a local hard drive.  

I think I’m going to spring for Vista Ultimate myself (Media Player definately included :) )

Like.com

Thanks to Scoble, I’m clued into the latest, geekest development onthe web. google introduced the much refineed version of searching that is synonomous wiht, well, search. Google’s oversight was that it searched text  (ie. filenames, titles, etc). Even the image search.

Like.com, however, searches the image itself for other similar items. For an alpha release its increbibly sophisticated, allowing you to fine tune the search according to color, shape and pattern You can choose the color you want. You can also toggle how important each charecteristic of the item is for your search.

This will do wonders for my bank balance. And the simple reason is: it works. While tags do go a certain way to describing an item, article ir webpage, the visual aspect is far more powerful. They say a picture is worth a thousand words – this proves it.

The facinating part of all this is that back end. Exactly what software its running on i’m not sure. but the hardware is impressive enough. 250 servers with 4 processors each and 20 gigs of RAM.  While the number of categories you can search may seem rather samll compared to the hardware arrayed for the task, using like.com and seeing its sophistication makes you see why.  

I’d love to see the code for this ;). Something tells me thats not gonna happen.

The idea is simple, buy mudersly complex in exectution. I’m not into image manipulation this far in my course, but getting the computer to think is a big enough job.

I hope the set of seaches expands in the near future. They are tweaking and testing and trying to wring every extra processor cycle out of the program. I know the drill.

 I just hope that a web service comes out of this. I already have an idea. Combine like.com with google maps ( or Windows Live Local) to show the nearest store you can buy the item from. That would be cool.

Anyway Scoble has a few titbits:

Some stories about Like.com.

1) The URL cost him $100,000. In the interview he explains how they bought it. It involved finding the guy who owned it, jumping a fence, and leaving a bottle of wine with a note on it (he wouldn’t answer his email).
2) Riya was pretty close to being sold to Google. If it had been, they never would have worked on this search engine. So, by getting turned down by Google Riya came back with a much better business.
3) Just the jewelry set takes 20GB of RAM.
4) Munjal still believes in blogs, but for this launch Riya talked with fashion bloggers, and journalists outside the tech world like at People magazine. Why? Well, this site — in its current incarnation — will be most interesting to women and non-geeks. If you’ve looked at who participates here, it’s heavily male.
5) Why not keep working on face detection? Because they learned through user testing that they’d never be able to make it good enough. They found that by focusing on visual image searches they can get a much more satisfied user base.

More  here and here.

CSK

I’ve been working with the Commerce Starter kit for the past few weeks, mainly getting used to themes and getting the pages to look just the way I want. No code changes actually done, but a few planned. At least till I checked the CSK website and they have a afew major changes to the kit. With particular thanks to Spooky for bringing us all up to date on all this. I wait on tender hooks for RC1 to be released.

Couldn’t Resist

This will probably be my last post for a while as I leave tommorrow morning and way goes my broadband. I’m sure I’ll win my row with BT…

Just to point out this that I completely agree with. Simon makes a lot of very valid points – I never read the licence agreements anyway ( Unless they’re short andf sweet).

Doc Searls has an interesting post on Net Neutrality here. Perhaps I should point this out to BT? I’ll need to digest it a bnit more, though.

Back Online

My broadband is still out, though I’ve got s dail up account that is sooooo slow. I’m currently on holiday in Perth for the weekend and am using their rather expensive broadband/wifi. Still fighting with the phone company over whatever was done to the line.

It’ll take me a month to get back up to speed. Scobe has certainly been busy and I’lltake my cue from him meanwhile.

I have a deluge of email to sort through as well as a pile of books…

Just to let you that I’m stil alive and well.