IT Trends 2015

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?

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

IBM's "The Next Five in Five"

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?

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

The Future of the Christmas Holidays

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?

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

The Future of Education

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.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Now is the time to tax oil

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?

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

A Different Perspective on Environment

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.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Waxing Political (cont)

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.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Waxing Political

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).

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

Deming's Critical Mass

I came across an interesting blog post this evening titled, "1,000 True Fans." (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php) The premise is that if an artist--I'll call him/her an Internet entrepreneur--can cultivate 1,000 true fans, the individual can make a decent living. The author, Kevin Kelly, defines a true fan as:

"Someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work."

Dr. W. Edwards Deming often referred to a similar concept when he was talking about organizational change. He referred to "critical mass," and defined an organization's critical mass as the square root of the number of employees.  His reasoning was that if you could get the "square root people" to champion the change, the organization would change.

I suspect that the "1,000 true fans" actually equates to the square root of the market you are trying to penetrate. In lieu of knowing the number of clients in your target market, the number 1,000 is probably as good as any. Either way, given the tremendous reach of the Internet (1.3 billion users according to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), 1,000 true fans does not seem to be a reach for any decent product or service.

Perspective on Internet Time

"Internet Time" is the concept that time moves faster or events compress in time on the Internet much faster than they do in "real life." An interesting event occurred yesterday that brought this home: the YouTube domain was registered on February 15, 2005, making yesterday the third anniversary. In that time, YouTube was purchased by Google a year and a half later (October 16, 2006) for $1.65 Billion (which represented a capital appreciation of $6.8 Million PER DAY by the way); now serves more than 100 million videos per day; has changed the way police departments identify criminals (alleged criminals); has changed the way politicians communicate and are questioned in debates; and has become the 4th most visited Web site in the Internet.

That's hard to compete with using traditional business models.

Alternative Energy--A Clash of Cultures?

As wind farms and solar farms sprout up around the world, there is an increasing chorus of complaint about the impact that whirling wind generator blades will have on birds, and about the impact that large areas covered with solar cells or solar concentration mirrors will have on animals. While it is a valid question that should be asked, those protesting this move to renewable energy seem to lose sight of a larger picture.

Sure, these installations will have some impact on birds and animals (let's not forget the little bugs either). However, continuing to rely on carbon-based fuels and continuing to spew hydrocarbons into the atmosphere will also have an impact on the birds and animals--and one of those animals is us.

Personally, I believe that propagating switchgrass across the mid-west is a great idea. It basically begins the process of reintroducing native plants back into the ecology, not to mention controlling erosion on marginal lands. It also offsets the dependence on corn for ethanol production which is a good thing considering that corn is a primary food source for the world. Introducing this one "crop" back into the ecology creates an improved environment for a variety of native mid-west animals and birds. That's not a bad thing.

Introducing wind farms and solar arrays offsets the need to generate energy through coal-powered plants, one of the most polluting machines in use today. Substituting birds who can't fly certain routes for birds who can't breath seems like a fair trade off.

Substituting electric power from solar for gas burning engines in cars seems like a fair trade off to me. I imagine that many of these same arguments went on when there was a move from horse power to steam power and then gas power. I'm sure the lantern fuel providers had a problem with the "environmental" impact of electric lights. The point is that any new technology has its advantages and disadvantages. The determiner of whether that new technology will be adopted depends on demand. If there is suitable demand, it survives and thrives. If it doesn't, it dies. Adam Smith's laws of economics are still valid.

The fact is that wind energy and solar energy are taking hold simply because the cost is rapidly approaching that of traditional energy production. The difference this time is that even the individual can get in on the action. That is, the individual land or homeowner can be a power generator--either by installing their own energy sources or though leasing a energy production capability.

I suspect that it is this individual control over energy production that is the real issue, not the environmental issues.

Security versus Privacy

I saw this quote in the "Good Morning Silicon Valley" newsletter and I found it interesting in light of the events that have occurred over the last eight years and the lasting impact that those events will have on the future. The quote is by security expert Bruce Schneier:

"We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often ... that most of us don't even question the fundamental dichotomy. But it's a false one. Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. ...

Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.

By the same token, many of the anti-privacy 'security' measures we're seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.

The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."

In this political season, his perspective is certainly food for thought.

What's Next? Take Two: The Future and You

During the course of a week, I read numerous articles, numerous blogs, and listen to numerous podcasts on a great variety of subjects ranging from iPhones to general technology, to renewable energy, to science fiction and the future. While any one of these subjects is interesting, it is when they are juxtaposed that interesting concepts develop. Some of these portend the future.

For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.

Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."

The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.

Your thoughts?