Article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2008-01-22-skyhook_N.htm
GPS is all the rage these days. People pay extra monthly fees for GPS navigation on their cell phones. Many cars now come equipped with a built-in GPS system. These devices use GPS chips that receive signals from satellites. But now that Wi-Fi is popping up everywhere (homes, schools, restaurants, malls, etc.), why not take it a step further and use Wi-Fi signals instead of satellite signals for location-mapping? That's exactly what
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Online databases
Article: http://www.nwinnovation.com/story/0013397.html
I found this article very interesting. I know several people who keep a "database" (if you can call it that) using Microsoft Excel. I've seen it in action, and it is not very efficient. Blist is targeting these people with an easy-to-use web-based database.
Excel is just not meant to be used as a database. It is really meant to manage numbers. My uncle is a self-employed jeweler, and I remember helping him do inventory for some extra cash when I was younger. The company whose jewelry he was selling had given him an Excel spreadsheet with the ID #s, prices, and quantities of each piece. I had to go through all the jewelry and record the quantities he had into a new column, and then add the prices together to get the total value of his inventory. Excel was useful for this purpose because I could easily plug in the numbers, then use Excel's sum and multiplication functions to do the math for me in a matter of seconds.
But for people who say, keep a spreadsheet of their movie or comic book collection, Blist will great for them. Microsoft Access can be intimidating or confusing for non-technical people, which is why they use Excel. But web applications are generally made to be very user-friendly. They can also be more secure. I know several people who are not computer-savvy at all, and the words "maintenance," "firewall," and "security" mean nothing to them. Their computers end up having all sorts of problems or their hard drives crash and they lose all their data. For people like this, maintaining an online database is great because if the computer goes, at least all the hard work they put into their database isn't lost.
For people who like to mail around their "spreadsheet databases," everytime they make a change they have to resend it to everyone. If they don't, all the recipients will have outdated or inaccurate information. But you can share a link to your online database and no matter how many changes you make to your information, the link will still be the same. That means a recipient of the link can visit the database whenever they want and see the lastest information you've posted. That leaves the recipients with more accurate data and more mailbox space, and more time for the database creator (now that they are sending less email).
I have already signed up to be notified when the Blist beta releases. I think it is a great idea that will surely become a hit in the web community.
I found this article very interesting. I know several people who keep a "database" (if you can call it that) using Microsoft Excel. I've seen it in action, and it is not very efficient. Blist is targeting these people with an easy-to-use web-based database.
Excel is just not meant to be used as a database. It is really meant to manage numbers. My uncle is a self-employed jeweler, and I remember helping him do inventory for some extra cash when I was younger. The company whose jewelry he was selling had given him an Excel spreadsheet with the ID #s, prices, and quantities of each piece. I had to go through all the jewelry and record the quantities he had into a new column, and then add the prices together to get the total value of his inventory. Excel was useful for this purpose because I could easily plug in the numbers, then use Excel's sum and multiplication functions to do the math for me in a matter of seconds.
But for people who say, keep a spreadsheet of their movie or comic book collection, Blist will great for them. Microsoft Access can be intimidating or confusing for non-technical people, which is why they use Excel. But web applications are generally made to be very user-friendly. They can also be more secure. I know several people who are not computer-savvy at all, and the words "maintenance," "firewall," and "security" mean nothing to them. Their computers end up having all sorts of problems or their hard drives crash and they lose all their data. For people like this, maintaining an online database is great because if the computer goes, at least all the hard work they put into their database isn't lost.
For people who like to mail around their "spreadsheet databases," everytime they make a change they have to resend it to everyone. If they don't, all the recipients will have outdated or inaccurate information. But you can share a link to your online database and no matter how many changes you make to your information, the link will still be the same. That means a recipient of the link can visit the database whenever they want and see the lastest information you've posted. That leaves the recipients with more accurate data and more mailbox space, and more time for the database creator (now that they are sending less email).
I have already signed up to be notified when the Blist beta releases. I think it is a great idea that will surely become a hit in the web community.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Data is an asset!
Article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200709/ai_n21100516
As Ms. Copeland has said, "databases are everywhere." I never stopped to think about if before, but now I realize how true this is. You can't use the internet without interacting with a database. All that information has to be stored somehow. I have been working at Best Buy since July, and we use a company intranet for everything...to clock in/out, to check our daily task list, to view direct deposit electronic paystubs, to view benefit information, to send emails within the company, etc. We also use it to manage customer information, such as issuing and managing rainchecks. We even use electronic pinpads so that signatures are stored digitally. The point is, the company heavily relies on data stored within the system; we hardly ever use paper, and when we do it's usually being used to print data that's already stored in the system. This is the case with many companies nowadays. But despite the importance and omnipresence of data management, this article brings to light the reality that many companies are not managing their data effectively.
A study mentioned in the article revealed that less than 10% of the companies they studied used documented processes to manage data. And "according to the 2006 InformationWeek article, the amount of data created and maintained by organizations doubles every 12 to 18 months" (Swartz, Nikki). If organizations want to keep up, they need to learn to better manage their data.
I think a big problem is that people do not understand the importance of properly storing data. Many see it as just another bureaucratic task that does not play a huge role in the big picture.
On the contrary, data has many uses in an organization; its use for streamlining processes is one. For example, what if Amazon.com required you to input all of your contact and shipping information everytime you placed an order? This would get very annoying for the customer. Luckily, Amazon.com lets you make an account that stores all your information in their database so that you don't need to reenter it everytime you want to order something. Data is also very useful for helping a company adapt to its customers' needs, which is essential to stay afloat in the business world. If an internet retailer keeps records of the products its customers buy, this serves as an invaluable tool for determining what kinds of products the company should focus on to bring in more revenue.
If every employee was effectively trained in data management in order to fully understand its importance, they would very likely manage data much more efficiently.
As Ms. Copeland has said, "databases are everywhere." I never stopped to think about if before, but now I realize how true this is. You can't use the internet without interacting with a database. All that information has to be stored somehow. I have been working at Best Buy since July, and we use a company intranet for everything...to clock in/out, to check our daily task list, to view direct deposit electronic paystubs, to view benefit information, to send emails within the company, etc. We also use it to manage customer information, such as issuing and managing rainchecks. We even use electronic pinpads so that signatures are stored digitally. The point is, the company heavily relies on data stored within the system; we hardly ever use paper, and when we do it's usually being used to print data that's already stored in the system. This is the case with many companies nowadays. But despite the importance and omnipresence of data management, this article brings to light the reality that many companies are not managing their data effectively.
A study mentioned in the article revealed that less than 10% of the companies they studied used documented processes to manage data. And "according to the 2006 InformationWeek article, the amount of data created and maintained by organizations doubles every 12 to 18 months" (Swartz, Nikki). If organizations want to keep up, they need to learn to better manage their data.
I think a big problem is that people do not understand the importance of properly storing data. Many see it as just another bureaucratic task that does not play a huge role in the big picture.
On the contrary, data has many uses in an organization; its use for streamlining processes is one. For example, what if Amazon.com required you to input all of your contact and shipping information everytime you placed an order? This would get very annoying for the customer. Luckily, Amazon.com lets you make an account that stores all your information in their database so that you don't need to reenter it everytime you want to order something. Data is also very useful for helping a company adapt to its customers' needs, which is essential to stay afloat in the business world. If an internet retailer keeps records of the products its customers buy, this serves as an invaluable tool for determining what kinds of products the company should focus on to bring in more revenue.
If every employee was effectively trained in data management in order to fully understand its importance, they would very likely manage data much more efficiently.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Social Music Revolution
Article: http://blog.last.fm/2008/01/23/free-the-music
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, everyone knows how acquisition of music has been a hot legal topic for the past several years. In the "old days," people had to buy CDs. I hated forking over $15+ for a CD, only to find that there were only 3 songs I liked on the whole thing. Then Napster came along and my world changed. But the downloading phenomenon spun out of control as CD sales declined. The RIAA had to butt in and start slapping people with lawsuits and fines to discourage illegal downloading, but that really didn't do too much good. Then the user-friendly, inexpensive iTunes store was launched, which helped decrease illegal downloading but still left people unsatisfied. iTunes only offers 30 second previews of songs, and sometimes a short preview just doesn't cut it. Some songs sound totally different in their entirety. Other services similar to iTunes have the same problem. This problem has led many audiophiles to bypass iTunes and continue to download music illegally.
Last.fm's announcement is certainly pleasing to the ears. Now people will be able to stream tracks in full for free. Free accounts have a 3-play limit, meaning you cannot stream a track more than 3 times, so they can't just leech off the site whenever they want to hear a song. Not only that, but artists get paid for each time someone streams a song. Which means that independent artists trying to break into the music scene can make some money off their music as well. This leaves artists, record companies, and music-lovers happy. Sure, there will still be some people who will preview the song on Last.fm and then go download it for free somewhere else. But there will be many who will go purchase that song or CD after hearing a full preview.
Last.fm has a large database as it is, but they will certainly expand it even more with this new program. I imagine it will hold even more music than before. It must also store information about each artist, each user, how many times a user plays a particular song, etc. The new program will require a more advanced database now that artists will be paid per stream. Independent artists could easily make multiple accounts, maybe with slightly different names, so as to avoid the 3-play limit (users could play the same song 3 times on each account, which cheats more money into the artist's pocket). This brings us to security. If Last.fm wants to make sure fraudulent accounts are not made, they will need to have a tracking system, perhaps utilizing cookies or IP tracking. If they see more than one account on the same IP address, it will put up a red flag for them to investigate.
Last.fm has made a revolution in the music industry. Not only with the full streams, but with the concept of paying the artists for each time someone listens to their music.
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, everyone knows how acquisition of music has been a hot legal topic for the past several years. In the "old days," people had to buy CDs. I hated forking over $15+ for a CD, only to find that there were only 3 songs I liked on the whole thing. Then Napster came along and my world changed. But the downloading phenomenon spun out of control as CD sales declined. The RIAA had to butt in and start slapping people with lawsuits and fines to discourage illegal downloading, but that really didn't do too much good. Then the user-friendly, inexpensive iTunes store was launched, which helped decrease illegal downloading but still left people unsatisfied. iTunes only offers 30 second previews of songs, and sometimes a short preview just doesn't cut it. Some songs sound totally different in their entirety. Other services similar to iTunes have the same problem. This problem has led many audiophiles to bypass iTunes and continue to download music illegally.
Last.fm's announcement is certainly pleasing to the ears. Now people will be able to stream tracks in full for free. Free accounts have a 3-play limit, meaning you cannot stream a track more than 3 times, so they can't just leech off the site whenever they want to hear a song. Not only that, but artists get paid for each time someone streams a song. Which means that independent artists trying to break into the music scene can make some money off their music as well. This leaves artists, record companies, and music-lovers happy. Sure, there will still be some people who will preview the song on Last.fm and then go download it for free somewhere else. But there will be many who will go purchase that song or CD after hearing a full preview.
Last.fm has a large database as it is, but they will certainly expand it even more with this new program. I imagine it will hold even more music than before. It must also store information about each artist, each user, how many times a user plays a particular song, etc. The new program will require a more advanced database now that artists will be paid per stream. Independent artists could easily make multiple accounts, maybe with slightly different names, so as to avoid the 3-play limit (users could play the same song 3 times on each account, which cheats more money into the artist's pocket). This brings us to security. If Last.fm wants to make sure fraudulent accounts are not made, they will need to have a tracking system, perhaps utilizing cookies or IP tracking. If they see more than one account on the same IP address, it will put up a red flag for them to investigate.
Last.fm has made a revolution in the music industry. Not only with the full streams, but with the concept of paying the artists for each time someone listens to their music.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Wikipedia, not the most trustworthy database
Article: http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-6108495.html
This article brings up a very interesting topic -- data integrity of wikis, databases that can be edited by the general public. Wikipedia is the most popular wiki on the web and also one of my favorite websites. You can look up almost anything and find information about it. In most cases the information is very accurate. I think it is a great concept to give those who are interested in a specific topic the ability to share their knowledge with other interested people. Often times you can really tell that the people who wrote or edited the article are passionate about the topic, just by the amount of detail there is.
However, the best thing about wikis is also the worst thing about wikis. If anyone can edit an article, there is always the possibility of inaccurate information. And there are always going to be bad people who vandalize articles by posting obscene pictures or information.
This article discusses how the German Wikipedia site is going to make it so a user cannot edit an article until they have been registered on Wikipedia for a specified amount of time. This is supposed to deter vandalism...but will it really? My question is, if someone really wants to wreck havoc on Wikipedia, won't they just make an account, wait the specified amount of time, and then vandalize? This system may help cut down vandalism, but I don't foresee it cutting down a significant amount. This system is a good start, but it needs to be expanded on.
If Wikipedia really wants to eliminate vandalism, there needs to be a waiting period between when a user submits an update and when the update goes live. During this period, Wikipedia staff need to look at each submitted edit and approve it so that it can go live. This method would eliminate vandalism, because if anyone tried to post obscene pictures for example, staff would simply not approve the edit, it would never go live, and the user would be banned. Data inaccuracy would still slip by however, because no one person knows everything about everything. It would still be mainly up to fellow users to spot data inaccuracy and report it so it can be fixed.
The reality with Wikipedia is that it will probably never be fool-proof. Wikis give average people the power to publish information without a certification or Ph.D. If Wikipedia was to restrict the freedom of its users too much, it would defeat the purpose of the website. So ultimately, I think the best thing is for people to turn to Wikipedia for fun...heaven forbid using a real encyclopedia for that term paper. :)
This article brings up a very interesting topic -- data integrity of wikis, databases that can be edited by the general public. Wikipedia is the most popular wiki on the web and also one of my favorite websites. You can look up almost anything and find information about it. In most cases the information is very accurate. I think it is a great concept to give those who are interested in a specific topic the ability to share their knowledge with other interested people. Often times you can really tell that the people who wrote or edited the article are passionate about the topic, just by the amount of detail there is.
However, the best thing about wikis is also the worst thing about wikis. If anyone can edit an article, there is always the possibility of inaccurate information. And there are always going to be bad people who vandalize articles by posting obscene pictures or information.
This article discusses how the German Wikipedia site is going to make it so a user cannot edit an article until they have been registered on Wikipedia for a specified amount of time. This is supposed to deter vandalism...but will it really? My question is, if someone really wants to wreck havoc on Wikipedia, won't they just make an account, wait the specified amount of time, and then vandalize? This system may help cut down vandalism, but I don't foresee it cutting down a significant amount. This system is a good start, but it needs to be expanded on.
If Wikipedia really wants to eliminate vandalism, there needs to be a waiting period between when a user submits an update and when the update goes live. During this period, Wikipedia staff need to look at each submitted edit and approve it so that it can go live. This method would eliminate vandalism, because if anyone tried to post obscene pictures for example, staff would simply not approve the edit, it would never go live, and the user would be banned. Data inaccuracy would still slip by however, because no one person knows everything about everything. It would still be mainly up to fellow users to spot data inaccuracy and report it so it can be fixed.
The reality with Wikipedia is that it will probably never be fool-proof. Wikis give average people the power to publish information without a certification or Ph.D. If Wikipedia was to restrict the freedom of its users too much, it would defeat the purpose of the website. So ultimately, I think the best thing is for people to turn to Wikipedia for fun...heaven forbid using a real encyclopedia for that term paper. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
