The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

SIDEWAYS IS THE BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR!


Critics in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston agree...
SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. The award-winning film from
Alexander Payne has also earned 7 GOLDEN GLOBE NOMINATIONS including
Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Screenplay. SIDEWAYS stars
Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen.
SIDEWAYS is now playing in select theaters. Watch the trailer at:


http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


Techno Files: At I.B.M., That Google Thing Is So Yesterday

December 26, 2004
 By JAMES FALLOWS 



 

SUDDENLY, the computer world is interesting again. The last
three months of 2004 brought more innovation, faster, than
users have seen in years. The recent flow of products and
services differs from those of previous hotly competitive
eras in two ways. The most attractive offerings are free,
and they are concentrated in the newly sexy field of
"search." 

Google, current heavyweight among systems for searching the
Internet, has not let up from its pattern of introducing
features and products every few weeks. Apart from its
celebrated plan to index the contents of several university
libraries, Google has recently released "beta" (trial)
versions of Google Scholar, which returns abstracts of
academic papers and shows how often they are cited by other
scholars, and Google Suggest, a weirdly intriguing feature
that tries to guess the object of your search after you
have typed only a letter or two. Give it "po" and it will
show shortcuts to poetry, Pok�mon, post office, and other
popular searches. (If you stop after "p" it will suggest
"Paris Hilton.") In practice, this is more useful than it
sounds. 

Microsoft, heavyweight of the rest of computerdom, has
scrambled to catch up with search innovations from Google
and others. On Dec. 10, a company official made a shocking
disclosure. For years Microsoft had emphasized the
importance of "WinFS," a fundamentally new file system that
would make it much easier for users to search and manage
information on their own computers. Last summer, the
company said that WinFS would not be ready in time for
inclusion with its next version of Windows, called
Longhorn. The latest news was that WinFS would not be ready
even for the release after that, which pushed its likely
delivery at least five years into the future. This seemed
to put Microsoft entirely out of the running in desktop
search. But within three days, it had released a beta
version of its new desktop search utility, which it had
previously said would not be available for months. 

Meanwhile, a flurry of mergers, announcements and deals
from smaller players produced a dazzling variety of new
search possibilities. Early this month Yahoo said it would
use the excellent indexing program X1 as the basis for its
own desktop search system, which it would distribute free
to its users. The search company Autonomy, which has
specialized in indexing corporate data, also got into the
new competition, as did Ask Jeeves, EarthLink, and smaller
companies like dTSearch, Copernic, Accoona and many others.


I have most of these systems running all at once on my
computer, and if they don't melt it down or blow it up I
will report later on how each works. But today's subject is
the virtually unpublicized search strategy of another
industry heavyweight: I.B.M. 

Last week I visited the Thomas J. Watson Research Center in
Hawthorne, 20 miles north of New York, to hear six I.B.M.
researchers describe their company's concept of "the future
of search." Concepts and demos are different from products
being shipped and sold, so it is unfair to compare what
I.B.M. is promising with what others are doing now. Still,
the promise seems great. 

Two weeks before our meeting, I.B.M. released OmniFind, the
first program to take advantage of its new strategy for
solving search problems. This approach, which it calls
unstructured information management architecture, or UIMA,
will, according to I.B.M., lead to a third generation in
the ability to retrieve computerized data. The first
generation, according to this scheme, is simple keyword
match - finding all documents that contain a certain name
or address. This is all most desktop search systems can do
- or need to do, because you're mainly looking for an
e-mail message or memorandum you already know is there. The
next generation is the Web-based search now best performed
by Google, which uses keywords and many other indicators to
match a query to a list of sites. 

I.B.M. says that its tools will make possible a further
search approach, that of "discovery systems" that will
extract the underlying meaning from stored material no
matter how it is structured (databases, e-mail files, audio
recordings, pictures or video files) or even what language
it is in. The specific means for doing so involve steps
that will raise suspicions among many computer veterans.
These include "natural language processing," computerized
translation of foreign languages and other efforts that
have broken the hearts of artificial-intelligence
researchers through the years. But the combination of
ever-faster computers and ever-evolving programming allowed
the systems I saw to succeed at tasks that have beaten
their predecessors. 

One example is question answering. Google-type search
engines are fabulous at retrieving random data, but
mediocre at handling subtler queries. Using Google or Ask
Jeeves, you can eventually find out how many of the world's
Web pages are in each of the major languages, but it's slow
and frustrating compared with finding out, say, Mozart's
birthplace. Jennifer Chu-Carroll of I.B.M. demonstrated a
system called Piquant, which analyzed the semantic
structure of a passage and therefore exposed "knowledge"
that wasn't explicitly there. After scanning a news article
about Canadian politics, the system responded correctly to
the question, "Who is Canada's prime minister?" even though
those exact words didn't appear in the article. 

The Semantic Analysis Workbench, demonstrated by Eric Brown
and Dave Ferrucci, showed another way of exposing latent
meaning. The I.B.M. officials said the best use for this
technology would be customer-support call centers: As
representatives took notes on the problems people were
having with their cars or computers or prescription drugs,
automatic interpretation of the results would reveal useful
patterns. Arthur Ciccolo, an I.B.M. strategist for its
unstructured-information project, said that call centers
would be the first place for new search systems to be
applied. Genomic-research projects, where unexpected
correlations can be crucial, might be the second. But the
demonstration suggested another likely market, since every
bit of sample text was a transcript of intercepted phone
calls, apparently among people suspected of terrorism. ("He
made two calls from Frankfurt on these dates ... ") Whether
these were real, I still don't know. 

Salim Roukos demonstrated a system I would like to have
tomorrow: an assortment of news headlines, roughly
comparable to Google News, but from non-English language
sources. The system automatically - and comprehensibly -
translated the headlines and leads of each article. If you
wanted to read more, you pressed a button and in 15 or 20
seconds had a good-enough translation. 



MR. CICCOLO, the search strategist, said that in a way his
team was trying to match - and reverse - what Google has
achieved. "As Google use became widespread, people began
asking why it was so much easier to find material on the
external Web than it was on their own computers or in their
company's Web sites," he said. "Google sets a very high
standard for that Web. We would like to set the next
standard, so that people will find it so easy to do things
at work that they'll wonder why they can't do them on the
Internet." How soon might this happen? He said, with a
chuckle, "Well, if I could freeze what everyone else is
doing, it could be in two years." The great part is, the
competition won't be frozen. At least this part of the
future looks bright. 

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic
Monthly. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/business/yourmoney/26techno.html?ex=1105285002&ei=1&en=8d123a79f7b216ab


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

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

Reply via email to