Archives
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- June 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- June 2002
- January 2002
- January 2001
- May 2000
- April 2000
Categories
Meta
Monthly Archives: June 2007
Watch Google in the Communications Market
Google is pursuing a very powerful strategy. One way of looking at it, odd though it seems, is to consider the original browser wars between Netscape and Microsoft. Netscape had the opportunity to undermine Microsoft, but it did exactly the wrong thing. It took the battle to the PC, delivering browser functionality on the PC that Microsoft could match quite easily. The simple bundling of IE with Windows destroyed Netscape’s challenge in very little time.
Netscape should have chosen to fight on the server.
As it happened, the company that won the browser wars was Yahoo. It provided much of the server functionality that Netscape should have been focused on. Unfortunately, for Yahoo, it never saw Google coming. Google came right out of left field. It established its search engine business in a crowded market when it should have been all but impossible. Its killer capability was to provide a well designed interface. (Damn it, its interface is still streets ahead of the competition.) Then it rose to challenge Yahoo, and AOL, and Microsoft, and it gaily marched past them all.
This week Google announced a chat (instant messaging) capability that also happens to be a VoIP capability. You can only sign up if you are also a Gmail (Google email) user – but now it has opened Gmail up to all comers to make the adoption process easy.
This is what I think is going on: Google is going to deliver unified messaging as a service. Right now it’s not sophisticated, but right now nobody else is doing that, so it doesn’t matter too much. Google’s chat capability is inferior to those of Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo and its VoIP is inferior to Skype. Never mind, it won’t remain so for long. And as for VoIP, I had been wondering who would be able to challenge Skype and now we have the answer: Google.
How Google will evolve its service is not so easy to predict, but it will – it will bring VoIP, chat and email together by virtue of a single directory. If Google gets it right quickly then it will gradually attract both consumers and small businesses. (Why not have Google look after all of your messaging for free?).
Of course, this is not Google’s only initiative – it is competing furiously to maintain its grip on the search market – but this is the initiative that will give Microsoft pause for thought. Maybe Microsoft will buy Skype? (No, I’m just kidding).
Posted in IT Trends
Tagged AOL;, Google, instant messaging;, Microsoft, search engine, search market;, Skype, Vendor, VOIP;, Yahoo
Leave a comment
Eponymous Laws (Relating to IT)
I started this by looking for the correct statement of Hofstadter’s Law which, it turns out to be, is: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law. I found the quote on a page of eponymous laws – so I decided to browse for eponymous laws for a few hours to find ones I’d never come across. Not scientific laws of course, I had enough of those at school. I was looking for “laws” like Murphy’s Law (if it can go wrong it will go wrong) which are eponymous. Here’s a selection of what I unearthed:
Relating to Computers:
Wirth’s law—Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
Godwin’s Law—As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Brooks’ Law—Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
…Salt’s Observation—Adding manpower makes it ten times more expensive, too.
Smerek’s Law—Describing a video game to non-players makes you sound like an idiot.
Ralph’s observation—It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you are in a hurry. This is especially true of computers
Philosophical
Hartman’s Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation—Any statement about correct grammar, punctuation, or spelling is bound to contain at least one eror.
Ko?akowski’s Law (the Law of the Infinite Cornucopia)—For any given doctrine that one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which to support it.
Okrent’s Law (the law of media news)—The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.
Imbesi’s Law of the Conservation of Filth—In order for something to become clean, something else must become dirty.
Observations
I got all of the following from this site, http://www.topology.org/philo/sayings.html which is littered with similar stuff.
Stefan’s Observation—The fish must swim three times: once in the sea, once in the skillet, and once in the stomach.
Slashdot Observation—(Anon) Wars are God’s way of teaching Americans geography.
eMail Observation—(Anon) Before you judge someone harshly walk a mile in his shoes. Then if he objects, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes.
Forks and Razors???
Of course it isn’t all laws and observations. Much greater kudos has to attach to someone that has a fork or a razor named after them. I came across Morton’s Fork which is named after John Morton, tax collector for King Henry VII of England. This concerns taxation and states that: A person who lives in luxury and has clearly spent a lot of money must obviously have sufficient income to pay as tax. Alternatively, a person who lives frugally and shows no sign of being wealthy must have substantial savings and can therefore afford to pay it as tax.
That was the only fork I could find and there are not many razors either. Just about everyone knows Occam’s razor but I didn’t know what a razor was, so I looked up its definition. Apparently it’s something you shave yourself with and nothing else. I could only find one other razor. Here it is:
Hanlon’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Can it be that there are only two razors? I couldn’t find a third.
Incidentally, Occam’s name wasn’t Occam at all, but Ockham.
This fact allows me to finish with Stigler’s Law of Eponymy which states that: No law, not even Stigler’s Law, is named after its original discoverer.
We’re done here.
The Decline in Ghost Sightings: What's Behind It?
Believe it or not, I was searching for the origin of a quotation on the web and instead of typing the search terms into the Google search box, I typed them by accident into the place where I’m supposed to type URLs. To my great surprise I found myself in the middle of a chat forum (a bit Alice In Wonderland don’t you think?) where I encountered the following SMS postings (I confess to not understanding some of the abbreviations in use here.):
kitty843
10.28.2004, 02:24 PM
u know what is rele creepy, somebody i have never met just im’ed me on aim and told me to send a stupid chain thing to 10 people in 5 mins and the love of my life will kiss me on friday… :* i get kissed by her already, so it dosent matter.
lol, I hate that one. I get that chain all the time.
:* :* :* :wub:
This was followed by
kitty843
10.28.2004, 02:30 PM
rele? :* :*
Yeah, I get that chain like once or twice every two weeks. Also, I got this one about a ghost killing you if you don’t send the IM to 20 people in 5 minutes. That one freaked me out. CL knows why :unsure:…. ghhhoooossstttsss….. *shudders* .. they do exist…
Well, they may or may not exist, but the consensus of opinion has it that they are not murderers even if they were murderees in the past. I found several web sites that claim with great certainty that there is no evidence of a ghost ever killing anyone. Given that ghosts have are pretty limited in what they do (appear, make noise, and, at a stretch, move objects about) carrying out a murder may be beyond their powers.
However there are a number of reports out there of people being frightened to death by ghosts. Try Edinburghcapitalguide.com to learn the sad tale of an Edinburgh student, Andrew Muir, suffering such a fate or www.edu.pe.ca/birchwood/folktales/micha2a.htm for a sketchy account of a boy being frightened to death in Alberta, Canada or try jon-aristides.net/anybody.shtml for the tale of the lawyer, John Turdlington, who was reportedly frightened to death in his house in the small English village of Bedhampton.Finding examples of people “frightened to death” on the web is made a little difficult by the fact that the phrase “frightened to death” is used metaphorically most of the time, because fright doesn’t kill. People found dead of heart failure in supposedly haunted houses may have simply had heart failure provoked by cholesterol rather than fright. Of course fright may be the trigger, but heart failure is the cause of death.
While my search for murderous ghosts proved fruitless, I did turn up something odd. According to www.cronaca.com/archives/001460.html, mobile phones are killing off ghosts. A story on this site maintains that a British expert, Tony Cornell, of the Society for Psychical Research, told the Sunday Express newspaper that reports of ghost sightings started to decline when mobile phones were introduced in the late eighties/early nineties.
This is one of the most bizarrely random correlations (presented in all seriousness) that I’ve ever come across. I’m sure other experts might be inclined to assign other causes. Perhaps it was due to the introduction of cable TV or the fall of the Berlin Wall. To be honest, I blame Microsoft and Windows for this sad decline. (The blue screen of death actually exorcises ghosts.)
Posted in R&R
Tagged Cable TV;, Canada;, Entertainment, Google, heart failure;, Humor, Microsoft, mobile phones, Search, SMS;, Society for Psychical Research;, Surfing Safari, the Society;, the Sunday Express;, Vendor
Leave a comment
Pets Have Ghosts Too, Don't They?
You’ve gotta be kidding me. Pets have ghosts too?
Unfortunately, Google suggests as much with the volume of hits. If you Google “Pets ghosts” you get 1,570,000 of them. That’s a big number even if you allow for the fact that many of these hits refer to pets being able to sense ghosts.
To summarise:
- Cats have got them nailed
- Dogs can sniff them out
- Goldfish are pretty useless
According to one site, which may be accurate but never named its source, there are half as many sightings of ghost animals as there are of ghost people.The anecdotal stories abound. A phantom bull terrier called Essex haunts the passage leading to the bar in the Star Inn at Ingatestone. This ghost dog is, so they say, visible only to other dogs. In Witchita, Kansas, a Mrs Cady was awakened by the barking of her dead dog, discovered a thief in her kitchen and drove him off. In a similar incident, a Mrs Kresgal, of New York, was awakened by the barking of her dead collie dog to discover that the house was on fire.
Does anything strike you as odd about this collection of ghostly pet anecdotes?
The skeptic in me is a little unhappy with the emphasis here—compared to the ghosts of human beings. If one believes the common rationale for ghosts, you get to be a ghost (or get to form a ghost?) if you are horribly murdered—beheaded, ripped to pieces by wild animals, hung drawn and quartered or whatever. Most of us happily pass into oblivion (or the next world) without too much fuss, but tortured souls hang around to scare the living bejesus out of the occasional passer-by.
Pets are different. Horribly murdered pets meander off to pet heaven anyway, but supremely loyal pets—especially those of the rich and famous, hang around to continue to charm us all, or save our lives if necessary. (I couldn’t find a single reference on the web to a headless pet ghost, by the way).
So are all pet ghosts benevolent? Not if you believe Dr. Terje Lund, head of the International Council for Paranormal Activities. The good Dr says that there are six signs that you have a pet ghost:
- Unexplained puddles on the floor.
- Objects that have been moved.
- Unexplained indentations on sofas or chairs.
- Odd noises.
- Strange smells.
- Missing food.
According to the expert Dr. (for he has had a team collect data and study the phenomenon) pet ghosts return to strict households they occupied in order to do the things that were forbidden to them in their lives. How quaint. Personally, I think that someone should Fedex the good Dr. some marbles—to replace the ones he’s clearly lost
Posted in A Day In The Life
Tagged Cady;, Fedex;, Google, International Council for Paranormal Activities;, Kansas;, Terje Lund;, the Star;, Vendor, Witchita;
Leave a comment