SLI Systems Hopeful as Losses Narrow and Revenue Grows
June 14, 2016
The article titled SLI Systems Narrows First-Half Loss on Scoop reports revenue growth and plans to mitigate losses. SLI Systems is a New Zealand-based software as a service (SaaS) business that provides cloud-based search resources to online retailers. Founded in 2001, SLI Systems has already weathered a great deal of storms in the form of the dot-com crash that threatened to stall the core technology (developed at GlobalBrain.) According to a statement from the company, last year’s loss of $502K was an improvement from the loss of $4.1M in 2014. The article states,
“SLI shares have dropped 18 percent in the past 12 months, to trade recently at 76 cents, about half the level of the 2013 initial public offering price of $1.50. The software developer missed its sales forecast for the second half of the 2015 year but is optimistic new chief executive Chris Brennan and Martin Onofrio as chief revenue officer, both Silicon Valley veterans, can drive growth in revenue and earnings.”
The SLI of SLI stands for Search, Learn and (appropriately) Improve. The company hopes to achieve sustainable growth without raising additional capital by continuing to focus on innovation and customer retention rates, which slipped from 90% to 87% recently. Major clients include Lenovo, David Jones, Harvey Norman, and Paul Smith.
Chelsea Kerwin, June 14, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Sillycon Valley Antics: Hulk, Hillary
June 13, 2016
I noted two items which reminded me why I enjoy Sillycon Valley techno wizardry. The first item concerns the Hulk Hogan Gawker matter. The story “Gawker Files for Bankruptcy and Says It Will Sell the Company to Ziff Davis or Someone Else” converted to a quasi emoji in my addled goose brain; to wit:
My hunch is that anyone who wants to annoy the founder of Palantir Technologies, may want to consider the risks. That splat is ugly and may be blended with an aniline dye.
The other item makes clear that the Alphabet Google thing is an objective algorithmic construct, kissed by the golden Sillycon Valley sun. Navigate to “There’s No Evidence That Google Is Manipulating Searches to Help Hillary Clinton.” Therein resides the truth. I learned:
Apparently, Google has a policy of not suggesting that customers do searches on people’s crimes. I have no inside knowledge of why it runs its search engine this way. Maybe Google is just uncomfortable with having an algorithm suggesting that people search for other people’s crimes. In any event, there’s no evidence that this is specific to Hillary Clinton, and therefore no reason to think this is a conspiracy by Google to help Clinton win the election.
Definitely rock solid from a person whose brother works at Google. Even more reason to accept the Sillycon Valley objectivity argument.
Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2016
Security, Privacy Struggle with Change
June 13, 2016
I read “NSA Looking to Exploit Internet of Things, Including Biomedical Devices, Official Says.” Let’s assume that the information in the write up is accurate. The message the article seems to convey is that “investing” in systems and methods created a problem for investigators.
I read the article as saying, “Hey, this change stuff is a problem.” Perhaps the solution to the privacy and security tug of war is a flood of changes from software and hardware vendors?
Just a thought.
I don’t like change and for good reasons.
Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2016
The Time Google Flagged Itself for Potentially Malicious Content
June 13, 2016
Did you know Google recently labeled itself as ‘partially dangerous’? Fortune released a story, Google Has Stopped Rating ‘Google.com’ as ‘Partially Dangerous’, which covers what happened. Google has a Safe Browsing tool which identifies potentially harmful websites by scanning URLs. Users noticed that Google itself was flagged for a short time. Was there a rational explanation? This article offers a technology-based reason for the rating,
“Fortune noted that Google’s Safe Browsing tool had stopped grading its flagship site as a hazard on Wednesday morning. A Google spokesperson told Fortune that the alert abated late last night, and that the Safe Browsing service is always on the hunt for security issues that might need fixing. The issue is likely the result of some Google web properties hosting risky user-generated content. The safety details of the warning specifically called out Google Groups, a service that provides online discussion boards and forums. If a user posted something harmful there, Google’s tool would have factored that in when assessing the security of the google.com domain as a whole, a person familiar with the matter told Fortune.”
We bet some are wondering whether this is a reflection of Google management or the wonkiness of Google’s artificial intelligence? Considering hacked accounts alone, it seems like malicious content would be posted in Google Groups fairly regularly. This flag seems to be a flag for more than the “partially dangerous” message spells out. The only question remaining is, a flag for what?
Megan Feil, June 13, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Axcelerate Focuses on Control and Visibility
June 13, 2016
The article on CMSWire titled Recommind Adds Muscle to Cloud e-Discovery relates the upgrades to the Axcelerate e-Discovery platform from Recommind. The muscle referred to in the article title is the new Efficiency Scoring feature offered to increase e-discovery review process transparency by tracking efficiency and facilitating a consistent assessment. The article explains,
“Axcelerate Cloud is built on Recommind’s interactive business intelligence layer to give legal professionals a depth of insight into the e-discovery process that Recommind says they have previously lacked. Behind all the talk of agility and visibility, there is one goal here: control. The company hopes this release allays the fears of legal firms, who traditionally have been reluctant to use cloud-based software for fear of compromising data.”
Hal Marcus, Director of Product Marketing at Recommind, suggested that in spite of early hesitancy by legal professional to embrace the cloud, current legal teams are more open to the possibilities available through consolidation of discovery requirements in the cloud. According to research, there are no enterprise legal departments without cloud-based legal resources related to contract management, billing, or e-discovery. Axcelerate Cloud aims to promote visibility into discovery practices to address the major concern among legal professionals: insufficient insight and transparency.
Chelsea Kerwin, June 13, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Quote to Note: Flip the Switch
June 12, 2016
I am not sure if this statement is in context or is 100 percent accurate. However, I found the information in “Eric Schmidt Dismissed the AI fears Raised by Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk” interesting. I love it when “smart” people disagree. Allegedly the electric auto person and the person holding the Newton chair see smart software as a potential problem for humanoids.
Not the Alphabet Google thing. Eric Schmidt compared fears of these two allegedly smart humans’ ideas to a movie. The “reality”, according to the Alphabet Google thing, is:
The scenario you’re just describing is the one where the computers get so smart is that they want to destroy us at some point in their evolving intelligence due to some bug. My question to you is: don’t you think the humans would notice this, and start turning off the computers?
That’s right. A big red button. When I try to kill a Microsoft Windows process or struggle with a GPS which cannot locate me, I just turn off the system. Works every time. Almost. What was that song HAL enjoyed in 2001, Dave?
Systems work really well. For example, lines at airports, Flint water systems, the DC red line, trickle down economics, Itanium CPUs.
Stephen E Arnold, June 12, 2016
Google Nuggets for Summer 2016
June 11, 2016
I printed out several articles which contained information new to me. Here’s the run down:
- I found the suggestion that artificial intelligence could go off the rails amusing. The Alphabet Google thing is one the job, however. Here’s the story about a kill switch for smart software: “Google Is Working on a Kill Switch to Prevent an AI Uprising.” Like the Boston Dynamics robots and the many assertions that Android was not fragmented, the “working on a kill switch” sounds like smart software is not a problem. Terminator thoughts, anyone?
- Google was not included in the write up “Tech Moguls Such as Musk and Bezos Declare Era of Artificial Intelligence.” Poor Google. It sees an opportunity.
- I like it when companies assert that they are able to deliver. Self referential recursiveness public relations, perhaps? Navigate to “You Can Totally Trust Your Privacy with Google, Says Google.” When I worked in Washington, I thought I spotted some Google types at a certain three letter agency. Must have been my imagination. When I read about “totally”, I think about the Google Yahoo GoTo.com/Overture matter. Totally.
- The wonderful Daily Mail in merrie old England reported “Google Is Accused of Burying Results for Popular Pro Brexit Website on Second Page of Search Results.” I thought smart software and algorithms handled relevance. Maybe some real journalists in the UK are not aware of Google’s objective systems and methods.
Interesting PR flow from the Alphabet Google thing. Is it possible for a smart software company to protest too much?
Stephen E Arnold, June 11. 2016
Facebook AI Explainer
June 10, 2016
Facebook posted a partial explanation of its artificial intelligence system. You can review the document “Introducing DeepText: Facebook’s Text Understanding Engine” and decide if Facebook or IBM is winning the smart software race. The Facebook document states:
In traditional NLP approaches, words are converted into a format that a computer algorithm can learn. The word “brother” might be assigned an integer ID such as 4598, while the word “bro” becomes another integer, like 986665. This representation requires each word to be seen with exact spellings in the training data to be understood. With deep learning, we can instead use “word embeddings,” a mathematical concept that preserves the semantic relationship among words. So, when calculated properly, we can see that the word embeddings of “brother” and “bro” are close in space. This type of representation allows us to capture the deeper semantic meaning of words. Using word embeddings, we can also understand the same semantics across multiple languages, despite differences in the surface form. As an example, for English and Spanish, “happy birthday” and “feliz cumpleaños” should be very close to each other in the common embedding space. By mapping words and phrases into a common embedding space, DeepText is capable of building models that are language-agnostic.
Due to Facebook’s grip on the 18 to 35 demographic, its approach may have more commercial impact than the methods in use at other firms. Just ask IBM Watson.
Stephen E Arnold, June 10, 2016
Murdoch Wall Street Journal Factiva: Known Unknowns
June 10, 2016
That Donald Rumsfeld statement about known knowns, known unknowns, etc. Is back. The Wall Street Journal ran an ad for Factiva. You remember Factiva. It is the Dow Jones Information Service repositioned and renamed a number of times over the last 15 or 20 years.
If you are into for fee search, you will know about Factiva and its kissing cousins: LexisNexis (bring your legal client’s purchase order), CSA ProQuest Dialog (bring your library acquisition budget), and Ebsco (bring your credit card). For fee information services serve the professional searcher market. Most people — including Gen X and Millennials researchers — are happy with Google. Objective results every time.
The for-fee services are still around. Public library and university fund raising programs help pay for access. Some queries returning zero useful results can cost $100 or more. Hey, you didn’t know, right?
If you navigate to the June 2, 2016, Wall Street Journal, page A7 in my dead tree edition ran a full page ad for Factiva. The ad highlights a couple of pie charts. Here they are in a tough to read gray and blue motif. Users of commercial database services have really sharp eyes and don’t need high contrast text, right?
The first pie chart shows your life consumed with research. Notice how little time one has to eat lunch. Note what a tiny portion of one’s day is available for email, Facebook, talking with colleagues, making sales calls, printing, the youth soccer telephone tree.
Now look at the second chart.
Look at the many different tasks one can undertake in a single work day. One can, of course, “take lunch.” I eat lunch, but that’s because here in rural Kentucky, we “eat” a meal. We make decisions. Apparently in Factiva land one takes a meal and probably takes decisions.
Other tasks one can pursue when one has Factiva are:
- Collaborating across departments
- Advise colleagues
- Stay on top of the news (Hey, it is part of that real journalism outfit owned by Mr. Murdoch. No bugging telephones, please.)
- Create a company newsletter. (I assume this word is “blog”, a Snapchat, or a tweet, but I could be off base.)
- Build powerful infographics. (Hmmm. I thought art types created infographics based on the data generated by a business intelligence system.)
- Research. Yes via Factiva.
Now I know that I am really out of the flow. The diagram showing the different between Baby Boomers and Millennials created by ace research analyst Mary Meeker reminded me of the gulf between my demographic and the zippy millennials.
Slide 51 from the Meeker, State of the Internet report.
The main point for me is that I possess zero of the attributes of millennials. I don’t earn to spend. I am retired. I conserve to pay for the old age home which I believe millennials call “opportunities for bingo.”
But the best part of the Factiva ad is the copy. I know words. Those nifty pie charts were the cat’s pajamas, weren’t they?
Here’s the guts of the message:
Spend your day working, not searching. Factiva’s reputable sources, flexible search and powerful insights provide access to thousands of quality, licensed, news and information sources in 28 languages. Know unknowns. [Emphasis added]
If Ms. Meeker is correct in her research and the supporting information from Hillhouse Capital and dozens of what appear to be primary sources and many hours of online searching commercial and Web resources — messaging apps are where the future is. Oh, there are videos too, but the takeaway is that traditional methods of getting digital information are in the same spot newspapers were yesterday.
The ad warrants several questions:
- Why does it have to be so darned big? Maybe small ads in the Wall Street Journal are ignored?
- How many of the Wall Street Journal’s readers are information specialists trained in the use of commercial online services? Judging from the Special Library Association’s challenges, I would suggest that the ad would have made sense to the corporate information specialist working in 1986, not 2016.
- What’s with the wonky pie charts? When I worked at a commercial database company, I don’t recall meeting any online users who spent the bulk of every day online. There were reference interviews (remember them, millennials?), culling the outputs from dot matrix printers, and planning search strategies before going online and whacking away.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s statement about knowns and unknowns emerged from his brush with the murky world of government related information. If he were to use Factiva today, would he have modified this famous statement:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Perhaps Factiva, like IBM Watson, is easier to describe than turn an information search system into a lean, mean, money making machine? I would suggest that the answer for decades has been an unknown unknown.
Stephen E Arnold, June 10, 2016
The Unknown Future of Google Cloud Platform
June 10, 2016
While many may have the perception Google dominates in many business sectors, a recent graph published shows a different story when it comes to cloud computing. Datamation released a story, Why Google Will Dominate Cloud Computing, which shows Google’s position in fourth. Amazon, Microsoft and IBM are above the search giant in cloud infrastructure services when looking at the fourth quarter market share and revenue growth for 2015. The article explains why Google appears to be struggling,
“Yet as impressive as its tech prowess is, GCP’s ability to cater to the prosaic needs of enterprise cloud customers has been limited, even fumbling. Google has always focused more on selling its own services rather than hosting legacy applications, but these legacy apps are the engine that drives business. Remarkably, GCP customers don’t get support for Oracle software, as they do on Amazon Web Services. Alas, catering to the needs of enterprise clients isn’t about deep genius – it’s about working with others. GCP has been like the high school student with straight A’s and perfect SAT scores that somehow doesn’t have too many friends.”
Despite the current situation, the article hypothesizes Google Cloud Platform may have an edge in the long-term. This is quite a bold prediction. We wonder if Datamation may approach the goog to sell some ads. Probably not, as real journalists do not seek money, right?
Megan Feil, June 10, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
