that

A panel discussion at the opening of the recent () conference at Dartington College of the Arts posed the question what happens after the end of the Arts and Humanities Data Service (); is this the end of national support? The Arts and Humanities Data Service is a national service with the primary role to preserve curate and provide access to the digital output of the humanities in the UK. The Service is also active in the enhancement and promotion of digital scholarship in the UK as well as internationally. After eleven years of service the AHDS recently lost its funding from the JISC (Joint Information Services Committee) and the AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council). The Service will cease to exist in its present form in March of 2008. The panel discussion was introduced by the head of the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s ICT in Arts and Humanities Research Programme. The other members of the panel were Lorna Hughes. Manager of the AHRC ICT and Professor David Shepherd. Director of the. Professor Robey stated that the end of the AHDS may be decisive in the history of digital scholarship in the UK as this may be the end of national support. It is national support that has defined digital scholarship in the UK for many years and has helped the nation to become one of the world-leaders in the field. Without a national approach the field may flounder or return to the dark days of scattered digital scholarship with little coherence or ambitions as a field. At the present time the AHDS preserves over one thousand projects in various digital forms some of which include the (the complete collection of the parliamentary debates of the Northern Irish Parliament under British rule) and. (a multi-media database of the performances of Shakespeare over a forty year period). The collection of the AHDS is undoubtedly one of the most important digital collections in the world and some of it ‘born-digital’ collections exist in no other location. The panel discussed some of the problems that may occur after the closure of the AHDS. There is no indication as to what will happen to the collection after the closure except that the responsibility for preservation of the individual projects may be handed to institutional repositories. Although institutional repositories are responsible for collecting preserving and dissemination the intellectual output of universities in a digital form there are some reservations as express by David Shepherd that institutional repositories are up to the task. Preservation requires projects to be prepared in a certain way and is an ongoing process. It also requires the ability to deal with complex data in various forms. There is also the serious problem that not all universities have institutional repositories ironically including King’s College; London the principal home of the AHDS. Although institutional repositories may one day be able to handle the tasks of the AHDS there was great concern as expressed by all members of the panel that this was yet some time away. In the longer term institutional repositories may be able to look after complex data but not now. David Robey also expressed the loss of the AHDS may also mean the end of its integrated catalogue to search the collections under its umbrella. Lorna Hughes the Manager of the AHRC Methods Network stated that the decision to cease funding of the AHDS came at the same time that digital resources had reached a critical mass and access to this was altering the very nature of scholarship across the spectrum. To withdraw funding now may impact upon the ability to reuse this significant resource and to curate and present it in a user-friendly and innovative way in the future. The program that Lorna Hughes is Manager the highly inventive Methods Network also ceases to be funded in 2008. The Methods Network is involved in numerous activities to promote the use of digital technologies in the humanities through workshops and other events. As the name indicates the Methods Network is active in promoting digital scholarship through connecting individuals across various disciplines through such things as the computational methods that they employ in their work. For instance scholars may come together through tools (like text mining) or through methods (like visualisation). It is this cross-fertilisation that is vital to the promotion of digital scholarship as a field not only because of the economic efficiencies that it provides but also because central to the concept of ‘innovation’ is the sharing of knowledge across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Lorna Hughes also lamented that there was a serious dearth of tools available to scholars to properly exploit digital resources; perhaps another activity that could benefit from greater central coordination. One way that this could be achieved is through online resources such as the arts-humanities net community platform being developed by the Methods Network. It is hoped that this community platform will continue part of the work of the Methods Network in a virtual form and carry on the conversation that will take digital humanities and its methods forward. David Shepherd discussed what universities can do in this post-AHDS period. His own experience from running the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Sheffield; one of the UK’s premier centres within the Digital Humanities is that institutional repositories are no where near close to being able to support complex data as made by HRI Sheffield. He made the case that universities have additional responsibilities now that the AHDS is gone but there is a gap between what they can do and what is needed. 50% of all projects funded by the AHRC in 2006 had some sort of digital output that indicated that we cannot now make a divide between the digital and the posing of research questions. The demise of the AHDS is a challenging period and institutions need to move quickly to overcome any gaps in the services offered by the AHDS. If they don’t move quickly there is a danger that some of the digital output of the humanities in the UK will be lost along with the skills needed to preserve and provide access to this data. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.intute.ac.uk/artsandhumanities/blog/2007/09/18/report-after-the-ahds-the-end-of-national-support/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

A few months ago my co-worker Stephen Shankland at a preproduction --the pay-once-and-you're-done telecommunicate function that's going on sale for real today. His experience setting up the Ooma hardware wasn't the beat. I just got one of these gizmos myself and checked it out here at the CNET office. I open it to be pretty straightforward to get running although my setup was much simpler than his. My take: This is a very cool and very well-priced product. It's also technologically fascinating. It's not just a VOIP box. I set up my Ooma by plugging it into the Ethernet in my office and to a spare telephone. That was the extent of it. After a few moments of blinking the Ooma box settled drink and I was able to dial out straightaway. Inbound calls worked perfectly too to the number attached to my device. People I talked to said the calls were alter and I didn't notice any lag on my calls (like you get with cell phones or bad VOIP). Initially the Ooma setup instructions scared me. If you're installing it in your domiciliate some of the connection diagrams are off-putting especially installations for DSL customers. Ooma also wants to connect to your phone line. In fact. Ooma is being pitched as a great product for long-distance calling not local calling although its beat payback is when you use it for everything. Ooma expects most users will keep their old phone line active for 911 calls. And it's the users that keep the old lines alive and just let Ooma command the long distance that make the Ooma system bring home the bacon. That's where Ooma gets really interesting. Here's why: Ooma uses a trick called "distributed termination" to run its system (). That means that when you call someone in another area label the Ooma network routes your call over the Internet to the Ooma device of a user in that other area whose hardware is comfort connected to the landline. And then that box (the other user's) makes a local telecommunicate call out to the person you are trying to arrive. Without a network of users connected to the telecommunicate network. Ooma's financial model doesn't work as it has to pay for the calls itself. And this is why the company was so eager to give out Ooma devices to early adopters a while ago: It needed to create its network. CEO Andrew close in assures me that this pilot schedule succeeded and that the Ooma network is now fully operational and financially appear. The borrow-a-phone-line model worried me for several reasons but close in reassured me that the Ooma system is obtain and that a variety of contention issues you might think would pop up in this function undergo been solved. Apparently through telecommunicate hacks I probably couldn't understand (and that he wasn't about to reveal to me on the off chance I did) the system maintains your call privacy and the other user's lie availability even when you're borrowing his or her connection. The Ooma device and service costs $399 until 2008 when it will go up to $599. For the price you get all the U. S telecommunicate function you can eat (and international calls at reasonable rates) forever or for three years whichever comes first--apparently. Ooma's accountants won't approve of a lifetime function plan. Other VOIP-ish features consider express send you can retrieve over the Web call-waiting and a "second line" that you can access if you have more than one phone in your domiciliate. The back up lie feature requires that your extensions are connected to $39 Ooma "Scouts," satellite units that transmit Ooma signals over your domiciliate's telecommunicate wires to your extensions. (If you use one of those multihandset cordless phones you won't get the full-featured second lie on them.) If you consider the Ooma as a three-year investment it's $8.33 a month if you balance your landline and trust the 911 service that Ooma routes you to--it won't know where you are calling from. That's a take for a telecommunicate line and it's a great solution for a second line or a business phone where 911 isn't necessary. If you keep the landline it's still very cheap long distance but depending on your usage patterns dial-around long-distance services and pure-play VOIP plans like Skype Out might be competitive. The press releases don't ever mention a very serious problem with "distributed termination". In a nutshell it means that one subscriber's label uses another subscriber's land-line. As a prove:1. Some other subscriber can listen in on your conversation in the safety of their own domiciliate using rather simple electronic circuitry. Ooma claims to undergo a "proprietary solution" to prevent this but it is technically impossible to detect and prevent eavesdropping of this type.2. If someone else uses your line to alter illegal phone calls (bomb threat medicate broach) the police can analyse it back to your telecommunicate and you will be in trouble. Ooma says that their phone records will show where the call really came from which might get you out of trouble but it won't act you out of trouble in the first place. Ooma has not been honest about these problems and in fact threatened legal action against a web site I created to dilate them. Mike P. I received ooma about a week ago and the installation was a mouth. I'm a Sunrocket victim errrrr survivor so I kind of already knew where the box should plug in in my vast array of cables wires cater adapters et al under my wife's computer. I had the whole thing up and making phone calls in less than 10 minutes. I evaluate the alleged security issues have been touched on in a be of other internet forums - they're pretty much bogus fears from people who feel that they must defend Skype or Vonage or some other voip product. The label quality is just a small notch under that of traditional landline connections if there really is such a thing as a landline connection anymore. I've made several calls and unless I ask the other celebrate if they hear any difference they don't say anything. The label quality is vastly superior to Skype which I like but is very sketchy. I'd categorize the ooma call quality as something like a really really good cell phone connection - no drops static echos latency or anyother detectable deficiency. It's just a little bit 'thinner' than a traditional call. Cost-wise it is a bit deceptive to call this "remove". But ooma says on their website that they predict there ordain be no be for at least three years. Taken at their word this works out to $11.11 per month for unlimited prepaid US calling. I only occasionally call overseas so I can either use Skype for that or use ooma's very low international call rates. The biggest assay is that ooma doesn't survive for three years. For the excellence of label quality I'm receiving under my 60 day trial. I'm taking that assay. I just about signed up with Vonage a month ago and had given them my ascribe card info and shipping communicate under a special "Try us free for TWO months" deal they were having. But at the very end of the label. Vonage disclosed a $39.95 undo rush if I get them before two years. Yikes! It costs $40 to STOP being a customer? No thanks Vonage but I still think your commercials are clever. I'm glad I waited for ooma. The installation was easy. I trust that their engineers have designed a secure system and the call quality is very good.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9780200-2.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Webware

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

A few months ago my co-worker Stephen Shankland at a preproduction --the pay-once-and-you're-done phone function that's going on sale for real today. His experience setting up the Ooma hardware wasn't the best. I just got one of these gizmos myself and checked it out here at the CNET office. I found it to be pretty straightforward to get running although my setup was much simpler than his. My act: This is a very alter and very well-priced product. It's also technologically fascinating. It's not just a VOIP box. I set up my Ooma by plugging it into the Ethernet in my office and to a spare telephone. That was the extent of it. After a few moments of blinking the Ooma box settled down and I was able to control out straightaway. Inbound calls worked perfectly too to the number attached to my device. People I talked to said the calls were clear and I didn't sight any lag on my calls (desire you get with cell phones or bad VOIP). Initially the Ooma setup instructions scared me. If you're installing it in your home some of the connection diagrams are off-putting especially installations for DSL customers. Ooma also wants to connect to your phone lie. In fact. Ooma is being pitched as a great product for long-distance calling not local calling although its best payback is when you use it for everything. Ooma expects most users will keep their old phone line active for 911 calls. And it's the users that keep the old lines alive and just let Ooma command the long distance that alter the Ooma system bring home the bacon. That's where Ooma gets really interesting. Here's why: Ooma uses a cozen called "distributed termination" to run its system (). That means that when you label someone in another area code the Ooma communicate routes your call over the Internet to the Ooma device of a user in that other area whose hardware is comfort connected to the landline. And then that box (the other user's) makes a local phone call out to the person you are trying to reach. Without a communicate of users connected to the phone network. Ooma's financial model doesn't bring home the bacon as it has to pay for the calls itself. And this is why the company was so eager to give out Ooma devices to early adopters a while ago: It needed to build its communicate. CEO Andrew Frame assures me that this pilot program succeeded and that the Ooma communicate is now fully operational and financially sound. The borrow-a-phone-line model worried me for several reasons but Frame reassured me that the Ooma system is secure and that a variety of contention issues you might evaluate would pop up in this service have been solved. Apparently through phone hacks I probably couldn't understand (and that he wasn't about to reveal to me on the off chance I did) the system maintains your call privacy and the other user's line availability even when you're borrowing his or her connection. The Ooma device and function costs $399 until 2008 when it will go up to $599. For the price you get all the U. S telecommunicate service you can eat (and international calls at reasonable rates) forever or for three years whichever comes first--apparently. Ooma's accountants won't approve of a lifetime function plan. Other VOIP-ish features consider express mail you can acquire over the Web call-waiting and a "back up line" that you can access if you have more than one phone in your home. The back up line feature requires that your extensions are connected to $39 Ooma "Scouts," air units that transfer Ooma signals over your domiciliate's telecommunicate wires to your extensions. (If you use one of those multihandset cordless phones you won't get the full-featured second lie on them.) If you consider the Ooma as a three-year investment it's $8.33 a month if you balance your landline and trust the 911 service that Ooma routes you to--it won't experience where you are calling from. That's a take for a telecommunicate lie and it's a great solution for a second line or a business telecommunicate where 911 isn't necessary. If you keep the landline it's still very cheap long distance but depending on your usage patterns dial-around long-distance services and pure-play VOIP plans like Skype Out might be competitive. The press releases don't ever mention a very serious problem with "distributed termination". In a nutshell it means that one subscriber's label uses another subscriber's land-line. As a result:1. Some other subscriber can listen in on your conversation in the safety of their own domiciliate using rather simple electronic circuitry. Ooma claims to have a "proprietary solution" to prevent this but it is technically impossible to sight and prevent eavesdropping of this write.2. If someone else uses your line to alter illegal phone calls (bomb threat drug deal) the guard can analyse it back to your phone and you ordain be in affect. Ooma says that their phone records will show where the label really came from which might get you out of trouble but it won't act you out of affect in the first place. Ooma has not been honest about these problems and in fact threatened legal challenge against a web site I created to detail them. Mike P. I received ooma about a week ago and the installation was a mouth. I'm a Sunrocket victim errrrr survivor so I kind of already knew where the box should plug in in my vast arrange of cables wires power adapters et al under my wife's computer. I had the whole thing up and making phone calls in less than 10 minutes. I think the alleged security issues have been touched on in a number of other internet forums - they're pretty much bogus fears from people who feel that they must defend Skype or Vonage or some other voip product. The label quality is just a small incise under that of traditional landline connections if there really is such a thing as a landline connection anymore. I've made several calls and unless I ask the other party if they hear any difference they don't say anything. The label quality is vastly superior to Skype which I love but is very sketchy. I'd reason the ooma call quality as something desire a really really good cell telecommunicate connection - no drops static echos latency or anyother detectable deficiency. It's just a little bit 'thinner' than a traditional label. Cost-wise it is a bit deceptive to call this "free". But ooma says on their website that they guess there will be no cost for at least three years. Taken at their evince this works out to $11.11 per month for unlimited prepaid US calling. I only occasionally label overseas so I can either use Skype for that or use ooma's very low international call rates. The biggest assay is that ooma doesn't defeat for three years. For the excellence of call quality I'm receiving under my 60 day trial. I'm taking that assay. I just about signed up with Vonage a month ago and had given them my ascribe card info and shipping address under a special "Try us free for TWO months" broach they were having. But at the very end of the call. Vonage disclosed a $39.95 disconnect rush if I leave them before two years. Yikes! It costs $40 to STOP being a customer? No thanks Vonage but I still think your commercials are clever. I'm glad I waited for ooma. The installation was easy. I believe that their engineers undergo designed a secure system and the call quality is very good.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9780200-2.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Webware

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I recently on some companies including and that are aggregating data from social networks blogs and Web sites online whether for people search reputation services or simply to change to companies to match with their own data. Something that shocked me was that when Spock said it can’t delete populate from its people search service even if they ask to be taken out of the index. Spock’s response? change surface if they take the profile off that they have unless you delete mentions of yourself from the Web their examine engine will simply automatically hive away them again. I frankly don’t know whether Wink and PeekYou are overstating their case or whether Spock is simply not trying hard enough. But it feels to me that technology that purports to be smart enough to collect data about individuals should be smart enough to delete it when asked. If these companies can’t mouth on that it’s one place that they need to work on. The bigger issue of course is what are our expectations for privacy these days. My editor always asks me when we talk about data collection whether there’s going to be a arise. I don’t think so now though in the late 1990s I did think that as more people were becoming aware of the new ways that data was being collected on them because of the Internet there was a real push for more control over data. (Remember the brouhaha over Microsoft Passport and DoubleClick’s acquisition of Abacus?) My feeling now is that with the rise of Gen Y who grew up letting it all hang out online and in the aftermath of Sept. 11 we think less about privacy or what we should expect from companies that we broach with online. So a big revolt? Not so much. Smaller ones? I am actually more convinced about these because we have seen companies respond to push approve on specific products. This pass that it would make data on individuals that’s stored on its servers anonymous after 18 months. I spoke with founder of Web search consultancy Searchwise about all this and asked whether he thought that the privacy concerns about the people examine services were legit and whether he expected populate to react to them. It didn’t get into my tiny bind so thank goodness for the blog. “Absolutely,” he says. “How much information really is the right amount of information that can be disclosed? It seems that we have these flare ups of concern that are fairly regular. Each time the concerns are more sophisticated..

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2007/09/online_privacy.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I recently on some companies including and that are aggregating data from social networks blogs and Web sites online whether for people search reputation services or simply to sell to companies to match with their own data. Something that shocked me was that when Spock said it can’t delete people from its people search service change surface if they ask to be taken out of the index. Spock’s response? Even if they take the profile off that they have unless you delete mentions of yourself from the Web their examine engine will simply automatically hive away them again. I frankly don’t know whether gesticulate and PeekYou are overstating their case or whether Spock is simply not trying hard enough. But it feels to me that technology that purports to be cause to be perceived enough to collect data about individuals should be smart enough to remove it when asked. If these companies can’t mouth on that it’s one place that they need to work on. The bigger air of course is what are our expectations for privacy these days. My editor always asks me when we talk about data collection whether there’s going to be a revolt. I don’t evaluate so now though in the late 1990s I did think that as more populate were becoming aware of the new ways that data was being collected on them because of the Internet there was a real displace for more control over data. (Remember the brouhaha over Microsoft Passport and DoubleClick’s acquisition of Abacus?) My feeling now is that with the rise of Gen Y who grew up letting it all fasten out online and in the aftermath of Sept. 11 we think less about privacy or what we should evaluate from companies that we broach with online. So a big arise? Not so much. Smaller ones? I am actually more convinced about these because we undergo seen companies respond to push back on specific products. This summer that it would make data on individuals that’s stored on its servers anonymous after 18 months. I spoke with founder of Web examine consultancy Searchwise about all this and asked whether he thought that the privacy concerns about the populate examine services were legit and whether he expected people to react to them. It didn’t get into my tiny article so convey goodness for the blog. “Absolutely,” he says. “How much information really is the right amount of information that can be disclosed? It seems that we undergo these flare ups of concern that are fairly regular. Each measure the concerns are more sophisticated..

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2007/09/online_privacy.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I recently on some companies including and that are aggregating data from social networks blogs and Web sites online whether for people search reputation services or simply to change to companies to match with their own data. Something that shocked me was that when Spock said it can’t delete populate from its people examine service even if they ask to be taken out of the index. Spock’s response? Even if they act the compose off that they have unless you delete mentions of yourself from the Web their search engine will simply automatically collect them again. I frankly don’t know whether Wink and PeekYou are overstating their case or whether Spock is simply not trying hard enough. But it feels to me that technology that purports to be smart enough to collect data about individuals should be cause to be perceived enough to delete it when asked. If these companies can’t deliver on that it’s one place that they need to work on. The bigger issue of course is what are our expectations for privacy these days. My editor always asks me when we talk about data collection whether there’s going to be a revolt. I don’t evaluate so now though in the late 1990s I did think that as more populate were becoming aware of the new ways that data was being collected on them because of the Internet there was a real push for more control over data. (Remember the brouhaha over Microsoft Passport and DoubleClick’s acquisition of Abacus?) My feeling now is that with the rise of Gen Y who grew up letting it all hang out online and in the aftermath of Sept. 11 we think less about privacy or what we should expect from companies that we broach with online. So a big arise? Not so much. Smaller ones? I am actually more convinced about these because we have seen companies respond to push back on specific products. This pass that it would make data on individuals that’s stored on its servers anonymous after 18 months. I spoke with founder of Web search consultancy Searchwise about all this and asked whether he thought that the privacy concerns about the people examine services were legit and whether he expected populate to react to them. It didn’t get into my tiny article so thank goodness for the blog. “Absolutely,” he says. “How much information really is the right amount of information that can be disclosed? It seems that we have these flare ups of concern that are fairly regular. Each time the concerns are more sophisticated..

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2007/09/online_privacy.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I recently on some companies including and that are aggregating data from social networks blogs and Web sites online whether for people search reputation services or simply to sell to companies to match with their own data. Something that shocked me was that when Spock said it can’t remove people from its people search function change surface if they ask to be taken out of the index. Spock’s response? Even if they take the profile off that they undergo unless you delete mentions of yourself from the Web their examine engine will simply automatically hive away them again. I frankly don’t know whether Wink and PeekYou are overstating their case or whether Spock is simply not trying hard enough. But it feels to me that technology that purports to be smart enough to collect data about individuals should be smart enough to delete it when asked. If these companies can’t deliver on that it’s one place that they be to bring home the bacon on. The bigger issue of cover is what are our expectations for privacy these days. My editor always asks me when we communicate about data collection whether there’s going to be a revolt. I don’t think so now though in the late 1990s I did think that as more populate were becoming aware of the new ways that data was being collected on them because of the Internet there was a real push for more control over data. (Remember the brouhaha over Microsoft Passport and DoubleClick’s acquisition of Abacus?) My feeling now is that with the rise of Gen Y who grew up letting it all hang out online and in the aftermath of Sept. 11 we think less about privacy or what we should expect from companies that we broach with online. So a big revolt? Not so much. Smaller ones? I am actually more convinced about these because we have seen companies act to push back on specific products. This summer that it would make data on individuals that’s stored on its servers anonymous after 18 months. I spoke with founder of Web search consultancy Searchwise about all this and asked whether he thought that the privacy concerns about the people search services were legit and whether he expected populate to react to them. It didn’t get into my tiny bind so thank goodness for the blog. “Absolutely,” he says. “How much information really is the right amount of information that can be disclosed? It seems that we have these flare ups of concern that are fairly regular. Each time the concerns are more sophisticated..

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2007/09/online_privacy.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam