In the gartner report, the authors suggested two very disturbing ideas, no stand alone players and DRM installed, in all hardware pc. Failing this, or additionally, it is suggested that the RIAA go the legislative route to solving this problem. Given the that it is pretty clear, that they can not prevent technology from moving forward, I am sure that they redouble their efforts on a DMCAII.
It has been mentioned here before but the purpose of the government is not to save dying business models but to incourage innovation and jobs. The history of the 20th century is littered with businesses that have gone by the way side, telegraph, gas lighting, teletype machines are just a few. I am not one to argue that information is free but a new model is being forced upon the music/movie industry and hiring lawyers/lobbiest is not going to make the problem go away.
--- four industries that hate their customers: the airlines, the telephone companies, the music and movie.
Much of this legislation is driven trying to protect a dying business model. Every week you will hear on E! or whatever show does the movie numbers and hear that a movie did 50M or whatever. The higher ticket prices mask a trend that has been happening since the early 80's. Less people are going to the movies. Part of the problem is demographics, at least in California. 80% movie audience in the theater is between 15-30. The group that is behind the bady boomers is smaller, not the same or larger in size. When you build you business model on assumption that your business will grow, at minimum, with the population, your are now getting rude shock. This is true in the US/Canada and the EU. Oddly enough, the Economist has asked whether it is the governments place to protect business models that are dying?
This of course is just one of several problems facing the MIAA and RIAA. There is also a the issue of other devices, media (internet, obviously) competing for our leisure time. This has been discussed here in the past.
There are a number of Slashdot stories dating back as far as the 1998 speaking to the lack of quality product being delivered. One the contributing factors that brought done Heath Insurance in 2001 was the insuring of some really bad movies. Given how much money the studios are spending on movie, the reality is, that nobody is going to take chances. The largest most cynical difference between what is slowly happening to the movie business and what HAS happened in IT, they have great lobbyist and lots of money to protect their business model. In the http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374 292884/qid=1131120891/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103- 1240697-8592637?v=glance&s=booksThe World is Flat", Friedman makes a case that in the new flat earth, it is innovate, adapt or perish (ok he said, get left behind).
Look no further then the Sandia labs. Lockheed takes care of adminstrating a section of the labs there at a cost of 2 twice what the Department of Engergy ran it for. Was it being run twice as well? According to some security audits. No. Was the tax payer getter a better value for the money?
The larger questions is should internet service be a utility service? SBC/Verizon don't think so. I am not convinced that it should be either. If the rollout of city internet services forces the carriers to compete in a given market then I think it is a good thing. Compition for both companies and agencies providing services is a good thing. If there is no incentive to improve, better profit margin, rival taking business away then companies and agencies tend to stagnate. You will often here this is how we always have done things comment. The common approach by the carriers is use regulation to preserve their business rather evolve.
I always joke that I am in a constant arms race to stay employed. I have retooled my skill set 3 times in the last 15 years to insure I have a job. The reality of IT/CompSci is that your skill set is good only until the next rev of widget x. Overnight your skill is considered obsolete. Why go through the hard curriclum when can a decent job that will probable be around for at least twenty years. Selling drugs, (legal/otherwise), government service, insurance, anything that touches another person.
In the US with it's "ownership" ecomony, the worker is responsible for keeping their skill set current and not a the employer. Having worked with the contractor mindset for most of my career, I have accept the constatn training as the cost of doing business. My parents are shocked at the amount continuing education that I have taken. In their generation you might might go to a class once every couple of years. They have a difficult idea with having to be constantly updating and adding skills.
My employer is an IIT grad from India with a masters in EE, and constantly amazed when I update my resume with the lastest cert or class that I have taken. I joke with him that if I don't, my job goes to the overseas and if he is not careful, his will.
While this might be the brave new world, it is not the "Brave New World", (Huxely)
the 1200/2400 baud modems actually are hard coded for the desired baud rate and error correction. This cuts about 4 seconds off the hand shake which is important when you have a 21 second response time for entire transaction.
I got to spend about 3 quality years supporting the backend systems for those point of sale (pos) terminals. While 21 seconds does sounds like a huge amount of time, in computer terms. It actually isn't. A pos request will go across two to three different networks, usually TNS / old compuserv,a check process center and then the banks network. Plus you have to add in server latencies and utilization. Adds up to about 15 seconds.
In the US voip is not moving at all at the enterprise level. The carriers got freaked out about started dropping their rates to prevent voip from being used for toll by pass domesticly. It does not provide a cost savings for corporations. If you notices Cisco's story on voip has changed, they are saying that you can reduce staff by having one common network with voice and data, you can reduce head count. There is no mention of the toll by pass.
Currently medium and larger companies have the ability to negoitate better rates then the residential rates. This is pretty key for preventing/slowing the deployment of voip.
The only easy savings that you can incurr from voip is conference calls. Most of the conference calling services are.17/min/line in the US. Pretty expensive. Using things like netmeeting or conference bridging features in voip systems you can significantly reduce this cost.
While in tech circles there is demand for voip, nobody (finance, etc) cares about this technology. These people are just looking at bottom line cost.
What is sad is most of airport security folks are still mininum wage people, with the training to match. I have always laughed at the silliness of the security check points in airports in the US. They seem to focus on the last crisis that occured. At San Jose Airport it is standard practice to have to shut down the terminal and rescreen passengers because they thought they saw a gun go through the check point. What are the check points supposed to do again?
I remember a quote from somebody involved with the troubles in Ireland. "Even if both sides gave up their guns and bombs, you can still create terrror with a knife and a few thugs." If a person is dedicated and possible willing to give up their life, there is no easy way to stop them.
Hassling the rest of the flying public to create the illusion of saftey is bull. I never felt particular safe know that a minimum wage security guard was searching people.
In most organization I have worked in, IT is typically driven by the precieved crises of the day/moment. The idea of focusing on focusing on a goal that might take more then a week to complete seems to exception and not the norm. Most of these same organizations are focused on "share holder value." Yes as an employee you must bring value to the company but shouldn't you bring value to your customers? They are after all the people paying your bills.
Managment fads have some good points in them, but they are ultimatly only as good as the people in the organization that implemented them. By and large most large organizations tend to be very burecratic and very command and control oriented. These types of companies are not very good at listen to the layer of people below them. At a network intergration company I worked at, the ceo (and lackys) actually had some decent ideas but the middle tier of managment never bought into the ideas and thus the doomed the idea. Very few organization have executive leaders that motivate the organization as a whole to change direction or methodology. Cisco, Dell, Southwest Airlines and believe it or not Mircosoft seem to be the few organizations that have capable leaders.
Slashdot Mirror
In the gartner report, the authors suggested two very disturbing ideas, no stand alone players and DRM installed, in all hardware pc. Failing this, or additionally, it is suggested that the RIAA go the legislative route to solving this problem. Given the that it is pretty clear, that they can not prevent technology from moving forward, I am sure that they redouble their efforts on a DMCAII.
It has been mentioned here before but the purpose of the government is not to save dying business models but to incourage innovation and jobs. The history of the 20th century is littered with businesses that have gone by the way side, telegraph, gas lighting, teletype machines are just a few. I am not one to argue that information is free but a new model is being forced upon the music/movie industry and hiring lawyers/lobbiest is not going to make the problem go away.
---
four industries that hate their customers: the airlines, the telephone companies, the music and movie.
Much of this legislation is driven trying to protect a dying business model. Every week you will hear on E! or whatever show does the movie numbers and hear that a movie did 50M or whatever. The higher ticket prices mask a trend that has been happening since the early 80's. Less people are going to the movies. Part of the problem is demographics, at least in California. 80% movie audience in the theater is between 15-30. The group that is behind the bady boomers is smaller, not the same or larger in size. When you build you business model on assumption that your business will grow, at minimum, with the population, your are now getting rude shock. This is true in the US/Canada and the EU. Oddly enough, the Economist has asked whether it is the governments place to protect business models that are dying?
This of course is just one of several problems facing the MIAA and RIAA. There is also a the issue of other devices, media (internet, obviously) competing for our leisure time. This has been discussed here in the past.
There are a number of Slashdot stories dating back as far as the 1998 speaking to the lack of quality product being delivered. One the contributing factors that brought done Heath Insurance in 2001 was the insuring of some really bad movies. Given how much money the studios are spending on movie, the reality is, that nobody is going to take chances. The largest most cynical difference between what is slowly happening to the movie business and what HAS happened in IT, they have great lobbyist and lots of money to protect their business model. In the http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374 292884/qid=1131120891/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103- 1240697-8592637?v=glance&s=booksThe World is Flat", Friedman makes a case that in the new flat earth, it is innovate, adapt or perish (ok he said, get left behind).
Look no further then the Sandia labs. Lockheed takes care of adminstrating a section of the labs there at a cost of 2 twice what the Department of Engergy ran it for. Was it being run twice as well? According to some security audits. No. Was the tax payer getter a better value for the money?
The larger questions is should internet service be a utility service? SBC/Verizon don't think so. I am not convinced that it should be either. If the rollout of city internet services forces the carriers to compete in a given market then I think it is a good thing. Compition for both companies and agencies providing services is a good thing. If there is no incentive to improve, better profit margin, rival taking business away then companies and agencies tend to stagnate. You will often here this is how we always have done things comment. The common approach by the carriers is use regulation to preserve their business rather evolve.
I always joke that I am in a constant arms race to stay employed. I have retooled my skill set 3 times in the last 15 years to insure I have a job. The reality of IT/CompSci is that your skill set is good only until the next rev of widget x. Overnight your skill is considered obsolete. Why go through the hard curriclum when can a decent job that will probable be around for at least twenty years. Selling drugs, (legal/otherwise), government service, insurance, anything that touches another person.
In the US with it's "ownership" ecomony, the worker is responsible for keeping their skill set current and not a the employer. Having worked with the contractor mindset for most of my career, I have accept the constatn training as the cost of doing business. My parents are shocked at the amount continuing education that I have taken. In their generation you might might go to a class once every couple of years. They have a difficult idea with having to be constantly updating and adding skills.
My employer is an IIT grad from India with a masters in EE, and constantly amazed when I update my resume with the lastest cert or class that I have taken. I joke with him that if I don't, my job goes to the overseas and if he is not careful, his will.
While this might be the brave new world, it is not the "Brave New World", (Huxely)
the union web site is http://www.cwa9400.com. They are updating the site whenever there is a change.
the 1200/2400 baud modems actually are hard coded for the desired baud rate and error correction. This cuts about 4 seconds off the hand shake which is important when you have a 21 second response time for entire transaction.
I got to spend about 3 quality years supporting the backend systems for those point of sale (pos) terminals. While 21 seconds does sounds like a huge amount of time, in computer terms. It actually isn't. A pos request will go across two to three different networks, usually TNS / old compuserv,a check process center and then the banks network. Plus you have to add in server latencies and utilization. Adds up to about 15 seconds.
In the US voip is not moving at all at the enterprise level. The carriers got freaked out about started dropping their rates to prevent voip from being used for toll by pass domesticly. It does not provide a cost savings for corporations. If you notices Cisco's story on voip has changed, they are saying that you can reduce staff by having one common network with voice and data, you can reduce head count. There is no mention of the toll by pass.
.17/min/line in the US. Pretty expensive. Using things like netmeeting or conference bridging features in voip systems you can significantly reduce this cost.
Currently medium and larger companies have the ability to negoitate better rates then the residential rates. This is pretty key for preventing/slowing the deployment of voip.
The only easy savings that you can incurr from voip is conference calls. Most of the conference calling services are
While in tech circles there is demand for voip, nobody (finance, etc) cares about this technology. These people are just looking at bottom line cost.
What is sad is most of airport security folks are still mininum wage people, with the training to match. I have always laughed at the silliness of the security check points in airports in the US. They seem to focus on the last crisis that occured. At San Jose Airport it is standard practice to have to shut down the terminal and rescreen passengers because they thought they saw a gun go through the check point. What are the check points supposed to do again?
I remember a quote from somebody involved with the troubles in Ireland. "Even if both sides gave up their guns and bombs, you can still create terrror with a knife and a few thugs." If a person is dedicated and possible willing to give up their life, there is no easy way to stop them.
Hassling the rest of the flying public to create the illusion of saftey is bull. I never felt particular safe know that a minimum wage security guard was searching people.
In most organization I have worked in, IT is typically driven by the precieved crises of the day/moment. The idea of focusing on focusing on a goal that might take more then a week to complete seems to exception and not the norm. Most of these same organizations are focused on "share holder value." Yes as an employee you must bring value to the company but shouldn't you bring value to your customers? They are after all the people paying your bills.
Managment fads have some good points in them, but they are ultimatly only as good as the people in the organization that implemented them. By and large most large organizations tend to be very burecratic and very command and control oriented. These types of companies are not very good at listen to the layer of people below them. At a network intergration company I worked at, the ceo (and lackys) actually had some decent ideas but the middle tier of managment never bought into the ideas and thus the doomed the idea. Very few organization have executive leaders that motivate the organization as a whole to change direction or methodology. Cisco, Dell, Southwest Airlines and believe it or not Mircosoft seem to be the few organizations that have capable leaders.