> Yes, in fact they are expected to for around two decades.
Exactly. The assumption that there has to be a big changeover, and therefore there won't be any changeover, is completely wrong. It's going to be much more like the transition for stiffy disk to CD. Moreover, much of the discussion here is informed by a USA perspective, where there is no shortage of IPv4 space. But in south-east Asia there is a growing shortage and it's going to get worse - ditto for Europe. Apart from address space depletion, there are reasons of both efficiency and security to adopt the newer protocol.
This whole non-story actually says more about the culture of pseudo-accountability in the US than anything else. A report from a journalism professor says that he couldn't verify sources for a tiny fraction of stories. Not that the stories were falsified, but that verification wasn't possible. If you actually look at some of those stories - for example, the 419 scam story - it's hardly surprising that easy verification wasn't possible. Somehow this has got translated into "she made it up". And *that* story has now taken on a life of its own, immune to reality checks of any sort. Almost nobody seems to be asking basic questions. Like: are the standards of accountability that are being demanded here reasonable? Why, if this is a reporter given to falsification, has this never been an issue before? Is there any basis at all, if we adopt the rules that are implicitly required here, to trust any reporter, ever? Does the faculty of *judgement* still count for anything?
The domain of truth, in the US, is soundbites and gossip. Accountability and auditability are the capacity to navigate that space.
There was a piece in Business Week a few years ago about why engineers make such good CEOs. The core of the article was that all engineers share, among other things, two basic disciplinary casts of mind - a respect for measurement and a horror of waste. Those are good starting points for managing anything.
You're right, of course - projects are time-limited, among other things. However, it's also worth noting that some organisations benefit so much from the rigor of tight project management that they look for ways of building it into other kinds of work - to become "project-based organisations". Sometimes this works well (for example, when people stop thinking about "work" and think instead about "deliverables".) Sometimes though it loses all contact with reality.
The collective security model on which the UN was based doesn't have much relevance in a unipolar world, so you're probably right. But why do we need any organisation to manage the name and address spaces? The previous governance arrangement - by a loosely structured technical community of practice, mostly computer scientists and engineers - did a very good job, until the intellectual property lawyers ambushed them.
Correct. But there are some kinds of change that the human species won't survive. I'm not an economist, but such an outcome seems to me to have fairly serious long-term economic implications.
TNT, cars, aeroplanes and Islam have all been around for a long time. So the emergence of a terrorist threat is a response to what's happened in the last decade. Particular kinds of behaviour elicit particular kinds of response. I doubt that George W. Bush would want it any differently: fear is his greatest ally. Don't ask this man to say, as Roosevelt did, that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Gates built Microsoft on a brilliant insight that cuts across the grain of the entire IT sector. The insight was that people don't buy the best, they buy what's good enough. That principle is sharply at odds with an industry that respects technical excellence as much as anything else, but it has sustained MS and continues to do so - despite the security debacle, their product set is still good enough, particularly since massive subsidiary sectors have developed purely to remediate the suboptimalities.
Beware the smoke and mirrors of corporate accounting. The profits you see before you may vanish like mist before the dawn. Remember above all that this is a company that has perfected the art of the Big Lie.
Fiorina's problem wasn't her degree in history, it was her MBA. Engineers respect product, social scientists respect people, but marketers respect neither, and indeed have a fundamental contempt for both - which is really how HP managed to buy a solid PC business and gut it, destroy a superb printing line, and shed the engineering brains of the company. Marketers gave us the Y2K debacle and the dotcom fiasco because they believe that hype will sell bad products to stupid people.
For a real insight into the value of a business administration degree, consider the following masterly exposition of business logic by America's most famous MBA:
"Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the... like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate... the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those... if that growth is affected, it will help on the red. OK, better? I'll keep working on it."
Yes, maybe it is just a natural occurrence. It's quite hard to imagine that all the correlations are just coincidence, but you may be right. On the other hand, this response (and all the others like it) may just be another form of adaptive belief formation, on the lines of the fox and the sour grapes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,, 1078313,00.html is quite interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
> Yes, in fact they are expected to for around two decades.
Exactly. The assumption that there has to be a big changeover, and therefore there won't be any changeover, is completely wrong. It's going to be much more like the transition for stiffy disk to CD. Moreover, much of the discussion here is informed by a USA perspective, where there is no shortage of IPv4 space. But in south-east Asia there is a growing shortage and it's going to get worse - ditto for Europe. Apart from address space depletion, there are reasons of both efficiency and security to adopt the newer protocol.
If you're trying to decide what kids should be taught, how about: reading?
http://www.carnegie.org/results/10/index.html
This whole non-story actually says more about the culture of pseudo-accountability in the US than anything else. A report from a journalism professor says that he couldn't verify sources for a tiny fraction of stories. Not that the stories were falsified, but that verification wasn't possible. If you actually look at some of those stories - for example, the 419 scam story - it's hardly surprising that easy verification wasn't possible. Somehow this has got translated into "she made it up". And *that* story has now taken on a life of its own, immune to reality checks of any sort. Almost nobody seems to be asking basic questions. Like: are the standards of accountability that are being demanded here reasonable? Why, if this is a reporter given to falsification, has this never been an issue before? Is there any basis at all, if we adopt the rules that are implicitly required here, to trust any reporter, ever? Does the faculty of *judgement* still count for anything? The domain of truth, in the US, is soundbites and gossip. Accountability and auditability are the capacity to navigate that space.
> educated beyond their intelligence
Greedy beyond their education
> favorite fucking company
Was that the abstruse bit?
There was a piece in Business Week a few years ago about why engineers make such good CEOs. The core of the article was that all engineers share, among other things, two basic disciplinary casts of mind - a respect for measurement and a horror of waste. Those are good starting points for managing anything.
Niemoeller said it best:
"When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
"When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
"When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
"When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
"When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest."
Wake up. Freedom is indivisible.
You're right, of course - projects are time-limited, among other things. However, it's also worth noting that some organisations benefit so much from the rigor of tight project management that they look for ways of building it into other kinds of work - to become "project-based organisations". Sometimes this works well (for example, when people stop thinking about "work" and think instead about "deliverables".) Sometimes though it loses all contact with reality.
The collective security model on which the UN was based doesn't have much relevance in a unipolar world, so you're probably right. But why do we need any organisation to manage the name and address spaces? The previous governance arrangement - by a loosely structured technical community of practice, mostly computer scientists and engineers - did a very good job, until the intellectual property lawyers ambushed them.
Correct. But there are some kinds of change that the human species won't survive. I'm not an economist, but such an outcome seems to me to have fairly serious long-term economic implications.
Well said.
TNT, cars, aeroplanes and Islam have all been around for a long time. So the emergence of a terrorist threat is a response to what's happened in the last decade. Particular kinds of behaviour elicit particular kinds of response. I doubt that George W. Bush would want it any differently: fear is his greatest ally. Don't ask this man to say, as Roosevelt did, that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Gates built Microsoft on a brilliant insight that cuts across the grain of the entire IT sector. The insight was that people don't buy the best, they buy what's good enough. That principle is sharply at odds with an industry that respects technical excellence as much as anything else, but it has sustained MS and continues to do so - despite the security debacle, their product set is still good enough, particularly since massive subsidiary sectors have developed purely to remediate the suboptimalities.
Typical Anglophone. I suppose you also think bluetooth has something to do with blue teeth?
The comparison is hardly meaningful. Nor is it logical to infer hatred in anything I wrote. Are you sure you're not projecting?
Beware the smoke and mirrors of corporate accounting. The profits you see before you may vanish like mist before the dawn. Remember above all that this is a company that has perfected the art of the Big Lie.
Fiorina's problem wasn't her degree in history, it was her MBA. Engineers respect product, social scientists respect people, but marketers respect neither, and indeed have a fundamental contempt for both - which is really how HP managed to buy a solid PC business and gut it, destroy a superb printing line, and shed the engineering brains of the company. Marketers gave us the Y2K debacle and the dotcom fiasco because they believe that hype will sell bad products to stupid people.
... the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those ... if that growth is affected, it will help on the red. OK, better? I'll keep working on it."
For a real insight into the value of a business administration degree, consider the following masterly exposition of business logic by America's most famous MBA:
"Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the... like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate
So? Fifteen percent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have first degrees in the liberal arts - just as many as in business administration.
Yes, maybe it is just a natural occurrence. It's quite hard to imagine that all the correlations are just coincidence, but you may be right. On the other hand, this response (and all the others like it) may just be another form of adaptive belief formation, on the lines of the fox and the sour grapes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,, 1078313,00.html is quite interesting.
The Intel team that comes up with names has a fine sense of history ... they clearly had the Fires of Smithfield in mind.