Peripheral Futurist

Verizon Just Doesn't Get It

2010-02-11T06:16:00.004-06:00

Business is about more than neat technology, flashy phones, high-speed services, and the next new thing. That would be life it was lived by a technologist. In reality, the world is filled with people who must provide for their families, obtain a little enjoyment from life, and make their money go as far as possible in these hard times. Unfortunately, many companies just don't get it.

Take for example Verizon. They are a large, multi-product company that provides a variety of telecommunication services to their customers. I all honesty, many of their products are quite good. However, if you ever want to interact with the company, you will find yourself in a customer service hell. If you go to their Web site, you will find it to be the most convoluted mishmash of links where you may be able to FIND what you want, but not able to ACCESS what you want. If you call them directly, you will find yourself in a phone tree where you will end up climbing around the roots, but never able to get to the limb you wanted. If you should be so lucky to actually talk to a human-being (an iffy proposition in itself), you will find the person will not provide you with any information unless you provide the magic information--information in many cases that may only be available if you access their web site.

Verizon is not the first, to be sure, to have fallen into the techno-trap. The poster child would be Microsoft and their rollout of Windows Vista--a poorly designed, tested, and implemented product. As a result, it was almost universally reviled and companies, their most important customers, refused to use it. The case can be made that Vista may have single-handedly contributed to the PC sales slump in the last couple of years and contributed to the surprising success of Linux-based systems and the resurgence of Apple in the personal computer market. Such seems to be the fate of Verizon.

Verizon has been waging a heavily promoted war on AT&T comparing Verizon's inferior, but larger 3G wireless network to AT&T's smaller, but significantly superior network. What Verizon neglects to mention is that their network does not service that much more of the population than AT&T. Simply put, Verizon may provide service to more sheep in rural Montana than AT&T, but sheep don't carry wireless phones. Sure Verizon has a bigger network. But AT&T has a network where people need it--in cities and suburbs, and along virtually every major highway in the country. AT&T is more people oriented. Verizon builds technology for bragging rights.

Verizon's customer service is oriented to following rules, no matter how ridiculous those rules get in execution. For example, Verizon has the capability for you to view your phone/wireless/Internet/cable bill online. That is a great idea. But what happens when you are unable to access that feature on their site? First, which site. Verizon evidently is two completely separate companies that do not communicate with each other. This is evidenced by the fact they have two separate and independent web sites--verizon.net and verizon.com. Take the example of the online bill. What happens when you log in to verizon.net and and click on a link that states view your bill? You are directed to a link that resides on verizon.com and are asked to log in a second time. When you log in, guess where you are sent? Back to verizon.net. You are in the worst the web has to offer, a web loop, not unlike Verizon's matching phone tree loop.

If you call Verizon's crack customer service personnel--a daunting task since their phone tree selections match nothing related to your problem, the first thing they ask you is your phone number (which you know) and your account number (which is one of those things I suspect most people do not have memorized. Guess where the account number is located? On the online bill you are attempting to view. You are stuck. Verizon will not provide further help unless you provide the account number (for security reasons) and you cannot access the account number because their system is so poorly designed.

This is the future of most technology-oriented companies. As it happens, Verizon (and GTE in their past life) has been getting a free pass for most of their life--they held a regulated monopoly over most of the areas they served. That is quickly changing. People are looking for products that work, things that are easy to locate, and people who are truly helpful. Apple gets it. Verizon does not. AT&T may not quite get it, but I believe they are learning fast. Verizon has probably gotten worse with time. Even Google has the agility to change rapidly. Verizon is the huge dinosaur lumbering along thinking things do not have to change.

A lesson for the future. You can have the most advanced technology, the new and shiniest next new thing. However, if the people cannot easily adapt to that technology, if they are unable to use it, if they are unable to get the support they need, they won't buy it. If they do buy it, they will flee to alternatives once they are available.

Verizon isn't the only company that doesn't get it. Microsoft is in the same boat. HP seems headed that way. That's okay, because losers always can be replaced by winners and new winners are popping up every day.

Cloud Labor

2010-01-18T10:52:00.000-06:00

I blogged a while back about a concept called "Pop-Up Organizations," where dynamic, virtual organizations would organize using the Internet in order to deliver a product or service, or otherwise meet a need, and then disband. It was a concept that was predicted in one of the many forecasts that are published each year. Related to that concept is the concept of "cloud labor," where virtual workers come together to address a specific problem or deliver a service via the Internet.

The cloud labor concept was written about in the article, "Innovation: The relentless rise of the digital worker," by Justin Mullins and published January 15, 2010 on the New Scientist Web site. You can read more about it at:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18395-innovation-the-relentless-rise-of-the-digital-worker.html

Needless to say, the pop-up organization is taking form in realtime.

IBM's Next Five in Five

2010-01-02T10:43:00.000-06:00

It's that time of year again. IBM has published their end of 2009 "Next Five in Five," five innovations that will enter the commercial mainstream in the next five years that will have dramatic impact on all our lives. The five:

- We will be able to access healthcare remotely, from just about anywhere in the world

- Real-time speech translation-once a vision only in science fiction-will become the norm

- There will be a 3-D Internet

- Technologies the size of a few atoms will address areas of environmental importance

-Our mobile phones will come close to reading our minds

Read the full list at:

http://www.ibm.com/ibm/ideasfromibm/us/five_in_five/010807/index1.shtml

What say you?

Cellular Phones are Dead; Long Live the Cellular Device

2009-03-31T09:18:00.004-06:00

Today (or last night, actually) marks a sea-change in wireless communications: the iPhone Skype application debuted. It is also coming to the Blackberry. Why is this such a disruptive change? Because it represents the final move to data convergence. With the implementation of Skype on cell phones, the voice officially becomes "data." Actually, it has been data since the implementation of digital wireless voice transmission over a decade ago, but Skype represents a transition to cellular communication via Voice-over-Interntet-Protocol (VoIP). With VoIP, a voice call becomes just another Internet connection.

For the short-term, Apple and AT&T are throttling the availablility of Skype to Wi-Fi connections only (not available on EDGE or 3G), but this is only temporary. AT&T may disagree about how temporary it is, but it is temporary. This is because the battle lines have been drawn. AT&T (and by extension, all the other wireless carriers) want to protect their tariffs for charging for voice calls by the minute. The reason is simple; it makes them lots of money. But Skype makes the voice call just another data stream, no different than a song playing on Pandora or a video playing on YouTube. Voice communication becomes bundled with the phone's data plan.

Why this is an issue with the phone company is simple. For the iPhone, the lowest phone plan is $39.99. However, an unlimited data plan is $20.00. Of course, at present AT&T forces you to have both a phone and data plan. Now this is going to change. It is only a matter of time for a company such as Metro PCS to start offering unlimited data/phone plans for a set rate. In the short-term this means that phone plans will decrease in price while data plans increase. In the long-term, there will only be one type of plan--data.

The reason this is a major issue is that carriers make their money off of voice services since they are billed at a higher rate than data. For one thing, they are on a per minute charge (or the user is forced to purchase a group of minutes for a set rate). The carriers like individual rates for voice, SMS, and similar services. For example, of a per minute basis, SMS is the highest cost service on a cellular phone.

With the Skype service, this is going to change--and change disruptively. Already, Skype is the largest carrier of international phone calls. This is not a big deal because AT&T's old Long Lines service has been a decreasing revenue stream for years. Now they are faced with the same thing happening on their wireless phone services. Within the next five years, the wireless companies will be all data services. With this context, it is easy to see why they are looking at metering wireless data. It is their solution to decreasing voice phone revenues.

What do you think?

Netscape Revisited

2009-03-26T11:55:00.007-06:00

I wrote a review of Google Chrome--Google's browser entry--back in September, 2008. In it, I described the philosophy behind the browser, and the features provided in the Windows version. With several month's experience and looking at Google Chrome in context with Google's other applications and services, it occurred to me that I was having a deja vu moment. The Google environment reminded me of something similar I had seen or heard about years ago. Then I remembered: Netscape!

Many users today probably don't remember the Netscape browser. However, until a full frontal attack by Microsoft with the introduction and bundling of their Internet Explorer (IE)browser with their Windows operating system, Netscape was the preferred browser for both personal and business use. Indeed, Netscape and their development of HTML seemed to be rapidly making the operating system an afterthought--Netscape would run on a wide variety of operating systems, providing the same user interface and the same functionality. The Internet became primary and the local operating system became secondary. With Netscape incubating this view, it is clear in hindsight why Microsoft took such an aggressive approach to them by developing their own competing browser.

Fast-forwarding a little more than a decade, it can be seen how much has changed and how much things have stayed the same. First, Microsoft won the first battle of the browsers. Indeed, I found an old Web site from 1998 that showed Netscape had 65% of the market while IE had 32%. By January 2002, those statistics had changed to IE 85.8% and ALL other browsers 14.2%. By that time, Netscape was part of AOL and no longer a major force in the market. However, AOL did an interesting thing: They placed the source code for most of Netscape into the open source movement by giving the code to the Mozilla organization. Since it was open source, anyone could use it, work on it, and improve it. With the thousands contributing time, money, and intellectual property to Mozilla, by August, 2008 just before Google Chrome was introduced, IE had 50.5%, Firefox (Mozilla's official browser product) 43.7% and all others 5.8%.
Today, with Google Chrome having been introduced last September, IE has 43.6%, Firefox has 46.4%, Google Chrome has 4%, and all others have 6%. What is astounding about these numbers is that Chrome has gained 4% of the market in just seven months and their browser only runs on Windows. With the release of Chrome to Linux and Mac OS-X later this year, it can be expected that Chrome will grow at an even faster rate.

More importantly, Google Chrome has revived many of the design philosophies of the original Netscape browser. Chrome is the first browser to partition each instance of the browser, whether tab or window. This makes the browser much more stable because instances are independent. It also makes Chrome look more like a user interface tied to an operating environment, one of the original design goals of Netscape. Second, unlike Netscape, Google has developed a broad array of user applications that run in the network cloud and require nothing more than a browser to use. With Chrome, each of these applications can have their own instance of a browser window (or tab) and operate independently. The result is a very sophisticated office system can run in the browser while being operating system independent. Unlike Netscape which had an information portal as its main user application, Google Chrome can support Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Chat, Google Talk, Google Calendar, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Sketchup, and Google Apps (Word processor, Spreadsheet, and Slide presentations). The result is Google has created an environment that can provide a consistent interface across virtually any operating system and virtually any device. (While mobile devices are still somewhat problematic, they still have similar access. With the introduction of Android devices and continuing developmental support for Apple's iPhone, the interface will only become more similar.)

What this all means is that while Netscape failed in their original vision, they may have the last laugh on Microsoft. It would appear that Google Chrome is in the right place, with the right product (and a multitude of supporting products and partners developing compatible applications and features), and at the right time. The operating system is becoming secondary to the user interface and the applications accessible through that user interface. With an increasing number of technology companies embracing cloud computing (Google, Amazon, eBay, Salesforce just to name a few), Google Chrome only stands to gain.

What are your thoughts? Your comments and questions are invited.

Death of the Newspaper

2009-02-27T11:57:00.005-06:00

I was saddened to see the demise of the Rocky Mountain News which published their last edition today after 150 years in business. This got me thinking and in discussion with friends of mine about the future of the newspaper and news organizations in general.

What happened? First, news organizations lost their way. Somewhere over the past couple of decades, news organizations stopped reporting just the news and started reporting opinion. News was and continues to be who, what, where, how, when. Once the reporter begins to provide opinion, it is no longer news. The problem over the last several decades is just about everything in a paper now has opinion. If I want opinion, I can walk down the street and get it for free. Indeed, if I have the right Twitter friends, I get opinion unsolicited.

Once news organizations moved from providing the simple who, what, where, how, and when, their value decreased. (Understand, opinion is important, but it should be labeled as such and should be segregated from "pure" news.) Second, news occurs real time. Newspapers occur periodically. Therefore, news is not longer news by the time a paper is published. The result is that the newspaper was forced to provide something a breaking news source could not provide--context and opinion. The problem with opinion is you can get it anywhere. The result has been decreasing revenue, particularly when alternative news sources have grown.

Second, social media have taken the place of both news reporting and opinion and editorial. With the advent of blogs, everyone can have an opinion. With newspapers, not everyone has their opinion published. Not so with blogs. It is your blog and you always get your opinion published (even if no one reads it). Blogs also allow individuals (in many cases experts in the field) to write about what interests them. The problem with opinion? First, everyone has them, second an opinion can't be wrong--only agreed or disagreed with, and third, opinions and fact are very different things.

The result is that newspapers (and to a lesser extent, radio and TV news organizations) have found a troubling truth--news can't be owned. News is available to the first individual or organization to find it. This was evidenced by the USAir emergency landing in the Hudson River. The first photo from the scene was a TwitPic posting through the social media micro-blogging site Twitter from an individual with an iPhone. Increasingly, this is seen in a variety of news venues--photos of storms on local TV weather reports, crash photos published across the Web, and Twitter and SMS messages from terrorist attacks. This type of news cannot be duplicated by the print media. In many cases, if the immediate resources are not available, it cannot be duplicated by radio and TV media.

This type of news is an immediate unfolding of the who, what, when, where, and why. Newspapers abdicated this news venue decades ago. What remains to be seen is the development of technologies for evaluating "factness" of news. the Digg Web site doesn't do it. The Snopes Web site lags the event by too much for evaluation breaking news. I predict that this area is the next big development in information management of news.

What is your opinion? We'd love to hear from you.

The Power of the Social Net: Debrief

2009-02-12T20:56:00.000-06:00

I'm on my way back from the Dallas Twestival and thought I'd capture my thoughts on the experience. First, I'm getting too old for turning out at happenings. Second, it is good to know that the hippie (son or grandson of) movement is alive and well. Third, there are a lot of people out there that, even though they are in close proximity to each other (meaning within conversation distance), they seem to prefer Twitter. I'm going to have to think on this last one as it may be a future trend.

With that said, the Twestival has to be called a success. The Dallas Twestival alone raised enough money to dig a well, so the donated money was well-spent. Add to that the fact that it was fun, we had good music, and we had a little stand-up comedy, I think it was time well-spent.

Dallas Twestival organized this in less than a month. They pulled off a great thing with a lot of great volunteers and some big hearts. They are to be congratulated on being part of a
Future tread in online organization and mobilization for a good cause.

Anyone else have thoughts on the event?

The Power of the Social Net: Twestival

2009-02-12T15:54:00.007-06:00

There is a lot of discussion these days about social networking sites rapidly gaining in popularity and displacing traditional "post and view" sites that have been around for almost a decade. This "social net"--as I refer to the collective social networks, applications, and tools--could be just the next fade or it could be the next revolution of the Internet. Statistics show Facebook growing faster than MySpace and in the process, gaining a significant user base among adults. That counts because adults buy stuff and generally have more disposable income than the typical teen (disposable is a relative term in these down economic times, but I digress). Social sites such as LinkedIn are seeing an explosion of growth because 1) people are unemployed and are looking to network for that next job; 2) people are employed but don't know for how long; or 3) Boy Scout/Girl Scout-types have no idea where the economy is going and want to be prepared.

On the surface, these sites provide an easy method for people to connect; exchange messages, photos, and interests; and generally stay in touch. In this sense, social networks are displacing the telephone, snailmail, and increasingly, email. However, there is a deeper level to social networks.

Humans are social animals. We like to socialize, to talk, and to do things together. Without it, we are isolated and alone. Social networks address this problem--not as well as in-person activities, but better than alternatives such as the phone or email. And this is where the second level of social networks come in--they are attempting to substitute for some in-person activities. For example, many social networks allow the user to identify connections who are online and to initiate an interactive chat with them. They aren't to the level of Skype, but it's only a matter of time.

Second, social networks are starting to integrate collaboration tools that also enable interactive communication in a number of ways beyond simple chatting. For example, LinkedIn has integrated huddle.com's collaboration tools. As such, it acts an an ad hoc collaboration/discussion board. Both LinkedIn and Facebook have their groups a user can join and become associated with people with a similar interest. Taking a slightly different approach, Google Docs allows interactive viewing and editing of documents. It's as if a group were in a room, simultaneously writing on a whiteboard. While Google's more interactive capabilities have not been integrated into more traditional social network sites, it is only a matter of time.

For a population that has migrated far from their home, these social sites provide the next best thing to being there. With the addition of Skype type capabilities and Google Doc capabilities in the near future, it will almost BE the same as being there.

Finally, there's Twitter, a microblogging service that allows a user to publicly post anything on their mind--as long as it's done in 140 characters or less. Twitter is one of the fastest-growing social networks. While it is technically a micro-blogging service, it is considered a social networks because individuals can subscribe or "follow" people of interest. As a result, the follower groups of an individual tend to form social message interchanges. The network grows because anyone can see the "tweets" or message sent and anyone can follow anyone else. (There are exceptions, but generally this is the way it works.) Twitter has been used to simply let people know what they are doing and to move people to action. For example, a couple of months back an individual was arrested in Egypt and he tweeted for help. The protest was overwhelming and helped to gain the individual's release.

Three recent examples demonstrate the power of Twitter. First, a couple of weeks ago, a passenger plane made an emergency landing in the Hudson River in New York City. A Twitterer on a passenger ferry which immediately diverted to pick up survivors took a picture of the plane and passengers in the water and tweeted it. It was the first on-the-scene photograph from where the plane went down. Over the next several hours, that photo was re-tweeted around the world and picked up by news stations. Even the individual who sent the original tweet photo was interviewed!

Second, Twitter has become so popular that it has its own awards ceremony--The Shorty Awards. Every year, Twitter members vote on who they think are the best tweeters in a variety of categories. The awards ceremony, held this week, played to an overflow crowd and news of the even was again picked up in the popular press.

Third, Twitterers have formed together to raise funds for a worthy cause, clean water worldwide. The gain notice, the cause has taken on a life of its own, now known as Twestival. What started out as a simple fundraising and fun Twitter meetup has grown to organized Twitter meetups in some 175 cities worldwide. Their goal: Raise $1 million for clean water projects in underserved areas of the world. All indications are the Twestival will be a huge success. Even for those not able to attend, people will be tweeting live from the various sites. For the new folks, think of it as a worldwide Rave. For the oldtimers, it's a worldwide happening. Either way, it demonstrates how a social network can mobilize the masses. With that said, I am off to the Dallas Twestival.

What are your thoughts?

Millions of Books, but No Card Catalog

2009-02-02T10:45:00.003-06:00

The title of this post is from a tweet (Twitter message) from a source that I follow. However, it succinctly summarizes some of the evolving trends in information management in general, and library sciences in particular. In this case, the title is referring to an article in The New York Times titled, "Some Fear Google’s Power in Digital Books," which describes Google's activities related to digitizing the world's written record. While issues of copyright, fair use, and author protection remain issues, it demonstrates the amount of effort going into the subject and some of the proposed solutions. That the written record will be digitized is not in doubt. The only questions are when it will occur, the technology that will be used, and what it will cost the consumer.

For more on this subject, read the original article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?_r=1

What do you think about this subject?

Tipping Point 2009: Part 1

2009-01-26T08:11:00.000-06:00

Predictions and prognostications are a stable at the beginning of every year. This post is a little different. The developments proposed here are all currently available and represent viable, proven technologies. The subject here is when the technology will reach a critical mass in the mainstream market, thus representing a tipping point for mass acceptance and adoption. I propose the following will have a tipping point in 2009.

A convergrnce of a poor economy; rising cable television costs; redundant pricing for bundled cable TV and Internet; improved Internet bandwidth; improved video compression; and expanded TV content available on the Internet may mean the tipping point for Internet over cable TV (and satellite TV). Add to these developments the expanded use of boxes such as the Apple TV; TVs with direct Internet connectivity, home network appliances that can stream audio and video and the tipping point appears imminant. These are no longer technologies seen at CES. Rather, the increased viewership of Hulu, iTunes downloads, and the ever increasing popularity of YouTube video content all point to a massive shift in media preference. Indeed, the proliferation of mainstream YouTube "channels" by organizations such as the Vatican only underscore the occurring shift.

You will know the tipping point has occurred when content creators begin to sue content aggregators for a piece of the action in much the same way the RIAA has gone after various music aggregators. The impact will be massive. Many local TV stations will be disintermediated. This change may actually be a saving grace for newspapers on their last legs. If the newspaper has developed an Internet presence, it might become the local source.

Another indicator of this tipping point is when local broadcasters begin (or increase) their lobby efforts to place restrictions on content origination outside a geographic area. Local broadcasters have previously been successful in these efforts resulting in limitations on satellite TV providers from providing direct east and west coast network feeds. Presently, satellite providers may only do so if the location is not serviced by a local broadcast station. Otherwise, the provider must offer the local broadcast feed. Expect this fight to move to the Internet.

What is your opinion on this subject?

Oil Storm

2009-01-05T09:00:00.005-06:00

With the price of gas back at levels seen five years ago, the world seems in stasis again--except possibly for the sucking economy. However, the pressure of high gas prices has lifted and everyone seems to be breathing a sigh of relief. If only that were the case.

We are cursed with poor long-term memory. Just nine months ago, the US (indeed, the whole world) was in crisis precipitated by rapidly rising oil prices. Granted that much of that price fluctuation was the result of financial speculation. However, the fact remains that 1) oil consumption is growing faster than oil discovery; 2) what oil is newly discovered is more costly to produce than previous fields; and 3) oil is a finite resource--we are going to run out at some point.

I am reminded of a movie that was broadcast on the FX cable channel back in 2005 called "Oil Storm." [Link to a YouTube trailer for the movie: http://tinyurl.com/87jlh8] Before many similar actual events occurred, it depicted the impact of a large hurricane hitting the critical oil region of the Louisiana coast. Except for the riots and general breakdown in civil law, it was a very good prediction of the events that resulted from Katrina.

While the similarities end with Hurricane Katrina, the movie also points to several additional weaknesses in the US dependency on oil:

Both China and India are rapidly increasing their consumption of oil. As a result, they are now cash-rich competitors for our oil dollars. This will place additional pressure on oil prices over the long-term. These countries can outbid the US for oil on the open market. Oil prices will go back up.
While most of our oil is imported from "friendly" countries such as Canada and Mexico, over time, we will become more dependent on other emerging countries such as Venezuela, Russia, and the "Stans." To say the least, these countries do not particularly love the US. At worst, they can hold the US for oil ransom. This doesn't address the fact that many of these emerging oil nations are unstable and therefore their oil production is questionable at any given time. A perfect case in point is that as this post is written, Russia has cut natural gas supplies to the Ukraine. Since the major pipelines that supply natural gas to Europe pass through the Ukraine, Russia's actions are already causing short natural gas supplies in Germany. The same could happen with oil supplies.
While oil speculation has been tamped-down on the US-based commodities markets, there is nothing to prevent the same thing from happening again on other international markets that are closely-coupled to US markets. Therefore, volatility in oil prices should be expected over the next several decades, with the general trend being upward prices.

The problem is, we are in an "oil storm" now. We just don't realize it or we are in denial. While T. Boone Pickens has some personality aspects that I rather detest, he is one of a few that have stood up to state that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil and has mapped a strategy to achieve that goal. [Link to Pickens Plan here: http://tinyurl.com/94z22d] Former Vice President Al Gore has done the same thing although his approach will be harder to achieve because it is more aggressive. [Link to Al Gore Site: http://tinyurl.com/24w6sq] Of course, Gore is attempting to halt global warming in addition to reducing our dependence on one of the causes, fossil fuels.

All this is nice, but cannot have an impact unless the actions can be converted to legislation. President-elect Obama has demonstrated strong support through the environment and energy leaders he has designated. Whether his agenda can be pushed through Congress remains to be seen. The fact is reducing our dependence on oil will require sacrifices in the short-term. Whether we feel enough pain to do that remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, like the old Fram Oil Filter advertisement, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later," the price will only go up over time. Therefore, it is in our mutual best interest to act now rather than later.

IT Trends 2015

2008-12-12T11:20:00.000-06:00

I was reading an article in CIO Insight (http://tinyurl.com/5sndqg) titled "The IT Organization, Circa 2015 - Trends." in it, the author discussed how the CIO will become more of a business manager and less of a technical manager; IT personnel will become more business savvy; IT "alignment" will continue; and how the IT organization will tend towards centralization.

In looking at IT trends (and telecommunication trends for that matter) for the past four decades, IT business focus, IT alignment, and centralization have been consistent themes. In that same period, IT personnel have actually become less business savvy, IT alignment continues to be problematic, and the contention between centralization and decentralization is as strong as it ever was.

A new generation of worker is coming into the IT workplace. These individuals are more technology aware than their predecessors, but they still tend to fall on the side of technology (geek) or business. Therefore the divide continues and will continue into 2015. While many IT organizations spent great amounts of time during the 1970s-1980s getting IT personnel to understand the business and the impact of IT on that business, most of that responsibility has been moved to the college classroom. Unfortunately, there is no substitute for on-the-job training. Therefore, the divide between IT and the business side of the house is likely to increase rather than decrease. This will only be more so as baby boomers retire ( or are ushered out the door to cut costs) and college graduates without work experience replace them.

As long as CIOs have a separate IT budget, business alignment with IT will continue to be a problem. Geeks like technology. Having the money to buy it is liked even more. The only constraint in this area is the economy. It will take several years before the IT budgets loosen up. Suffice it to say constrained budgets will result in hiring IT geeks with little real business experience. In turn, these geeks will push for the latest and greatest technology regardless of it's applicibility to the business operation.

The contention between centralization and decentralization has been around since the first group was assigned to operate the company's computer mainframe. IT has always been about centralization, standardization, and control. On the other hand, the line worker in a company's department wants the technology they want, when they want it, with the flexibility to make it do what they want it to do. Hence, IT departments bought mainframes and departments bought mini-computers; IT countered by tying mini-computers into the mainframe as a means of control and departments countered by buying PCs. IT countered by linking PCs to mainframes, this forcing standardization and security and departments countered by moving functionality to edge devices such as smartphones. Today, with cloud computing resources and applications readily available, it is possible for a department to completely bypass the IT organization. It can do so without long-term investment or long-term commitment. It remains to be seen how IT will respond and how the department will counter.

However, with the current economic situation running at least through 2009, it will be difficult for the IT department to do anything unless it reduces cost. The result will be less training on emerging technology, less investment in emerging technology, and less internal development.

What say you?

IBM's "The Next Five in Five"

2008-12-01T08:39:00.000-06:00

For the second year, IBM has released their "The Next Five in Five," their prognostication of technology to expect within the next five years. While some of these forecasts might actually see the light of day, don't expect all of them to be in wide adoption by the end of 2013. That is, they will be seen--some commercially--but they won't be used by the everyday person. The forecasts are:

1. Solar cells will be cheap and built into everything from glass windows to paint to asphalt. In turn this will usher in an energy revolution. Realistically, this is at least a decade away from widespread use.

2. You will be able to forecast your health through a diagnostic "crystal ball." Currently in limited use today, this forecast builds on increasingly sophisticated DNA analysis coupled with increasingly sophisticated clinical-labs-on-a-chip. Screens for certain cancers and other diseases are a real possibility in the next five years. Some are available today.

3. You will be using the "spoken Web." As IBM states, more of the world is spoken language literate than it is written word literate. Therefore, in order to reach a wider audience, the Web must go "verbal." This is already happening on a number of fronts. First, most PCs and Macs today can convert written words to voice. A number of services will allow you to access your email verbally using a phone. Second, with technologies introduced by Google, search requests can be made using the spoken word. The reverse is also true. Services such as Jott and Evernote will take spoken words and convert them to text. This trend is sure to increase over the next five years.

4. You will increasingly have access to and use "digital shopping assistants." Many are here today. For example, Ikea has terminals throughout their stores for customer use to look-up and find merchandise. A number of Web applications will allow you to comparison shop. Phone-based applications allow you to do the same thing right in the store. Finally, with location-aware phones, it is possible for an application to make shopping suggestions based on your current location. These capabilities will only get more sophisticated in the next five years.

5. You will never forget anything. A strong statement to be sure. IBM is referring to the huge number of technologies that are currently available or will be available in the next five years that will allow a person to record and recall information using spoken word, digital images, or captured screen shots. The technology will enable tagging, indexing, scheduling, and recall of virtually anything. Again, a variety of "To Do" list applications do this today on cell phones and synchronize that information so it can be accessed on the Web or many other devices. These capabilities--such as "Remember the Milk," "Jott," and "Evernote"--will become more sophisticated, accurate, and feature-rich over the next five years.

A complete description of "The Next Five in Five" can be found at:

http://www-03.IBM.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/26170.wss

What say you?

The Future of the Christmas Holidays

2008-11-28T13:57:00.000-06:00

A debate has been raging for a number of years about "putting Christ back in Christmas." The debate posits that Christmas is a religious holiday versus those who believe that Christmas is basically a commercial holiday. If the past is prelude to the future, commercialism will win.

First, while Christmas has for centuries been an observance and celebration of Christ's birth, it also has it roots in pagan Winter celebrations and harvest rituals. Therefore, Christmas co-opted earlier celebrations. Second, at least for the last century in the US, Christmas has been celebrated as both a religious and commercial holiday. So why the big debate now?

I believe there are a number of issues at play. First, the evangelical movement has generally had more influence over American life for a number of decades. The push to re-establish Christmas as fundamentally a religious holiday is consistent with that movement. Second, as non-Christian religions continue to become increasingly present in American life, it is a natural reaction that Christians would want to hold on to their specific holidays. Indeed, the Easter holiday in the Spring is also undergoing a similar change. Third, non-Christians feel left out of what can only be considered a joyous time. Some have created or have emphasized their own religious days falling around the same time in an effort to participate. Racial groups have done the same thing. By commercializing the Christmas holiday season, it enables all religions and other similarly inclined groups to participate.

Indeed, the commercialization of Christmas is driven as much by our capitalist nature as anything else. It seems that stores are changing over to Christmas sales right after Labor Day rather than Thanksgiving. In turn, Thanksgiving marks the period when prices are reduced to drive even more sales. The day after Thanksgiving is now Black Friday (deep discount prices), and the Monday following Thanksgiving is Cyber-Monday (deep online discount prices). The week after Christmas is gift card sale week. And the first week of the New Year is inventory reduction sale week.

My prediction is that within 10 years, Christmas sales will be approaching the end of July. Retail will divide into before-Christmas and after-Christmas only. These sales periods will only be slightly interrupted by graduation sales in May, back-to-school sales in August, and Halloween sales in late September and early October.

It is another example that capitalism and religion don't exactly mesh.

What say you?

The Future of Education

2008-11-24T07:31:00.000-06:00

I was watching a television program on political campaigns the other day and the Truman/Dewey election was discussed. What stood out about that show was the focus on education and how our US education system needed improvement. This was 1948.

I started thinking about that statement and my experience with subsequent presidential elections including the one just finished. All of them address how a XXXXX (put candidate's name here) administration will address the looming educational issues head-on and "fix" the problem. You can count it--Truman/Dewey, Eisenhower/Stevenson, Eisenhower/Stevenson again, Kennedy/Nixon, Johnson/Goldwater, Nixon/Humphrey, Nixon/McGovern, Ford/Carter, Carter/Reagan, Reagan/Mondale, Bush I/Dukakis, Bush I/Clinton, Clinton/Dole, Bush II/Gore, Bush II/Kerry, and now Obama/McCain. Education was a key election issue. In that time, the Federal government has stepped in to desegregate schools, force teaching school in multiple languages, restricted disciplinary action that can be taken with students, debated religion in schools, debated creationism in schools, debated prayer in schools, closely monitored what can be included in textbooks, and significantly expanded extra-curricucular activities. We've added a formal Kindergarten year to our system. We've added advanced placement classes, computer labs, and a variety of physics experiments to the courses. We've created a totally dedicated cabinet-level position--the Department of Education. Virtually every school system has an elaborate series of achivement or competency tests that students must navigate to progress. In many cases, the testing system has become the object--teachers teach to the test. And we've funnelled countless billions of dollars into the educational system to improve it.

With all this activity over the last 60 years, we have progressed our system so that it produces functionally illiterate people for our workforce. We have graduates who cannot write a coherent sentence. We have workers who cannot make change without the cash register doing the arithmetic for them. We have adults who cannot tell you how many states there are, or the name of the current president. We have adults that cannot tell you the difference among the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We have people who cannot tell you which countries are in the North American Free Trade Agreement. I suspect this is an infinite list of examples.

In many cases, it doesn't get any better in college. At the graduate level I have seen students unable to write an intelligible sentence. At the undergraduate level I have seen students who should rather argue that the material is not adequate to complete an assignment when they haven't bothered to read the assignment.

There is good news. I have also seen individuals who have just managed to scrape by on high school who are well-read, informed, and keep up with changing technology. The problem is these people do not possess the resume to get ahead. The result is they sit quietly in the background while those less qualified move ahead and set policy for companies, institutions, and country.

So, with the great "progress" we have seen in education since Truman's day 60 years ago, what is the answer and what does the future hold for US education? The future doesn't look good.

Now is the time to tax oil

2008-11-17T08:43:00.000-06:00

I filled up my car this morning and it occurred to me that gas prices are about half what they were in June at the height of the latest gas-price spike. To a large extent, the increased gas prices have contributed heavily to our downward spiralling economy--resulting in increases in everything from gasoline to milk, virtually anything that has oil fuel as a component in manufacture or distribution.

During the summer, with oil prices high, the country (indeed, the whole planet) has had a long overdue discussion on our over-dependence on oil, oil's impact on our environment, the funding of hostilaties against us in oil-producing regions where we are not particularly liked, and the instability it creates in our economy. Unfortunately, a lot of TGIF discussion is beginning to die down now that oil prices are coming back down to levels seen before the latest spike. And that is the problem.

We have short-term memories. Assuming the financial crisis is resolved and credit begins flowing again, people will flock to the sharply reduced over-sized, gas guzzling SUVs--at least they will until the next gas spike. And that's the problem, our short-term memories get in the way of developing good, long-term behavior. There is a solution.

Taxes. I know it is an obscene concept, but taxation can play a very pivotal role in the transition to a non-oil-based economy. The problem is two-fold. First, as long as oil is incrementally cheaper than alternatives, there is little incentive to innovate alternatives. However, the point at which oil costs permanantly exceed alternatives, the impact will be devistating until such time as alternatives and the infrastructure are developed to deliver them. This is where taxation can play a positive and constructive role.

Increasing taxes on oil can level the competitive market allowing alternatives to be developed more rapidly. This would be done by two forces: first, taxes on oil would make oil consumption less attractive, resulting in higher tax revenues per gallon of fuel consumed and providing money that could be used to subsidize fledgling alternative fuel sources until they can gain economies of scale. A second benefit results from reduced consumption which in turn results in reduced demand, which in turn results in reduced oil prices. Keeping taxes on oil at an artifically high level basically means that oil producing nations help subsidize our development of alternatives. As the cost of alternative fuel production falls, subsidies can be lifted and oil taxes can be reduced, allowing natural market forces to take over.

So, we can pay now or we can pay later for the transition from oil. The longer we wait, the higher the cost. Had we heeded President Jimmy Carter's warning, we would not be in this situation.

Your thoughts?

A Different Perspective on Environment

2008-11-16T12:21:00.000-06:00

Going green. Global warming. Environmental disaster. These are the discussions, whether it's a discussion of offshore drilling, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, natural gas drilling in the Barnett Shell, wind farming in West Texas, solar power generation in Nevada, tidal power off the coast of Oregon, or coal mining in West Virginia. Or, the discussions could include the endangered Spotted Owl, acid rain, air pollution, water pollution, or melting ice caps. The argument is the same--human beings have severely damaged the environment and we are on the verge of destroying it.

There is only one problem with these arguments. Human beings may cause severe changes in the environment, we may pollute the environment so heavily that it becomes unlivable, and we may wipe out huge numbers of species. But, we won't destroy the environment. The environment will be here long after we are gone.

The question is whether we maintain the environment so that humans can survive. To do so will require us to treat the environment so that it supports huge numbers of diverse species. As Dr. W. Edwards Deming once stated, "Survival is not mandatory." we are not cleaning up the environment to be good stewards of Earth. We are doing it to survive.

Waxing Political (cont)

2008-11-11T11:31:00.000-06:00

Now that the election is over and voters are beginning to think clearly again, I decided to get this blog back to thoughts about the future. Therefore, I have set-up a separate blog for political discussion. The blog, "Waxing Political" can be found at:

Waxing Political

From here on, any political commentary will be restricted to that blog. Feel free to read and comment.

Waxing Political

2008-10-04T16:28:00.006-05:00

I actively attempt to keep politics out of this blog, but it is sometimes difficult to do. What with the interrelationship of energy policy and politics, technology incentives and politics, and developments in the future and politics, it is sometimes downright impossible to separate politics from the future. Therefore, with a month to go before the U.S. presidential elections, I will try to limit the overt references to politics during that remaining time.

With that said, I take no position on the candidates (at least in this blog anyway) as the purpose of this blog is to inform and get people to think, not to advocate a given position. Therefore, I give the following rules of thumb for reviewing candidate records, policies, and stated positions on subjects that may be of interest to you (and us and the country).

Think for yourself. Don't let others frame your position on a given candidate. Voting for a candidate is a very personal thing. Who is elected has a very personal impact on YOU. Those impacts can range from taxes, to participation in armed conflicts, to your ability to access health care, to your ability to afford a house, car, clothes, or food. Make decisions based on what you know, not on what others say you should know.
Candidates have taken specific positions in this election. Don't let the opposition tell you the candidate's position. See the candidate's position directly, not filtered through biased lenses.
Be suspicious of opposition advertisements on television, the Internet, radio, newspapers, or magazines. Opposition advertisements that are directed at the opposition are by nature intended to create a negative impression--they are biased. If the advertisements are sponsored by non-candidate organizations (the often mentioned 527 organizations), they are as likely to be exaggerations, or outright lies.
Be honest with yourself. If you vote as if you are rich (a very small percentage of the population is rich), but you are not, your vote may not be in your best interest. If you want to vote as if you are rich, wait until you are actually rich. The same goes for middle class and the poor. If you want your neighbor to think you are something other than what you are, that's fine. But when you are in that voting booth, don't delude yourself--vote what you are, not what you want people to think you are. Doing otherwise is downright stupid.
Put in the work. If you are too lazy to research the issues and positions, don't vote. That is, if you are too lazy to think for yourself, why shoot blindly in the dark? By the same token, don't vote what your friends are voting because you are too lazy to do the research--you are not a cow in a herd, you are a free human-being given an opportunity to cast your vote in a free election--there are millions in this world that are willing to die to have the same opportunity.
Remember, the political system in the U.S. is by secret ballot. You are under no obligation to share with anyone how you voted. That means that it is none of anybody's business--your family's, your neighbor's, the pollster's, or your buddy's business. There is a reason for this approach--to avoid negative repercussions of taking a particular political stand.
Beware mass emails and chain letters. About every chain letter out there is deceiving. First, they are being circulated to create a specific position. Second, they are often embellished as they are sent along, so something that may have had an element of truth to it is usually completely distorted by the time it gets to you. (Remember the telephone game you used to play in elementary school where you pass a message verbally from person to person and by the time it got to the last person it was nothing like when it started? That is how a chain email works.) The best a chain email accomplishes is it clogs up your email client and the Internet.

Where to go for information

The following links are provided to obtain further information of candidate positions and to verify information:

McCain-Palin: http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/WhyMcCain.htm

Ron Paul: http://www.ronpaul.org/ It's difficult to find Congressman Paul's position on specific issues, but this is a starting point.

Nader/Gonzalez: http://www.votenader.org/issues/ Beware that Nader attempts to frame the opposition for you. Make sure you visit their Web sites to find their policies (see recommendation 1 above)

Obama/Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

If you are concerned about a statement made about an opposition candidate or about your candidate, the following sites are good starting points for understanding if the statements are true, untrue, or downright lies:

Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/ This is a non-partisan Web site operated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Checking chain letters, mass emailing, and urban legends about candidates: http://www.snopes.com/

Remember, this election is about the future. Use your vote wisely.

A Political Observation

2008-09-26T08:03:00.006-05:00

This blog is about the future. It is not about politics. However, over the last couple of weeks, the two have started to merge. For the one person out there who has been hiding under a rock for the last 18 months, we are in the midst of a presidential election campaign. For the first time in eight years, neither candidate is the incumbent.

Add to this background the fact that I live in an overwhelmingly Republican city, in an overwhelmingly Republican county, in an overwhelmingly Republican state. It is the 11th fastest growing city in the nation. It is in the 5th fastest growing county in the nation. The city is young (median age 34.1 years), rated the richest in the nation for its size, and is highly educated (93.4% of workforce has more than 12 years schooling and 53.3% have four or more years of college).

In past elections, you would have to make a real effort to find a yard sign supporting a Democratic candidate. Indeed, it was often difficult to find the Democratic polling locations. Not so this year. So far this year, I have witnessed a state primary where the Democratic caucus at the polling place was overflowing into the parking lot with participants. Keep in mind this is in a state where I have lived for 25 years and did not even know that there was a caucus system! Now, I am seeing more Obama/Biden yard signs than I am McCain/Palin signs.

Does this mean that the city will go for Obama/Biden? I find that highly doubtful. However, the fact that there is a significant opposition from the Democratic party is truly surprising. This is not the inner-city of Dallas; this is the suburbs. This is not a minority or immigrant enclave; we're 10.2% Asian, 5% Black, 10.1% Hispanic, and 72.8% White.

What does all this mean? Beats me. But I can hazard a few guesses. First, I think that this election will represent a sea-change in the electorate. Just as 1960 represented a change in generations in the electorate from the Depression-era adult to World War II and post WWII adult, 2008 appears to be shaping up to be a change from the Baby Boomer adult to the Gen-pick-a-letter adult.

Second, we (the Baby Boomers) have given the Gen-letters a reason to be interested in this election. We have clearly demonstrated to them that they can't count on Social Security for their retirement. We have clearly demonstrated to them that health care will most likely become the highest expense they incur next to their house. Speaking of their house, we have demonstrated to them that it isn't nearly the financial asset they thought it was three years ago. We have created an environment for them that the economy is based on spending. In doing so, the emerging electorate is deeply in debt. For good measure, we have strapped every man, woman, and child in the nation with an additional $31,000 in national debt (regardless of the current negotiations for a $700 billion bailout, the national debt will be at a minimum $11 trillion when whoever the president is takes office). Indeed, every week, every man, woman, and child in the nation incurs an additional $137 in national debt (based on an average of $50 billion in new debt instruments the Treasury has been issuing every week for the past several months). Suddenly, a lot of people who are going to be strapped with this debt are interested in this election.

My perspective is if this is the best the Baby Boomers can do, then it is time to pass control to someone else. We've demonstrated that we are more interested in immediate satisfaction than we are in long-term solutions. If you don't believe it, consider for a moment that Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, first proposed a universal health care system at the beginning of the last century. Yet, more than a century later we in the US pay more for health care and get less for the cost than virtually every other developed country in the world.

Consider for a moment the US financial position in the world. For more than half a century, the US has been the benchmark currency for the world. That is, every currency in the world is pegged against the US dollar and convertible to the US dollar. The US dollar alone is not convertible. (It used to be convertible to gold, but that changed during the Nixon administration. The dollar now is based only on other countries trust in our economy and our government.) Now you can see why our economic problems are of major concern to every economy in the world. Indeed, there is a good chance that the current economic crisis will result in the US ceasing to be an economic superpower.

We now return to our regular prognostications on the future. Your thoughts?

Politics and Our Future

2008-09-09T00:06:00.006-05:00

Over the past two weeks, we have seen grand showmanship by two political parties, both extolling change. While I have my personal political view (known to most of my acquaintances and friends), that is not the subject of this post. Rather, this post is on the subject of what has not been addressed by either party (or inadequately addressed) that has the most impact on the future of the U.S., its future economic viability, and its standing among world communities. I believe that the following two issues are of critical importance. I present them with factual realities and the inadequacies of both party's position. In reading further, it will become obvious that the issues being discussed and the solutions being proposed by both parties are found lacking in effecting real change. It is also obvious that what is being discussed by the popular press (from the right, center, or left) fails to address root cause issues or to hold the candidates accountable for inadequate solutions. Once again, the fourth estate has failed us.

The National Debt: Neither party appears prepared to tackle what could arguably be one of the most critical long-term issues facing the U.S. today. The National Debt (not the deficit, which is something entirely different) today stands at around $9.7 trillion and has been growing at a rate of $.5 trillion per year for the last 7 years. During that time, taxes have been reduced. Barack Obama has proposed a PAYGO system to "pay as you go," and has voted in the past to not raise the ceiling on the National Debt. However, he has not stated how he intends to REDUCE that debt. John McCain has proposed to balance the budget 2013, but has not stated when, how, or what he would do to REDUCE the debt. He also has not made a commitment to stand firm on the debt ceiling. While both candidates play to the immediate gratification of reducing taxes now (whether for the rich or middle class is irrelevant), nobody seems to be holding the candidates accountable for the real issue and how to address it sooner rather than later. In the meantime, nine cents of every dollar now goes to pay interest on the National Debt. With the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continuing to be financed with debt, and with increasing support of failing banks also being financed with debt, it is now obvious that the National Debt will top $10 trillion before whoever the winner is takes office. It should be remembered that debt, and the rate of increase in issuing additional debt instruments (whether printing money or IOUs) directly contributes to inflation (oil is not the only cause).

Energy Reform: Both candidates have extensive platforms that will reform our energy consumption and sources and they are both to be congratulated--as far as they go. Unfortunately, neither go far enough. First, while government should not be in the role of directing private energy development, they are through continuing subsidies to the major oil companies. At the same time, the Congress has failed to pass energy tax credits for alternative energy (with the exception of ethanol production which amounts to an agricultural subsidy that has already destabilized crop prices and will continue to do so). McCain proposes the development of 45 nuclear generation plants by 2030 which means not one watt of electricity will come on line during his administration or his successor's administration. At the same time, his platform is to "Drill baby, drill," as the chant from the Republican National Convention so eloquently phrased it. Yet, if an oil company elected to begin drilling, it would take years to gain approval, more years to equip and drill, and even more years to bring successful wells (not all are) to production. Estimates range from many years to decades. Again, additional oil production from this approach will not be seen in any volume during a McCain administration. Since Obama has also supported this approach (although limited), the same holds true for his administration. Simply put, the most rapid solution would be to decrease subsidies to the oil companies and shift those subsidies to alternative energy solutions--and not just to ethanol production. While it would have a short-term increase cost to energy, it would have a long-term stabilizing effect (and possibly lead to a reduction). Yet neither candidate is willing to make this commitment.

What do you think are the real issues impacting our future? I'd like to know.

Sources:

"The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It," TreasuryDirect, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

"Issues," McCain-Palin Campaign, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

"Issues," Obama-Biden Campaign, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

"Obama, McCain on the Issues," by Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, September 8, 2008, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WHERE_THEY_STAND?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-09-08-16-58-15

"Why Lifting the Offshore Oil Ban Won't Help Gas Prices," by Kathy Gill, Kathy's US Politics Blogg, http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/07/17/why-lifting-the-offshore-oil-ban-wont-help-gas-prices.htm

Google Chrome

2008-09-01T20:38:00.004-05:00

Tomorrow, Google will release their Windows version of "Google Chrome," their entry into the browser market. Google differentiates their browser from others in a number of ways. First, the browser is fully open source (unlike Safari and IE). Second, while Chrome uses tabs like most other browsers, the tab becomes the main component, not a means to simply allow rapid, easy navigation among different Internet sites. That is, the Chrome tab becomes a fully self-contained browser activity, independent of other tabs. As Google notes, a browser crash in Chrome can only impact a specific tab, not the entire browser--tabs are independent processes.

Third, Chrome fully integrates Google Gears. No surprise here, but the degree of integration is more complete. Google gives the example that cloud applications that use Google Gears (for example Reader, Documents, Remember the Milk, and soon to come Gmail) can actually dispense with all browser controls so that the application looks like a local window.

Fourth, Chrome isolates browser activities to a level not seen (and possibly not possible) in other browsers. The result is a browser that resists malware at a much higher level than other browsers. Google has also incorporated features that can significantly reduce not only malware, but sites that spread malware and phishing sites.

Fifth, Chrome manages memory differently and implements a new virtual JavaScript engine making the browser much faster, with better memory conservation.

Chrome is will be an early beta, and the Mac OS X version will be available at a later date. However, it is worth "tasting," and hopefully some of the concepts will find rapid acceptance and incorporation into other browser versions. If nothing else, it provides an insight into how browsers--and the cloud they sit atop--will evolve in the future.

To read more about it, see the Google blog at: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html

Also, Google has published a 38-page comic-style presentation on Chrome. You can find it at: http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=frontcover#PPP1,M1

What Does Spam Say About Us?

2008-07-28T17:33:00.004-05:00

I have just finished cleaning up six email addresses that I maintain for business and personal use. This included filing emails I wanted to keep for future reference (since a number of the email addresses are hosted by Google, there is plenty of room to store emails you want to keep). Once that was done, the time came for me to deal with the spam. One of the advantages of many of my email hosts is that they maintain a variety of spam filters. However, since the hosts don't want to be accused of deleting valid email, they typically (in my case each of my email hosts does so) place suspected spam in a separate folder.

This got me to thinking about who sends me spam and what they are trying to sell me. Therefore, I plan to take about a month's worth of spam and do an analysis of the content.

Stay tuned...

Energy - Time for a Real Change

2008-07-23T13:30:00.006-05:00

Since I last posted in March, 2008, a lot has changed. The debate in a Bush press conference about whether gas would go to $4.00 a gallon was settled with Bush looking even more out of touch with real Americans than ever. Oil prices blew past $130 a barrel to peak in the high $140s. It has since dropped back somewhat, but still double what it was a year ago. Congress has responded by...doing basically nothing. They have still not passed an extension to incentives for the development and deployment of alternative energy. The President has responded the way he has for most of his life, proposing to drill more holes domestically.

It is a sad state of affairs that our two presumptive presidential candidates don't seem to realize the criticality of our energy dependence. McCain, like Bush wants to maintain the status quo and continue to drill more holes domestically. Obama talks a good game, but spends more time on global warming than he does on alternative energy, an indication that he doesn't realize they are intertwined.

Interestingly, the only sane ones talking this summer is 1) automotive manufacturers; 2) T. Boone Pickens; and 3) Al Gore. First, the major automotive manufacturers seem to understand the criticality of the situation. With Mercedes importing the Smart Car; with Toyota and Honda flooding the market with hybrids and high gas mileage compacts; with Ford making a major conversion from gas-guzzling SUVs to more fuel-efficient small cars and hybrids; and with GM going beyond Ford to develop and electric car and the infrastructure to support it, it seems that the automotive industry gets it. Hopefully it's not too late.

While I tend to disagree with most everything T. Boone Pickens has to say, I now find myself in agreement on his proposal to convert to wind energy. While he stands to make a bundle on the success of this proposal (he somehow always does), his proposal has merit. With the support of the Texas Legislature and the Texas PUC, he now has the power lines to major cities in the pipeline to make it at least a reality in Texas. Hopefully, other deep-pocket investors will follow his lead and pour money into alternative energy even if Congress is too stupid to extend incentives.

Then there is Al Gore's audacious challenge to the presidential candidates to commit the U.S. to weaning itself from oil within 10 years. The candidates haven't responded. I think it is time they did. It is time for the U.S. to put up or shut up. While going to Mars is a nice challenge that will bring returns in technology and health care improvements, a grand challenge to move off oil within 10 years will bring returns in terms of survival and our way of life continuing for our children and grand children. Oil is in short supply. Regardless of the number of wells drilled, the demand will outpace supply. That's the most optimistic view. If there continues to be de-stabilization in the Middle East, it will be even worse. If the Gulf Coast continues to endure storms damaging drilling platforms and off-loading facilities, it will be even worse. If we continue to wage war on a credit card to the tune of $12 billion per month, the Chinese and Indians will be able to pay cash and it will be even worse.

The fact is, it is going to get worse before it gets better. Therefore, we can bite the bullet and make an all-out effort as proposed by Al Gore, thus preventing the massive transfer of U.S. wealth as forecasted by T. Boone Pickens, or we can continue the status quo, forsaking our position in the world and leaving a much poorer legacy to our children. It is going to be painful for the next 10 years. If we don't do this, it could be we don't survive as a nation.

Weigh in whether you agree or disagree. The need is to have the discussion.

Alternative Power Ideas

2008-03-26T13:23:00.003-06:00

I was reading a posting by Scott Adams in his Dilbert Blog about harnessing the power when an elevator comes down (see http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/03/elevator-power.html)and this got me to thinking about a recurring idea of mine: urban wind farms. I live in Plano, Texas. At the present time, there is approximately a 30 MPH wind blowing. This is not unusual for this part of the country. Indeed, it has done the same thing over several days of the past week. We get a lot of wind.

Therefore, if there was some way to economically capture energy from that wind, it would make sense. There are several requirements to have a viable wind farm: 1) you need wind; 2) you need connectivity to the power grid; and 3) you need permit and access to place a wind generator. As stated earlier, we have a lot of wind, so requirement 1 is met. As for the second requirement, a good place to gain connectivity to the grid that is everywhere in an urban area is the standard light pole that dot many streets. As for permitting, the big argument is that the wind generator detracts from the surrounding beauty of the neighborhood. However, since when is a light pole pretty. They are ugly and they are everywhere, so why not make the most of a bad situation and use them for double-duty--light pole and wind generator tower. Since the light pole is tied to the power grid, are typically well-anchored, they would make a great location. A few statistics will demonstrate how attractive this alternative is.

Plano, Texas is a rather spread out city of somewhere around 160,000 people. if we eliminate the residential roads and only concentrate on the main thoroughfares in the city, I would guess that there are 5 running east-west and 10 north-south. From city limit to city limit, I would guess that Plano is 9 miles wide and 7 miles long (main road areas and I want to be on the conservative side). That means there are 45 miles of east-west road and 70 miles of north-south road, for a total of 115 miles of usable road.

Using that number and being conservative using a light pole every 300 feet (conservative because in many places there are two poles on the roadway because it is divided lanes), this would give 2,024 usable light poles. Again being conservative and using a smaller wind generator in the range of 250 Kwh each, this means that putting a wind generator on each pole would pump more than 500 Mwh into the grid!

A good estimate based on some fast research on the Web is that the average home uses 850 Kwh of energy per year. This means that my city-wide wind farm would generate enough electricity to power to power almost 600 homes for a year.

In actuality, there are many more generators that could be installed in a city such as Plano and my guess is that the typical capacity would be more like 500 Kwh. Think of all of the towns across the US in high wind areas (Chicago comes to mind for example, not to mention every city and town in most of the west). I think this idea has merit.