June 2008

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.

Electronic commerce is disruptive to merchants by driving some kind of radical development that changes their business so severely they suffer setbacks. This problem was faced most dramatically by traditional, brick-and-mortar businesses that couldn’t adapt or didn’t adapt fast enough to the emergence of disruptive technology. Companies naturally play to their strengths, but many have suffered decreased market share or even bankruptcy when their strengths suddenly faced obsolescence.

International Business Machines (IBM) is such a company. Busy playing to the large corporations, IBM missed the boat with the introduction of the personal computer (PC). Although IBM eventually reacted effectively to the rise of the PC, its strength was to play to the heavy-hitters. In doing so, they missed a huge opportunity, and a significant opportunity to lead the market, because the tremendous growth in PC sales lay outside the big companies IBM played to. Therefore, IBM’s market share, once 80%, plummeted to the single digits. This is an example of a disrupted merchant, what about the disrupter?

While IBM and like-minded companies play from a position of strength, disruptive innovators play from a position of weakness. Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” A disruptive innovator knows he or she can’t compete with an established business, with established customers, so they have to create a new strength from their competitors’ weaknesses. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com is just such an innovator.

In 1995, Amazon.com debuted as an online bookstore that maintained about 2,000 titles in its Seattle warehouse. Most of Amazon’s orders were placed directly through wholesalers and book publishers, so no warehouse was necessary. Amazon would simply receive a book from the source and then ship it to the customer. At any one time, Amazon would only have about 2,000 titles in its warehouse. Amazon had virtually no overhead, and maintained no inventory. This became Amazon’s strength and traditional brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes and Noble and Borders couldn’t compete. In fact, had they not entered the electronic marketplace themselves, they might be nothing more than a memory today. While electronic commerce is often disruptive to merchants who don’t recognize the waves of change, it is continuous to consumers who are willing to ride the wave.

Electronic commerce is continuous to consumers who change with the growing technology. I began working with computers in the mid-80s. My first computer was the floppy-based IBM PC Portable. To use this computer, I had to learn DOS commands and eventually became quite productive using Enable OA. Now, over 20 years later, I’m a dedicated Mac-user at home and a reluctant PC-user at work. Over the years, electronic commerce was continuous for me, as I grew with the technology.

The Supreme Court has just shot down Washington DC’s 30-year gun ban! In striking down the DC ban, considered the strictest in the country, the Court (finally) acknowledges that each American citizen has a Constitutional right to gun ownership. According to Justice Antonin Scalia in the 64-page majority ruling:

“There seems to us no doubt on the basis of both text and history that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms [and] This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

Furthermore,

“We hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that! Expect the floodgates to open with legal challenges across the country, as citizens exercise their newly clarified right!

MORE: Complete coverage at Hot Air; American Pundit shows another Obama flip-flop: He was for the ban, before he was against it; Bookworm at Webloggin discusses the Court’s 157 page opinion; Michelle Malkin has commentary and blog highlights, plus an insightful quote from Jim Geraghty at NRO, who says,

“All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date.”

Too true!

A SuperNet is the implementation of classless inter-domain routing. Classless inter-domain routing changed the way IP addresses are interpreted by replacing the previous generation’s address syntax. Instead of allocating eight-bit address blocks which forced 8, 16 or 24-bit prefixes, it used a technique called variable-length subnet masking, which allows address block allocation on discretionary-length prefixes. A SuperNet is the combining of several contiguous subnetwork addresses into one subnet, much like one area code represents an aggregation of telephone numbers in a geographic area.

SuperNets are used to combine multiple networks into groups, which the router then treats as one big network. Internet service providers use supernetting to segment a TCP/IP network for more effective allocation of IP addresses. An organization containing several LANs, WLANs or VLANs would benefit from this same technique. A SuperNet allows an organization to use components from a public-network infrastructure for its enterprise network, which means the organization no longer has to maintain a private network infrastructure. As such, the burden of maintaining an enterprise network is greatly reduced.

A SuperNet would enhance communication because its not geographically restrictive, so a user may plug his or her device into the Internet from virtually any portal in the world and still be able to use the resources of their private network in a secure and robust manner. Each organizational SuperNet would be assigned a single public web address for its members to contact. After authenticating themselves and accessing the network, they could securely retrieve files and collaborate in real time, from anywhere in the world. Essentially, there would be no difference between the organization’s conference room and an individual’s home office.

A SuperNet expands an organization’s network by combining contiguous IP addresses into a single address. By incorporating components of a public network infrastructure, the organization eliminates the need to maintain a private network infrastructure. The SuperNet enhances communication by providing users’ single-point entry to a specific network from anywhere in the world.

Speaking at a fundraising rally Friday in Jacksonville, Florida, Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” … “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
(emphasis mine)

Obama has now made race an issue in this election and the insidious way in which he did it is appalling; he accuses Republicans of racism before they have actually done or said anything.

And there you have it. This is the audacity of Barack Obama. Surprised?

Without discounting the leadership and management abilities of the project manager, I believe the single most important attribute to a well-managed and successful IT project is sound quality management. So what is “quality”? For our purposes, quality is the degree to which a set of characteristics fulfill requirements. There are three key elements in that definition: 1) degree is the relative intensity or amount, 2) characteristic is a distinguishing feature and 3) requirement is a necessity or prerequisite. All three of these elements are established and ultimately evaluated by the customer. Therefore, the quality of a project refers to the perception of the degree to which the project meets the customer’s expectations. Therefore, quality is a conditional and somewhat subjective attribute, and ultimately determines the project’s level of success or failure.

Read the rest of this entry »

Moore’s Law would suggest that IT used to build systems today is superior to yesterday’s technology. However, new is not always better. Certainly, today’s IT is smaller and faster, but that doesn’t necessarily make it superior to the technology used in legacy systems. In fact, implementing new IT systems carry inherent risks that may outweigh the drawbacks of modifying or converting existing systems.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s no big surprise that Barack Obama has decided to forgo accepting public campaign financing and the monetary restrictions it imposes. After all, Obama’s record fundraising literally puts all the other candidates to shame. Still, he did agree, just last year, in writing, to

“aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

This means that in addition to being a liar, Barack Obama is also a hypocrite. When hearing of the news of the latest Obama flip-flop, John McCain said he would still take public financing and of Obama, he “said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.”

So, why did Obama back out of the deal? The system! BHO said,

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” … “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

WOW!

Obama supports the system, but now, all of a sudden, it’s broken. That’s convenient! Then why, wonders Ed Morrissey, hasn’t he “lifted a finger to fix it during his three years in the Senate?” Good question! However, in this flip-flop, Obama is actually backpedalling on his own proposal,

“I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

And John McCain agreed to this!

Democracy 21, a political watchdog group dedicated to removing the influence of private funding in elections voiced their disappointment at Obama’s decision:

“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”

MaCain says its a matter of trust and he’s right. Who will you trust to represent the little guy? The candidate who was funded by every American’s tax dollars or the candidate who was financed by private donors? Who will the candidate owe a debt to? For the former, it’s the American taxpayer, but for the latter, look for the highest bidder!

MORE: Webloggin calls out Obama on lies! So does Hot Air! Wake up America does, too! As does the Right Wing Nut House! And The American Pundit!

…that’s because he never knows whats going to come out of her mouth!

Barack Obama says he’s disappointed that John McCain thinks his wife should be accountable for her comments. I suppose this means Michelle Obama is supposed to be exempt from critique and criticism for the things she says while making speeches and actively campaigning for her husband?

Gimmieabreak!

If a farmer wants to keep his animals from escaping, he keeps the barn doors shut. Otherwise, he has to round up the animals and account for them.

(and no, I’m not calling Michelle Obama an animal…it’s a metaphor!)

I’m happy to return to my favorite theme: Tarski. Ben Eastaugh, the theme’s designer, is very responsive to users’ issues and works hard to maintain Tarski’s currency. This glitch occurred when the theme attempted to check for updates. According to Ben,

“The Tarski version check tries to phone home, and until the latest version there was a problem with the code that would mean if it couldn’t contact the server, the request would never time out and the page would never load.”

This is why I couldn’t access the Site Admin page. Fortunately, this little difficulty allowed me to learn a little more CSS, which I have the opportunity to do every time I change a theme.

Anyway, thanks, Ben!

I’ve added a new blog theme to the mix today.

Why?

The Tarski theme I was using blew-up! Although the page would display okay, I suddenly lost access to the administrative portions of my blog. Hence, I was unable to post anything new. This may be a systemic problem because I noticed the Tarski website is down as well.

Anyway, the new theme is a homage to Apple and is called iTheme , designed by Nick La at n.design studio. It’s actually pretty cool, users can drag-and-drop the sidebar boxes to sort the content. Also, the user can collapse and expand the sidebar boxes, as well. Give it a try.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. According to the courts decision, the detainees could not be denied the constitutional right of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating,

“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”

The court’s dissenting opinion was provided by Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote that

“America is at war with radical Islamists” and that “the nation will live to regret what the court has done today”.

Although both John McCain and Barack Obama have vowed to close Gitmo, McCain indicated that he was not happy about the court’s decision. Agreeing with the dissenting judges, McCain considers the detainees to be unlawful combatants and not American citizens.

He’s right.

We’re engaged in a war that is unprecedented in the history of our nation. We’re not fighting a tangible enemy, but rather an idea: terrorism. I wrote about this on the day Saddam Hussein was hanged. This is the result of a prolonged war with limited objectives. Clausewitz said,

“Never engage the same enemy for too long, or he will adapt to your tactics.”

We see that here. We’ve given the enemy the opportunity to use our own legal system against us. They’ve seen that this is one area that we’re vulnerable and are slowly taking the high ground. Soon we will lose this war, unless we can orchestrate a decisive victory. Our problem lies in just exactly what is our definition of “victory”

MORE: Hot Air

Gas has topped $4 per gallon and what is Congress doing about it? They’re shifting the blame from their decades-long ineptness into the lap of “Big Oil.” Sure, everyone is looking for someone to pin high gas prices on, and the oil industry is a convenient target. This feeling is further exacerbated by the record profits oil is generating. But I say, what’s wrong with that? After all, aren’t profits the goal in a market economy? Evidently, our Congressional leaders don’t think so because their solution was to enact a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Fortunately, it didn’t pass. So, what’s the solution?

It’s simple economics–supply and demand. As supply increases, demand decreases, and vice versa. To reduce gas prices we must either increase supply or reduce demand. I believe we must do both. A short-term solution is to increase the supply by drilling for domestic oil. In the long-term, we need to find an alternate fuel source, such as nuclear power, wind, sun, garbage, or whatever.

Unfortunately, we’re not going to see any relief for a while because our lawmakers refuse to take responsibility for the problem and solve it. They would rather submit to the environmental lobby by killing the Offshore Drilling Bill. Furthermore, Congress has resisted the shift to an alternate fuel source because it wouldn’t produce a benefit for at least seven years. Really? What kind of logic is this? If we had invested in nuclear power seven years ago, we’d be seeing some benefit right now, wouldn’t we?

Truth be told, Congress really isn’t too concerned about gas prices. In fact, some, like Barack Obama would like to see even higher prices at the pump!

Unbelievable!

Today, Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the new iPhone 3G. This new iPhone was the focus of Jobs’ keynote speech at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. The new iPhone which goes on sale July 11 carries several competitive enhancements. First, its faster! By accessing 3G cellular networks the new iPhone is twice as fast as the old one. Second, business users can access office email, calendar and contacts with Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync support (this will also allow iPhone to go head-to-head with Motion Ltd’s Blackberry as an enterprise communication solution!). Third, the new iPhone has built in GPS, combining GPS, Wi-Fi and cell tower location technology into its interface to provide “the best mobile map application ever.” Finally, at just $199, the new iPhone is half the price of the old one!

Is it too soon to replace my old iPhone?

Following up on a previous post, I have some insight into Secretary Wynne and General Moseley’s resignations. First, here are the press releases from Public Affairs:

PRESS RELEASE — Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 010608
June 5,2008

Secretary of the Air Force Resigns

Washington, DC -
Since November 3, 2005, it has been my privilege to serve this country as the 21st Secretary of the Air Force. I have relished the opportunity President Bush gave me to lead the strongest Air Force in the world during a time of war, and I have marveled at the tremendous accomplishments of our Airmen and civilians in their valiant defense of this country and its interests. It has been an honor and pleasure to serve as their Secretary while working side-by-side with General Moseley and the magnificent patriots serving in the Department of Defense and the United States Government to win today’s fight, take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges.

Recent events convince me that it is now time for a new leader to take the stick and for me to move on. Therefore I plan to tender my resignation to Secretary Gates. Even as I do, my heart, my thoughts, and prayers remain with America’s Airmen who will continue to do magnificent things for this great country.

Michael W. Wynne
Secretary of the Air Force

——————————-

PRESS RELEASE — Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 020608
June 5,2008

Chief of Staff United States Air Force Resigns

Washington, DC - Recent events have highlighted a loss of focus on certain critical matters within the Air Force. As the Air Force’s senior uniformed leader, I take full responsibility for events which have hurt the Air Force’s reputation or raised a question of every Airman’s commitment to our core values. For the past 36 years I have been privileged to serve my country as an Airman in the United States Air Force in peacetime and combat. I was honored and humbled to be appointed the Air Force’s 18th Chief of Staff and have been proud to serve our Airmen and their families. Upon taking office, I worked hard with Secretary Wynne to ensure the Air Force provided the right forces at the right time to help our Nation and allies win the Global War on Terror.

I think the honorable thing to do is to step aside. After consulting with my family, I intend to submit my request for retirement to Secretary Gates. The Air Force is bigger than one Airman, and I have full confidence that the Air Force will continue working with the Joint team to win today’s fight, take care of its Airmen, and meet tomorrow’s challenges. I love the Air Force and remain proud of America’s Airmen.

T. Michael Moseley
Chief of Staff
United States Air Force

Now, I’ve always believed that a leader will share success and own failure; it appears that Wynne and Moseley are doing just that. What troubles me is the message subordinate Air Force leaders are passing down to the commands. The message (from at least the level of the numbered Air Force) is that Secretary Wynne and General Moseley “took one for the team” and paid the price because a “few Airmen let us down.”

WOW!

I couldn’t believe my ears! The Air Force as an organization failed in one of its primary missions: nuclear surety! One failure resulted in armed nuclear weapons being flown across the United States and no one was the wiser. I’m not sure people really understand the magnitude of this incident. The United States lost positive control of several nuclear weapons for an extended period of time. This incident was termed a “Bent Spear” which is a mechanism used to notify the public of significant nuclear weapons incidents other than nuclear weapons accidents or war risk detonations, actual or possible. This wasn’t the first time, either!

Another incident involved the Air Force inadvertently sending secret ballistic missile components to Taiwan. Instead of sending the batteries for helicopters ordered by the Taiwanese, we sent four fuses designed to trigger the Minuteman III ICBM. Nice!

As if that weren’t enough, the $50 million Thunderbird contract that was awarded to Air Force insiders over other competitive bidders was actually just one of many corrupt contracts awarded. The reason?

“The … violations occurred because contracting officials perceived that senior Air Force military officers and associated contractors had used the powers of their positions to impose their preference on the contracting officers to award the contracts to specific companies”

These issues demonstrate a systemic problem within the Air Force. Perhaps the result of the pace and stresses associated with the Global War on Terror, or perhaps it’s just simple complacency. But the fact remains that these failures aren’t the result of a “few Airmen” letting us down. The indicators were there for the senior leaders to see and piece together, and just as the Secretary of Defense said, these leaders failed to act. This is why Wynne and Moseley were asked for their resignations. It’s called accountability and I’m afraid the Air Force’s subordinate commanders just don’t get it!

Al Gore and other global-warming doomsday fanatics are on a crusade to save the planet by reducing carbon emissions. A great article in Wired warns that the problem is more than just a single-minded focus on CO₂ and requires those who truly wish to save the planet to first change their perspective. This means giving up on same of environmentalism’s sacred cows. One of which is protecting the forests.

It seems that when it comes to fighting climate change, older trees actually contribute to global warming. Certainly, a tree acts as an atmospheric vacuum cleaner by taking in CO₂ and giving off O₂; however, as a tree ages it shifts from a CO₂ absorber to a CO₂ emitter. According to Wired, a tree will absorb about 1,500 pounds of CO₂ during the first 55 years of its life. After that, its growth will slow and the tree will absorb less carbon. If left untouched, the tree will gradually decompose or burn in a forest fire and all the stored CO₂ will be released back into the atmosphere. So, what’s the alternative?

Treat trees as crops! A tree farm would act as atmospheric cleaning factory, taking CO₂ out of the air and replacing it with O₂. As the tress ages and it’s usefulness as an atmospheric filter diminishes, it would be cut-down and used for some other purpose, like making furniture. A continuing cycle of planting seedlings, as the elder tress are recycled would provide an extremely efficient mechanism for atmospheric CO₂ removal.

What are some of the other debunked environmental myths?

1. Urban living beats suburban living
2. Air conditioning is better than heating
3. Traditional agriculture beats organic

…and more

From Technology Review: The greatest amount of SPAM originates in China, Brazil, Turkey, USA and Germany; these are the worst offenders with a combined total of approximately 500 million SPAM emails annually. These five countries account for nearly half of the world’s email SPAM! Incredible!

What can be done? In the absence of a more intelligent Internet user, what we need is a more intelligent email client…

For the first time in history, both the civilian and military leadership of a military service have been fired. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested the resignations of the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, and the Air Force Chief of Staff, T. Michael Mosley, for failing to secure the country’s nuclear arsenal. Gates decided to can the leaders after a recent disclosure that the Air Force mistakenly sent nuclear warhead fuses to Taiwan. An investigation into the incident revealed a “pattern of poor performance” and “an overall decline in nuclear stewardship.” The investigation also showed a “gradual erosion” of nuclear standards, technical expertise and oversight over the past decade.

WaPo reports that

“The departures of Wynne and Moseley cap a disastrous period for the Air Force, one that has included a bomber wing inadvertently flying nuclear warheads over the continental United States, the mistaken and long-unnoticed transfer of secret nuclear-related materials to Taiwan, and a corrupt $50 million contract for a Thunderbirds air show that went to a company owned by a retired four-star general and a civilian friend of senior Air Force leaders.”

Additionally, Gates says that Wynn and Mosley “failed to recognize systemic problems” and that the heads of a “substantial number” of Air Force generals and colonels were also on the chopping block!

Electronic or “e” commerce is built on a networked landscape. Understanding how to traverse this complex landscape is the key to business success. An essential rule to follow in this network age is incorporating relationship technology to the e-marketplace. A business following this simple rule will gain a competitive edge.

Read the rest of this entry »

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has quit Chicago’s United Trinity Church of Christ where he was a faithful member for 20 years. Why and why now? In a letter to the church’s new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Obama wrote,

“We make this decision with sadness. Trinity was where I found Christ, where we were married and where our children were baptized.”

He told Rev. Moss that he was concerned about the increased scrutiny the church has received in the past few months. Furthermore, he told reporters,

“Rev. Moss and the Church have been suffering from all the tension my campaign has visited on them. We’ve had news organizations harassing members in their home at their work places… That is just not how people should have to operate in their church. It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.”

So, Obama leaves the church not because he disagrees with its divisive message, but because he doesn’t want to hurt the poor parishioners with his presidential campaign. Obama is a martyr? Gimmieabreak!

I can’t see how this is going to help Obama. After all, he didn’t renounce the church’s doctrine, did he? His only regret is that the United Trinity Church has become a political anchor in his campaign. He’s leaving the church for one reason and one reason only: political expediency! This move proves that he is nothing more than a typical Washington politician who promises no change from the status quo.

MORE: Hot Air; Michelle Malkin; Little Green Footballs; The American Pundit; Webloggin; Power Line; Rightwing Nuthouse; Flopping Aces