...more recent posts
Here's a very detailed beginner level look at XML and the semantic web. Basically no previous knowledge is expected, and that's hard to claim for most of this type of writing. Probably I've said it before about some other article, but this is a good one to start with.
Here's a very detailed beginner level look at XML and the semantic web. Basically no previous knowledge is expected, and that's hard to claim for most of this type of writing. Probably I've said it before about some other article, but this is a good one to start with.
Some hard drive news this morning. Bet you can't wait. IBM has released a new 48 gigabyte 2.5 inch drive. This is the ultra slim size necessary for small portable computers, and 48 gigs is a nice jump in size. And not only is this the biggest drive in its size, IBM is also claiming it is the most quiet. This is very good news for small notebook owners who have been somewhat limited in storage options.
And if you can't get enough space inside your machine (and let's face it, 48 gigs is nice, but still not enough for some) then you have to go external. And if you've been waiting to make that jump, then you might be interested to know that the new Oxford 911 firewire bridge chipset is making its way into external firewire drives. These things are fast. OWC has external cases utilizing the new chipset and packaged with IBM's totally amazing GXP series drives (3.5 inch in 60 and 75 gig sizes.) I have one of these IBM drives (internally, not in the firewire case) and can attest to their complete butt kickingness. This is the drive for your MP3 collection.
Some hard drive news this morning. Bet you can't wait. IBM has released a new 48 gigabyte 2.5 inch drive. This is the ultra slim size necessary for small portable computers, and 48 gigs is a nice jump in size. And not only is this the biggest drive in its size, IBM is also claiming it is the most quiet. This is very good news for small notebook owners who have been somewhat limited in storage options.
And if you can't get enough space inside your machine (and let's face it, 48 gigs is nice, but still not enough for some) then you have to go external. And if you've been waiting to make that jump, then you might be interested to know that the new Oxford 911 firewire bridge chipset is making its way into external firewire drives. These things are fast. OWC has external cases utilizing the new chipset and packaged with IBM's totally amazing GXP series drives (3.5 inch in 60 and 75 gig sizes.) I have one of these IBM drives (internally, not in the firewire case) and can attest to their complete butt kickingness. This is the drive for your MP3 collection.
Sitting here at my desk I can look out the window (assuming I open the blinds which I will admit often doesn't happen) and see the World Trade Center. No, I can't see Bill's office; he's on the other side. But I can see the thing. Bam. Right there. If I go up on the roof, and stand precariously close to the front right corner of the building, and crane my neck just right, I can also see the Empire State Building and the very top (damn you Red Square) of the Chrysler Building.
Why am I mentioning this? Well, every time I see these behemoths I think "why doesn't someone start offering two way wireless broadband served off the top of one of these giant things?" It's almost like they were made for this purpose. All you would need is a line of sight (see above) and a small satellite type dish (something the size of a direct TV dish,) and you'd be cruising in style. Forget you're puny DSL line (well, unless you've got the 1.5 Mb/s connection,) this thing will fly. And while I'm still going to maintain that NYC kicks butt, it's one of those other places that is going to get this first. Chicago, to be exact. Chicago? There must be some political BS going on somewhere because the idea that Manhattan (very small area, very dense, very wealthy, tech oriented population) is not the test bed for some sort of wireless broadband seems completely crazy. Let's see: a couple of ten million extremely affluent consumers with little to no choice in a service they'd be willing to pay close to $100/month for? Hello? Somebody please come take our money. Except not you Verizon. You stink.
Sitting here at my desk I can look out the window (assuming I open the blinds which I will admit often doesn't happen) and see the World Trade Center. No, I can't see Bill's office; he's on the other side. But I can see the thing. Bam. Right there. If I go up on the roof, and stand precariously close to the front right corner of the building, and crane my neck just right, I can also see the Empire State Building and the very top (damn you Red Square) of the Chrysler Building.
Why am I mentioning this? Well, every time I see these behemoths I think "why doesn't someone start offering two way wireless broadband served off the top of one of these giant things?" It's almost like they were made for this purpose. All you would need is a line of sight (see above) and a small satellite type dish (something the size of a direct TV dish,) and you'd be cruising in style. Forget you're puny DSL line (well, unless you've got the 1.5 Mb/s connection,) this thing will fly. And while I'm still going to maintain that NYC kicks butt, it's one of those other places that is going to get this first. Chicago, to be exact. Chicago? There must be some political BS going on somewhere because the idea that Manhattan (very small area, very dense, very wealthy, tech oriented population) is not the test bed for some sort of wireless broadband seems completely crazy. Let's see: a couple of ten million extremely affluent consumers with little to no choice in a service they'd be willing to pay close to $100/month for? Hello? Somebody please come take our money. Except not you Verizon. You stink.
I think I mentioned it before, and I doubt I'm alone in this, but in the early '90's (1991?) I read Howard Reingold's Virtual Reality and it really got me thinking. The book was the result of Reingold's travels around the high tech lab circuit looking at some of the cutting edge computer graphics and networking projects that were then underway. Big stuff was in store. Especially concerning 3-d worlds. Everyone had read Neuromancer (and Snowcrash) and all those people were busy at their workstations trying to make these computer generated worlds a reality.
By the late nineties I think everyone had revised their early, and optimistic, estimates. We couldn't even get simple html tags to work cross browser - the idea of complex 3d worlds we could all inhabit seemed more and more difficult to realize. And what's more, I think a lot of people (myself included) started thinking that text (be it email, or icq, or irc, or usenet, or web boards) is really the killer app after all. We just want to communicate, and while a picture may be worth a thousand words, on a 56k dial up, I'll still take the thousand words, thanks.
But maybe the tide is starting to shift back again? The big two (adobe and macromedia, who collectively dominate the web graphics space - sorry gimp) are each about to introduce 3d world building tools for the web. Macromedia's offering is called Tron (great name,) and you can read some advanced gossip about it here. Tron works inside Macromedia's flagship (read: expensive) Director/shockwave studio web authoring tool. Adobe's entry is called atmosphere. I've yet to find any third party (possibly impartial) info on atmosphere, but I think clearly these two products will be in competition. Both are presently in beta.
Frankly, I'm doubtful about 3d on the web, yet surely it will have to happen eventually. I'll be interested to see 3d on line games, or other specialty uses (architecture springs to mind) but I really hope this doesn't turn into a flash type of thing, where every web site throws in some useless 3d bells and whistles. I don't really need to browse Amazon in 3d or anything. Still, like flash, there will be some good uses. Have you checked your DSL order status today?
I think I mentioned it before, and I doubt I'm alone in this, but in the early '90's (1991?) I read Howard Reingold's Virtual Reality and it really got me thinking. The book was the result of Reingold's travels around the high tech lab circuit looking at some of the cutting edge computer graphics and networking projects that were then underway. Big stuff was in store. Especially concerning 3-d worlds. Everyone had read Neuromancer (and Snowcrash) and all those people were busy at their workstations trying to make these computer generated worlds a reality.
By the late nineties I think everyone had revised their early, and optimistic, estimates. We couldn't even get simple html tags to work cross browser - the idea of complex 3d worlds we could all inhabit seemed more and more difficult to realize. And what's more, I think a lot of people (myself included) started thinking that text (be it email, or icq, or irc, or usenet, or web boards) is really the killer app after all. We just want to communicate, and while a picture may be worth a thousand words, on a 56k dial up, I'll still take the thousand words, thanks.
But maybe the tide is starting to shift back again? The big two (adobe and macromedia, who collectively dominate the web graphics space - sorry gimp) are each about to introduce 3d world building tools for the web. Macromedia's offering is called Tron (great name,) and you can read some advanced gossip about it here. Tron works inside Macromedia's flagship (read: expensive) Director/shockwave studio web authoring tool. Adobe's entry is called atmosphere. I've yet to find any third party (possibly impartial) info on atmosphere, but I think clearly these two products will be in competition. Both are presently in beta.
Frankly, I'm doubtful about 3d on the web, yet surely it will have to happen eventually. I'll be interested to see 3d on line games, or other specialty uses (architecture springs to mind) but I really hope this doesn't turn into a flash type of thing, where every web site throws in some useless 3d bells and whistles. I don't really need to browse Amazon in 3d or anything. Still, like flash, there will be some good uses. Have you checked your DSL order status today?
Amazing dinner last night. Great time. I mean except that I stole a few minutes away from the table to preview the new site on my host's IE/Windows machine. And as one might guess, it didn't work at all. Every page 404'd, and not with my '404 document not found' page, but with a 404 page generated internally by IE. Huh? I managed not to start crying, but just barely. Anyway, I spent a few hours combing the message boards at phpbuilder this morning and I found the fix. As crushed as I was last night, now I am equally, and oppositely, charged. Problem; solution. Problem; solution. Down; up. You could get hooked on this ride.
And while the kind of project I am working on has about as much to do with real serious programming as (insert two things here that don't have anything to do with each other) I still found it interesting that David McCusker made a comment yesterday on the same topic I had just written about: programming and sleep. He said,
"I don't know if you've ever had the experience of designing code when you're trying to go to sleep; I don't recommend it very much. It's like telling yourself to turn out the lights, and some other voice answers, uh sure, right after I work out a bit more of this.";-)
Amazing dinner last night. Great time. I mean except that I stole a few minutes away from the table to preview the new site on my host's IE/Windows machine. And as one might guess, it didn't work at all. Every page 404'd, and not with my '404 document not found' page, but with a 404 page generated internally by IE. Huh? I managed not to start crying, but just barely. Anyway, I spent a few hours combing the message boards at phpbuilder this morning and I found the fix. As crushed as I was last night, now I am equally, and oppositely, charged. Problem; solution. Problem; solution. Down; up. You could get hooked on this ride.
And while the kind of project I am working on has about as much to do with real serious programming as (insert two things here that don't have anything to do with each other) I still found it interesting that David McCusker made a comment yesterday on the same topic I had just written about: programming and sleep. He said,
"I don't know if you've ever had the experience of designing code when you're trying to go to sleep; I don't recommend it very much. It's like telling yourself to turn out the lights, and some other voice answers, uh sure, right after I work out a bit more of this.";-)