Well, the director of development said that he will save 50% of time and money. This is nonsense, of course, as you rightly point out that creating a working system out of bits and pieces is more time consuming and error prone than actually doing it in house.
What I find misleading in the article are the examples given where crowdsourcing works. The examples given are content consuming things. You don't need any expertise to read a wikipedia article, or laugh at a whole bunch of pictures someone gave away. Software engineering can't be broken piecemeal style, as the integration will deteriorate into a complex mess of crappy code.
I think at the end, this company will have a system, but I doubt it will become mission critical. And the 50% savings will come from the firing of the managers who allowed to take such unproven road to developing software.
I'm as resourceful and avantgarde as the next guy, but businesses require a sense of assurance and predictability. This method of software development gives none of those assurances. On the other hand, it will be easy to pin-point what went wrong.
And I don't mean the monetary worth. What I mean is that if the books were "good," then someone else would have bought them or accepted them for free.
It's the nature of free enterprise: if these books, that this guys is trying to give away, were worth while, they wouldn't last a day.
I don't offer too many guarantees, but this I can guarantee you that if these books were masterpieces or technical programming manuals (Java or the programming flavour of the month), he would end up making money.
But obviously, these books are garbage--regardless of all the effort put by the original authors.
I would just recycle them; why make such a big deal about books no one wants.
I guess the question if EssJay would leave Wikia (his paying job) has been answered: "Essjay was a member of the Wikia staff from January to March 2007." (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Essjay).
I don't think there was another option for him. Apparently he had possitively contributed to Wikipedia, but there was not much to discuss after his claim to have so many degrees was found to be a lie.
Not only that. It's old advertisement. And some of the main page stories are actually "OLD news for nerds. Stuff that mattered...2 weeks ago."
I know, I know...This is probably not the right place for this discussion, and people will say: "live with it, or just stop reading." So if you think that way...I'm sorry to be pointing out "an inconvenient truth." (Not Al Gore, and I will be here all week.)
I don't think anyone would remember, let alone know about, this company.
AdExact was a small company located in Waterloo, Ontario, and was founded by Stephen Basco (of the PixStream fortune). The company had a product that was similar to what google is starting to talk about: targeted TV advertising.
The company eventually ran out of money and had to close down the shop.
I wonder what would have happened if they had managed to stay afloat for a few years? I also wonder what did happen to all that technology and know-how?
Like anything else, CS and IT is based on basic principles.
There are two aspect to IT: as a consumer of the technologies and as the creator of different layers of the technology.
For example, to some HTML may be enough to do what is needed to get accomplished and move on with their lives.
To others, just pluging in APIs into highly business oriented applications is enough.
However, there is a that other group of "IT" people who would like to know a bit more about what makes the whole information thing work. And those, I believe are the CS/Math/Engineering guys (when studied formally) or the hackers that play around with kernels and teach themselves how to hack (hack here doesn't mean script kiddies).
So, I think that in order for anyone to endeavour into "IT" one must choose a level to start and then move and down the chain of knowledge.
For example: start with HTML.
When creating HTML pages one encounters web servers. A curious person will learn how to set it up a whole web server to publish the created HTML pages. Once at this level, a curious person may want to try make the web server faster, or start playing with scripts (Perl, ASP, whatever). For some, this is enough. For others, finding out how HTTP works will do it (or move down all the layers in OSI model). Etc., etc.
Take the other way around (what I call: going up the chain). When creating HTML pages one encounters images (GIF, JPGs, etc.). Some may be curious and start creating their own images to embed in their HTML pages. Consequently, a more curious person may start playing around with graphics programs. Then such person may see moving images and movies and start playing around with Flash. Etc., etc.
So, in both cases one is always dealing with technology but at different levels. And all levels are OK. And if one has arrived at a full circle, then one is not looking hard enough, or there is not enough interest to keep looking. (Notice though, how HTML is is pivot to everything else).
Having said all this, if you have a formal education in Mathematics or Computer Science, you will notice that everything is based on first principals and everything comes down to the manipulation of data.
If there is no formal education, then pick something and be curious and start going up and down the chain. At some point you'll find out that you know more than what you think you know. And most importantly, anything you would have learnt along the way is of value to someone.
On a final note, you don't need to know everything about anything to be useful to someone or be interested in CS or IT (I like coding, but I don't do assembler coding--I know how to do it, well, I learnt how to do it but I rather not and that's OK with me.
This article has to be the most boring and pointless ever written by a brilliant ex-CEO. Ok, I get that he uses ALL M$'s software products during his working day, but why write a whole article about it...Ok, I get that he has enough clout to publish it in CNN...Ok, maybe it is boring, but from M$'s point for reference it may not so pointless...Free PR...Nah...Still boring and pointless...
A couple of days ago, I wrote that google news was in permanent "beta" because they couldn't make money off of it--I was wrong on that account: they made it un-beta even without the possible cash inflow.
From all points of view, It's a good model: 1. Index all news 2. ? 3. Profit...
> What is the best way for new IS managers > to convince their superiors of the need > for widespread change?
Answer:
Show them how much money you will save the company by formalizing the IS department.
The upper layer of managers do not care how cool the new technology is, nor how good easy it is to set up a computer. It must remembered that the main objective of most corporations is to maximize returns--cutting cost of operations is the best way to increase profits. Therefore any change that needs to take place, needs to be accompanied by the phrase: "This change will cut our costs by ENTER_YOUR_NUMBER_HERE%, because ENTER_YOUR_REASON_HERE."
If your proposal can't say how much and how, then forget about it...
Many board games that were put on the web have been shut down due to copyright infringements...A cool use of google maps, but it won't last long, me thinks.
And this was part of the templated email I received:
...number of hiring managers in the Office SharePoint Server, Windows Search, Content Management Server and Project Management Server teams [Had seen my resume and that] one, or as many as all, of these teams and their hiring managers have expressed an interest in contacting you [me] regarding positions at Microsoft that might map well to your experience and qualifications.
A bit presumptuous, no? And very harsh to the HR dude. Just don't hurt yourself on the way down from your self erected pedestal:)
Registrant:
Shimon Gendlin
Shimon Gendlin
21 Reed Lane
Westbury, NY 11590
US
Email: atomchip@optonline.net
Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: www.register.com
Domain Name: atomchip.com
Created on..............: Sun, Aug 25, 2002
Expires on..............: Fri, Aug 25, 2006
Record last updated on..: Fri, Jul 29, 2005
Administrative Contact:
WIPOI
Shimon Gendlin
21 Reed Lane
Westbury, NY 11590
US
Phone: 516-368-4800
Email: shimon_gendlin@msn.com
Technical Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 1-902-7492701
Email: domain-registrar@register.com
He said in a Salon article: "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."
He's also arguing that over development in these areas is the culprit of so much destruction. I.e. There is more stuff that gets damaged.
The whole article:
Aug. 30, 2005 - Hurricane Katrina has turned New Orleans into "a wilderness," said one public health official, who begged evacuated residents not to return to the city for at least a week. Rife with poisonous water moccasins and fire ants, downed trees and power lines, without fresh drinking water, power, gas or sewage, the storm has made the battered and flooded city uninhabitable.
Katrina is just the latest in a rash of powerful hurricanes that have been pummeling the Atlantic in recent years, including a record-breaking 33 between 1995 and 1999. It's made many wonder if global warming is bringing the wrath of the planet down upon all our heads. Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has studied historical records of hurricanes around the globe, said the answer is yes and no.
In a recent paper, "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years," published in the science journal Nature, Emanuel found that as sea temperatures rise, the duration and intensity of hurricanes are going up, too.
The reason for the correlation is pretty straightforward: "Hurricanes derive their energy from the evaporation of sea water," Emanuel explained in a phone interview. "When you evaporate water from the ocean you actually transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. A similar effect happens when you come out of the shower in the morning. You feel cold because water is evaporating from your skin, and taking heat from your body. That heat energy doesn't disappear." Instead, it fuels the intensity of hurricanes.
So, as global warming increases, expect hurricanes to get stronger. However, that doesn't mean, as some perceive, that there are actually more of them lately. "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."
The recent hurricanes in the Atlantic, Emanuel explained, represent a natural fluctuation. Every 20 to 30 years, since records started being kept in the 19th century, there have been big shifts in the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic. "For example, in the 1940s and '50s, there were very busy years, whereas the 1970s and '80s were very quiet years," he said. "And we've had a big upswing in the Atlantic beginning in about 1995. That's all natural."
The reason violent Atlantic hurricanes like Katrina may strike people as unnatural, and cause them to blame the CO2 pouring out of their neighbors' Hummers, is not because of their frequency but their destruction to people and places.
"This natural fluctuation occurs in a social environment where there is a huge shift in demographic trends, and this makes a big difference in people's perception," Emanuel said. "In the 1940s and '50s, there were lots of hurricanes in Florida, but there weren't lots of people there. So now that we're having this upswing again, it's being perceived very differently" -- for the simple fact that there is a lot more stuff to be ruined.
Meteorologists performed admirably in alerting public officials to Katrina's rising destruction, allowing them to evacuate New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities in plenty of time. But Emanuel said that other warnings by meteorologists have gone unheeded in past decades
Well, most CS programs (worth the money you pay for) don't teach you programming - I'd worry if they did. So I agree with you here: HTML isn't all that important in big scheme of things. Implementing an HTTP server in a networking class may be, but not really the HTML.
And saying that half the class were idiots because they couldn't do binary addition is just plain shortsighted.
Perhaps you missed a good opportunity to get some scholarship money and going into doing research in grad school or even a PhD where you decide on your research topics - Since you claim to have been doing well in your courses...Unless you werent't and hence you didn't finish the degree or had other reasons to drop out - Hopefull it's temporary - Go back, dude (I mean the dude that started this thread)...
P.S. Most of science predates the Ph.D --including Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein.
You cannot compare 15th century education with 21st century education.
Most of what was bleading edge science is found in a good physics highshool curriculum.
There is a lot more to "science" now a days.
I doubt this will last long - It stops any user looking for information to go to the actual site where the information came from. Sure, they tell you where it's comming from, however, the ball stops at google - At least for me - Why would I go to the actual site if I've found what I wanted?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing Richard Dawkins's statue will be next. Now that would be funny...
Well, the director of development said that he will save 50% of time and money. This is nonsense, of course, as you rightly point out that creating a working system out of bits and pieces is more time consuming and error prone than actually doing it in house.
What I find misleading in the article are the examples given where crowdsourcing works. The examples given are content consuming things. You don't need any expertise to read a wikipedia article, or laugh at a whole bunch of pictures someone gave away. Software engineering can't be broken piecemeal style, as the integration will deteriorate into a complex mess of crappy code.
I think at the end, this company will have a system, but I doubt it will become mission critical. And the 50% savings will come from the firing of the managers who allowed to take such unproven road to developing software.
I'm as resourceful and avantgarde as the next guy, but businesses require a sense of assurance and predictability. This method of software development gives none of those assurances. On the other hand, it will be easy to pin-point what went wrong.
You have to wonder the worth of these books.
And I don't mean the monetary worth. What I mean is that if the books were "good," then someone else would have bought them or accepted them for free.
It's the nature of free enterprise: if these books, that this guys is trying to give away, were worth while, they wouldn't last a day.
I don't offer too many guarantees, but this I can guarantee you that if these books were masterpieces or technical programming manuals (Java or the programming flavour of the month), he would end up making money.
But obviously, these books are garbage--regardless of all the effort put by the original authors.
I would just recycle them; why make such a big deal about books no one wants.
I guess the question if EssJay would leave Wikia (his paying job) has been answered: "Essjay was a member of the Wikia staff from January to March 2007." (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Essjay).
I don't think there was another option for him. Apparently he had possitively contributed to Wikipedia, but there was not much to discuss after his claim to have so many degrees was found to be a lie.
This type of profiling can be figured out, i.e., people will start faking answers to fit the "google" profile.
Interviewing is not the best way, but so far it has worked for a lot of companies.
Not only that. It's old advertisement. And some of the main page stories are actually "OLD news for nerds. Stuff that mattered...2 weeks ago."
I know, I know...This is probably not the right place for this discussion, and people will say: "live with it, or just stop reading." So if you think that way...I'm sorry to be pointing out "an inconvenient truth." (Not Al Gore, and I will be here all week.)
What? A techie guy with no business sense? Unheard of...
Thank you. Good night.
I don't think anyone would remember, let alone know about, this company.
AdExact was a small company located in Waterloo, Ontario, and was founded by Stephen Basco (of the PixStream fortune). The company had a product that was similar to what google is starting to talk about: targeted TV advertising.
The company eventually ran out of money and had to close down the shop.
I wonder what would have happened if they had managed to stay afloat for a few years? I also wonder what did happen to all that technology and know-how?
Google's brand, I think, is being devalue with their main revenue stream being advertisement.
You know that all that information about bookmarks and favourites will be of use to marketers.
From my part, for now, I will pass...
Like anything else, CS and IT is based on basic principles.
There are two aspect to IT: as a consumer of the technologies and as the creator of different layers of the technology.
For example, to some HTML may be enough to do what is needed to get accomplished and move on with their lives.
To others, just pluging in APIs into highly business oriented applications is enough.
However, there is a that other group of "IT" people who would like to know a bit more about what makes the whole information thing work. And those, I believe are the CS/Math/Engineering guys (when studied formally) or the hackers that play around with kernels and teach themselves how to hack (hack here doesn't mean script kiddies).
So, I think that in order for anyone to endeavour into "IT" one must choose a level to start and then move and down the chain of knowledge.
For example: start with HTML.
When creating HTML pages one encounters web servers. A curious person will learn how to set it up a whole web server to publish the created HTML pages. Once at this level, a curious person may want to try make the web server faster, or start playing with scripts (Perl, ASP, whatever). For some, this is enough. For others, finding out how HTTP works will do it (or move down all the layers in OSI model). Etc., etc.
Take the other way around (what I call: going up the chain). When creating HTML pages one encounters images (GIF, JPGs, etc.). Some may be curious and start creating their own images to embed in their HTML pages. Consequently, a more curious person may start playing around with graphics programs. Then such person may see moving images and movies and start playing around with Flash. Etc., etc.
So, in both cases one is always dealing with technology but at different levels. And all levels are OK. And if one has arrived at a full circle, then one is not looking hard enough, or there is not enough interest to keep looking. (Notice though, how HTML is is pivot to everything else).
Having said all this, if you have a formal education in Mathematics or Computer Science, you will notice that everything is based on first principals and everything comes down to the manipulation of data.
If there is no formal education, then pick something and be curious and start going up and down the chain. At some point you'll find out that you know more than what you think you know. And most importantly, anything you would have learnt along the way is of value to someone.
On a final note, you don't need to know everything about anything to be useful to someone or be interested in CS or IT (I like coding, but I don't do assembler coding--I know how to do it, well, I learnt how to do it but I rather not and that's OK with me.
This article has to be the most boring and pointless ever written by a brilliant ex-CEO. Ok, I get that he uses ALL M$'s software products during his working day, but why write a whole article about it...Ok, I get that he has enough clout to publish it in CNN...Ok, maybe it is boring, but from M$'s point for reference it may not so pointless...Free PR...Nah...Still boring and pointless...
Google news is pointing me back to slasdot...
/. qualified as a news source, since most of what /. does is gather news (not generate them)...Oh well...
And slashdot is pointing me back to google news.
I don't know when to stop...
On other news, I didn't think
A couple of days ago, I wrote that google news was in permanent "beta" because they couldn't make money off of it--I was wrong on that account: they made it un-beta even without the possible cash inflow.
From all points of view, It's a good model:
1. Index all news
2. ?
3. Profit...
Question:
> What is the best way for new IS managers
> to convince their superiors of the need
> for widespread change?
Answer:
Show them how much money you will save the company by formalizing the IS department.
The upper layer of managers do not care how cool the new technology is, nor how good easy it is to set up a computer. It must remembered that the main objective of most corporations is to maximize returns--cutting cost of operations is the best way to increase profits. Therefore any change that needs to take place, needs to be accompanied by the phrase: "This change will cut our costs by ENTER_YOUR_NUMBER_HERE%, because ENTER_YOUR_REASON_HERE."
If your proposal can't say how much and how, then forget about it...
Many board games that were put on the web have been shut down due to copyright infringements...A cool use of google maps, but it won't last long, me thinks.
I think everyone with a resume on the web gets the M$ invitation to talk an HR guy.
This is my story: http://www.josesandoval.com/2005/01/penskee-mater
And this was part of the templated email I received:
- ...number of hiring managers in the Office SharePoint Server, Windows Search, Content Management Server and Project Management Server teams [Had seen my resume and that] one, or as many as all, of these teams and their hiring managers have expressed an interest in contacting you [me] regarding positions at Microsoft that might map well to your experience and qualifications.
A bit presumptuous, no? And very harsh to the HR dude. Just don't hurt yourself on the way down from your self erected pedestalBTW, I don't know who Eric is...So there...
Registrant:
Shimon Gendlin
Shimon Gendlin
21 Reed Lane
Westbury, NY 11590
US
Email: atomchip@optonline.net
Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: www.register.com
Domain Name: atomchip.com
Created on..............: Sun, Aug 25, 2002
Expires on..............: Fri, Aug 25, 2006
Record last updated on..: Fri, Jul 29, 2005
Administrative Contact:
WIPOI
Shimon Gendlin
21 Reed Lane
Westbury, NY 11590
US
Phone: 516-368-4800
Email: shimon_gendlin@msn.com
Technical Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 1-902-7492701
Email: domain-registrar@register.com
DNS Servers:
dns1.register.com
dns2.register.com
Well...This guy says it's not global warming.
He said in a Salon article: "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."
He's also arguing that over development in these areas is the culprit of so much destruction. I.e. There is more stuff that gets damaged.
The whole article:
Aug. 30, 2005 - Hurricane Katrina has turned New Orleans into "a wilderness," said one public health official, who begged evacuated residents not to return to the city for at least a week. Rife with poisonous water moccasins and fire ants, downed trees and power lines, without fresh drinking water, power, gas or sewage, the storm has made the battered and flooded city uninhabitable.
Katrina is just the latest in a rash of powerful hurricanes that have been pummeling the Atlantic in recent years, including a record-breaking 33 between 1995 and 1999. It's made many wonder if global warming is bringing the wrath of the planet down upon all our heads. Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has studied historical records of hurricanes around the globe, said the answer is yes and no.
In a recent paper, "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years," published in the science journal Nature, Emanuel found that as sea temperatures rise, the duration and intensity of hurricanes are going up, too.
The reason for the correlation is pretty straightforward: "Hurricanes derive their energy from the evaporation of sea water," Emanuel explained in a phone interview. "When you evaporate water from the ocean you actually transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. A similar effect happens when you come out of the shower in the morning. You feel cold because water is evaporating from your skin, and taking heat from your body. That heat energy doesn't disappear." Instead, it fuels the intensity of hurricanes.
So, as global warming increases, expect hurricanes to get stronger. However, that doesn't mean, as some perceive, that there are actually more of them lately. "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."
The recent hurricanes in the Atlantic, Emanuel explained, represent a natural fluctuation. Every 20 to 30 years, since records started being kept in the 19th century, there have been big shifts in the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic. "For example, in the 1940s and '50s, there were very busy years, whereas the 1970s and '80s were very quiet years," he said. "And we've had a big upswing in the Atlantic beginning in about 1995. That's all natural."
The reason violent Atlantic hurricanes like Katrina may strike people as unnatural, and cause them to blame the CO2 pouring out of their neighbors' Hummers, is not because of their frequency but their destruction to people and places.
"This natural fluctuation occurs in a social environment where there is a huge shift in demographic trends, and this makes a big difference in people's perception," Emanuel said. "In the 1940s and '50s, there were lots of hurricanes in Florida, but there weren't lots of people there. So now that we're having this upswing again, it's being perceived very differently" -- for the simple fact that there is a lot more stuff to be ruined.
Meteorologists performed admirably in alerting public officials to Katrina's rising destruction, allowing them to evacuate New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities in plenty of time. But Emanuel said that other warnings by meteorologists have gone unheeded in past decades
Well, most CS programs (worth the money you pay for) don't teach you programming - I'd worry if they did. So I agree with you here: HTML isn't all that important in big scheme of things. Implementing an HTTP server in a networking class may be, but not really the HTML.
And saying that half the class were idiots because they couldn't do binary addition is just plain shortsighted.
Perhaps you missed a good opportunity to get some scholarship money and going into doing research in grad school or even a PhD where you decide on your research topics - Since you claim to have been doing well in your courses...Unless you werent't and hence you didn't finish the degree or had other reasons to drop out - Hopefull it's temporary - Go back, dude (I mean the dude that started this thread)...
...And Titor is playing Bruce Willis' charater...
P.S. Most of science predates the Ph.D --including Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein.
You cannot compare 15th century education with 21st century education. Most of what was bleading edge science is found in a good physics highshool curriculum. There is a lot more to "science" now a days.
I'm wondering if they also did something to their data. After all, they claim that 15% of researches do it.
So, they have a bit more than 1/10 chance of having done it.
I wonder?
Thank! Can someone moderate this guy up ++.
define:copyright
I doubt this will last long - It stops any user looking for information to go to the actual site where the information came from. Sure, they tell you where it's comming from, however, the ball stops at google - At least for me - Why would I go to the actual site if I've found what I wanted?
This sounds very similar: News agency suing Google.