a direction that makes Victor Frankenstein's primitive experiments look like a crossword puzzle.
That would be _fictional_ experiments. I mean, Frankenstein, despite that fact that it is well-known, isn't all that scary anyway.
The genome project evokes a world practically bursting with technological hubris, a universe in which all children would be born healthy, and suffering would be greatly reduced. What could be nobler or more inspiring?
Actually, more and more it evokes a world in which patent law has run amuck, and in which scientists, sensing a land grab with the possibility of nearly-unfathomable riches, try to patent everything in sight. I don't really understand the reasoning by which a gene sequence found in nature is patentable. I can certainly see patenting the method by which the gene is sequenced and patenting methods by which to alter genes, and even the arrangements that "fix" problematic genes, but not the gene itself. The whole process seems to me like patenting the alphabet, then claiming everyone owes you when they speak or write.
Offspring considered grotesque, revolting, impaired, repugnant or offensive could be eliminated.
COULD BE? Please review: China. Also, there are quite a few documeted cases of couples aborting a "flawed" child. If human embryology has already unleashed this problem, maybe we should be keeping an eye on it as well.
Every single technological advancement ahs an ethical dark side, usually one that is not dealt with until years later. The development of gunpowder, for instance, led to the handgun (many years later). Of course, many of these consequences are unknown at the time of discovery, or are too far in the future to be considered on a cost basis by the inventor. Name one technology, strting with fire, that humans have developed that does not have a down side in addition to an (at least at the time of discovery/devleopment) upside. This "boogy-man behind the science" scare story is neither fresh or particularly well done.
Not considered, by the way is the fact that knowing the content of the human genome does not necessarily mean that it is safe to mess with it. The time that it has taken just to sequence the genome should demonstrate that we are a long, long way from being able to "produce" people. After all, when you go after that "mousy-brown-hair" gene to make it a "Platinum-blonde" gene, you might screw up something important, like the ability to grow legs.
I've got to agree that, in the US, the nuts with serious religious beliefs and guns/bombs, etc are most likely to be the problem. The FBI released a report on this as part of their project Megiddo (Adobe Acrobat).
The report specifically points out the liklihood that Jerusalem will be a likely target for terrorism.
Of course, the nuts don't always have such good aim. One fringe group in New York was planning to strike at the heart of the great satan (US) by blowing up a subway station in Queens.
Re: Good debunking of Gartner, etc. reports
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 3
I have a great deal of skepticism with regard to reports produced by Gartner, Forrester, or other IT analysts, and most of the problems are exactly what you have written.
The problems that you describe are not only in the report-writing consulting world, but exist throughout the entire discipline of managment consulting. Recommendations are constantly made about where an industry or company should be going with NO knowledge of the underlying technical details of the industry or product. Analysts spend a few miniutes looking at Yahoo! Technology news and then make sweeping generalizations about an industry that sound eerily like the press release that was used to write the story. This has only gotten worse as the rise of the Interent and the web has increased the demand for "knowledgeable professionals" and misguided people have stepped in to fill a role that they are not qualified for.
The worst part of the Gartner, etc. knowledge deficit is that they ask the wrong people and accept their answers as true, because they don't have any idea how to check the truth in them. So they listen to some executive complain that he couln't get a video conference because of the firewall configuration and write a report that the firewall is dead and that we need a more "open" computing infrastructure and that firewalls are getting in the way of the flow of information (which they are, but probably for the right reasons).
The Economist had a great bit last week about consultants:
"HERE is a cautionary tale about a telephone giant and a management consultancy. In the early 1980s AT&T asked McKinsey to estimate how many cellular phones would be in use in the world at the turn of the century. The consultancy noted all the problems with the new devices-the handsets were absurdly heavy, the batteries kept running out, the coverage was patchy and the cost per minute was exorbitant-and concluded that the total market would be about 900,000. At the time this persuaded AT&T to pull out of the market, although it changed its mind later."
Finally, I would caution you about banging on a liberal-arts degree. A good liberal arts degree (mine is in history) should mean that the person has some critical thinking and reasoning skills and should be able to learn. Unfortunately, too many analysts have never spent any time on the business end of malfunctioning or poorly designed hardware or software to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Then again, I'm probably unusual in that I'll admit when I don't know something and I'll go ask or figure it out before giving an answer.
The consensus that you cite is less widespread than you might imagine. The Christensen book that is described has some additional fascinating "rules" for why traditional, and well-managed, companies can fail when faced with a disruptive technology.
Rule One: Although managers think that they control the allocation of resources within a firm, the firm's customers actually control the allocation of resources. This is because well-managed firms ask their customers what they want in a product, then focus the resources of the firm (including the best engineering talent) on putting those new features in the product.
Rule Two: New or emerging markets cannot satisfy the growth needs of an estabilshed firm. This rule is important and clearly illuminates the problem that managers have in confronting disruptive technologies. The initial return on the investment in new technology will always fall below the ROI for a sustaining technology in an established product area. This will create a drag on the apparent current profiatbility of the firm, and the stock price (and the value of a manager's options) will fall as a result.
The prescription for remaining nimble in the face of disruptive technology change, offered by Christensen himself, is to "spin off" the new technology into a nearly autonomous unit whose size is small enough for its initial growth needs to be met in a new market.
HP did this with its InkJet division, which is completely separate from its established LasterJet division. HP's move positioned it to benefit from the winning technology for the consumer market, whether it came from the InkJet or LasterJet division. This is why HP's Laser and InkJet products often seem confusing-- they really are targeted for the same market segments.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be _fictional_ experiments. I mean, Frankenstein, despite that fact that it is well-known, isn't all that scary anyway.
The genome project evokes a world practically bursting with technological hubris, a universe in which all children would be born healthy, and suffering would be greatly reduced. What could be nobler or more inspiring?
Actually, more and more it evokes a world in which patent law has run amuck, and in which scientists, sensing a land grab with the possibility of nearly-unfathomable riches, try to patent everything in sight. I don't really understand the reasoning by which a gene sequence found in nature is patentable. I can certainly see patenting the method by which the gene is sequenced and patenting methods by which to alter genes, and even the arrangements that "fix" problematic genes, but not the gene itself. The whole process seems to me like patenting the alphabet, then claiming everyone owes you when they speak or write.
Offspring considered grotesque, revolting, impaired, repugnant or offensive could be eliminated.
COULD BE? Please review: China. Also, there are quite a few documeted cases of couples aborting a "flawed" child. If human embryology has already unleashed this problem, maybe we should be keeping an eye on it as well.
Every single technological advancement ahs an ethical dark side, usually one that is not dealt with until years later. The development of gunpowder, for instance, led to the handgun (many years later). Of course, many of these consequences are unknown at the time of discovery, or are too far in the future to be considered on a cost basis by the inventor. Name one technology, strting with fire, that humans have developed that does not have a down side in addition to an (at least at the time of discovery/devleopment) upside. This "boogy-man behind the science" scare story is neither fresh or particularly well done.
Not considered, by the way is the fact that knowing the content of the human genome does not necessarily mean that it is safe to mess with it. The time that it has taken just to sequence the genome should demonstrate that we are a long, long way from being able to "produce" people. After all, when you go after that "mousy-brown-hair" gene to make it a "Platinum-blonde" gene, you might screw up something important, like the ability to grow legs.
Oh well, fire away.
The report specifically points out the liklihood that Jerusalem will be a likely target for terrorism.
Of course, the nuts don't always have such good aim. One fringe group in New York was planning to strike at the heart of the great satan (US) by blowing up a subway station in Queens.
The problems that you describe are not only in the report-writing consulting world, but exist throughout the entire discipline of managment consulting. Recommendations are constantly made about where an industry or company should be going with NO knowledge of the underlying technical details of the industry or product. Analysts spend a few miniutes looking at Yahoo! Technology news and then make sweeping generalizations about an industry that sound eerily like the press release that was used to write the story. This has only gotten worse as the rise of the Interent and the web has increased the demand for "knowledgeable professionals" and misguided people have stepped in to fill a role that they are not qualified for.
The worst part of the Gartner, etc. knowledge deficit is that they ask the wrong people and accept their answers as true, because they don't have any idea how to check the truth in them. So they listen to some executive complain that he couln't get a video conference because of the firewall configuration and write a report that the firewall is dead and that we need a more "open" computing infrastructure and that firewalls are getting in the way of the flow of information (which they are, but probably for the right reasons).
The Economist had a great bit last week about consultants:
"HERE is a cautionary tale about a telephone giant and a management consultancy. In the early 1980s AT&T asked McKinsey to estimate how many cellular phones would be in use in the world at the turn of the century. The consultancy noted all the problems with the new devices-the handsets were absurdly heavy, the batteries kept running out, the coverage was patchy and the cost per minute was exorbitant-and concluded that the total market would be about 900,000. At the time this persuaded AT&T to pull out of the market, although it changed its mind later."
Finally, I would caution you about banging on a liberal-arts degree. A good liberal arts degree (mine is in history) should mean that the person has some critical thinking and reasoning skills and should be able to learn. Unfortunately, too many analysts have never spent any time on the business end of malfunctioning or poorly designed hardware or software to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Then again, I'm probably unusual in that I'll admit when I don't know something and I'll go ask or figure it out before giving an answer.
Rule One: Although managers think that they control the allocation of resources within a firm, the firm's customers actually control the allocation of resources. This is because well-managed firms ask their customers what they want in a product, then focus the resources of the firm (including the best engineering talent) on putting those new features in the product.
Rule Two: New or emerging markets cannot satisfy the growth needs of an estabilshed firm. This rule is important and clearly illuminates the problem that managers have in confronting disruptive technologies. The initial return on the investment in new technology will always fall below the ROI for a sustaining technology in an established product area. This will create a drag on the apparent current profiatbility of the firm, and the stock price (and the value of a manager's options) will fall as a result.
The prescription for remaining nimble in the face of disruptive technology change, offered by Christensen himself, is to "spin off" the new technology into a nearly autonomous unit whose size is small enough for its initial growth needs to be met in a new market.
HP did this with its InkJet division, which is completely separate from its established LasterJet division. HP's move positioned it to benefit from the winning technology for the consumer market, whether it came from the InkJet or LasterJet division. This is why HP's Laser and InkJet products often seem confusing-- they really are targeted for the same market segments.