March 26, 2008 (Computerworld) A lot has changed in the 20 years since the first laptop computers appeared, including gigahertz processors, color screens, optical drives and wireless data. However, one thing that has stubbornly stayed the same is the conventional clamshell format with its hinged display lid that opens to reveal a mechanical keyboard.
That's about to change. The rules of notebook design and the components that go inside are being rewritten to make the road a better place to work and play.
"Between now and 2015, we expect to see a series of big changes that will redefine what a notebook is and what it looks like," said Mike Trainor, Intel Corp.'s evangelist for mobile products.
With crystal ball in hand, we talked to designers, engineers and marketers about how notebooks are likely to change over the next seven years. Here's what they told us.
Concepts for the future
First, let's take a look at some concept notebooks. Just as futuristic show cars give us insight into what we might be driving in the future, concept notebooks offer a sneak peek at how we'll be computing.
These concept notebooks typically are created by independent designers and firms retained by laptop vendors. This is highly secretive business -- the designers we spoke were willing to talk about some of their concepts but couldn't tell us who they were working for.
Rarely does a concept notebook make it to the real world as a whole unit, but certain aspects often make it into production. Early 1990s concept devices contained integrated pointing devices, speakers and webcams, all of which are now standard equipment. It's likely that at least some of the new ideas, components and features showcased below will be coming to a notebook near you.
For example, several concept laptops rely on touch-sensitive screens that act as the system's keyboard and mouse and go beyond today's multi-touch technology. Imagine being able to slide your finger across the screen to immediately shut off the display and keep what you're working on confidential, and you get an idea of its potential.
Compenion
The Compenion concept notebook from independent designer Felix Schmidberger in Stuttgart, Germany, borrows heavily from slider cell phones to move beyond the clamshell. Rather than lifting the lid open, just slide it up.
The Compenion. Click for larger view.
The pair of superbright organic LED panels slide into place next to each other, with the lower panel acting as keyboard or scribble pad. The whole thing is only three-quarters of an inch thick.
"It reduces thickness, but the slider was more about the feel of using the notebook," said Schmidberger. "The idea is to break free from traditional notebook hardware without having to adapt to new ways of using a computer."
Together, the 11-in. screens will yield about 16 inches of usable workspace, so the system has the dimensions and weight of a thin and light system but the screen of a larger one.
Canova
Dual-screen systems could well be the rage in seven years. The Canova from V12 Design, a Milan, Italy-based design firm, is closer to the tried and true clamshell layout, but with a twist.
Instead of a display and a mechanical keyboard, the device has two touch-sensitive displays: The upper screen is primarily for viewing applications, and the lower screen is for the mundane activities of typing, drawing and jotting notes. But the Canova can also lie flat for a large expanse of working space.
The Canova as standard notebook and e-book. Click for larger views.
According to designer Valero Cometti, "the idea was to close the gap between man and machine." This notebook changes personality depending on how it's held. Opened all the way, it's a sketch pad. Fold it half open and rotate it 90 degrees, and it's an e-book. By emulating a musical keyboard on the lower half, when it's flat on a table, it can be a go-anywhere piano.
taken from :
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9070158
Jumat, 11 April 2008
Hello, gorgeous! Meet the laptop you'll use in 2015
March 26, 2008 (Computerworld) A lot has changed in the 20 years since the first laptop computers appeared, including gigahertz processors, color screens, optical drives and wireless data. However, one thing that has stubbornly stayed the same is the conventional clamshell format with its hinged display lid that opens to reveal a mechanical keyboard.
That's about to change. The rules of notebook design and the components that go inside are being rewritten to make the road a better place to work and play.
"Between now and 2015, we expect to see a series of big changes that will redefine what a notebook is and what it looks like," said Mike Trainor, Intel Corp.'s evangelist for mobile products.
With crystal ball in hand, we talked to designers, engineers and marketers about how notebooks are likely to change over the next seven years. Here's what they told us.
Concepts for the future
First, let's take a look at some concept notebooks. Just as futuristic show cars give us insight into what we might be driving in the future, concept notebooks offer a sneak peek at how we'll be computing.
These concept notebooks typically are created by independent designers and firms retained by laptop vendors. This is highly secretive business -- the designers we spoke were willing to talk about some of their concepts but couldn't tell us who they were working for.
Rarely does a concept notebook make it to the real world as a whole unit, but certain aspects often make it into production. Early 1990s concept devices contained integrated pointing devices, speakers and webcams, all of which are now standard equipment. It's likely that at least some of the new ideas, components and features showcased below will be coming to a notebook near you.
For example, several concept laptops rely on touch-sensitive screens that act as the system's keyboard and mouse and go beyond today's multi-touch technology. Imagine being able to slide your finger across the screen to immediately shut off the display and keep what you're working on confidential, and you get an idea of its potential.
Compenion
The Compenion concept notebook from independent designer Felix Schmidberger in Stuttgart, Germany, borrows heavily from slider cell phones to move beyond the clamshell. Rather than lifting the lid open, just slide it up.
The Compenion. Click for larger view.
The pair of superbright organic LED panels slide into place next to each other, with the lower panel acting as keyboard or scribble pad. The whole thing is only three-quarters of an inch thick.
"It reduces thickness, but the slider was more about the feel of using the notebook," said Schmidberger. "The idea is to break free from traditional notebook hardware without having to adapt to new ways of using a computer."
Together, the 11-in. screens will yield about 16 inches of usable workspace, so the system has the dimensions and weight of a thin and light system but the screen of a larger one.
Canova
Dual-screen systems could well be the rage in seven years. The Canova from V12 Design, a Milan, Italy-based design firm, is closer to the tried and true clamshell layout, but with a twist.
Instead of a display and a mechanical keyboard, the device has two touch-sensitive displays: The upper screen is primarily for viewing applications, and the lower screen is for the mundane activities of typing, drawing and jotting notes. But the Canova can also lie flat for a large expanse of working space.
The Canova as standard notebook and e-book. Click for larger views.
According to designer Valero Cometti, "the idea was to close the gap between man and machine." This notebook changes personality depending on how it's held. Opened all the way, it's a sketch pad. Fold it half open and rotate it 90 degrees, and it's an e-book. By emulating a musical keyboard on the lower half, when it's flat on a table, it can be a go-anywhere piano.
taken from :
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9070158
That's about to change. The rules of notebook design and the components that go inside are being rewritten to make the road a better place to work and play.
"Between now and 2015, we expect to see a series of big changes that will redefine what a notebook is and what it looks like," said Mike Trainor, Intel Corp.'s evangelist for mobile products.
With crystal ball in hand, we talked to designers, engineers and marketers about how notebooks are likely to change over the next seven years. Here's what they told us.
Concepts for the future
First, let's take a look at some concept notebooks. Just as futuristic show cars give us insight into what we might be driving in the future, concept notebooks offer a sneak peek at how we'll be computing.
These concept notebooks typically are created by independent designers and firms retained by laptop vendors. This is highly secretive business -- the designers we spoke were willing to talk about some of their concepts but couldn't tell us who they were working for.
Rarely does a concept notebook make it to the real world as a whole unit, but certain aspects often make it into production. Early 1990s concept devices contained integrated pointing devices, speakers and webcams, all of which are now standard equipment. It's likely that at least some of the new ideas, components and features showcased below will be coming to a notebook near you.
For example, several concept laptops rely on touch-sensitive screens that act as the system's keyboard and mouse and go beyond today's multi-touch technology. Imagine being able to slide your finger across the screen to immediately shut off the display and keep what you're working on confidential, and you get an idea of its potential.
Compenion
The Compenion concept notebook from independent designer Felix Schmidberger in Stuttgart, Germany, borrows heavily from slider cell phones to move beyond the clamshell. Rather than lifting the lid open, just slide it up.
The Compenion. Click for larger view.
The pair of superbright organic LED panels slide into place next to each other, with the lower panel acting as keyboard or scribble pad. The whole thing is only three-quarters of an inch thick.
"It reduces thickness, but the slider was more about the feel of using the notebook," said Schmidberger. "The idea is to break free from traditional notebook hardware without having to adapt to new ways of using a computer."
Together, the 11-in. screens will yield about 16 inches of usable workspace, so the system has the dimensions and weight of a thin and light system but the screen of a larger one.
Canova
Dual-screen systems could well be the rage in seven years. The Canova from V12 Design, a Milan, Italy-based design firm, is closer to the tried and true clamshell layout, but with a twist.
Instead of a display and a mechanical keyboard, the device has two touch-sensitive displays: The upper screen is primarily for viewing applications, and the lower screen is for the mundane activities of typing, drawing and jotting notes. But the Canova can also lie flat for a large expanse of working space.
The Canova as standard notebook and e-book. Click for larger views.
According to designer Valero Cometti, "the idea was to close the gap between man and machine." This notebook changes personality depending on how it's held. Opened all the way, it's a sketch pad. Fold it half open and rotate it 90 degrees, and it's an e-book. By emulating a musical keyboard on the lower half, when it's flat on a table, it can be a go-anywhere piano.
taken from :
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9070158
Windows is 'collapsing,' Gartner analysts warn
April 10, 2008 (Computerworld) Calling the situation "untenable" and describing Windows as "collapsing," a pair of Gartner analysts yesterday said Microsoft Corp. must make radical changes to its operating system or risk becoming a has-been.
In a presentation at a Gartner-sponsored conference in Las Vegas, analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald said Microsoft has not responded to the market, is overburdened by nearly two decades of legacy code and decisions, and faces serious competition on a whole host of fronts that will make Windows moot unless the software developer acts.
"For Microsoft, its ecosystem and its customers, the situation is untenable," said Silver and MacDonald in their prepared presentation, titled "Windows Is Collapsing: How What Comes Next Will Improve."
Among Microsoft's problems, the pair said, is Windows' rapidly-expanding code base, which makes it virtually impossible to quickly craft a new version with meaningful changes. That was proved by Vista, they said, when Microsoft -- frustrated by lack of progress during the five-year development effort on the new operating -- hit the "reset" button and dropped back to the more stable code of Windows Server 2003 as the foundation of Vista.
"This is a large part of the reason [why] Windows Vista delivered primarily incremental improvements," they said. In turn, that became one of the reasons why businesses pushed back Vista deployment plans. "Most users do not understand the benefits of Windows Vista or do not see Vista as being better enough than Windows XP to make incurring the cost and pain of migration worthwhile."
Other analysts, including those at Gartner rival Forrester Research Inc., have highlighted the slow move toward Vista. Last month, Forrester said that by the end of 2007 only 6.3% of 50,000 enterprise computer users it surveyed were working with Vista. What gains Vista made during its first year, added Forrester, appeared to be at the expense of Windows 2000; Windows XP's share hardly budged.
The monolithic nature of Windows -- although Microsoft talks about Vista's modularity, Silver and MacDonald said it doesn't go nearly far enough -- not only makes it tough to deliver a worthwhile upgrade, but threatens Microsoft in the mid- and long-term.
Users want a smaller Windows that can run on low-priced -- and low-powered -- hardware. And increasingly, users work with "OS-agnostic applications," the two analysts said in their presentation. It takes too long for Microsoft to build the next version, the company is being beaten by others in the innovation arena, and in the future -- perhaps as soon as the next three years -- it's going to have trouble competing with Web applications and small, specialized devices.
"Apple introduced its iPhone running OS X, but Microsoft requires a different product on handhelds because Windows Vista is too large, which makes application development, support and the user experience all more difficult," according to Silver and MacDonald.
"Windows as we know it must be replaced," they said in their presentation.
Their advice to Microsoft took several forms, but one road they urged the software giant to take was virtualization. "We envision a very modular and virtualized world," said the researchers, who spelled out a future where virtualization -- specifically a hypervisor -- is standard on client as well as server versions of Windows.
"An OS, in this case Windows, will ride atop the hypervisor, but it will be much thinner, smaller and modular than it is today. Even the Win32 API set should be a module that can be deployed to maintain support for traditional Windows applications on some devices, but other[s] may not have that module installed."
taken from
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9076698&intsrc=hm_list
In a presentation at a Gartner-sponsored conference in Las Vegas, analysts Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald said Microsoft has not responded to the market, is overburdened by nearly two decades of legacy code and decisions, and faces serious competition on a whole host of fronts that will make Windows moot unless the software developer acts.
"For Microsoft, its ecosystem and its customers, the situation is untenable," said Silver and MacDonald in their prepared presentation, titled "Windows Is Collapsing: How What Comes Next Will Improve."
Among Microsoft's problems, the pair said, is Windows' rapidly-expanding code base, which makes it virtually impossible to quickly craft a new version with meaningful changes. That was proved by Vista, they said, when Microsoft -- frustrated by lack of progress during the five-year development effort on the new operating -- hit the "reset" button and dropped back to the more stable code of Windows Server 2003 as the foundation of Vista.
"This is a large part of the reason [why] Windows Vista delivered primarily incremental improvements," they said. In turn, that became one of the reasons why businesses pushed back Vista deployment plans. "Most users do not understand the benefits of Windows Vista or do not see Vista as being better enough than Windows XP to make incurring the cost and pain of migration worthwhile."
Other analysts, including those at Gartner rival Forrester Research Inc., have highlighted the slow move toward Vista. Last month, Forrester said that by the end of 2007 only 6.3% of 50,000 enterprise computer users it surveyed were working with Vista. What gains Vista made during its first year, added Forrester, appeared to be at the expense of Windows 2000; Windows XP's share hardly budged.
The monolithic nature of Windows -- although Microsoft talks about Vista's modularity, Silver and MacDonald said it doesn't go nearly far enough -- not only makes it tough to deliver a worthwhile upgrade, but threatens Microsoft in the mid- and long-term.
Users want a smaller Windows that can run on low-priced -- and low-powered -- hardware. And increasingly, users work with "OS-agnostic applications," the two analysts said in their presentation. It takes too long for Microsoft to build the next version, the company is being beaten by others in the innovation arena, and in the future -- perhaps as soon as the next three years -- it's going to have trouble competing with Web applications and small, specialized devices.
"Apple introduced its iPhone running OS X, but Microsoft requires a different product on handhelds because Windows Vista is too large, which makes application development, support and the user experience all more difficult," according to Silver and MacDonald.
"Windows as we know it must be replaced," they said in their presentation.
Their advice to Microsoft took several forms, but one road they urged the software giant to take was virtualization. "We envision a very modular and virtualized world," said the researchers, who spelled out a future where virtualization -- specifically a hypervisor -- is standard on client as well as server versions of Windows.
"An OS, in this case Windows, will ride atop the hypervisor, but it will be much thinner, smaller and modular than it is today. Even the Win32 API set should be a module that can be deployed to maintain support for traditional Windows applications on some devices, but other[s] may not have that module installed."
taken from
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9076698&intsrc=hm_list
L'affaire Yahoo is tres banale to Madison Ave
Advertising executives on Madison Avenue, who have always liked to watch a good fight, are more bemused by the Yahoo-Microsoft action than concerned by which company wins.
Ad firms have a big influence on the future of Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and News Corp. by deciding on behalf of clients how much of their budgets to spend with each company, if at all. While the players are important, advertisers don't really seem to care which teams are aligned, as long as they can provide the audience, the ad space, and the return on investment for clients.
The dominant response from members of the advertising community interviewed by CNET News.com is that a new marriage wouldn't change anyone's ad budget.
"The way people like us look at it is as interested but detached observers," said Tim Hanlon, executive vice president of Denuo, the media futures practice of advertising agency Publicis Group.
"If you chart it all out and take those five companies, they all have strengths and weaknesses," he said. "Not one of any of those potential partnerships would solve all the problems. There will still be no one-stop shop for advertising online."
Much of the drama revolves around the coveted search marketing business, which Google dominates. Microsoft obviously wants to absorb Yahoo to mount a more formidable challenge to Google in search engine advertising, as well as take a larger share of the search budgets of advertisers. That's a good thing, advertisers say, because a united Yahoo-Microsoft could help make pricing more competitive.
But it remains unclear to companies that advertise with Google whether a Yahoo-Microsoft combination would change their spending. One ad executive at a major agency, who asked to remain anonymous, said a Yahoo-Microsoft alliance wouldn't take away from how much money he spends with Google, nor potentially how little he spends with Yahoo or MSN.
The executive admitted that advertisers like him have likely contributed to the anticompetitive climate that exists today, giving Google the edge in ads and traffic. When asked whether a Yahoo-Microsoft merger might cause his agency to spend more with the combined entity, he said "maybe."
Another advertising industry observer took a more negative attitude when it came to a Yahoo-Microsoft alliance.
"With Yahoo and Microsoft, you're taking two companies who are spending all their time copying each other's ideas--the company that created Yahoo Answers and the company who ripped them off by creating Live Q&A. Why does that change my ad budget?" asked Chris Tacy, chief innovation officer at Method, a branding company in San Francisco.
Apart from search, a Microsoft-Yahoo marriage could make the two more forceful in content and brand advertising, an area of weakness for Google. The search giant is trying to break into brand advertising with video on YouTube and graphical ads on its ad network.
But so far, Microsoft hasn't pitched the advertising community on why a Microsoft-Yahoo deal would be strategically interesting for their advertisers. Grant McDougall, executive vice president at advertising agency Carat--which plans media buys for Ecostar, the Gap and Pfizer, among others--said Microsoft could bring more discipline to Yahoo in terms of improving its marketing-analytics tools, but he has yet to hear the reasoning from Microsoft.
"What will it do for budgets? In the short term, probably nothing," McDougall said. "This is a long-term play, and Yahoo has to think about where it wants to be--does it want to be a search company or a content company?"
What's more intriguing to advertisers are the possibilities of partnerships between Yahoo and News Corp. (and its MySpace.com social network) or Yahoo and AOL. Many advertising executives say it's easier to see deals for long-term creative advertising across Yahoo and MySpace, or across Yahoo and Time Warner's AOL. Combining brand advertising, targeted behavioral ads, and search ads seems appealing to the advertising community.
"A Yahoo-News Corp. deal or a Yahoo-Time Warner deal would allow us to sync our marketing capabilities. That's really exciting," McDougall said.
Similarly, other advertisers said the Microsoft-Yahoo deal might alienate the ad community in more ways than one, if Microsoft start to make a pitch on why it's important. Software companies, for example, might not want to advertise with Yahoo, if it means the money goes to Microsoft.
"If the Yahoo-Microsoft thing happened, there's the phase of people talking about its promise, but the reality is, people hunker down, and there doesn't appear to be a hard-core defined strategy of what it means to our community," said Rob Kabus, executive vice president of strategy at Aegis, a communications holding company.
"In the absence of that," Kabus said, "people get to be "show me the numbers" about their advertising buys rather than open to bigger strategic alliances."
from : http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9917050-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
Ad firms have a big influence on the future of Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and News Corp. by deciding on behalf of clients how much of their budgets to spend with each company, if at all. While the players are important, advertisers don't really seem to care which teams are aligned, as long as they can provide the audience, the ad space, and the return on investment for clients.
The dominant response from members of the advertising community interviewed by CNET News.com is that a new marriage wouldn't change anyone's ad budget.
"The way people like us look at it is as interested but detached observers," said Tim Hanlon, executive vice president of Denuo, the media futures practice of advertising agency Publicis Group.
"If you chart it all out and take those five companies, they all have strengths and weaknesses," he said. "Not one of any of those potential partnerships would solve all the problems. There will still be no one-stop shop for advertising online."
Much of the drama revolves around the coveted search marketing business, which Google dominates. Microsoft obviously wants to absorb Yahoo to mount a more formidable challenge to Google in search engine advertising, as well as take a larger share of the search budgets of advertisers. That's a good thing, advertisers say, because a united Yahoo-Microsoft could help make pricing more competitive.
But it remains unclear to companies that advertise with Google whether a Yahoo-Microsoft combination would change their spending. One ad executive at a major agency, who asked to remain anonymous, said a Yahoo-Microsoft alliance wouldn't take away from how much money he spends with Google, nor potentially how little he spends with Yahoo or MSN.
The executive admitted that advertisers like him have likely contributed to the anticompetitive climate that exists today, giving Google the edge in ads and traffic. When asked whether a Yahoo-Microsoft merger might cause his agency to spend more with the combined entity, he said "maybe."
Another advertising industry observer took a more negative attitude when it came to a Yahoo-Microsoft alliance.
"With Yahoo and Microsoft, you're taking two companies who are spending all their time copying each other's ideas--the company that created Yahoo Answers and the company who ripped them off by creating Live Q&A. Why does that change my ad budget?" asked Chris Tacy, chief innovation officer at Method, a branding company in San Francisco.
Apart from search, a Microsoft-Yahoo marriage could make the two more forceful in content and brand advertising, an area of weakness for Google. The search giant is trying to break into brand advertising with video on YouTube and graphical ads on its ad network.
But so far, Microsoft hasn't pitched the advertising community on why a Microsoft-Yahoo deal would be strategically interesting for their advertisers. Grant McDougall, executive vice president at advertising agency Carat--which plans media buys for Ecostar, the Gap and Pfizer, among others--said Microsoft could bring more discipline to Yahoo in terms of improving its marketing-analytics tools, but he has yet to hear the reasoning from Microsoft.
"What will it do for budgets? In the short term, probably nothing," McDougall said. "This is a long-term play, and Yahoo has to think about where it wants to be--does it want to be a search company or a content company?"
What's more intriguing to advertisers are the possibilities of partnerships between Yahoo and News Corp. (and its MySpace.com social network) or Yahoo and AOL. Many advertising executives say it's easier to see deals for long-term creative advertising across Yahoo and MySpace, or across Yahoo and Time Warner's AOL. Combining brand advertising, targeted behavioral ads, and search ads seems appealing to the advertising community.
"A Yahoo-News Corp. deal or a Yahoo-Time Warner deal would allow us to sync our marketing capabilities. That's really exciting," McDougall said.
Similarly, other advertisers said the Microsoft-Yahoo deal might alienate the ad community in more ways than one, if Microsoft start to make a pitch on why it's important. Software companies, for example, might not want to advertise with Yahoo, if it means the money goes to Microsoft.
"If the Yahoo-Microsoft thing happened, there's the phase of people talking about its promise, but the reality is, people hunker down, and there doesn't appear to be a hard-core defined strategy of what it means to our community," said Rob Kabus, executive vice president of strategy at Aegis, a communications holding company.
"In the absence of that," Kabus said, "people get to be "show me the numbers" about their advertising buys rather than open to bigger strategic alliances."
from : http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9917050-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
Cybercrime: How to Protect Your Business and Data
Over the last five years, the internet has been taken over by criminals. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the fight against malware. Viruses, Trojans, and Worms are today outdistanced by botnets, rootkits, keyloggers and more, all with decidedly criminal intent.Join FBI Agent Stacy Arruda, together with Trend Micro's David Perry as we discuss in detail the history of technology aided crime, specific examples of today's web based threats, and enforcement efforts from local to international. This is an area you cannot afford to ignore--join the fight against crime, right on your desktop!
taken from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/whitepaper/detail.html?wpid=3199
taken from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/whitepaper/detail.html?wpid=3199
Adobe Courts IPTV With Media Player
I've been playing around with the new Adobe Media Player (AMP), which made its way out of Adobe Labs to receive a formal 1.0 release yesterday. It's an interesting entry into the fast-moving market for streaming digital media, and definitely something to watch (no pun intended).
My initial reaction was: Why do we need another media player now? We already have Windows Media Player, QuickTime Player, Real Player, and a host of freeware alternatives. What could Adobe possibly add to the mix that we don't have already? But AMP is different from any of these. To call it simply a media player belies the true nature of the product; rather, AMP is a full-fledged attempt to offer a kiosk-style interface for browsing and streaming digital TV to your PC desktop. With this product, Adobe is definitely thinking outside the cable box.
Our colleagues over at MacWorld took AMP through its paces on Wednesday, so I'll spare you the nitty-gritty details. Suffice it to say that AMP lets you browse through various "channels" of content and stream professional-looking video from a number of providers, from MTV, to the Food Network, to PBS. As others have noted, the selection is pretty slim so far, but you can expect Adobe to actively recruit new content partners as the product matures.
One interesting thing about AMP is that it's an Adobe AIR application. AIR is Adobe's runtime system that lets developers build slick-looking desktop applications using the same technologies they use to build Web applications -- HTML, JavaScript, and Flash.
As a showcase for AIR, the AMP application is impressive. It definitely feels like desktop software, not a cobbled-together Flash gizmo. At the same time, this may be AMP's biggest weakness. Being Flash-based means AMP can only access video formats that are supported by Flash. You can add your own videos to the AMP catalog, but only if they're FLV, MP4, or QuickTime format -- your existing AVIs and XviD files won't work.
This could be a problem for Adobe, because more flexible alternatives already exist. Miro, for example, is a similar Internet TV application that is somewhat more flexible. It's open source, supports a wider range of video codecs than AMP, and allows you to browse video "channels" based on RSS feeds. What's more, because it's based on user interface code from Mozilla, Miro is actually more cross-platform than AMP. (Although an Alpha version of Adobe AIR is available for Linux, Adobe isn't letting Linux users download AMP at this time; presumably it wouldn't work if they did.)
The way I see it, AMP's success ultimately depends on two things. First, Adobe has to secure enough content to make downloading and using its Media Player worthwhile. That puts it in competition with Google, which arguably has the leading online video property right now in YouTube.
Second, Adobe is gambling that your average TV viewers will warm up to the idea of watching their favorite shows on their PCs. That's the part I'm not so sure about. In this age of giant-screen LCD TVs and high-definition video on the one hand, and video iPods on the other, I have a feeling that Adobe might be a little too late to the party. Most folks want to veg out on their couches, not at their desks. Convincing them otherwise may be Adobe's biggest challenge.
But who knows? I could be wrong. If you're addicted to Adobe Media Player already, don't hesitate to sound off in the PC World Community Comments.
taken from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/mcallister_on_software/144415/adobe_courts_iptv_with_media_player.html
My initial reaction was: Why do we need another media player now? We already have Windows Media Player, QuickTime Player, Real Player, and a host of freeware alternatives. What could Adobe possibly add to the mix that we don't have already? But AMP is different from any of these. To call it simply a media player belies the true nature of the product; rather, AMP is a full-fledged attempt to offer a kiosk-style interface for browsing and streaming digital TV to your PC desktop. With this product, Adobe is definitely thinking outside the cable box.
Our colleagues over at MacWorld took AMP through its paces on Wednesday, so I'll spare you the nitty-gritty details. Suffice it to say that AMP lets you browse through various "channels" of content and stream professional-looking video from a number of providers, from MTV, to the Food Network, to PBS. As others have noted, the selection is pretty slim so far, but you can expect Adobe to actively recruit new content partners as the product matures.
One interesting thing about AMP is that it's an Adobe AIR application. AIR is Adobe's runtime system that lets developers build slick-looking desktop applications using the same technologies they use to build Web applications -- HTML, JavaScript, and Flash.
As a showcase for AIR, the AMP application is impressive. It definitely feels like desktop software, not a cobbled-together Flash gizmo. At the same time, this may be AMP's biggest weakness. Being Flash-based means AMP can only access video formats that are supported by Flash. You can add your own videos to the AMP catalog, but only if they're FLV, MP4, or QuickTime format -- your existing AVIs and XviD files won't work.
This could be a problem for Adobe, because more flexible alternatives already exist. Miro, for example, is a similar Internet TV application that is somewhat more flexible. It's open source, supports a wider range of video codecs than AMP, and allows you to browse video "channels" based on RSS feeds. What's more, because it's based on user interface code from Mozilla, Miro is actually more cross-platform than AMP. (Although an Alpha version of Adobe AIR is available for Linux, Adobe isn't letting Linux users download AMP at this time; presumably it wouldn't work if they did.)
The way I see it, AMP's success ultimately depends on two things. First, Adobe has to secure enough content to make downloading and using its Media Player worthwhile. That puts it in competition with Google, which arguably has the leading online video property right now in YouTube.
Second, Adobe is gambling that your average TV viewers will warm up to the idea of watching their favorite shows on their PCs. That's the part I'm not so sure about. In this age of giant-screen LCD TVs and high-definition video on the one hand, and video iPods on the other, I have a feeling that Adobe might be a little too late to the party. Most folks want to veg out on their couches, not at their desks. Convincing them otherwise may be Adobe's biggest challenge.
But who knows? I could be wrong. If you're addicted to Adobe Media Player already, don't hesitate to sound off in the PC World Community Comments.
taken from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/mcallister_on_software/144415/adobe_courts_iptv_with_media_player.html
U.S. Presidential Election Can Be Hacked
Thursday, April 10, 2008 5:30 PM PDT
This year, the U.S. will pick a new president using electronic voting machines that can be hacked, security experts said Thursday at the RSA Conference in San Francisco.
As the November election approaches, the question before officials is not how to fix known bugs in their e-voting systems, but rather, how best to check them for fraud, said David Wagner, an associate professor with the University of California, Berkeley's computer science department.
Wagner was part of the team that audited California's voting systems during the state's review of electronic voting, and the problems his team found affect counties across the U.S. "The three systems we looked at are three of the most widely used around the nation," he said during an e-voting panel discussion at the show. "They're going to be using them in the 2008 elections; they're still going to have the same vulnerabilities we found."
With images of Florida's laborious 2000 presidential recount in their minds, county officials have spent billions over the past eight years on electronic voting systems. These systems are supposed to take the guesswork out of vote-counting. The problem is that they are insecure, and now states are being forced to make do with buggy equipment, panel members agreed. "We have spent billions of dollars on equipment," Wagner said. "We don't have another several billion dollars."
The California audit examined systems from Diebold Elections Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems, ultimately permitting their use in 2008, but only under certain conditions. In testing, Wagner and his team found that they could introduce a computer virus to any of the three systems, which would then spread throughout the county and ultimately skew the vote count.
This year most California voters will use paper ballots, which give officials a way to audit their machine-counted tallies for irregularities, but not all states have that option. About a quarter of the votes cast in the upcoming election will be on electronic voting equipment with no paper trail, Wagner said. And even the states that keep paper records are not necessarily checking their results. Only about a third of all states have records that are regularly audited.
That's too bad, he said, because the ability to check whether your voting system has been hacked is of paramount importance. "Security is not the most important thing," he said. "What's more important for elections is auditability."
Voting system vendors are in much the same position as Microsoft was around 1998 -- on the defensive and closed to most security researchers, Wagner said.
Recently, Princeton computer science professor Ed Felten was threatened with legal action after New Jersey counties asked him to review Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines.
There is so much mistrust between the two communities, it is hard for them to communicate, said Alec Yasinsac, an associate professor at Florida State University. "It's very hard for the academics to approach the vendors," he said. Vendors worry that if they talk to security researchers, it might be tantamount to admitting that they have bugs.
"I think voting system vendors today are where Microsoft was 10 years ago," Wagner said.
Microsoft has since made an about-face and embraced the security research community it once spurned. Many of the company's harshest security critics now work for the software vendor.
Two years ago, Hugh Thompson found a way to doctor election results in the database used by Diebold's GEMS Central Tabulator, but on Thursday he said he would like to help the vendors improve their products and make electronic voting trustworthy. "We're not in it for just ripping them apart," he said. "We want something that's good."
taken from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144431/us_presidential_election_can_be_hacked.html
This year, the U.S. will pick a new president using electronic voting machines that can be hacked, security experts said Thursday at the RSA Conference in San Francisco.
As the November election approaches, the question before officials is not how to fix known bugs in their e-voting systems, but rather, how best to check them for fraud, said David Wagner, an associate professor with the University of California, Berkeley's computer science department.
Wagner was part of the team that audited California's voting systems during the state's review of electronic voting, and the problems his team found affect counties across the U.S. "The three systems we looked at are three of the most widely used around the nation," he said during an e-voting panel discussion at the show. "They're going to be using them in the 2008 elections; they're still going to have the same vulnerabilities we found."
With images of Florida's laborious 2000 presidential recount in their minds, county officials have spent billions over the past eight years on electronic voting systems. These systems are supposed to take the guesswork out of vote-counting. The problem is that they are insecure, and now states are being forced to make do with buggy equipment, panel members agreed. "We have spent billions of dollars on equipment," Wagner said. "We don't have another several billion dollars."
The California audit examined systems from Diebold Elections Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems, ultimately permitting their use in 2008, but only under certain conditions. In testing, Wagner and his team found that they could introduce a computer virus to any of the three systems, which would then spread throughout the county and ultimately skew the vote count.
This year most California voters will use paper ballots, which give officials a way to audit their machine-counted tallies for irregularities, but not all states have that option. About a quarter of the votes cast in the upcoming election will be on electronic voting equipment with no paper trail, Wagner said. And even the states that keep paper records are not necessarily checking their results. Only about a third of all states have records that are regularly audited.
That's too bad, he said, because the ability to check whether your voting system has been hacked is of paramount importance. "Security is not the most important thing," he said. "What's more important for elections is auditability."
Voting system vendors are in much the same position as Microsoft was around 1998 -- on the defensive and closed to most security researchers, Wagner said.
Recently, Princeton computer science professor Ed Felten was threatened with legal action after New Jersey counties asked him to review Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines.
There is so much mistrust between the two communities, it is hard for them to communicate, said Alec Yasinsac, an associate professor at Florida State University. "It's very hard for the academics to approach the vendors," he said. Vendors worry that if they talk to security researchers, it might be tantamount to admitting that they have bugs.
"I think voting system vendors today are where Microsoft was 10 years ago," Wagner said.
Microsoft has since made an about-face and embraced the security research community it once spurned. Many of the company's harshest security critics now work for the software vendor.
Two years ago, Hugh Thompson found a way to doctor election results in the database used by Diebold's GEMS Central Tabulator, but on Thursday he said he would like to help the vendors improve their products and make electronic voting trustworthy. "We're not in it for just ripping them apart," he said. "We want something that's good."
taken from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144431/us_presidential_election_can_be_hacked.html
Data-Intensive Computing in the 21st Century
Ian Gorton, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Paul Greenfield, CSIRO, Alex Szalay, Johns Hopkins, University, Roy Williams, Caltech
The deluge of data that future applications must process—in domains ranging fro science to business informatics—creates a compelling argument for substantially increased R&D targeted at discovering scalable hardware and software solutions for data-intensive problems.
from : http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer
The deluge of data that future applications must process—in domains ranging fro science to business informatics—creates a compelling argument for substantially increased R&D targeted at discovering scalable hardware and software solutions for data-intensive problems.
from : http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)