• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

The EU Has a Small Sense of Humor: X.com Is Under Endowed?

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Elon Musk has a big rocket. Elon Musk has a big car company. Elon Musk has a big hole making machine. But Elon Musk has a high-technology social media outfit which is too small.

I think European regulators have a sense of humor. Furthermore, calling attention to Mr. Musk’s fascination with “big,” the characterization is likely to evoke eye rolls and some nudges among those in the know. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough, a bit like a Tesla.

I read “Musk’s X Deemed Too Small for EU Crackdown on Big Tech Power.” Small, yes. The “real news” report says:

X will dodge the DMA’s raft of dos and don’ts because it isn’t a powerful enough service for business users and doesn’t meet certain revenue thresholds, according to the people, who spoke under condition of anonymity.

Okay, small and impotent.

Let’s look at the “too small” judgment compared to Brazil’s approach. The EU pushes the little bitty X thingy idea; Brazil kicked X.com out of the country. The Brazilian action reacted to X.com as if it were a big outfit with an outsized reach, from the beach in Rio to the sky above Cristo Redentor. Brazil relaxed its freeze on X.com’s bank account so the big X.com fine could be paid.

Observations:

1. X.com is too small. Ouch. Intentional or not, this has to remind someone of crude jokes in the high school boys’ locker room.
2. The EU wants to make it crystal clear that its actions will be directed at the really big US high-technology outfits which violate assorted EU rules and regulations, write checks for fines, and keep on doing what the companies choose to do.
3. Slapping a label on a company which presents itself as a global blockbuster illustrates some disdain.

Net net: Brazil went big. The EU goes small. Very small, X.com, tinier than a Telegram.

Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024

CrowdStrike: Whiffing Security As a Management Precept

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Not many cyber security outfits can make headlines like NSO Group. But no longer. A new buzz champion has crowned: CrowdStrike. I learned a bit more about the company’s commitment to rigorous engineering and exemplary security practices. “CrowdStrike Ex-Employees: Quality Control Was Not Part of Our Process.” NSO Group’s rise to stardom was propelled by its leadership and belief in the superiority of Israeli security-related engineering. CrowdStrike skipped that and perfected a type of software that could strand passengers, curtail surgeries, and force Microsoft to rethink its own wonky decisions about kernel access.

A trained falcon tells an onlooker to go away. The falcon, a stubborn bird, has fallen in love with a limestone gargoyle. Its executive function resists inputs. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

The write up says:

Software engineers at the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike complained about rushed deadlines, excessive workloads, and increasing technical problems to higher-ups for more than a year before a catastrophic failure of its software paralyzed airlines and knocked banking and other services offline for hours.

Let’s assume this statement is semi-close to the truth pin on the cyber security golf course. In fact, the company insists that it did not cheat like a James Bond villain playing a round of golf. The article reports:

CrowdStrike disputed much of Semafor’s reporting and said the information came from “disgruntled former employees, some of whom were terminated for clear violations of company policy.” The company told Semafor: “CrowdStrike is committed to ensuring the resiliency of our products through rigorous testing and quality control, and categorically rejects any claim to the contrary.”

I think someone at CrowdStrike has channeled a mediocre law school graduate and a former PR professional from a mid-tier publicity firm in Manhattan, lower Manhattan, maybe in Alphabet City.

The article runs through a litany of short cuts. You can read the original article and sort them out.

The company’s flagship product is called “Falcon.” The idea is that the outstanding software can, like a falcon, spot its prey (a computer virus). Then it can solve trajectory calculations and snatch the careless gopher. One gets a plump Falcon and one gopher filling in for a burrito at a convenience store on the Information Superhighway.

The killer paragraph in the story, in my opinion, is:

Ex-employees cited increased workloads as one reason they didn’t improve upon old code. Several said they were given more work following staff reductions and reorganizations; CrowdStrike declined to comment on layoffs and said the company has “consistently grown its headcount year over year.” It added that R&D expenses increased from $371.3 million to $768.5 million from fiscal years 2022 to 2024, “the majority of which is attributable to increased headcount.”

I buy the complaining former employee argument. But the article cites a number of CloudStrikers who are taking their expertise and work ethic elsewhere. As a result, I think the fault is indeed a management problem.

What does one do with a bad Falcon? I would put a hood on the bird and let it scroll TikToks. Bewits and bells would alert me when one of these birds were getting close to me.

Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024

Smart Software: More Novel and Exciting Than a Mere Human

This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

Idea people: What a quaint notion. Why pay for expensive blue-chip consultants or wonder youth from fancy universities? Just use smart software to generate new, novel, unique ideas. Does that sound over the top? Not according to  “AIs Generate More Novel and Exciting Research Ideas Than Human Experts.” Wow, I forgot exciting. AI outputs can be exciting to the few humans left to examine the outputs.

The write up says:

Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have excited researchers about the potential to revolutionize scientific discovery, with models like ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude showing an ability to autonomously generate and validate new research ideas. This, of course, was one of the many things most people assumed AIs could never take over from humans; the ability to generate new knowledge and make new scientific discoveries, as opposed to stitching together existing knowledge from their training data.

Aside from having no job and embracing couch surfing or returning to one’s parental domicile, what are the implications of this bold statement? It means that smart software is better, faster, and cheaper at producing novel and “exciting” research ideas. There is even a chart to prove that the study’s findings are allegedly reproducible. The graph has whisker lines too. I am a believer… sort of.

The magic of a Bonferroni correction which allegedly copes with data from multiple dependent or independent statistical tests are performed in one meta-calculation. Does it work? Sure, a fancy average is usually close enough for horseshoes I have heard.

Just keep in mind that human judgments are tossed into the results. That adds some of that delightful subjective spice. The proof of the “novelty” creation process, according to the write up comes from Google. The article says:

…we can’t understate AI’s potential to radically accelerate progress in certain areas – as evidenced by Deepmind’s GNoME system, which knocked off about 800 years’ worth of materials discovery in a matter of months, and spat out recipes for about 380,000 new inorganic crystals that could have revolutionary potential in all sorts of areas.  This is the fastest-developing technology humanity has ever seen; it’s reasonable to expect that many of its flaws will be patched up and painted over within the next few years. Many AI researchers believe we’re approaching general superintelligence – the point at which generalist AIs will overtake expert knowledge in more or less all fields.

Flaws? Hallucinations? Hey, not to worry. These will be resolved as the AI sector moves with the arrow of technology. Too bad if some humanoids are pierced by the arrow and die on the shoulder of the uncaring Information Superhighway. What about those who say AI will not take jobs? Have those people talked with an accountants responsible for cost control?

Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2024

A Moment to Remember: Google Explains Its Competitive Posture

This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.

What happens when those with insight into the Google talk in a bar to friends? Answer: Complete indifference. Question: What happens when a former Google employee’s comments are captured in a form which can be discovered by the prosecution in a trial? Answer: A peak inside Googzilla’s kimono.

An observer is horrified by the site revealed when an ex-Google professional talks about what’s inside the Googzilla kimono. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

“Ex-Google Exec Said Goal Was to Crush Competition, Trial Evidence Shows” reports that Google wanted to “crush” the competition. Google wanted a “monopoly.” Here’s what the Reuters’ article reports via its “trust” filter:

“We’ll be able to crush the other networks and that’s our goal,” David Rosenblatt, Google’s former president of display advertising, said of the company’s strategy in late 2008 or early 2009, according to notes shown in court…. “We’re both Goldman and NYSE,” he said, he said, according to the notes, referring to one of the world’s biggest stock exchanges at the time and one of its biggest market makers. “Google has created what’s comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we’ll do to display what Google did to search,” Rosenblatt said.

On the surface, Mr. Rosenblatt is articulating what some folks have been asserting for years. Several observations:

1. Google has been running free for a long time. Why?
2. If true, the statement makes the outcome of EU litigation almost certain. Google will have to pay and change in ways which may be resisted by the nation-state of Google
3. The comment reflects the machismo of the high tech US company and its hubris. Pride and vanity are believed by some to be a fundamental sin.

So what?

1. Deconstructing what Google has built over the years may be quite difficult, maybe impossible. Well, that ends one line of retribution.
2. If one breaks up Google and severs advertising, who can afford to buy it. Maybe the US should punt and nationalize the outfit. Why not let GSA run it? That would be exciting in my opinion.
3. Google apologizes and keeps on doing what it has been doing for the last 25 years by filing appeals,  lobbying, and waiting out government lawyers who often come and go as Google says, “I was neither / Living nor dead, and I knew nothing.”

Net net: The Google is gonna Google no matter what.

Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024

Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:

Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.

Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.

An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.

I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.

What does the decision suggest?

1. Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
2. Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
3. The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.

There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.

With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.

I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.

Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024

Trust AI? Obvious to Those Who Do Not Want to Think Too Much

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

Who wants to evaluate information? The answer: Not too many people. In my lectures, I show a diagram of the six processes an analyst or investigator should execute. The reality is that several of the processes are difficult which means time and money are required to complete the processes in a thorough manner. Who has time? The answer: Not too many people or organizations.

What’s the solution? The Engineer’s article “Study Shows Alarming Level of Trust in AI for Life and Death Decisions” reports:

A US study that simulated life and death decisions has shown that humans place excessive trust in artificial intelligence when guiding their choices.

Interesting. Perhaps China is the poster child for putting “trust” in smart software hooked up to nuclear weapons? Fortune reported on September 10, 2024, that China has refused to sign an agreement to ban smart software from controlling nuclear weapons.

Yep, I trust AI, don’t you? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I trusted you to do a great job. What did you deliver? A good enough cartoon.

The study reported in The Engineer might be of interest to some in China. Specifically, the write up stated:

Despite being informed of the fallibility of the AI systems in the study, two-thirds of subjects allowed their decisions to be influenced by the AI. The work, conducted by scientists at the University of California – Merced.

Are these results on point? My experience suggests that not only do people accept the outputs of a computer as “correct.” Many people when shown facts that contradict the computer output defend the computer as more reliable and accurate.

I am not quite such a goose. Machines and software generate errors. The systems have for decades. But I think the reason is that the humans with whom I have interacted pursue convenience. Verifying, analyzing, and thinking are hot processes. Humans want to kick back in cool, low humidity environments and pursue the least effort path in many situations.

The illusion of computer accuracy allows people to skip reviewing their Visa statement and doubting the validity of an output displayed in a spreadsheet. The fact that the smart software hallucinates is ignored. I hear “I know when the system needs checking.” Yeah, sure you do.

Those involved in preparing the study are quoted as saying:

“Our project was about high-risk decisions made under uncertainty when the AI is unreliable,” said Holbrook. “We should have a healthy skepticism about AI, especially in life-or-death decisions. “We see AI doing extraordinary things and we think that because it’s amazing in this domain, it will be amazing in another. We can’t assume that. These are still devices with limited abilities.”

These folks are not going to be hired to advise the Chinese government I surmise.

Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024

The UK Says, “Okay, Google, Get Out Your Checkbook”

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read “British Competition Regulator Objects to Google’s Ad Tech Practices.” The UK is expressing some direct discontent with the Google. The country is making clear that it is not thrilled with the “let ‘em do what they want, pardner” approach of US regulatory agencies. Not surprisingly, like the Netherlands, the government officials are putting the pedal to the metal. The write up reports:

In a statement, the Competition and Markets Authority alleged that the U.S. internet search titan “has harmed competition by using its dominance in online display advertising to favor its own ad tech services.”

I suppose to some the assertion that Google favors itself is not exactly a surprise. The write up continues:

Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of Google Ads, said that the company disagreed with the CMA’s view and “will respond accordingly.” “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Taylor said in an emailed statement. “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector.”

Good enough illustration, MSFT Copilot.

The explanation from a Googler sounds familiar. Will the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority be convinced? My hunch is that the CMA will not be satisfied with Google’s posture on this hard metal chair. (Does that chair have electrodes attached to its frame and arm rests?)

The write up offers this statement:

In the CMA’s decision Friday, the watchdog said that, since 2015, Google has abused its dominant position as the operator of both ad buying tools “Google Ads” and “DV360,” and of a publisher ad server known as “DoubleClick For Publishers,” in order to strengthen the market position of its advertising exchange, AdX.

Oh, not quite a decade.

Why are European entities ramping up their legal actions? My opinions are:

1. Google can produce cash. Ka-ching.
2. The recent ruling that Google is a monopoly is essentially interpreted as a green light for other nation states to give the Google a go.
3. Non-US regulators are fed up with Google’s largely unchecked behavior and have mustered up courage to try and stop a rolling underground car by standing in front of the massive conveyance and pushing with their bare hands to stop the momentum. (Good luck, folks.)

Net net: More Google pushback may be needed once the bold defiers of mass time velocity are pushed aside.

Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2024

Online Gambling Has a Downside, Says Captain Obvious

People love gambling, especially when they’re betting on the results of sports. Online has made sports betting very easy and fun. Unfortunately some people who bet on sports are addicted to the activity. Business Insider reveals the underbelly of online gambling and paints a familiar picture of addiction: “It’s Official: Legalized Sports Betting Is Destroying Young Men’s Financial Futures.” The University of California, Los Angeles shared a working paper about the negative effects of legalized sports gambling:

“…takes a look at what’s happened to consumer financial health in the 38 states that have greenlighted sports betting since the Supreme Court in 2018 struck down a federal law prohibiting it. The findings are, well, rough. The researchers found that the average credit score in states that legalized any form of sports gambling decreased by 0.3% after about four years and that the negative impact was stronger where online sports gambling is allowed, with credit scores dipping in those areas by 1%. They also found an 8% increase in debt-collection amounts and a 28% increase in bankruptcies where online sports betting was given the go-ahead. By their estimation, that translates to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies each year in the states that have legalized sports betting. The number of people who fell dangerously behind on their car loans went up, too. Oddly enough, credit-card delinquencies fell, but the researchers believe that’s because banks wind up lowering credit limits to try to compensate for the rise in risky consumer behavior.”

The researchers discovered that legalized gambling leads to more gambling addictions. They also found if a person lives near a casino or is from a poor region, they’ll more prone to gambling. This isn’t anything new! The paper restates information people have known for centuries about gambling and other addictions: hurts finances, leads to destroyed relationships, job loss, increased in illegal activities, etc.
A good idea is to teach people to restraint. The sports betting Web sites can program limits and even assist their users to manage their money without going bankrupt. It’s better for people to be taught restraint so they can roll the dice one more time.

Whitney Grace, September 13, 2024

Need Help, Students? AI Is Here

Here is a resource for, well, for those who would cheat maybe? The site Pisi.ee shares information on a course called, “How to Use AI to Write a Research Paper.” Hosted by Fikper.com, the course is designed for “high school, college, and university students who are eager to improve their research and writing skills through the use of artificial intelligence.” Research, right. Wink, wink. The course description specifies:

“Whether you’re a high school student tackling your first research project, a college student refining your academic skills, or a university scholar pursuing advanced studies, understanding how to leverage AI can significantly enhance your efficiency and effectiveness. This course offers a comprehensive guide to integrating AI tools into your research process, providing you with the knowledge and skills to excel. Many students struggle with the task of conducting research and writing about it. Identifying a research problem, creating clear questions, looking for other literature, and keeping your academic integrity are a challenge, especially with all the information available. This course addresses these challenges head-on, providing step-by-step guidance and practical exercises that lead you through the research process. What sets this course apart from others is its practical, hands-on approach combined with a strong emphasis on academic integrity.”

A strong emphasis on integrity, you say? Well that is different then. All the tools one may need to generate, er, research papers are covered:

“Tools like Zotero, Mendeley, Grammarly, Hemingway App, IBM Watson, Google Scholar, Turnitin, Copyscape, EndNote, and QuillBot can be used at different stages of the research process. Our goal is to give you a toolkit of resources that you can choose to apply, making your research and writing tasks more efficient and effective.”

Yep, just what aspiring students need to gain that “competitive edge,” as the description puts it. With integrity, of course.

Cynthia Murrell, September 13, 2024

US Government Procurement: Long Live Silos

This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read “Defense AI Models A Risk to Life Alleges Spurned Tech Firm.” Frankly , the headline made little sense to me so I worked through what is a story about a contractor who believes it was shafted by a large consulting firm. In my experience, the situation is neither unusual nor particularly newsworthy. The write up does a reasonable job of presenting a story which could have been titled “Naive Start Up Smoked by Big Consulting Firm.” A small high technology contractor with smart software hooks up with a project in the Department of Defense. The high tech outfit is not able to meet the requirements to get the job. The little AI high tech outfit scouts around and brings a big consulting firm to get the deal done. After some bureaucratic cycles, the small high tech outfit is benched. If you are not familiar with how US government contracting works, the write up provides some insight.

The work product of AI projects will be digital silos. That is the key message of this procurement story. I don’t feel sorry for the smaller company. It did not prepare itself to deal with the big time government contractor. Outfits are big for a reason. They exploit opportunities and rarely emulate Mother Theresa-type behavior. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough illustration although the robots look stupid.

For me, the article is a stellar example of how information or or AI silos are created within the US government. Smart software is hot right now. Each agency, each department, and each unit wants to deploy an AI enabled service. Then that AI infused service becomes (one hopes) an afterburner for more money with which one can add headcount and more AI technology. AI is a rare opportunity to become recognized as a high-performance operator.

As a result, each AI service is constructed within a silo. Think about a structure designed to hold that specific service. The design is purpose built to keep rats and other vermin from benefiting from the goodies within the AI silo. Despite the talk about breaking down information silos, silos in a high profile, high potential technical are like artificial intelligence are the principal product of each agency, each department, and each unit. The payoff could be a promotion which might result in a cushy job in the commercial AI sector or a golden ring; that is, the senior executive service.

I understand the frustration of the small, high tech AI outfit. It knows it has been played by the big consulting firm and the procurement process. But, hey, there is a reason the big consulting firm generates billions of dollars in government contracts. The smaller outfit failed to lock down its role, retain the key to the know how it developed, and allowed its “must have cachè” to slip away.

Welcome, AI company, to the world of the big time Beltway Bandit. Were you expecting the big time consulting firm to do what you wanted? Did you enter the deal with a lack of knowledge, management sophistication, and a couple of false assumptions? And what about the notion of “algorithmic warfare”? Yeah, autonomous weapons systems are the future. Furthermore, when autonomous systems are deployed, the only way they can be neutralized is to use more capable autonomous weapons. Does this sound like a reply of the logic of Cold War thinking and everyone’s favorite bedtime read On Thermonuclear War still available on Amazon and as of September 6, 2024, on the Internet Archive at this link.

Several observations are warranted:

1. Small outfits need to be informed about how big consulting companies with billions in government contracts work the system before exchanging substantive information
2. The US government procurement processes are slow to change, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations and related government documents provide the rules of the road. Learn them before getting too excited about a request for a proposal or Federal Register announcement
3. In a fight with a big time government contractor make sure you bring money, not a chip on your shoulder, to the meeting with attorneys. The entity with the most money typically wins because legal fees are more likely to kill a smaller firm than any judicial or tribunal ruling.

Net net: Silos are inherent in the work process of any government even those run by different rules. But what about the small AI firm’s loss of the contract? Happens so often, I view it as a normal part of the success workflow. Winners and losers are inevitable. Be smarter to avoid losing.

Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2024

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• 

• Search the site

•  

  Subscribe to Beyond Search

  • 
  • 
   
  • 
   
  
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  
  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleagues worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.

• Categories

  • 3D-Printing
  • Acquisition
  • Advertising
  • Aggregation
  • AI
  • Alexa
  • algorithms
  • Amazon
  • Amazonia
  • Analytics
  • Appliance
  • Applications
  • Audio
  • Augmented Reality
  • Big data
  • Bing
  • Bitcoin
  • Bitext
  • Book review
  • Business intelligence
  • Business process
  • Business strategy
  • Censorship
  • Cloud computing
  • Company Profile
  • Conferences
  • Connectors
  • Consulting
  • Consumer
  • Content processing
  • Copyright
  • Corporate Concerns
  • Cost
  • Crawl
  • Crowdfunding
  • cryptocurrency
  • Customer support
  • Cyber OSINT
  • cybercrime
  • cybersecurity
  • Dark Web
  • DarkCyber
  • Data
  • Data mining
  • Database
  • Deepfakes
  • Digital Assistant
  • Digital Library
  • E2EE
  • ECommerce
  • EDiscovery
  • Editorial opinion
  • Education
  • Emoticons
  • Enterprise
  • Enterprise search
  • Entity extraction
  • Ethics
  • Facebook
  • Faceted search
  • Factualities
  • Feature
  • Federated search
  • Financial
  • Fogint
  • Google
  • Governance
  • Government
  • Hackers
  • healthcare
  • IBM Watson
  • Image search
  • Indexing
  • Infrastructure
  • Innovation
  • Integration
  • intelware
  • Interface
  • Internet
  • Interview
  • Investment
  • law enforcement
  • Legal matters
  • Library automation
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Mathematics
  • Metadata
  • Microsoft
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • News
  • NGIA
  • Online (general)
  • Open Access
  • Open source
  • OSINT
  • Osint Radar
  • Overflight
  • Palantir
  • Patents
  • Personnel
  • Podcast
  • Policeware
  • Portals
  • Predictive coding
  • Privacy
  • Profile
  • Publishing
  • Quotation
  • Real time search
  • Reference tool
  • Rich media
  • Robot Writer
  • Search
  • Search enabled applications
  • search engine
  • Search quality
  • Security
  • Semantic
  • Sentiment analysis
  • SEO
  • SharePoint
  • Short Honks
  • Smart Technology
  • Social
  • Social Media
  • software
  • Statistics
  • Taxonomy
  • Technology
  • Text analytics
  • Text processing
  • Tools
  • Tor
  • Training
  • Translation
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • Unstructured Data
  • User experience
  • User Interface
  • Vertical search
  • Video
  • visualization
  • Voice search
  • Voice technology
  • Web 3
  • Web Services
  • Webinar
  • Windows
  • Work flow
  • XML
  • Yahoo

• Archives

  Archives Select Month November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 5

• Recent Posts

  • Explaining Graykey: Helpful or Harmful for Law Enforcement?
  • Apple: Another Problem Becoming Evident
  • Early AI Adoption: Some Benefits
  • FOGINT: Security Tools Over Promise & Under Deliver
  • More Googley Human Resource Goodness

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org