Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘bussines’

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 – Page updated at 03:56 PM

E-mail article     Print view      Share:    Digg     Newsvine

Microsoft device helps police pluck evidence from cyberscene of crime

Seattle Times technology reporter

Microsoft has developed a small plug-in device that investigators can use to quickly extract forensic data from computers that may have been used in crimes.

The COFEE, which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB “thumb drive” that was quietly distributed to a handful of law-enforcement agencies last June. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith described its use to the 350 law-enforcement experts attending a company conference Monday.

The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer’s Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer.

It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.

More than 2,000 officers in 15 countries, including Poland, the Philippines, Germany, New Zealand and the United States, are using the device, which Microsoft provides free.

“These are things that we invest substantial resources in, but not from the perspective of selling to make money,” Smith said in an interview. “We’re doing this to help ensure that the Internet stays safe.”

Law-enforcement officials from agencies in 35 countries are in Redmond this week to talk about how technology can help fight crime. Microsoft held a similar event in 2006. Discussions there led to the creation of COFEE.

Smith compared the Internet of today to London and other Industrial Revolution cities in the early 1800s. As people flocked from small communities where everyone knew each other, an anonymity emerged in the cities and a rise in crime followed.

The social aspects of Web 2.0 are like “new digital cities,” Smith said. Publishers, interested in creating huge audiences to sell advertising, let people participate anonymously.

That’s allowing “criminals to infiltrate the community, become part of the conversation and persuade people to part with personal information,” Smith said.

Children are particularly at risk to anonymous predators or those with false identities. “Criminals seek to win a child’s confidence in cyberspace and meet in real space,” Smith cautioned.

Expertise and technology like COFEE are needed to investigate cybercrime, and, increasingly, real-world crimes.

advertising

“So many of our crimes today, just as our lives, involve the Internet and other digital evidence,” said Lisa Johnson, who heads the Special Assault Unit in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

A suspect’s online activities can corroborate a crime or dispel an alibi, she said.

The 35 individual law-enforcement agencies in King County, for example, don’t have the resources to investigate the explosion of digital evidence they seize, said Johnson, who attended the conference.

“They might even choose not to seize it because they don’t know what to do with it,” she said. “… We’ve kind of equated it to asking specific law-enforcement agencies to do their own DNA analysis. You can’t possibly do that.”

Johnson said the prosecutor’s office, the Washington Attorney General’s Office and Microsoft are working on a proposal to the Legislature to fund computer forensic crime labs.

Microsoft also got credit for other public-private partnerships around law enforcement.

Jean-Michel Louboutin, Interpol’s executive director of police services, said only 10 of 50 African countries have dedicated cybercrime investigative units.

“The digital divide is no exaggeration,” he told the conference. “Even in countries with dedicated cybercrime units, expertise is often too scarce.”

He credited Microsoft for helping Interpol develop training materials and international databases used to prevent child abuse.

Smith acknowledged Microsoft’s efforts are not purely altruistic. It benefits from selling collaboration software and other technology to law-enforcement agencies, just like everybody else, he said.

Benjamin J. Romano: 206-464-2149 or bromano@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Enterprise 2.0 To Become a $4.6 Billion Industry By 2013

Written by Sarah Perez / April 20, 2008 9:01 PM / 25 Comments


A new report released today by Forrester Research is predicting that enterprise spending on Web 2.0 technologies is going to increase dramatically over the next five years. This increase will include more spending on social networking tools, mashups, and RSS, with the end result being a global enterprise market of $4.6 billion by the year 2013.

This change is not without its challenges. Although there is money to be made in the industry by vendors, Web 2.0 tools by their very nature are defined by commoditization; as is much of the new social media industry, a topic we touched on briefly here, when discussing how content has become a commodity.

For vendors specifically, there are 3 main challenges to becoming successful in this new industry, including:

  1. I.T. shops being wary of what they perceive as “consumer-grade” technology
  2. Ad-supported web tools generally have “free” as the starting point
  3. Web 2.0 tools will have to now compete in a space currently dominated by legacy enterprise software investments

What is Enterprise Web 2.0?

Most technologists segment the Web 2.0 market between “consumer” Web 2.0 technologies and “business” Web 2.0 technologies. So what does Enterprise 2.0 include then?

Well, what it doesn’t include is consumer services like Blogger, Facebook, Netvibes, and Twitter, says Forrester. These types of services are aimed at consumers and are often supported by ads, so they do not qualify as Enterprise 2.0 tools.

Instead, collaboration and productivity tools based on the concepts of web 2.0, but designed for the enterprise worker will count as being Enterprise 2.0. In addition, for-pay services, like those from BEA Systems, IBM, Microsoft, Awareness, NewsGator Technologies, and Six Apart will factor in.

Enterprise marketing tools have also expanded to include Web 2.0 technologies. For example, money spent on the creation and syndication of a Facebook app or a web site/social network widget could be considered Enterprise 2.0. However, pure ad spending dollars, including those spent on consumer Web 2.0 sites, will not count as Enterprise 2.0.

Getting Past the I.T. Gatekeeper

One of the main challenges of getting Web 2.0 into the enterprise will be getting past the gatekeepers of traditional I.T. Businesses have been showing interest in these new technologies, but, ironically, the interest comes from departments outside of I.T. Instead, it’s the marketing department, R&D, and corporate communications pushing for the adoption of more Web 2.0-like tools.

Unfortunately, as often is the case, the business owners themselves don’t have the knowledge or expertise to make technology purchasing decisions for their company. They rely on I.T. to do so – a department that currently spends 70% of their budget maintaining past investments.

Despite the absolute mission-critical nature of I.T. in today’s business, the department is often provided with slim budgets, which tends to only allow for maintaining current infrastructure, not experimenting with new, unproven technologies.

To make matters worse, I.T. tends to view Web 2.0 tools as being insecure at best, or, at worst, a security threat to the business. They also don’t trust what they perceive to be “consumer-grade” technologies, which they don’t believe have the power to scale to the size that an enterprise demands.

In addition, I.T. departments currently work with a host of legacy applications. The new tools, in order to compete with these, will have to be able to integrate with existing technology, at least for the time being, in order to be fully effective.

Finally, given the tight budgets, there is still a chance that even if a particular tool does meet all the requirements to get in the door at a particular company, I.T. or other company personnel utilizing the service may try to exploit the free version of the service if the price point for the “enterprise” version gets to be too high. They may also choose to look for a free, open source alternative.

Enterprise 2.0 Adoption

How Web 2.0 Will Reach $4.6 Billion

All that being said, the Web 2.0 market, as  small as it is now, is, in fact, growing. In 2008, firms with 1000 employees or more will spend $764 million on Web 2.0 tools and technologies. Over the next five years, that expenditure will grow at a compound annual rate of 43%.

The top spending category will be social networking tools. In 2008, for example, companies will spend $258 million on tools like those from Awareness, Communispace, and Jive Software. After social networking, the next-largest category is RSS, followed by blogs and wikis, and then mashups.

The vendors expected to do the best in this new marketplace will be those that bundle their offerings, offering the complete package of tools to the businesses they serve.

However, newer, “pure” Web 2.0 companies hoping to capitalize on this trend will still have to fight with traditional I.T. software for a foothold, specifically fighting with the likes of Microsoft and IBM. Many I.T. shops will choose to stick with their existing software from these large, well-known vendors, especially now that both are integrating Web 2.0 into their offerings.

Microsoft’s SharePoint, for example, now includes wikis, blogs, and RSS technologies in their collaboration suite. IBM offers social networking and mashup tools via their Lotus Connections and Lotus Mashups products and SAP Business Suite includes social networking and widgets.

What this means is that much of the Web 2.0 tool kit will simply “fade into the fabric of enterprise collaboration suites,” says Forrester. By 2013, few buyers will seek out and purchase Web 2.0 tools specifically. Web 2.0 will become a feature, not a product.

Enterprise 2.0 Spending

Other Trends

Other trends will also have an impact on this new marketplace, including the following:

External Spending Will Beat Internal Spending: External Web 2.0 expenditure will surpass internal expenditure in 2009, and, by 2013, will dwarf internal spending by a billion dollars. Internally, companies will spend money on internal social networking, blogs, wikis, and RSS; externally, the spending patterns will be very similar. Social networking tools that provide customer interaction, allowing customers the ability to create profiles, join discussion boards, and read company blogs, for example, will receive more investment and development over the next five years.

Europe & Asia Pacific Markets Grow: Europe and Asia Pacific will become more substantial markets in 2009. Fewer European companies have embraced Web 2.0 tools, leaving much room for growth. Asia Pacific will also grow in 2009.

Web 2.0 Graduates from “Kids’ Stuff”:  Right now, it’s people between the ages of 12 and 17 that are the more avid consumers of social computing technology, with one-third of them acting as content creators. Meanwhile, only 7% of those 51-61 do the same. However, this is another trend that is going to change over the next few years. By 2011, Forrester believes that users of Web 2.0 tools will mirror users of the web at large.

Retirement of Baby Boomers: As with many things, it takes the passing of the older generation from executive status into retirement before a true shift can occur. Over the next three years, millions of baby boomers will retire and the younger workers brought in to fill the void will not only want, but will expect similar tools in the office as those they use at home in their personal lives.

What It All Means

For vendors wanting to play in the Enterprise 2.0 space, there are a few key takeaways to be learned from this research. For one, they can help ensure their success in this niche by selling across deployment types. That is, plan to grow beyond just selling to either the internal or external market.

Another option is to segment the enterprise marketplace by industry and then by company size. Some industries are more customer-focused than others when it comes to the external market, so developing customized solutions for a particular industry could be a key to success. For internal tools, focusing efforts on deploying enterprise grade tools that include things like integration or security will help sell products to larger customers. Other  levels of service can be designed specifically for the SMBs, featuring simple, self-provisioning products to help cut down on costs.

Finally, vendors looking to grow should consider making a name for themselves in the Europe or Asia Pacific markets, where the opportunity comes from the expected increased investment rates for Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 in those geographic regions.

However, the most valuable aspect of this change for vendors is the knowledge they obtain about how to run a successful SaaS business – something that will help propel them into the next decade and beyond and, ultimately, will provide more value than any single Web 2.0 offering alone ever will.

Read Full Post »

April 18 2008

Is The Venture Capital Party Over?

Duncan Riley

18 comments »

party1.jpgAccording to a new report from Thomson Reuters and PricewaterhouseCoopers, venture capital investment in the United States headed south in the first quarter of 2008.

The report found that venture outlays dropped 8.5 percent to $7.1 billion in the three months ending March 31 from the $7.8 billion invested in the previous quarter, resulting in the lowest quarter since Q4 2006. Funding for early and late stage companies declined in the first quarter, though funding rose for expansion-stage companies.

The Boston Globe noted that the VC slow-down was in line with the declining US economy, and quotes Nina Saberi, managing general partner for Castile Ventures saying that new startups are being hit the hardest:

“We see from early-stage investments that the economic slowdown has had an impact”….She cited an inhospitable climate for initial public offerings and a tougher market for acquisitions, two routes for cashing out of investment.

The first quarter of the calendar year is usually the quietest so part of the decline may be seasonal, and yet it would appear that the venture capital market, and in turn new stage web investments will not be immune from the increasingly dire American economy. It’s not all doom and gloom: internet investments overall were up this quarter, but the exuberance in the market over the last 12-24 months would appear to have peaked. The only questions now: how far will it drop, at what rate, and how much of the broader downturn in investment will affect internet venture capital.

(via Venture Beat)

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Allan

    Sure seed stage ventures are going to be hit pretty hard. But I bet startup funds or first-time venture funds will be hit even harder. Few institutional guys will stick their necks out to back new VCs.

  2. The Little League Coach

    How far will it go is the million dollar question isn’t it? Maybe the side effect of this will be investment in only good solid businesses that provide long term growth and wealth.

  3. Alex

    This is WHY people hate MEDIA.

    The gloom and doom “message” being tossed out by people with a platform….. It’s sad that even the new media properties are starting to fall into the same trap as the old media. Selling cheap headlines ala ValleyWag….
    If the shit is hitting the fan, then I’d like for Techcrunch to write a long post of the restructuring charges and changes they are taking for this nuclear winter.

    Sure, there are issues in the economy. But, jesus what has changed in the past six months?

  4. Duncan Riley

    Alex
    unless you’re living in a cave I really don’t need to explain the subprime mortgage crisis and the growing consensus that the US might be heading into a recession in the post. That’s what’s changed in the last 6 months.

    I’d also note it’s not all doom and gloom, see the last paragraph. Money is still there, just not as much of it and VC’s are already getting more conservative in their investments, see the post about b5media being knocked back repeatedly on a $20m valuation as but one example.

  5. Yakov

    In Russia, it’s the best-ever quarter for VC investments in tech, is youi read my blog.

  6. Mordechai Horowitz

    The reason for this is that America is really dying, Israel is the future tech powerhouse of the future.

  7. Kevin

    The economy certainly isn’t going gangbusters but we should watch the ‘R’ word.

    Stagnant to very small growth is bad, but it isn’t two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

  8. exapted

    If I am not mistaken, web startups’ percentage share of the VC has been shrinking, perhaps because they don’t need as much financing as they once did. Web startups are increasingly cheaper to finance. But with a worsened climate for IPOs and a more generally conservative investment climate, you wonder if the web startups with true potential that need significant financing will be able to raise enough revenue and VC. I reckon that in the natural selection of web startups, there will be less mutation (variety) – the interesting startups are usually risky and take a long time to develop. Variety is important.

    Ad revenue on the web is not going to grow as quickly. Is that a direct result of a decrease in consumer sentiment and a decrease in spending on the web?

    I still think that in certain untapped “corners” of the web, there will be healthy growth.

  9. MistOne

    The only question now: how far will it drop, at what rate, and how much of the broader downturn in investments affect internet venture capital.

    thats 3 questions really – all good ones but different.

    So much has been said about how much cheaper it is to startup today then just a few years ago, if the VC money dries up, it may force more entreps to dig in deep and bootstrap it, and maybe when things get rosier again for the money guys the shift will have been completed and new smaller/smarter investment models will overtake them.

  10. MistOne

    @ 6 – America is really dying? come now, thats a bit of a stretch. other spots may be emerging but America is not dying.

  11. Peter Urban

    When the boiler is getting too hot the lid pops off. We’ve seen it so many times before and we’ll see it again.

  12. YDrive

    Yes it is.

  13. JJ

    The pace of early stage internet deals has slowed considerably.

  14. Chris S

    The perspective could be very different on why the numbers are low. It definitely shows that VC are being conservative. But why? The economy could be the obvious answer. But could it also be the quality of tech companies?

    In the last 6 months, we have seen the struggle companies, who rely on advertising, go through to actually create returns for VC’s investment. Think Facebook and think pretty much at least 50% of the social networking sites. It could be that VC’s now know that startups who base their whole revenue model on advertising will not make it. And there could be a possibility that in the last 6 months, VC’s may have rejected a lot of these startups thus reducing the number of investments and the amount.

    This is just me thinking out loud at 11:55pm. So I could be really off.

  15. Andrew

    we go through these recessions every so often, sure America might be in a slump right now since we have morons in charge of the country, blame Bush for choosing his drinking buddies for all the top jobs. But eventually it’ll recover.

    The problem I see is that because of this current slump America is going to lose the 10-20 years that it was SUPPOSED to dominate. After which it’ll be even harder to be competitive because of China.

  16. European

    At the same time, rumours abound that Michael Moritz is looking to raise capital to start a tech focused long/short hedge fund…

    @Kevin – you have no idea what you’re talking about, go away.

  17. Steve

    I would say that the post title is a bit misleading.
    Q2 2007 has also a small decline, but the fact is that a slow economy
    affects everything. Maybe it’s the lack of original ideas too.

  18. Darren

    I have to say maybe its a good thing, there seems to be a trend where features not products are getting funding when they shouldn’t.

Read Full Post »

From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web”

 

 

(Some post are written in English and Spanish language) 

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/web-development/TCH_WDD/165684-18926951 

From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web” 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem#Other_problems

If you read the next posts on this blog: 

Semantic Web

The Semantic Web

What is the Semantic Web, Actually?

The Metaweb: Beyond Weblogs. From the Metaweb to the Semantic Web: A Roadmap

Semantics to the people! ontoworld

What’s next for the Internet

Web 3.0: Update

How the Wikipedia 3.0: The End of Google? article reached 2 million people in 4 days!

Google vs Web 3.0

Google dont like Web 3.0 [sic] Why am I not surprised?

Designing a better Web 3.0 search engine

From semantic Web (3.0) to the WebOS (4.0)

Search By Meaning

A Web That Thinks Like You

MINDING THE PLANET: THE MEANING AND FUTURE OF THE SEMANTIC WEB

The long-promised “semantic” web is starting to take shape

Start-Up Aims for Database to Automate Web Searching

Metaweb: a semantic wiki startup

http://www.freebase.com/

The Semantic Web, Collective Intelligence and Hyperdata.

Informal logic 

Logical argument

Consistency proof 

Consistency proof and completeness: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems

Computability theory (computer science): The halting problem

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems: Relationship with computability

Non-formal or Inconsistency Logic: LACAN’s LOGIC. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems,

You will realize the internal relationship between them linked from Logic to Ontology.  

I am writing from now on an article about the existence of the semantic web.  

I will prove that it does not exist at all, and that it is impossible to build from machines like computers.  

It does not depend on the software and hardware you use to build it: You cannot do that at all! 

You will notice the internal relations among them, and the connecting thread is the title of this post: “Logic to ontology.”   

I will prove that there is no such construction, which can not be done from the machines, and that does not depend on the hardware or software used.  

More precisely, the limits of the semantic web are not set by the use of machines themselves and biological systems could be used to reach this goal, but as the logic that is being used to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time, since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the metaphor, and that is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the final tautology of each construction or metonymic language (mathematical), which leads to inconsistencies. 

This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that makes inconsistent use of time, inherent of human unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and that is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired with the absence.  

The problem is we are trying to build an intelligent system to replace our way of thinking, at least in the information search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of time which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the human mind the halting problem or stop of calculation.  

So all efforts faced toward semantic web are doomed to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech, because only a mathematical construction, which will always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of the time that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.  

As a demonstration of that, if you suppose it is possible to construct the semantic web, as a language with capabilities similar to human language, which has the use of time, should we face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false with a counter example, and it is given in the particular case of the Turing machine and “the halting problem”.  

Then as the necessary and sufficient condition for the theorem is not fulfilled, we still have the necessary condition that if a language uses time, it lacks formal logic, the logic used is inconsistent and therefore has no stop problem.

This is a necessary condition for the semantic web, but it is not enough and therefore no machine, whether it is a Turing Machine, a computer or a device as random as a black body related to physics field, can deal with any language other than mathematics language hence it is implied that this language is forced to meet the halting problem, a result of Gödel theorem.   

De la lógica a la ontología: El límite de la “web semántica”  

Si lee los siguientes artículos de este blog: 

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_sem%C3%A1ntica  

Wikipedia 3.0: El fin de Google (traducción Spanish)

Lógica 

Lógica Consistente y completitud: Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel (Spanish)

Consistencia lógica (Spanish)

Teoría de la computabilidad. Ciencia de la computación.

Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel y teoría de la computación: Problema de la parada 

Lógica inconsistente e incompletitud: LOGICAS LACANIANAS y Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel (Spanish)  

Jacques Lacan (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)

Usted puede darse cuenta de las relaciones internas entre ellos, y el hilo conductor es el título de este mismo post: “de la lógica a la ontología”.  

Probaré que no existe en absoluto tal construcción, que no se puede hacer desde las máquinas, y que no depende ni del hardware ni del software utilizado.   

Matizando la cuestión, el límite de la web semántica está dado no por las máquinas y/o sistemas biológicos que se pudieran usar, sino porque la lógica con que se intenta construir carece del uso del tiempo, ya que la lógica formal es puramente metonímica y carece de la metáfora, y eso es lo que marcan los teoremas de Gödel, la tautología final de toda construcción y /o lenguaje metonímico (matemático), que lleva a contradicciones.  

Esta lógica consistente es opuesta a la lógica inconsistente que hace uso del tiempo, propia del insconciente humano, pero el uso del tiempo está construido en base a la falta, no en torno a lo positivo sino en base a negaciones y ausencias, y eso es imposible de reflejar en una máquina porque la percepción de la falta necesita de la conciencia de sí mismo que se adquiere con la ausencia.   

El problema está en que pretendemos construir un sistema inteligente que sustituya nuestro pensamiento, al menos en las búsquedas de información, pero la particularidad de nuestro pensamiento humano es el uso del tiempo el que permite concluir, por eso no existe en la mente humana el problema de la parada o detención del cálculo, o lo que es lo mismo ausencia del momento de concluir.  

Así que todos los esfuerzos encaminados a la web semántica están destinados al fracaso a priori si lo que se pretende es prolongar nuestro pensamiento humano en las máquinas, ellas carecen de discurso metafórico, pues sólo son una construcción matemática, que siempre será tautológica y metonímica, ya que además carece del uso del tiempo que es lo que lleva al corte, la conclusión o la “parada”.  

Como demostración vale la del contraejemplo, o sea que si suponemos que es posible construir la web semántica, como un lenguaje con capacidades similares al lenguaje humano, que tiene el uso del tiempo, entonces si ese es un teorema general, con un solo contraejemplo se viene abajo, y el contraejemplo está dado en el caso particular de la máquina de Turing y el “problema de la parada”.  

Luego no se cumple la condición necesaria y suficiente del teorema, nos queda la condición necesaria que es que si un lenguaje tiene el uso del tiempo, carece de lógica formal, usa la lógica inconsistente y por lo tanto no tiene el problema de la parada”, esa es condición necesaria para la web semántica, pero no suficiente y por ello ninguna máquina, sea de Turing, computador o dispositivo aleatorio como un cuerpo negro en física, puede alcanzar el uso de un lenguaje que no sea el matemático con la paradoja de la parada, consecuencia del teorema de Gödel.

Jacques Lacan (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: