Solr/Lucene real-time search (or near real-time) is one of its weaker points. I think it could keep up with the updates but making them appear in the index immediately and having the caching still perform can be tricky.

We have one index with that's updated every 20 minutes, but only has about 50k documents and a combination of Solr cache auto-warming and squid's stale-while-re-validate logic works there.

In another system where updates need to be faster, we had to do some custom work to make it perform where there is an in memory index for recent changes, an on-disk index of previous changes, and process for moving from one to another. Hopefully these improvements will make their way back to Lucene in the future.

Solr/Lucene power a number of sites that would be in the enterprise search category (Apple, Netflix, C-Net). Where I work, we index 5 million docs in Solr/Lucne and serve out millions of search requests a day. It's not google scale, but most people don't need that. The markets where one needs a FAST are dwindling quickly.

I agree TWC is a tool. I still don't think its due to fear of losing customers to online video. Hopefully in the future, they will come up with more reasonable policies.

Below is what I was referring to. I was left with the impression that digital transmission and digital tier we're somehow related such as not having to transcode an analog signal in real-time but given that it say "independently" they may not be. Thanks for the correction.

http://connectedhome2go.com/2009/04/20/project-cavalry-in-philly-and-beyond/

"Independent of the broadcast digital transition set to take place on June 12th, Comcast is making the all-digital shift in about half of its markets this year. (All Motorola markets so far) In fact, the Comcast move is taking place in my own Philadelphia backyard at the moment. As part of a âoemarinationâ period, Comcast is deploying digital set-tops and DTAs for basic subcribers during already-scheduled truck rolls. After new hardware is the field, Comcast aims to move roughly 40 analog channels to its digital tier - all as a way to free up bandwidth for more HD content and DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding."

While stories of the cable companies running in fear from the impending flood of online content and restricting bandwidth in response have been common on slashdot for a while it's disappointing that something like the Economist has picked up this fable.

The reality is that most of the content that offered on cable today won't make its way to the web for free under the current revenue models of content providers (not cable cos). Currently half of the revenue that channels like TLC get is from cable subscriptions. The other half is from advertising. These channels aren't interested in cutting their revenues in half on the hopes that on-line advertising somehow doubles in profitability. This is especially the case when it's currently only about 10% of what the same ads get you on TV.

Hulu is an experiment by major networks (FOX/NBC) (who already provide their content for free and get most of their revenues from advertising) to see if they can make the online advertising model work and capture more eyes than they are currently getting. While the site is successful in terms of traffic, the advertising dollars aren't there yet. As long as it doesn't undermine the real money of TV advertising, it's a useful experiment. (There is some cable network content on Hulu from Viacom ala Comedy Central/Sci Fi but its the content that is so mainstream that the advertising experiment may pay-off).

While the Economist was missing the boat they decided to also throw in the al-a-carte pricing myth as well. That model doesn't work either since not everyone wants the same 15 channels. If you move to that model then today's 100 channels would be tomorrows 20. Hope you like Home Shopping Network more than BBC America.

As to why DOCSIS 3 is so slow to make its way out? First cable cos are large companies that have basically been monopolies for long enough that their culture reflects that. They are slow to do anything. Second, they are waiting for the end of analog signals so they can reclaim some bandwidth. Third it's expensive. When you have 30 million customers, $100 a pop is real money. Under these conditions, there is little incentive to rush to market. That said, cable cos are starting to roll out this service and increasing the bandwidth of existing customers.

So what will happen? I think content providers will partner with cable cos to provide their content online. It will be on a different part of the pipe, just like phone service is so you get good quality of service for HD even when your neighbor has his torrents at full throttle. You'll see reasonable network caps like comcast's 250GB a month but your video viewing (on that separate pipe) won't count towards that so you mostly won't care providing you have a job or something else to do other than watch torrent content all day. Will you suddenly get all the good content you want for free? Unlikely. Will your most affordable (and legal) option for getting content still be from a cable co/tele co? Probably. Hopefully as more options become available: Cable, Fiber, Netfix, iTunes, the pressure will be on cable/tele cos to provider a better experience.

You summary is mostly accurate (and much more so than most other comments).

The Tivo software that Comcast has rolled out in Boston is actually built on the OCAP stack so you won't necessarily be stuck with the cable companies crappy interface. Reviews of that service have been mostly positive so it appears that the OCAP/tru2way platform is flexible enough to built a reasonable interface. This should also allow better integration with VOD service as well as switch digital which have been the problems for Tivo users so far.

One of the other motivations for this is now cable companies don't have to be the sole provider of set-top boxes. I'm don't think that slashdot readers get what it's like to deploy software to millions of homes on hardware that is made as cheap as it possibly could be. Diversity in this environment is a support nightmare and cable companies pay all the upfront costs for those boxes (hence their cheapness).

Tru2way should allow a lot more diversity in the market for people who want high-end boxes. If this is bundled with your several thousand dollar HD TV the impact is far less noticeable.

While your broad claim that face recognition is really not ready for a large-scale real-world application is basically correct, your specific claims are anything but. The FERET evaluation of 2000, for instance, used close to 4000 images, not 500, and the 2002 follow-up evaluation made use of far more images than that. Also, the fall off in performance due to the passage of time is not nearly as extreme as you imply. Comparing the 2000 results to the newer study should make it clear that substantial progress has been made in 2 years, and there's no reason to believe that rapid progress won't continue. See the FVRT page for more information.