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?
Showing posts with label future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future. Show all posts
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tipping Point 2009: Part 1
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?
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?
Friday, December 12, 2008
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?
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?
Monday, December 1, 2008
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?
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?
Friday, November 28, 2008
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?
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?
Monday, November 24, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 17, 2008
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?
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?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
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?
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?
Friday, January 18, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Disconnecting
Okay, this may seem like a review of the iPhone, but the intention is to place technology SUCH AS the iPhone into perspective when considering where technology is going. This discussion is not about new marketing and sales models between device manufacturers and network providers. This discussion is not about Steve Jobs' ability to pull together hardware, software, and content providers to sell an integrated whole. This discussion is all about the impact a new class of device and the associated capabilities that device will have on the ability to communicate effectively, efficiently, and effortlessly.
To date, wireless technology has taken (by my count) nine major advances:
To date, wireless technology has taken (by my count) nine major advances:
- Yelling loudly
- Sound signalling using drums and other devices to make sound carry over a longer distance
- Visual signalling using pinafore flags, smoke signals, fire, mirrored surfaces, and the like to enable recognition over line-of-sight distances
- Point-to-point radio transmission enabling communication over long distances, but limited to users that have compatible equipment, using the same modulation methods, and using the same frequencies
- Two-way radio systems that enabled anyone with compatible equipment to communicate with each other and providing multiple channels enabling higher capacity
- Pagers enabling basic signalling to a unique individual from virtually any telephone
- Analog cellular telephone systems enabling the dial-up telephone to become truly mobile
- Digital cellular/Personal Communication Services (PCS) increasing the carrying capacity of the wireless network while providing additional wireless communication capabilities such as caller ID, SMS messaging, email, and various abbreviated versions of Internet browsing
- The integrated wireless communications device such as the iPhone
Yes, I think the iPhone is and will be making that big an impact on wireless communications. The prediction is based as much on the concept as it is the product itself. Apple has designed a truly innovative user interface. To be sure, there are features that are missing (more about that later), but it still represents a giant leap forward. A comparison to other smart devices will show why.
The first of the lot was RIM's Blackberry. When it started, it was a pure play messaging device, with a smaller screen than a computer and a smaller keyboard to match. The innovation was shrinking the features but still making it usable and providing an efficient interface to popular corporate email systems (this latter feature remains one of its main draws). Additional features such as a thumb wheel for scrolling, or the "pearl" button for navigating were present on other, less smart phones at the time.
Then came the Treo. It took its cue from the Blackberry by using a similar shrunken keyboard and adding a phone to the popular Palm PDA. Once Handspring/Palm moved away from script (Graffiti) input, the only innovation was to combine a PDA with a phone. To be sure, later models expanded on the capability to approach a handheld computer, but the real innovation was combining a full-featured PDA and phone.
Then came Windows Mobile phones. These phones took their cues from various smart-phones by attempting to take a desktop operating system and make one for phones that would provide much the same feel. In doing so, the number of compromises that were made in early versions was such that it managed to transfer the look and feel of the desktop Windows operating system to a phone, but lost in the effort was the fact that doing so made for a lousy phone interface. Subsequent Windows Mobile releases have significantly improved on the initial versions to the point where Windows Mobile has managed to mimic much of the Palm Treo's features. In this context, all the Windows Mobile operating system (and resulting phones) has managed to do is capture market share from Palm. There was really no true innovation in feature or function.
In the case of RIM, Palm, and Microsoft, all three (along with their supporting vendors) have managed to add MP3, Web browsing, and email capabilities. However, there have been significant trade-offs made that make these devices mediocre MP3 players, Web content viewing instruments, and email applications. In the case of MP3 playback, the interface has not been particularly elegant or easy to use. This is where the Apple iPod distinguished itself--it created a totally new interface that was intuitive, easy to use, space efficient, and very effective.
In the case of phone browsers, they all have had severe limitations. Some lacked popular plug-ins (such as Flash which is a major drawback of the current iPhone), while others attempted to institute new ways of presenting standard size Web pages in compact readable formats suitable for a phone or smart phone screen. For example, the Palm Blazer browser made a valiant effort at this providing both a narrow (Palm-sized screen) and a wide (scrollable full-size Web page) format. For the most part, this approach provided a passable Web browser. However, in many cases the Blazer browser was ill-behaved, resulting in weird rendering. Surprisingly, the scaled-down Internet Explorer embedded in Windows Mobile had many of the same issues.
In the case of email applications, all have had their faults. Palm's Versamail was ill-behaved when dealing with HTML formatted messages. Microsoft's mobile Outlook provided much of the look and feel of its big desktop brother, but there were still problems with rendering media-rich emails.
In contrast, the iPhone has provided a giant innovative leap on all these fronts. First, the iPod capabilities of the iPhone has moved the user interface forward from their already industry-leading interface--the touch-sensitive wheel. I would suspect that the iPhone previews how the third-generation iPod will look and work.
Second, while there is a lot to be desired in the Safari browser, the iPhone's Safari browser is simply the best Web rendering application available on a phone. As mentioned earlier, there are drawbacks with the lack of Flash support and some Java holes, but I fully expect these to be fixed fairly rapidly as adoption of the iPhone continues to expand. With that said, with few exceptions, the iPhone's browser provides the best rendering match to desktop browser available. This is particularly true since the image can be viewed sideways in a wider view. Add to this the innovative "double-tap" or "pinch" magnifying, and Apple has provided a capability that can effectively replace a desktop browser. Now, it they can just add the features to edit this blog through the iPhone (the Java available evidently does not allow me to write or edit this through the iPhone--however, I can post to messages). To underscore this, today is the first time I have been on a laptop in three days. All browsing has been done on the iPhone.
Third, the iPhone's email interface is positively outstanding. It is easy to navigate, read, and delete. Add to these basic features the fact that it renders full HTML email and the iPhone's email system is simply the best around. However, it could be better (it may be better and I haven't found the features yet). For example, I would like to be able to create email folders and move messages to those folders on the iPhone. A "delete all" capability for the "Trash" folder would also be a nice addition. Yet, even with features such as this missing, the visual look and the gesture control is a leap forward in mobile email applications. Again, this is the first time I have looked at email on a laptop in three days.
Taken together, the iPhone's various features represent the first of a new generation of devices that could well begin to replace the laptop much as the laptop has replaced the desktop computer. The iPhone has already done that for email and Web-browsing. If Apple decides to expand the iPhone's OS-X capabilities so that files can be saved and searched via a "Finder" application, they will have moved significantly closer. At present, the iPhone is a benchmark for email, Web browsing, and messaging. I would also add to that the fact that Google's Maps application is easier to use than their Web-based version. While the Yahoo Stock application is passable, it would be nice to re-order stocks to individual liking and to take a person to the Finance page relating to that stock instead of a specialized combined page that places too much irrelevant information on the screen. If a person is looking at Yahoo's Stock application and they want to go to the Web, they want to drill-down into the specific stock, not do a general search.
The same problem arises with the Yahoo Weather application. When you go to the Web, you want more detail on the weather for that location, now an additional summary and then a general search result for the location. What I would really like is a view of radar for that location. I have bookmarked the Weather Underground page in Safari to provide the radar view, but it would be a lot more usable if pressing the "Y!" icon at the bottom of the application would take you to a radar view. A final gripe about the weather application is that it would be nice if the icon on the main iPhone page showed the current temperature much as the appointments icon shows the current day. With all the attention to detail, go figure how these simple aspects were overlooked.
As you can see, I had to dig deep to find something to complain about on the iPhone. There are others. However, for a first generation attempt, especially one that can fix many of its shortcomings in software upgrades, Apple has more than lived up to the hype created for this phone. If they keep their development momentum and continue to expand their partnerships with Google and Yahoo, Apple will have no problem selling 10 million phones by the end of 2008 as well as taking a commanding lead in the mobile communication device market. It is the disruptive technology that will truly enable users to disconnect and remain in contact. It is that good.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The Verbal Commons
Historically, I have not been a big user of Internet community applications. I looked at chat rooms years ago, but my impression was a large number of people in a noisy room, with pairs attempting to talk across a large room to each other. Not my idea of discourse.
I have been a member of a number of special interest discussion groups that have shown to have a lot less noise than chat rooms, but they tend to be cliquish. If you are a trusted member, things are great. If you are an infrequent poster or lurker, the results can be less than satisfactory. Typically, you can be restricted from posting through moderation (with some of the flames that occur on a discussion group, I can understand why), or it can be difficult to get a respectful response from the other members.
The result is that I have been a loyal user of email as the primary communication tool. However, this too has its limitations in that the community is self-selecting--one chooses who can read and who to interact. And there can be disagreements and flames even in that medium. The pro is that an intelligent discourse can take place, although asynchronously.
After looking through the blogs over the last couple of weeks and reviewing some blogs of acquaintences of mine, I thought I would give this medium a try. I'm not sure what to expect, but it seems that the blog approach is good for capturing thoughts whether to publish publically, or to use as a parking place to random thoughts.
Therefore, I present the Peripheral Futurist blog. Through this blog, hopefully I will be able to communicate my perspectives on developments impacting how we live, how we work, and how we survive--in the future. By virtue of the fact that I have started this blog, I believe that this type of publishing will become a dominant approach for the statement, documentation, and challenge of ideas, experiments, thoughts, and concepts. Obviously some of you have more experience than I. I would be very interested in your experiences--both pro and con--with the blogosphere.
Walt
I have been a member of a number of special interest discussion groups that have shown to have a lot less noise than chat rooms, but they tend to be cliquish. If you are a trusted member, things are great. If you are an infrequent poster or lurker, the results can be less than satisfactory. Typically, you can be restricted from posting through moderation (with some of the flames that occur on a discussion group, I can understand why), or it can be difficult to get a respectful response from the other members.
The result is that I have been a loyal user of email as the primary communication tool. However, this too has its limitations in that the community is self-selecting--one chooses who can read and who to interact. And there can be disagreements and flames even in that medium. The pro is that an intelligent discourse can take place, although asynchronously.
After looking through the blogs over the last couple of weeks and reviewing some blogs of acquaintences of mine, I thought I would give this medium a try. I'm not sure what to expect, but it seems that the blog approach is good for capturing thoughts whether to publish publically, or to use as a parking place to random thoughts.
Therefore, I present the Peripheral Futurist blog. Through this blog, hopefully I will be able to communicate my perspectives on developments impacting how we live, how we work, and how we survive--in the future. By virtue of the fact that I have started this blog, I believe that this type of publishing will become a dominant approach for the statement, documentation, and challenge of ideas, experiments, thoughts, and concepts. Obviously some of you have more experience than I. I would be very interested in your experiences--both pro and con--with the blogosphere.
Walt
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
