October 2007

Russian President Validimir Putin, speaking with the European Union in Mafra, Portugal, once again criticized the U.S. antimissile system to be deployed near Russian borders in Poland and the Czech Republic. Comparing the antimissile system to the Cuban Missile Crisis (what?!?), Putin said,

“Analogous actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed rockets on Cuba, provoked the Cuban missile crisis.”

In response, State Department spokesman explained,

“There are some very clear historical differences between our plans to deploy a defensive missile system designed to protect against launch of missiles from rogue states such as Iran, and the offensive nuclear capability of the missiles that were being installed in Cuba back in the 1960s that were targeting the United States. I don’t think that they are historically analogous in any way, shape or form.”

Still, if one country has the capability to launch a nuclear strike against another country whose strategic nuclear capability is deterred by a antimissile defense system; isn’t this synonymous with actually placing “defensive missiles” near the borders of another country?

I suppose, Putin’s comment is accurate from the Russian point-of-view. It really depends on the way one views Soviet motives in the 1960s and whether the missiles they placed on Cuban soil were defensive or strategic.

From the Russian point-of-view, is the U.S. antimissile defense system truly defensive or is it a strategic weapon?

It’s all a matter of perspective.

Israel has acknowledged that it carried out an air strike against a “military target” deep inside the Syrian border, but has not provided any specifics. Syria has acknowledged the air strike, stating the target was “under construction.”

Now, the Syrians are rapidly dismantling a building at the supposed site of the bombing. According to the Institute for Science and International Security, a suspected reactor building visible in aerial photos prior to the Israeli attack had disappeared and the ground underneath had been sanitized. Reporting on the incident, the International Atomic Energy Agency surmised that

“Dismantling and removing the building at such a rapid pace dramatically complicates any (IAEA) inspection of the facilities and suggests Syria may be trying to hide what was there,”

Yah think?

I find it very interesting that the supposed Syrian nuclear facility looked an awful lot like the nuclear facilities in North Korea. But this can’t be, can it? After all, this would mean nK was sharing nuclear technology with a state sponsor of terrorism. This of course, would implicate nK as a terrorism enabler.

Of course, if nK was doing this, we wouldn’t be removing them from the state sponsor list. So, it must just be a coincidence. Right?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

The only truly safe computer is one disconnected from the Internet and powered-off. Basically, if no one can get to it, no one can harm it. Of course, it isn’t useful in that state, so the extent of computer security and the magnitude of associated risk is a tradeoff between putting the computer into use and restricting its misuse or abuse. In practical terms, the expense in time and money a company spends securing its network has to be weighed against the likely losses if it is broken into or damaged.

There is also a cost-benefit tradeoff for the hacker. After all, it’s unlikely someone will break into Fort Knox to steal a roll of quarters. So a modicum of good housekeeping can serve as an effective deterrent against the relatively harmless doorknob rattlers and window breakers.

Basically, there are three kinds of threats to a computer network: malice, ignorance and acts of god or nature. Malfunctioning sprinkler systems in the computer room, an electrical storm, disgruntled employee or a well-intentioned secretary can each do equal amounts of damage. A company must consider each of these components and think “what-if.” As the company designs or modifies the computer network security structure, they should also consider how the system is to be used and what they stand to lose if the system is compromised. With the answers to these questions, they can develop both technical and non-technical solutions, and compute the associated cost-benefit tradeoffs. This will help the company decide which solutions will meet security requirements, while staying within established financial boundaries.

Finally, computer and network systems consist of three components, the software and hardware parts, the people, and the procedures. Computer system and network security means protecting the software and hardware, ensuring the trustworthiness of the people who use and manage it, and the reliability of the procedures for using and managing the system. The bottom line is it’s really all about housekeeping, and it is up to the company to decide what kind of network house they keep.

Comcast is actively interfering with some of its high-speed subscribers who share files over the Internet. Seems the nation’s 2nd-largest cable company is delaying or blocking altogether, uploads of large files through peer-to-peer portals, such as BitTorrent. Comcast’s aggressive network management is designed to keep the file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth, and slowing speeds from other subscribers. Seems fair, right?

Wrong!

It’s true ISPs have long complained that the majority of bandwidth is swallowed by a relatively small number of subscribers, specifically those who utilize file-sharing programs. According to Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas,

We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible,” … “This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers.”

Comcast certainly has a right to manage its network, but it don’t have the right to interfere with the service subscribers pay for. First of all, Comcast doesn’t tell anyone it’s doing this. Basically, when one BitTorrent (or other file-sharing application) user tries to share a complete file with another user, Comcast’s technology interferes, though not consistently, and probably only during times of heavy traffic, by sending each computer a message that appears to come from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither computer generated this message; it came from Comcast. Secondly, Comcast currently doesn’t place bandwidth limitations on subscribers.

Most ISPs manage their networks with an approach called “traffic shaping.” Traffic shaping is basically the slowing down of some forms of traffic, like file sharing, while giving other forms priority. Comcast’s approach is a drastic form of traffic shaping, in that they only target one type of traffic, and not only do they slow down the traffic, sometimes they stop it altogether. Also, their discriminating method results in the falsifying of network traffic.

So, what does this mean?

I believe this deceptive practice is akin to a breach of contract on the part of Comcast between the ISP and its customers. Comcast has an ethical responsibility to subscribers to disclose any practice that affects their service. Furthermore, Comcast does not have a right to actively stop the legal upload of download of any information on their network…ever!

What else?

Stuff like this will give Congress the incentive to enact regulations, like “Net Neutrality,” that, as with most legislation of this nature, will end up taking more freedom than it gives.

A nanoelectronics researcher has decoded a radio signal through a semiconducting single-walled nanotube. These nanotubes make up an atom-sized component called the nanotech device. Alex Madrigal, writing for Wired magazine explains that the nanotech device is “a demodulator, [which is] a simple circuit that decodes radio waves and turns them into audio signals.” Peter Burke, a professor at the University of California at Irvine, connected the decoder to two metal wires and transmitted music over an AM radio from an iPod to speakers across the room. So, how is this a killer app*?

Presently, this technology isn’t a killer app, but it certainly has the potential to become one. The continued miniaturization of electronic devices depends on nanoelectronic systems. There are several companies interested in the long-term potential of nanoelectronics applied to the standard semiconductor technologies. Burke writing for the American Chemical Society’s Nano Letters, stated,

“Though we have only demonstrated the critical component of the entire radio system out of a nanotube (the demodulator), it is conceivable in the future that all components could be nanoscale, thus allowing a truly nanoscale wireless communications system.”

In fact, nanotubes have piqued the interest of researchers due to the unique electrical properties arising at the atomic scale. Currently they’re working on a significant number of nanotechnology applications.

The reason this technology hasn’t quite reached killer app status is because of manufacturing problems. Imperfections in atoms can have a serious impact when working at the atomic scale. Burke says, “If one atom is out of place in a regular transistor, it’s not a big deal; if one atom is out of place in the nanotube, it has a big impact on the electronic properties.” This means it’s nearly impossible to manufacture identical components consistently. Currently, the big unsolved problems in nanotechnology are cost and manufacturability.

Nanoelectronics is potentially a killer app. In keeping with the information presented in this module, the recognition of this technology is worth exploration. Moore’s Law actually requires the discovery of nanotechnologies, and its future commercialization will no doubt result in significantly improving existing technology. The extent to which it disrupts the industry it’s applied to, will determine its strength as a killer app.

*A “killer app” (short for “killer application”) is a completely new good or service; something so unique it disrupts the status quo and, at least for a time, becomes the new industry standard.

A merger of projects between the Department of Defense and Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory gives the Military Health Service (MHS) the ability to track and isolate disease outbreaks and other biological events worldwide. According to Sean Gallagher, writing for Government Computer News, “If you go to sick call on a military post anywhere in the world,” you’re going to be a “datapoint in the Electronic Surveillance System for Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics” or “ESSENCE,” as it’s more commonly called. ESSENCE is a web-based biosurveillance application used to provide medical awareness to the military medical community.

The ESSENCE system links medical data with geographic information systems, providing a mechanism for the MHS to track the spread of symptoms worldwide to within a zip code or specific military unit. The advantage of this system is the early warning it provides of potential biological outbreaks or attacks. This allows the MHS, and other organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control, to mount timely defense actions to protect the population. Col Kenneth Cox, the Air Force Medical Service director of Force Health Readiness, explains,

“Systems like this identify cases that are consistent with flu-like illness early on, and then–once outbreaks have started at any point around the world, since this system encompass[es] all of our units around the globe–then we can move to protect those people and move vaccines and antiviral drugs around, since they’re in limited supply [and prepositioned] in regional depots.”

The only real issue with the system is security; ESSENCE isn’t impenetrable to cyber-attack.

Originally, the ESSENCE application was served on a web-based platform and provided purely statistical information. The information was anonymous and only aggregated data was available to users. The current version of ESSENCE has been integrated into the MHS architecture and has the ability to isolate events to a specific service member’s medical record. This added new requirements to the application’s deployment, including compliance with federal laws pertaining to patient privacy and the release of medical information. Although more useful, the added capabilities have made the system more attractive to hackers; an acceptable tradeoff considering the knowledge gleaned through this emerging technology.

There’s an emerging technology trend in the U.S. Air Force. On November 2, 2006, Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne announced the establishment of a new command devoted to “preserving the freedom of access and commerce, in … cyberspace.” The creation of the Air Force Cyber Command is an indication of the evolving warfare landscape.

Secretary Wynn makes a point of saying that he considers cyberspace to be an actual “battle domain”, on par with land, sea, air and space. As such, cyberspace becomes a location, a battlefield. Previously, cyberspace was simply considered a component of the function of telecommunication. The significance of this revelation is the recognition of the importance of cyberspace to our national security, and our country’s commitment to its defense.

The importance of this event to emerging technologies is the tremendous opportunity for innovation. The area of military research has given the world the technologies of nuclear weapons, stealth, electronic countermeasures and recently, to the benefit of many outside the military, geosynchronous positioning. Our enemies already use information technology to their advantage, and are essentially unopposed in any organized fashion. The Secretary illustrates this point with several examples, such as,

“Right now a Finance Technician is moving U.S. dollars via a laptop to support terrorist ops, while sipping coffee in an Internet café. His use of cyberspace is practically uncontested.”

It’s evident the cyberspace domain provides an excellent operational platform for criminals, terrorists and all manner of evil determined to harm Americans and America. In the next few years, expect the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Defense to develop offensive and defensive cyber-weapon technology to combat these rogue forces and protect the homeland. However, we may not be reading about their breakthroughs for some time to come.

The spectre of single-payer socialized medicine has once again reared its ugly head. Driven by current political debate and Michael Moore’s movie, “SICKO,” many Americans are jumping on the “free healthcare” bandwagon. In the movie, Moore specifically praised Canada’s single-payer system, and many would like to have something similar in the U.S. Folks defend Canada’s system and the U.K.’s “National Health” by claiming that patients don’t have to worry about paying for healthcare because it’s free. Well, I have news for you…there’s always a cost, and nothing is free.

In a single-payer healthcare system, the government pays the doctor bills. Where does the government get the money to do this? Taxes! In a socialized medicine system, each citizen pays for his neighbor’s medical care in the form of taxes. The government, rather than the individual, the patient, determines how that money is spent. Incidentally, in Canada, when figured as a percentage of GDP, total taxation is 28% higher than the U.S.

Next, to control costs, the government implements waiting lists as a method of restricting access to crucial medical specialty services. This imposes a second, hidden cost to patients in the form of “time.” According to the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Canada,

“Canadian doctors say patients wait almost twice as long for treatment than is clinically reasonable, … almost 18 weeks between the time they see their family physician and the time they receive treatment from a specialist.”

As a result of these waiting lists, the mortality rate for otherwise treatable conditions such as breast and prostate cancer are significantly higher in Canada than in the U.S. For example, a Canadian woman who discovers a lump in her breast might wait for months before receiving the surgery and chemotherapy she needs, with the cancer cells multiplying rapidly as each week goes by. However, if she lived in the United States, she could be treated in a matter of days.

An exaggeration? Each year, the Fraser Institute publishes “Waiting Your Turn.” The 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatment, from a patient’s referral by a general practice doc to his or her treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks); while, the longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks). This was followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks). In fact, wait times in Canada have increased 91% since 1993, and its estimated these excessive wait times cost an average of $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient.

Canada isn’t alone in this, either. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, an American non-profit conservative think-tank, one in eight patients in the U.K. will wait more than a year for surgery. If that’s not bad enough, France’s failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during a heat wave in 2003. While many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched to capacity, hospitals stopped answering phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

This tax on time is especially cruel because the burden falls hardest on the sickest patients, (those with the least amount of time to spare). Consequently, Canadian patients routinely suffer and die while waiting for their “free” healthcare. The National Center for Policy Analysis notes,

“During one 12-month period in Ontario, … 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery while 121 patients were removed from the list because they had become too sick to undergo surgery.”

In an article describing why socialized medicine doesn’t work, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, a Canadian physician writes,

“And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50%; the European rate is just 35%. Esophageal carcinoma: 12% in the U.S., 6% in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England — a striking variation.”

Personally, give me a market-driven healthcare system with little to no government intervention. After all, companies like FedEx provide superior service because they’re driven to make a profit. That’s why they concentrate on working efficiently and innovating. That’s why they’re the world leader in ground transportation. People don’t complain about FedEx, but they do complain about services delivered by the government.

Why are there fewer complaints in market-delivered services, than in government-delivered services? The answer is simple: In the market economy, the forces of profit are ruthless, and the threat of loss and bankruptcy make suppliers accountable to customers. For government-delivered services, there’s no such accountability. However, the government is quick to point the finger at businesses such as insurance companies and medical practices, touting them as inefficient, bloated bureaucracies, and the cause of increased healthcare costs in America.

Really?

Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School, who have been studying Medicare’s performance for three decades, suggest that the Medicare system is set up to be inefficient. In the Medicare system, supply, not demand, drives medical care! According to Dartmouth’s 2006 State of the Nation’s Health report,

“high-cost regions boast 32% more hospital beds, 31% more physicians, 65% more medical specialists, 75% more general internists, and 29% more surgeons than low-cost regions. Yet with all of these resources, the outcomes are no better. In other words, more intensive care is driven not by medical need but by what looks very much like excess capacity. Supply is fueling demand.”

In other words, if you build it (the bed), he (the patient) will come.

So, what is the result of this apparent overtreatment? No matter what is driving a doctor’s decision-making (uncertainty, convenience or the automatic tendency to use whatever resources are available—whether time, beds, or technology), none of these factors seem to have much to do with either medical science or the needs of the patient. Dartmouth reports that,

“Each step of the way, an individual doctor may or may not be overtreating a particular patient. But … a big-picture view of aggregate outcomes in high-spending regions shows “higher mortality rates … and no improvement in function.”

With its decades of data, Dartmouth has exposed the incredible waste in the U.S. healthcare system. Dartmouth estimates that up to one-third of the over $2 trillion we spend each year on healthcare is

“squandered on unnecessary hospitalizations; unneeded and often redundant tests; unproven treatments; over-priced, cutting-edge drugs; devices no better than the less expensive products they replaced; and end-of-life care that brings neither comfort nor cure.”

Furthermore, government-run Medicare now enforces 130,000 pages of regulations. No insurance company does that. However, our government certainly imposes the cost of compliance with that paper nightmare on the insurance companies, medical practices and hospitals that try to operate in the black.

Noted American satirist, P. J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

You betcha!

Power involves a relationship between two or more actors in which the behavior of one is affected by the behavior of the other. The most important thing to remember is that power is relational. Power can’t be possessed or exercised unless there is a recipient. Additionally, power doesn’t extend simply to the individual, one organization can have power over another due to a position of strength in a particular market.

There are two outcomes to power. The most prevalent is simply compliance. When the application of power results in compliance, one agent basically yields to the will of the other. Employees who yield to the will of a manager are being obedient. They recognize the legitimate authority of a superior and act accordingly. The second and most dynamic power outcome is conflict. There are consequences to the action-reaction interplay of actors in conflict. These consequences can be functional or dysfunctional. A functional consequence results in performance improvements, whereas a dysfunctional consequence hinders performance. Hence, power and its outcomes are central organizational processes.

Properly managed conflict can act as a positive force to increase organizational performance. Conflict can improve the quality of decisions by allowing all points related to a topic to be heard. In this respect, conflict helps ensure the interests and opinions of the minority are protected. Conflict is also an antidote to groupthink. Conflict stimulates creativity and innovation by challenging the status quo and encourages the development of new ideas, which may bring change to the organization. Furthermore, conflict can improve productivity. Healthy competition between competing organizational groups can have a positive influence on morale as well as the bottom line.

Uncontrolled conflict breeds discontent within the organization. Negative conflict can dissolve common ties among members and can destroy the organization. Reduction of group cohesiveness and the subordination of group goals to individual agendas can stop the organization from moving forward. In fact, it can stop the organization from moving at all. For this reason, organizations may wish to actually strategically apply conflict within the organization in order to exercise greater control.

The stimulation of conflict within organizational groups can increase cohesiveness and ultimately productivity. Some common conflict stimulation techniques are:

1. Communication: Using ambiguous or threatening messages to increase conflict levels.
2. Bringing in outsiders: Adding employees to a group whose backgrounds, values, attitudes or managerial styles differ from those of present members.
3. Restructuring work groups, altering rules and regulations, increasing interdependence and making similar structural changes to disrupt the status quo.
4. Appointing a devil’s advocate: Designating a critic to purposely argue against the majority positions held by the group.

These techniques allow managers to control conflict levels. Conflict stimulation can increase group performance and yield improvements for the organization. The goal is to create an environment where conflict is healthy.

Campaigning in Iowa yesterday, Senator Barack Obama called for new restrictions on National Guard and Reserve deployments. By requiring “a period of rest and standard of readiness” before a troop redeploys, Mr. Obama says…

“I will not be a president who extends tours for our Guard units overseas while Americans are stranded on rooftops right here at home.”

(apples and oranges, Mr. Obama)

Obama also called for the head of the National Guard to be elevated to four-star rank and given a seat among the Joint Chiefs of Staff to reflect the heavy reliance on Guard soldiers and reservists during the Iraq war.

This kind of thinking demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the organization of our military.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) are advisors to the President, Secretary of Defense (who comprise the National Command Authority) and the National Security Council (the VP and Secretary of State). They also provide strategic direction to the Armed Forces. The Chiefs’ are responsible for developing joint doctrine, assigning logistic responsibilities to the different services, formulating joint training policy and coordinating military education.

The JCS are comprised of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the Chief’s of Staff of the USA, USAF, USN and Commandant of the USMC. They are essentially the military heads of their respective services, but are advisors only, and not in the actual chain of command. Also, one should note that the National Guard is not a separate service and the Guardsman is already represented by the Chief of Staff (as is the Reservist).

Now, the National Guard and the Reserve Component of the U.S. Armed Forces are two different entities, why would you only elevate the Chief of the National Guard Bureau? After all, the Guard and Reserve have different missions. The Guard actually has two, a federal mission and a state mission. When mobilized, and under federal control, the Guardsman supports the active duty mission under the direction of the President; when not mobilized, the Guardsman reports to the governor of his or her respective state or territory, and is responsible for the protection of life and property, and preserves peace, order and public safety within their state. The Reserve, on the other hand, directly supports the mission of a specific service. The reservist falls within the chain of command of its service, ultimately responsible to the Chief of Staff.

The Chief of the National Guard Bureau is a 3-star and is stationed at the Pentagon. Like the JCS, he is appointed by the President, but serves as the principal adviser to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on all National Guard issues. He also serves as Army’s and Air Force’s official channel of communication with the Governors and Adjutants General of the various states and territories.

This is the problem with politicians who haven’t served. Their ignorance of the military, its structure, and its mission, history and culture is evident in remarks such as those made by Obama. If you want to reduce the length of deployments for our troops, then fight to win this war in Iraq and stop playing political games with our lives.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama says wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin has become “a substitute for … true patriotism” since the 9/11 attacks.

According to Obama:

“[After 9/11,] I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” … “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.”

This was followed by a statement issued by his campaign:

“We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It’s about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war.”

Mr. Obama, patriotism is nothing more than the loyalty owed to one’s country. The flag is a symbol of our country and its proper display is never a substitute for patriotism, it’s an extension of it. Your refusal to wear the lapel pin is one thing, but your ignorant rationale for not wearing it is reprehensible.

You’re a disgrace!

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air; Little Green Footballs; BlackFive

During the recent round of six party talks between nK, China, Russia, ROK, Japan and the U.S., Pyongyang agreed to quickly dismantle key portions of its nuclear program and publicly account for all past nuclear activities, including bombs like the one it tested underground a year ago.

Personally, this sounds like the same old song-and-dance we’ve listened to for years. I understand the pressure to secure a deal with Pyongyang. After all, the possibility that Kim Jong Il will sell nuclear know-how to countries like Iran and Syria is a legitimate concern, and the sooner he’s out of the nuclear power business the better. And of course, the Bush administration desperately needs a diplomatic victory in nK to save face. But in our desperation, we’re dropping our guard.

This agreement sets a timetable for Pyongyang to come clean on all its nuclear programs and disable all nuclear facilities in exchange for 950,000 metric tons of fuel oil or its equivalent in economic aid. Sound familiar?

Oh, by the way, the agreement also requires the U.S. to “begin the process of removing” nK from the terrorism-sponsor list “in parallel” with the actions taken by Pyongyang. In July, Assistant Secretary of State, Christopher Hill, set the stage for this when he said the U.S. was willing to start the process after we “see how far the North Koreans are prepared to move on denuclearization.”

Evidently, no movement at all was sufficient.

Change affects every aspect of life. Only organizations that take an active approach to change will secure their positions as leaders in the business world. The most formidable obstacle to effective change management is the resistance to change exhibited by employees. Communication is an important aspect of change management. The manager’s open and honest communication inspires trust and mitigates employees’ resistance to change. Failing this, organizational change is an uphill climb.

According to Robert Heller, in his book, Managing Change, resistance to change takes three main forms: misunderstanding, fear and distrust. He warns that the “intensity of negative response will largely depend on the existing degree of trust.” Heller then goes on to stress that managers must “be sure to consult and communicate with everyone as much as possible” before introducing the plan. In fact, managers who held back information discovered that employees’ fear of impending change was worse than the change itself. This fear could easily translate to productivity problems within the organization.

Organizational change will always meet with some resistance. The effective manager will confront potential resistance situations by planning ahead. In order for an employee to be willing to accept change, he or she must understand the need for change. He must also trust the manager to look after his or her best interest. The manager can mitigate an employee’s resistance by providing open and honest communication from the inception of the change. After all, knowledge is power and in a changing organization, the manager who shares that power will likely find a smoother transition to a new corporate culture.