 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Blurring distinctions
I've been on a kick recently, as part of a self-determined strategy review, to convince my world that a fundamental change to the environment for post offices and others in the carriage trade, the telecomm. business, and so forth is that the distinctions between previously well-defined parts of the "value chain" are blurring beyond recognition. For instance, what is "delivery" in a world where digital and physical matter collide and overlap? Enough about that though. (It's tedious, but I'd be glad to pass on my thoughts to any who ask.)
Important -- and affirming -- to me, however, is that Intel is announcing a new, faster chip (prototype) today that has significant implications to the distinction between communications and computing. Here's a snip from the NYTimes article:
Important -- and affirming -- to me, however, is that Intel is announcing a new, faster chip (prototype) today that has significant implications to the distinction between communications and computing. Here's a snip from the NYTimes article:
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 11 -- Intel scientists will announce on Thursday that they have built a prototype of a silicon chip that can switch light on and off like electricity, blurring the line between computing and communications and bringing sweeping changes to the way digital information and entertainment are delivered.To me the crucial word here -- a journalist's but still . . . -- is "blurring." The impact will be much wider than fibre optic equipment. It's going to further seriously affect communications, delivery, and the nature of the digital-physical relationship.
For the first time, Intel researchers said, they have shown that ultra-high-speed fiber optic equipment can be produced at the equivalent of low-cost personal computer industry prices. Industry executives said the advance could lead to commercial products by the end of the decade.
As the costs of communicating in cyberspace falls, the researchers said, existing barriers to creating fundamentally new kinds of digital machines capable of far greater performance, and not limited by physical distance, should disappear.
Trusted third party? Not government!??
Here's an item from ComputerWorld that corroborates something this bit of the Web has been blathering about in various places such as heres: Get Ready for the U.S. National ID Card. The significant point is that while the world rails against a national ID card program, it has one in practically all effects except name. The driver's license is not meant to be a national or general ID; it is a license to drive a motor vehicle. HOWEVER, it is a culturally accepted standard of identification that, although not standardized across states and provinces nor granted national identity status, is going through an evolution to become just that.
I think it's a great idea, and that if the citizenry demands competing, alternative identity credentials as well, the "drivers' license national identity card" could be relatively innocuous re: privacy and civil rights. If it is standardized, as suggested in Cline's piece -- which points to an American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators (AAMVA) initiative to create a framework for license standardization (in North America!) -- it will give a lie to the implicit assumption (sometimes made explicit depending on who's taking what position) that the public will never accept a government issuing a national digital identity. Counterpoint that with this post about Verisign issuing digital credentials despite being a representative of the equally unacceptable -- to consumers/citizens -- ommercial interest issuing general identity credentials.
That's the thing about so-called paradigm shifts: nothing holds for very long. Equilibrium is punctuated at best, and we just have to move along with the ground.
I think it's a great idea, and that if the citizenry demands competing, alternative identity credentials as well, the "drivers' license national identity card" could be relatively innocuous re: privacy and civil rights. If it is standardized, as suggested in Cline's piece -- which points to an American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators (AAMVA) initiative to create a framework for license standardization (in North America!) -- it will give a lie to the implicit assumption (sometimes made explicit depending on who's taking what position) that the public will never accept a government issuing a national digital identity. Counterpoint that with this post about Verisign issuing digital credentials despite being a representative of the equally unacceptable -- to consumers/citizens -- ommercial interest issuing general identity credentials.
That's the thing about so-called paradigm shifts: nothing holds for very long. Equilibrium is punctuated at best, and we just have to move along with the ground.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
It's a long-term strategy -- D'uh!
Hate Verisign! Like the evil empire (no, not Microsoft), they control the Internet and do bad things for their own welfare. [Shock! Horror! Indignation!! ed.] Sitefinder, the controversial search service, is an example of Verisign using its privileged position in a way that competitors and many other freedom fighters find offensive. I'm still unsure what I think. Now, there's more news in the digital ID space from Verisign in this CNET item: VeriSign works to ID kid surfers
In short, Verisign and a partner (i-Safe) are going to issue ID tokens to school kids to keep them safe as they surf the Internet: no charge to the school or the kid. Business model (read: way to make money) will probably involve the vendors and advertisers that want to access that market paying a fee so the tokens will permit the kids to access their wares or somesuch. Whatever. That's the small end of the stick.
More significant is that "leettle girls [and boys] get beegehr heveryday." In other words, it's a long-term strategy of conditioning the kids so that they're used to the idea and 5 - 10 years from now use a digital ID as a matter of course rather than resisting for privacy or other concerns; of using this market as the bait to bring online merchants and advertisers (with the money) to play and pay for the game; of using the kids' safety as a showcase for the parents (who really have the economic power and are the market the vendors really want) to buy into the consumer-based digital ID program for themselves; of . . . And, Verisign is willing to invest big money (maybe -- we don't know who's all investing) to make it all happen with limited reward potential in the immediate future.
Let's recall that Verisign has had as little luck with its consumer PKI programs (certificates) as anyone else; that they probably see the enormous commercial potential and value in being the consumer identity provider in a networked world that will run on identity within 5 - 10 years; that they can do it. Hat off to them.
If their foray is successful, and there's no way of telling that for at least a few years, they will put the lie to the belief that there are trusted parties (say post offices, governments, etc.) that can do this and others (e.g., Verisign) that can't. What's next: Microsoft Passport redux?
In short, Verisign and a partner (i-Safe) are going to issue ID tokens to school kids to keep them safe as they surf the Internet: no charge to the school or the kid. Business model (read: way to make money) will probably involve the vendors and advertisers that want to access that market paying a fee so the tokens will permit the kids to access their wares or somesuch. Whatever. That's the small end of the stick.
More significant is that "leettle girls [and boys] get beegehr heveryday." In other words, it's a long-term strategy of conditioning the kids so that they're used to the idea and 5 - 10 years from now use a digital ID as a matter of course rather than resisting for privacy or other concerns; of using this market as the bait to bring online merchants and advertisers (with the money) to play and pay for the game; of using the kids' safety as a showcase for the parents (who really have the economic power and are the market the vendors really want) to buy into the consumer-based digital ID program for themselves; of . . . And, Verisign is willing to invest big money (maybe -- we don't know who's all investing) to make it all happen with limited reward potential in the immediate future.
Let's recall that Verisign has had as little luck with its consumer PKI programs (certificates) as anyone else; that they probably see the enormous commercial potential and value in being the consumer identity provider in a networked world that will run on identity within 5 - 10 years; that they can do it. Hat off to them.
If their foray is successful, and there's no way of telling that for at least a few years, they will put the lie to the belief that there are trusted parties (say post offices, governments, etc.) that can do this and others (e.g., Verisign) that can't. What's next: Microsoft Passport redux?
It's all magic
Here's a little piece that's everywhere about another Microsoft op-sys security vulnerability that requires immediate attention. Frankly it's to be expected, and makes me think about cars -- at a theoretical level. Like this:
There was a time when I was young that a car: internal combustion engine and other assorted mechanical parts, was a relatively simple proposition. True, there were many parts, but each one was merely a part of the overall machine. It worked mechanically and so a mechanic or any other testosterone-filled teenager with Camero-lust could figure out how to pull the whole thing apart and put it back together -- fixed or otherwise. You could drop a bowling ball into the engine compartment of a GTO and it would hit pavement unimpeded. Today, the engine area (now smaller) is crammed full of bits and pieces, sensors and onboard computer equipment, with only a limited portion of those many, many integral parts operating mechanically. It is, in short, impossible for anybody but a trained technician to understandable and tinker in this system.
"WTF does this have to do with Microsoft?" you ask. Well . . . nothing. But, nobody understands their operating system either. Only those relatively fewgeeks techies that code and do other assorted software-y stuff. Upshot: we really don't know what's what, or why's why. We have to rely on these magi to keep us safe and working properly: just like we have to take our $40,000 sedan to an automotive shop -- often the dealer -- rather than pissing with it in the backyard (were one so inclined).
And that, my friend, is magic. Just like the Mayan high priests or the clerics of early and middle Christianity. Nobody can escape it. The whole thing is a complex, self-organizing and continually-mutating, adaptive system that everybody has to ride in. Be flexible.
There was a time when I was young that a car: internal combustion engine and other assorted mechanical parts, was a relatively simple proposition. True, there were many parts, but each one was merely a part of the overall machine. It worked mechanically and so a mechanic or any other testosterone-filled teenager with Camero-lust could figure out how to pull the whole thing apart and put it back together -- fixed or otherwise. You could drop a bowling ball into the engine compartment of a GTO and it would hit pavement unimpeded. Today, the engine area (now smaller) is crammed full of bits and pieces, sensors and onboard computer equipment, with only a limited portion of those many, many integral parts operating mechanically. It is, in short, impossible for anybody but a trained technician to understandable and tinker in this system.
"WTF does this have to do with Microsoft?" you ask. Well . . . nothing. But, nobody understands their operating system either. Only those relatively few
And that, my friend, is magic. Just like the Mayan high priests or the clerics of early and middle Christianity. Nobody can escape it. The whole thing is a complex, self-organizing and continually-mutating, adaptive system that everybody has to ride in. Be flexible.
Fatty, fatty, two by four . . .
In my case it's vanity that finally got me to lose weight. And, although still a little displeased with my shape, concerned about what my Polar heart monitor tells me when I run, and ranking as modestly "overweight" on the BMI, I'm relatively pleased to be fitter. Others apparently need more or alternate incentive, so the medical industry is coming to our rescue as pointed out in this Globe and Mail item (Fat is the new tobacco: Heart and Stroke Foundation) and another from the London Telegraph (Doctors warn of obesity time bomb). Having all but won the war on smoking, we turn our attention to another not exactly-burning platform. [Anyone who doesn't believe that smoking and obesity are connected at least a little bit ought to go to Paris where they're born with a chimney and a croissant changes their body weight until metabolized. ed.]
This is good. Good for society; good for Dr. Phil, for the Duchess of York, for Slimfast, for Atkins, for all kinds of exercise equipment flacks . . .
But, I say while we've got the problem, we should use it to do good. "Hey," you say, "do you think there could be a symbiotic socio-economic activity that might alleviate the obesity problem and do some economic good?" Well I'm glad you asked. As it it turns out, I took a run at this a few years ago [man it's hard being that far in front of the curve all the time . . . ed.] in a little piece I wrote. Here's a snip:
This is good. Good for society; good for Dr. Phil, for the Duchess of York, for Slimfast, for Atkins, for all kinds of exercise equipment flacks . . .
But, I say while we've got the problem, we should use it to do good. "Hey," you say, "do you think there could be a symbiotic socio-economic activity that might alleviate the obesity problem and do some economic good?" Well I'm glad you asked. As it it turns out, I took a run at this a few years ago [man it's hard being that far in front of the curve all the time . . . ed.] in a little piece I wrote. Here's a snip:
We’re too fat because we overeat and under-exercise. It could be different were there more incentive to change. But while the primary motivators are appeals to individual health consciousness and vanity there will never be enough incentive for most people to lose weight. Part of the problem is that those most able to influence society support obesity. Change that and you can change the Canadian fitness level. Enter Robert Milton.Now that's synergy!
Milton assured us he would fix Air Canada in just 180 days. Since he isn’t providing much value to anyone these days—not his investors, customers, employees, or the country at large—maybe he could save Canada from the blubber bomb. Maybe even in 180 days.
It’s a simple plan. The thrust is to change the incentive structure for fitness, placing it on the shoulders of Corporate Canada, using Air Canada as the lever to a greater good.
Air travel is the most effective way to travel distances. It is also most heavily trafficked by business travelers, making corporate travel budgets a substantial portion of the cost of doing business. So organizations have been working hard to reign in this expense. Now imagine the possibilities, were the cost to fly based on weight—like other cargo.
This and more available on one of my content pages.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Those crazy kids
Let's hope that there aren't a lot of pictures taken of the (genuine) demands for change and action by the university students in this piece, entitled, Universities heed the call for genderless washrooms. A snip:
There are washrooms for men and washrooms for women. And, coming soon to a university campus near you will be washrooms for those who don't limit themselves to either category.I'm all for youthful expression and challenge of the status quo: hell, I'm for middle-age expression and challenge of the status quo. But, either we're in for a very significant redistribution of gender dynamics in the coming decade or there are going to be a fair number of 30-somethings wishing they'd experimented differently during university.
Monday, February 09, 2004
I knew it!!!!
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished me to the Second Level of Hell!
Here is how Imatched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante's Inferno Test for yourself. See where you end up. Be honest now! ;-0
Here is how Imatched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Low |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | High |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | High |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Moderate |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Moderate |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Very High |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Low |
Take the Dante's Inferno Test for yourself. See where you end up. Be honest now! ;-0
UPDATE: Microsoft's Bill is not in the mail
As noted a few days ago, Bill Gates gets things moving. His comments while at the World Economic Forum, in Davos, about quelling spam by a "postage" system that creates economic friction got the media in a flurry for sure. First, we heard about the rising tide. Then, as this piece in the Globe and Mail's technology section illustrates, the tide went out.
The well-justified, standard counter-responses have been trotted out: (1) It's all about Microsoft wanting to make more money [D'oh! No kidding . . . uh, and? . . . ed.]; (2) It's too hard to implement [Where there's a Will . . . there's money. And where there's money, there's always a way. ed. -- again]; (3) Spammers typically are "invisible," so how would you bill them? [They gotta get online somehow -- and get their money through the responses that do come in, sometime. See response to (2), above. ed. -- still going on]
Likely best interpretation: Bill was testing the "business" water. Microsoft (as others) is working out the technology. Based on the responses as presented in the Globe's item, the business solution is neither ready for prime time nor is the environment ready for the solution. So, one could expect the whole thing to go back below surface for a while again . . . waiting . . .
The well-justified, standard counter-responses have been trotted out: (1) It's all about Microsoft wanting to make more money [D'oh! No kidding . . . uh, and? . . . ed.]; (2) It's too hard to implement [Where there's a Will . . . there's money. And where there's money, there's always a way. ed. -- again]; (3) Spammers typically are "invisible," so how would you bill them? [They gotta get online somehow -- and get their money through the responses that do come in, sometime. See response to (2), above. ed. -- still going on]
Likely best interpretation: Bill was testing the "business" water. Microsoft (as others) is working out the technology. Based on the responses as presented in the Globe's item, the business solution is neither ready for prime time nor is the environment ready for the solution. So, one could expect the whole thing to go back below surface for a while again . . . waiting . . .
