Geneology - 21st Century Style

Up until the Cambrian period the fossil record is quite scant, but then suddenly life took hold and there was a huge expansion in the numbers and diversity of species of flora and fauna across the planet. Scientists studying the period had to create a richly described taxonomy to help them compile what could be described as the family tree of all life.

Creating the family tree isn't something that I've ever aspired to, not for flora and fauna or for, well, family.  One of my sisters has and I guess if I want to know something about my forebears then I've saved myself a whole load of research.  Or she has, bless her. While searching about who married who hasn't struck me as being something I'd like to spend my time on, clearly this family tree thing is a popular pastime.

It's also a big business, and not just for working out where the lump on your nose came from (mine incidentally came from cycling while drunk in Cyprus in 1980 - tarmac does that to a face).  Historians as well as amateur family tree sleuths spend a lot of money as well as time researching timelines.  The internet has made the process both easier and harder - you have less travelling to find stuff out but my word, there does seem to be a lot of it, and not all accurate I'll bet.  Actually, quite a lot is inaccurate, I'd guess.

Whether you are building a family tree or not, one thing that may not have occurred to you is that you will probably feature in someone else's tree in a couple of hundred years time.  Will they have it easier or will the process be more difficult? Well there will certainly be more data about you than there is about your forebears, so that should be helpful. Right now we can say that Fred Married Flossie in 1905, Fred was a labourer, accountant or policeman and Flossie, well Flossie was a mother, probably. Emancipation was still a way off back then. Also we can find out, thanks to the census, where they were living at ten year intervals. Anything more is down to any recollections of aging relatives and scant documentation.

Our history is more complete.  We have databases brimming with information about ourselves.  So much data exists on me that I'd hesitate to contradict some of it even if I believed it was wrong.  If future genealogists are given access to our credit card statements then what we overspent, and when, will tell a fair bit about us all.  Then there's all those tedious blogs and tweets some insist on posting - they must crack a window to shed some light on what we were.  Facebook, of course, lets whole swathes of people wear their hearts and prejudices on their online sleeves.

But the real goldmine for future family tree researchers could be our Google search history.  Recent research has shown that we now ask Google the questions we previously only reserved for very close friends. The answers are irrelevant from a historical perspective, the questions are everything.  If I've asked about specific political parties that could indicate I have a tendency to the right or left, possibly both at the same time. If I search for places, tools or hobby equipment then that may reveal aspects about my interests that might otherwise be hidden from view. Of course we all search for lots of things that are unrelated to the kind of people we are - we hear a word on the TV or are asked by our partner about something when we have the tablet in our hands. But if we start to trend on certain topics, that really does suggest an interest.

Put all this data - Google search, Facebook, Twitter feeds and so on, throw in the terabytes of photos we'll end up storing in the cloud and genealogists are going to have a field day. The data will look like the Cambrian Explosion, with small discrete amounts of information on ordinary people right up until the turn of the century before ballooning out of control. We've even got the basis of a taxonomy to help us classify these various data streams - today we call it metadata, but it isn't as structured as the lineal system used in natural history. Perhaps we should push for it to be standardised and quickly, because in two hundred years some poor sod is going to have to try and make sense of it all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

 

    
    Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

The internet of thingumybobs

Like many of you I've been hearing bits and pieces about IoT in recent months.  The acronym takes me back to my airforce days, when it stood for Initial Officer Training, where newby RAF officers were given their first leadership training and taught which order to use their knives and forks in.  It appears there are different types of cutlery for different types of food and there is definitely a right and wrong way to select your eating irons.  As an other rank I never had that problem - I generally only needed the one knife, fork and spoon for any given sitting. I probably got them wrong on some occasions, to be fair.

But now it stands for the Internet of Things. This isn't a new concept, but perhaps it is one that is coming of age.  I can recall reading in the early 'nineties an interview with Bill Gates where he enthused about washing machines and dishwashers being hooked up to the fledgling internet, receiving updates and diagnostics as needed.  I recall wondering about the logistics of creating network points throughout the average British house, given than most I've ever lived in never had enough power points, let alone LAN sockets.  I have a rule of thumb about electrical outlets when upgrading part of a circuit - work out how many sockets are likely to be needed in the worst case scenario, then double it.  By all accounts, RAF Officers have the same approach with cutlery at mealtimes. I don't remodel often enough to ensure that I've always got enough sockets, so like most other people I have a surplus of extension cables dotted around the house waiting for the next partial rewire.

Obviously I hadn't considered the wireless environment we now live in, although I would still expect my WiFi to struggle if all my domestic appliances plus regular computing devices were to connect simultaneously.  But that's a fixable engineering problem, I guess.

So are we going to see Bill Gates' vision realised?  I think so, but expect there will be a mix of standards surfacing in an attempt to make one OS more predominant than the others.  Personally I favour a Microsoft solution; like many folk who use opposing OS such as Android for recreational purposes, I revert to Windows when I want to write or do anything productive.  I know Google wants to break this this up, but having been exposed to Chromebooks recently, I think I'll pass for the time being. Windows might be constantly hacked, bloated and prone to needing updates every time I look up, but they do have a track record in both consumer and business computing. Not a great record, maybe...

Of course it may be someone like Cisco who will hold the high ground - this IoT is all about devices talking to each other over the internet, allowing us to remove as much human interaction as required. You may not notice it happening - the process is very subtle and happening now. If you think about how you used the internet ten years ago it was probably just you and a computer. Now we routinely interact with computers via an intermediary device, setting our Sky boxes from our smart phone, for example. Google building self drive cars that will understand our travelling preferences is a heartbeat away.

The IoT is going to become very much in our faces and our lives very soon. But we may not even realise it while it unfolds. With luck it will develop into self selecting cutlery in case I find myself eating a meal in a posh hotel, because I never was sent on that course.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

 

    
    Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Searching for truth

Many of you will be aware of the decision recently by the European Courts to force Google to carry out some quite specific actions in pursuance of individuals' rights to privacy.  Those of you from across the pond have probably felt that the ruling is a strange one, given the US Constitution and its position on free speech.  While I like my privacy and guard my rights to it assiduously, I'm also a great proponent of free speech too, so I'm pretty much with you on this one.

In a nutshell, as far as I can tell - and I'm no lawyer, I'm an engineer who writes Sci-Fi thrillers and comedic novels, for goodness sake - the ruling states that Google has to remove links to web pages that intrude on individual persons' that are no longer adequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.  Individual's have to apply to Google to have the links they don't like taken down and if Google thinks they have a good case then they will do so.  Apparently Google are wading through about one thousand applications a day to achieve this and have to date been asked to remove more than a quarter of a million links in 70,000 applications made so far.  Allegedly some of the applications upheld have included a convicted sex offender, apparently offended by links that tells the world what he's been convicted of, and an article about the brother of a high profile British politician converting to Islam. While anyone's religious convictions are truly personal, if their brother is one of the most influential politicians in the country then they lose some of their rights to be anonymous, in many eyes. Anyone convicted of sex crimes should expect that information to stay in the public domain forever, unless they can prove that the conviction was false. That's a decision for the courts though, not Google.

One American citizen has shown his irritation at the European ruling by setting up a website - Hidden from Google - which promptly aims to provide links back to the sites that Google is now suppressing.  Because the order from the court was simply to remove the Google search links, not to remove the sites, so he's simply reposted them. And because it is a new link, it will now reappear in Google listings until Google are requested to remove the link again. There's sufficient defamatory laws that cater for sites that tell lies about individuals, but apparently lies aren't the issue here, it's people hiding from the truth - maybe.  Challenging lies online can be a costly business and unless we have sufficient resources behind us most of us can only hope that appealing to the owner of the website or the host will work.  Running through the courts isn't an option for most of us, no matter how right we are. Incidentally Google removes links to websites every day without court rulings - sites that try to trick consumers, sites with embedded malware, sites that promote illegal activities. They do so of their own volition.

So despite Google's attempt at complying with the European courts, their attempts are being quite legally thwarted.  Probably just as well, as the ruling doesn't quite make sense.  And it does seem a little one-sided, Google may be the biggest, best known search engine in the world, its name now a noun, verb and adjective, but it isn't the only one.  I'm not aware that Yahoo or Bing have been ordered to edit their listings, so even if Hidden from Google didn't exist, individual's with a nose for a story could simply search one of the other engines. Interestingly, I'm not aware that either Yahoo or Microsoft have complained of the oversight regarding their search engines by the European courts. Of course many people don't rate these other engines, based on the size of Google.  That may or may not be a valid point and one that's difficult to test, but fear not, help is at hand.

Microsoft are clearly pushing to get their search engine, Bing, to be the engine of choice for more people.  Apple are using it on their products, probably because they dislike Google at least as much as they rate Bing, and of course any Windows machine has Bing as the default search engine anyway.  Is it as good as Google?  Microsoft seem to think so and for the second year running they've run a completion to see if users can tell which search engine is best for them.  If you mosey onto Bing It On you'll find you can carry out five consecutive searches for anything you want - no holds barred.  After inputting each search term the software runs off and applies it to both Google and Bing, giving you both results side by side.  You are then asked to vote on which set of results gives, in your opinion, the better set of links.  You don't find out until after the fifth search which engine you have been voting for.  I ran the test and found that I couldn't prefer one result over the other on one search, I favoured Google in two and Bing in the other two.  So I was a draw.  My wife had one result she couldn't choose between, one favouring Google and the remaining three favouring Bing.  So Bing won her round.  According to the website, Bing is consistently voted the better results.  Why not try the challenge while its still running, and if you find you prefer Bing, why not give it a go more often.  At least it isn't artificially suppressing links, but to be fair, it hasn't been compelled to by the European courts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

 

    
    Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Google's Glass Half Full

Like many others in the UK I received an email from Google last week inviting me to buy a pair of Google Glass.  I registered an interest last year when the programme was launched, not necessarily to spend £1000 but to get more information.  Since that time I've heard nothing from Google (but of course they've provided plenty of information on their website), however there's been plenty reported in the press in that time.

It seems that Glass has had a bit of a rough ride in some states in the US, less so in others.  There was the case where a Glass wearer was approached by the FBI after wearing a pair to the cinema.  That showed a limitation in the device, especially as film piracy is a federal offence in the US.  Today it was announced that wearing Glass in UK cinemas was not going to be permitted. Then there has been a raft of pre-emptive decisions by citizens running businesses who have decided themselves they don't want Glass wearers in their establishments.  I guess they don't want to lose a large share of their customer base due to fears of privacy infringement caused by a minority.  I expect some UK establishments would take a similar view.  We're already believed to be the country with the most CCTV per capita without citizens adding to the list.

Over here in the UK the reaction to Glass has been muted anyway.  Fair enough we're in the middle of a series of prosecutions of celebrities who have allegedly abused their celebrity status to take advantage of fans and friends of family.  Some previously regarded 'national treasures' are now either in gaol or about to go there.  So putting yourself in a position that people could think you're a closet pervert is good enough reason to not spend that grand, because there's enough opportunity to film legitimatelyon your mobile phone in plain sight without resorting to covert methods.

Even if you are confident enough to try and wear these devices in public, there are still issues.  A British newspaper recently carried out tests that showed Glass wearers could capture PIN data being input into an ATM.  You could probably do that without Glass, but they allow you to record the activity and replay until you've worked out the correct combination.  As I can barely remember my own PIN, recording someone else's is probably the only way I'd manage to steal it, if that was my aim. Other concerns have been aired, such as capturing information on computer screens.  Google have played down these risks by suggesting that the camera isn't actually that good (despite their website suggesting it was actually quite reasonable) and saying that as the screen lights up when in use it should be obvious when someone is using Glass.  Maybe, but we're not all that observant, so I'm unconvinced.

One of the features suggested by Google is the ability to use Glass as a sat nav device on the road.  The British driving authorities have roundly suggested that drivers are not to use devices like Glass while driving, as it could present a distraction.  I'm sure that will be ignored, as the use of hand held mobile phones while driving appears to have been ignored, however the UK has just quadrupled the potential fines for such offences, up to an eye watering £10,000, so perhaps Glass might make a headline for itself by being the first to get the top fine?  Several US states are understood to have taken a similar stance regarding banning Glass use while driving, for much the same reasons.

So, we won't want to wear Glass in public for fear of being branded a pervert or a data thief, we certainly can't wear them in cinemas and forget about wearing them when you are driving.  You can use them in the  privacy of your own home, but I'm struggling to see the advantage.  I guess my £1000 is not going anywhere near Google for some time, at least until I can see a legitimate reason for using them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

 

    
    Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

What Next - Sat Nav for the Internet?

An amateur graphic designer - not sure if that means unqualified or just unemployed - has drawn up a map of the internet.  It's not the first attempt at this and almost certainly won't be the last, but the man, Martin Vargic, has used an interesting approach to the subject.

Most previous attempts have focussed on the topology of the network, almost impossible today given the world wide distribution and the peer to peer contributions. In fact there are suggestions that the internet is like an iceberg, with the 'visible' net, that which can be found by search engines such as Google forming the tip. I'm not sure what the rest looks like because it isn't visible, but it's reasonable to assume the security services, military, governments et al have extensive hidden parts of the network for obvious reasons. So too does the business community - my online banking, for example, is only just submerged and hopefully only visible to me and my bank. The rest of that bank should be submerged way deeper again.



Then there are the shadow organisations, the ones opposing the law enforcement agencies and the secret services as well as the illegitimate commercial ventures. In short, the criminal and terrorist rings that move stolen goods and money around or plot to terrorise you and me. They appear to control a significant chunk of this hidden internet.

If we ever find out where it is hidden it should be easy to recognise, judging by announcements made recently by he British Prime Minister David Cameron. He has vowed to search every corner of the hidden internet to find and eradicate the bad guys. Noble, worthwhile and very generous given he's supposed to be running the country as well. At least his insight indicates that the hidden internet contains vertices, which are conspicuously absent from Martin's map, so that should be a giveaway.

What Martin has done, and very skilfully it has to said, is to create a faux map containing two continents, the old world and the new world. The old world contains the likes of Microsoft and Apple, while the new world contains social networks like Facebook and Twitter, search engines like Google and, well, Google (to be fair Yahoo does occupy an outpost of the new world and therefore, by default, so does Bing). In a suspiciously pointy southern sub-continent there is a region labelled internet crime. Perhaps that is the door to the hidden internet? Is there a sat nav provided for this virtual map? There are parts of this map I'd like to avoid.

Assuming Martin's analysis is a reasonable representation of the internet and that the online equivalent of tectonics prevails, we should see the collision of the old and the new world sometime, probably in our lifetimes thanks to Moore's Law and the internet corollaries, and a new new world emerging. Perhaps the collision will seal off the hidden internet, or at least the bits most of us could live without, which would be rather unfortunate for my alter-ego B L O'Feld. Of course, if anyone could turn colliding continents into a business opportunity, it would be him.

The map is a creative way of looking at what now surrounds us, permeates every crevice of our lives and in many ways is the real world. It probably isn't complete, but then again what map is? And it probably will look very different this time next year given the rate of internet change. Martin may have created a new internet profession, populated at the moment just by him. Maybe that should occupy part of the new world hinterlands on his first update. I suspect he could be very busy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

 

Will Microsoft Drop Bing?

Microsoft are in for a busy year, by all accounts. Windows is scheduled to have another upgrade, to 8.2. This is eagerly awaited by those who want to stay with Microsoft but don't want to play with the metro interface. The Start button is returning and users will be able to pretend they are on an upgraded Windows 7 environment without ever seeing the metro tiles again. Those tiles will also be capable of being placed on the 'traditional' Windows screen and run like icons. I'm pretty cool with the metro look, but understand why people don't want to change from what they know. In fact, if Microsoft pull this off they will have totally blind-sided Apple with a two faced interface, one for work, one for play, all in one package.

But this isn't even the biggest challenge for Microsoft. They are going to get a new CEO mid year when Steve Ballmer stands down. Apparently they have narrowed the list to twenty candidates. I floated my resume, but I'm guessing I didn't make the shortlist. Some of the candidates are internal departmental chiefs and some are from outside of the company. One who can claim to be a bit of both groups is Stephen Elop, currently deputy CEO of Nokia, the company Microsoft is busy buying.

Elop has played a ballsy game because he has stated he will slay a couple of sacred cows if he gets the gig. Specifically he says he'll sell off XBox and will kill Bing. Seemingly he wants Microsoft to get back to basics, to re-entrench in their core business model. Personally I think he'll have an uphill battle with both ideas, particularly since Ballmer wants both to be ring-fenced. Of course, like all big organisations, his words only carry weight while he's the boss and I'm sure there are hawks and doves in the upper echelons for both products. What I think Elop's doing is ensuring he controls the conversation if he gets called forward, can make his case, concede where necessary and attempt to make the board think he is a leader prepared to make hard decisions.

In the final analysis, do his ideas make sense? Well, unsurprisingly I don't have access to the critical numbers needed to decide if either or both systems deserve to be culled, but I can make an educated guess at the practical issues.

Taking XBox first, it probably soaks up a huge amount of resources and is attempting to make Microsoft look like a viable content provider to challenge iTunes. If it was sold off Microsoft would still reap the Windows spin off advantages without having the operating overheads. But they would lose control over XBox just as it is maturing. XBox will become less of a games console and more of a human to machine interface in the next couple of years and I'm looking forward to that ride. I think selling it now would be a marginal short term gain and a long term loss to the company. Hopefully Microsoft will see sense and keep it.

But Bing is a different problem. I've been consciously using Bing for about six months and can say that generally it is as good as Google most of the time. I don't think it is ever better than Google so by definition it is slightly inferior to the search engine that has become a verb and adjective in most modern languages. It probably costs a shed load of cash to populate and I'm guessing it pulls in a fraction of the revenues that Google gets. However, if Microsoft exits the search engine then the world will be a poorer place. I can still remember the early days of Google when I got the answer to whatever query I made without having to wade through a page of sponsored links. OK, Bing plays the same game, but I think they are more upfront about it, probably because they don't attract as much result skewing investment as Google. If they abandon Bing then there won't be any realistic alternative to Google, who will get ever bigger and more powerful. If only as a market balancing service I hope that Microsoft retain Bing, or maybe they could sell part of it and keep it running at arm's length.

I also hope that everyone reading this blog entry considers using Bing at least once a day out of the many searches you carry out. If you use Internet Explorer you've got a permanent Bing entry box in the top right corner - try it, if only to search for Google. Anyone who has read my blog for a while will know I'm not a big fan of monopolies, and letting Bing go would create the biggest, most influential monopoly this planet has ever seen, one unlikely to be challenged by the likes of the Russian Google, Yandex, for example.

This is going to be a big year for Microsoft. I hope it ends with XBox and Bing intact.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

The Ultimate Android

DARPA, the US defence agency responsible for technological research, has been running competitions with defence contractors to design and build robots capable of carrying out useful tasks on the battlefield. Most attempts fail quite miserably, and in this year's competition three failed in all the tasks. One robot, however, passed all of the tests. This doesn't mean we can expect to see the battlefield filled with robots anytime soon, but does show that the aim is likely to be achievable in the coming years.

Apart from the engineering, technological and ethical challenges the biggest issue is one of finance. Few companies in the world can afford to front this level of investment, hence the DARPA competition. Presumably the real prize isn't the government contract but the government investment for development. There's an upside to this process that isn't immediately obvious, and that is the obligation that the company with the research funding will have to Uncle Sam. Governments and the national military may not always be seen as the best guarantors of common sense, but between them there's enough accountability in a decent democracy to address any excesses over time.

But what if the company with the best solution doesn't need the government's cash? One such technologically advanced company is Google - cash rich and acquisition happy it has bought up no fewer than eight robotic companies in the last year. That should secure them some of the best robotic engineers and access to cutting edge patents available. Critically Google doesn't need DARPA's money, although on past experience they'll probably take it. And if you thought KitKat was the best Android yet, just wait until you see what these guys bring to the table.

And on top of this Google are forging a top table in the fields of artificial intelligence, applying it to areas such as self driving vehicles and instant language translation.  There is no doubt, in ten years time the search engine front end of Google will be a side player to the technologies they are developing.

So it is probable that sometime soon Google will amass sufficient technology and knowhow to be a leader in the robot field.  Obviously not all robot applications are military and there are plenty of applications where a machine could be risked to save a human from being put into danger, especially in the field of civil emergencies.  But the biggest drive will come from the military and there will be pressure to generate military applications.  All of this is fine, but what happens if Google disagree with a specific military aim? What if the informal company motto 'Don't be evil' is invoked because someone in the upper echelons of Google believes they should interfere?

Because the way Google are going, by the time this technology is mature enough to count, they will be too big financially for any government to bully, even if they start paying all of their taxes.  Possibly they already are (too big that is).  If they secure the top engineers, hold the best patents and ring-fence the critical technology could they hold any government using their technology to ransom? Will the government need Google's tacit agreement over the deployment of any Google originated technology?

After the credit crunch the big question was should governments let banks get too big to fail.  Perhaps the new question is should they let companies get too big? Period.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

2014 - Downturn for Apple?

Apple have had it all their own way for the last seven years or so, and justifiably so given they gave the mobile phone market a massive kick in the rear and created the tablet market.  And did they dominate? You bet.

Then along came Google with Android, playing a long game on the apps and the OS.  Now they have the lion's share of the mobile phone market if not the revenue.  Apple have maintained their traditional pricing structure, positioning themselves as the premium product and for a while that was certainly true.  However their reputation is wearing thin, their products are not as diverse as the competition and critically they are failing to win market share in developing regions.

While mobile phone growth has remained steady in the western markets the effects of the credit crunch on disposable income has slowed down discretionary spending, although the queues around the Apple stores seem to belie this.  Android phones are seen as more versatile in the developing regions - it has a similar number of apps to Apple now and there is a wide variety of products at virtually every price point available.

Google aren't getting it all their own way, though.  In these critical markets Microsoft are seeing major growth.  They're late to the party, but in these regions they're catching up. Their alliance with Nokia means that there are some competitive phones in the developing regions and Microsoft are expected to see serious growth and market share in 2014.  They'll not get anywhere Android, but they could equal or better Apple worldwide.  Apple may have a certain cache with discerning customers, but their product line is looking limited and not at all diverse.  If you want a larger screen, better consider an iPad mini, because the mobile phones are all pretty much the size they were when they were launched many years ago.

But it is in the app sales that the war will really hot up.  Google are recompensing app developers pretty much the same the same amount as Apple do, an area they haven't previously competed well in.  Given the larger market share of Android this may affect development choices, which have traditionally favoured Apple.  Microsoft's app store, although only one fifth of the size of Apple's and Android's, is growing at a faster rate than either, possibly through developers cashing in on existing code as they get used to Windows 8 programming requirements.

Apple may have to consider expanding its range of products to retain its market share in both hardware and apps, but due to its long established principle of only developing in-house it will struggle to compete with the range of Android and Windows 8 mobile phones coming out.  Consequently it will have to change its model or see itself side-lined in 2014.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

iPad Pro for 2014

There are strong rumours circulating that Apple are likely to launch an iPad Pro device in the first half of next year.  If anything, this is an overdue development for the Apple tablet and one that Microsoft have shown to be ripe for the taking with its Surface tablets.

There's no argument that the iPad has infiltrated itself into business use way beyond its capabilities - lets be honest here, it's not the most secure of computing devices.  However it became such a must-have device but was and is priced as a premium commodity that inevitably it was those who were heading up the upper echelons of businesses and organisations who managed to get hold of the devices first, flexing their corporate budgets to obtain something that was initially quite elitist.  The question of security was probably swept under the carpet - if the boss wants an iPad, he gets an iPad.

Roll forward a few years and the iPad is still a premium commodity item, is still as insecure as ever and to be fair there's a few other premium tablets vying for part of Apple's business at a similar price point, although the trend has been towards the budget end.  Ultimately the iPad and most of the other slates are just consumer devices, only some tablets cost more limbs than others.  However Microsoft have shown that there is a need for a secure tablet in the market - or as secure as any Microsoft product can be as they are inevitably the target for the majority of the attempts to compromise their OS due to their ubiquitous position in the business and domestic sectors.  Whether it has been Microsoft entering the tablet arena that has spurred Apple, or whether if was always part of their game plan, isn't known.  But it seems like they are moving towards a Professional-orientated iPad next year.

Whether the device will be iOS or based on iMac software is an interesting starting point for consideration - the systems are too far apart to be merged at this point in time.  But there is a compelling argument for either approach - make the iPad Pro an extension of the MacBook range and software and you have what Microsoft have been aiming at, at the risk of alienating the traditional iPad power users who would happily pay for the Pro as an extended iOS device, or base it on a secure version of iOS so that it can access all those apps - now understood to have passed the 1 million mark - at the risk of limiting its compatibility with traditional Apple computer users.

Cost is going to be an interesting element, too, given that the consumer device is already priced high.  Apple tends towards premium pricing generally and let's face it, Microsoft have eased the market for this with its Surface Pro pricing strategy. Apple laptops and desktops have tended to be more expensive than their Microsoft software based competitors historically, so pitching just above the Surface Pro price point probably wouldn't be unreasonable to the Apple faithful. Of course Microsoft have the initiative here and could drop the Surface Pro pricing ahead of any iPad Pro launch, increasing the differential price pressure on Apple.

The biggest question, though, has to be around connectivity. Apple really has to think long and hard about its resistance to using industry standard interfaces such as USB, HDMI and micro SD slots. OK, we're all getting our heads around the cloud now, but Wi-Fi isn't as omnipresent as it should be. Of course Apple would likely include 4G as standard in a Pro model, but that may not fit in fully with every commercial organisations security profile.

An iPad for the grown up world is long overdue and looks like it should be here before mid 2014. Not only should it gladden the hearts of the iPad professionals and their long worrying ICT managers, it should exert a downward pressure on the prices of the consumer devices of all flavours.  In fact Google should worry because this is a race they currently cannot compete in and could lead to an erosion of the Android brand. Microsoft should view this as healthy and supporting their strategy; Apple competing validates the sector and makes it more robust.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me   

Who Wants To Live Forever?

Immortality is a topic that hardly ever comes up in polite conversation, mainly because even in households accommodating Sci Fi authors it's generally considered nonsense.  Of course we can all have a stab at leaving something behind that will mean we're remembered for generations to come, but outside of the odd Roman Emperor or founder of a religion, most humans fade into well deserved obscurity fairly quickly.

But there's a world of difference between being remembered for ever, or even for a time, and living forever.  That's a stretch of the imagination that most of us don't consider as likely.  However, a guy named Ray Kurzweil, thinks immortality is on the cards and pretty soon.  Ray is Google's engineering director and he believes that technology is advancing at a rate fast enough to allow us, the human race, to reach a tipping point where it is adding years faster than nature is taking them away.

There's no doubt that in the developed world humans are tending to live longer.  For example, I never met any of my grandparents, with the last to die doing so several years before I arrived.  From recollection their lifespans averaged just 60 years of age.  More importantly, they were pretty typical of their generation, as were my parents, with my mother passing in her early Seventies and my dad in his early Eighties, again typical of their peers. So in a generation the life expectancy in my family has increased by maybe eight to twelve years on average, although as sample sizes go it is a little small.

My generation is expected to survive into its Eighties pretty much as a norm and reaching the age of 100 or more is hardly a news item these days.  However one side effect of us living longer is that diseases such as cancer is deemed to be on the up, with a report the other day stating that 60% of us will suffer from it in our lifetimes, with half of those dying from it.  The report was warning us all that the increase in survivability means we will have to care for more and more oldies suffering from elements of cancer at home for extended periods, putting new strains on families.  Other side effects of living longer is that we all have an increased opportunity to experience Alzheimer's and other diseases that rob us of our mental faculties.  Suddenly living longer doesn't sound so great.

But Ray's contention is that in fifteen years technology will hit a tipping point, with cures and means to overcome these serious illnesses discovered.  He says that in 20 years life expectancies will go into 'high gear' thanks to scientific progress.  Of course, Ray works for the company that is struggling to keep its Nexus 7s going for more than nine months, so maybe there's a way to go with this technology.

However living forever, or even to 100, is only really desirable if your body and brain allows you to enjoy the experience.  I don't care how long you can extend my life, if it just increases the amount of time I end up dribbling down my shirt while chair bound in an old folks home then I'm not really gagging for it.  Or even if I can enjoy longer dotage years, tapping away at my aging RT writing blogs into the sunset and books for a few, if I can't afford to eat or heat my home because there's no real pension left and nobody wants to employ a  110 year old man for peanuts, then count me out.

Evolution being such a slow process to, well, evolve I'm expecting that the normal reproduction rates to continue for a little while after Ray has extended the lifespan of the population.  That might produce the odd problem going forward.

Now of course, if I can live a longer and useful life and the same can be extended to my descendants then I'm not going to look that gift horse in the mouth.  But I can't help wondering if we should be aiming to give everyone on the planet the opportunity to achieve the same life expectancy that those of us in the first world now routinely enjoy and expect?  Perhaps if we didn't resort to carnage on the battlefield or acts of terror in our cities, if children could have enough to eat to live until they are past their childhood, wouldn't that be great?  Of course another view is that we are heading for a population crunch on the planet, so how will that reconcile with some - I doubt Ray is talking about a universal extension to immortality for everyone - living forever?

Ray is 65 and apparently pops around 250 supplements a day and half a dozen intravenous therapies weekly in his quest to stay in good shape.  If I was popping 250 tablets a day I'd be hoping for some scientific intervention to alleviate the boredom of swallowing so many.  And I'd be really concerned about the risk of choking on one or two occasionally, so I don't think I'll take that route. 

By the time we reach Ray's predicted 20 years I'll be well into my Seventies, so might be able to report on the tipping point.  If it hasn't arrived I'll be looking at the last leg of my journey on Earth, but if Ray is right and the tipping point has been reached then at least it'll make a follow up blog post to write.  I may even have got my Nexus 7 up and running by then, so that's two blog posts scheduled.  I'll set up a diary reminder on my SkyDrive Outlook calendar right now, because unless Ray's really right I'll have forgotten my name, let alone his prediction, by then.  Look out for the post - I'll call it 'Who Wants To Live Forever - part 2'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Google's Loony Idea

Internet access is fast becoming a measure of civilisation.  When the broadband goes down in our house - and recently that's been more often than I'm happy with - the howls of anguish are matched with references to living in a third world country.  Probably a tad unreasonable given we're usually without broadband for maybe two minutes.

The reality is that the internet is more than a medium to send and receive emails while searching the web for some information, it controls our TV programming recording, keeps us connected on social media and allows us to work from home.  Every year we dig ourselves deeper into dependency with the internet and buy gadgets that require access to function.  A lack of internet access stymies our whole way of life, or so it would seem.  When I book a holiday at home or abroad I check on the internet access for the location - does the accommodation have WiFi?  Is there a local café linked to the net?  It skews my purchasing decisions and I suspect that will become the norm pretty soon if it isn't already.  In fact I struggle to understand why hotels , B&Bs and cottages for rent fail to provide internet access as many of these fail to get my custom.  I'm sure others make the same purchasing decision too.

But some parts of the planet have very little realistic hope of internet access.  Not only does this mean I'm less likely to visit, which shouldn't represent that much of a disappointment for them, but it means that locals are disadvantaged compared to the rest of us.  OK, not being able to engage in Facebook or Twitter shouldn't be the end of the world, especially as the day job may be more around making sure you get enough to eat and clean water to drink, but even in developed countries there are many areas that internet access isn't currently possible.  Love it or loathe it, the internet is a great leveller for mankind, as long as it is available to all.  Whether we want to spread our love of democracy, or maybe literacy, internet access can make or break progress.

Google think the answer may be to launch balloons into the stratosphere, floating at twelve miles above the Earth's surface, over regions that currently struggle to receive internet access.  To put that distance into perspective, it equates to twice the operating height of commercial airliners, so shouldn't put them at any risk.  Google have worked out a system that ensures the balloons keep in position utilising clever controls and grabbing energy from the sun.  It certainly sounds feasible.

To prove the concept they have launched thirty such experimental balloons, each fifteen metres in diameter, over New Zealand, a country that is both well developed and sparsely populated.  They've named the project as Project Loon which I suspect may not mean the same as it could in the UK.  Outside of the main population centres in New Zealand running cables is an onerous and expensive task that would make internet access disproportionately expensive.  Trials ongoing should reveal whether the balloon technology, expected to produce 3G-like capability, is workable.  What the study hasn't suggested yet is how the system is likely to be funded.  Because the other issue with these remote parts of the world that are struggling to access the internet is money.  Or perhaps, more importantly, the lack of it.  Possibly not the biggest challenge in New Zealand, but in the middle of a third world country no end of WiFi providing balloons may be of no use unless the locals can access the service for free.

Google are stressing that this is an experiment and if anyone can afford to ring the planet with fifteen metre diameter balloons then Google can, at least as long as they're avoiding paying any taxes. I'm not convinced it is the answer, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.  One area that it may prove to be capable of earning its stripes, though, is in disaster struck areas  Regardless of the indigenous internet capability of the affected area before an disaster strikes, emergency aid workers often benefit from establishing a coherent communication network for the duration of the emergency.  Now I can see that working for the balloons, although the sticky matter of payment may prove to be something that governments have to address.

Internet access for all has to be a universal aim and it's possible that Google are on the right track to ensure it's achieved.  Or maybe their idea is all hot air spouted by a madman howling at the moon.  Only time will tell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me