A form of knowledge management (KM), a decision support system (DSS) is basically an interactive, flexible, computer-based system that aids in the process of decision-making. Decision support systems streamline the process of turning decision into action and are key to the success of e-commerce. Within the world of e-commerce, companies have built data warehouses containing an incredible amount of information on customers, suppliers, and their transactions with them; this information would be useless without DSS. Decision support systems provide companies with the ability to query, sort, filter, analyze and report this information to facilitate intelligent decision-making. So, what are the e-commerce-driven DSS?
You are currently browsing the archive for the Business category.
Barack Obama says he’s sure the U.S has moved into a recession and the country needs another stimulus package to bring us out:
“I have little doubt that we’ve moved into recession at this point, and the sooner we can get money into people’s pockets, the sooner that we can stabilize the housing market, and the sooner that we can send a message to the markets that we’re serious about creating an energy policy that will create greater energy efficiency over the next decade or so, I think the sooner we’re going to get our fundamentals right.”
Forget economics. Forget that the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, an event that hasn’t occurred in the last six years (our last recession was March to November 2001)! Forget all that, we’re in a recession because “The Obama” has declared it is so. And what does he propose? Another stimulus package! How will he fund it? He wants to raise taxes, so no tax cut. I guess we’ll be borrowing more money from the Chinese! That’s it! Shore-up the economy by increasing our world debt.
One of my biggest interests is technology. Not that I’m the first one in line to buy the latest gadget, but I’m probably not too far behind. I had the opportunity to explore the new Kindle, Amazon.com’s wireless reading device. I have to say it’s pretty darn cool! The “electronic paper” is a 600×800 pixel, 167-pixels per-inch screen covered with a layer of transparent electrodes, a technology designed by E Ink of Cambridge, MA. The display is very crisp, the text is sharp and easy to read (and it does kinda look like paper). The electronic pages “turn” with a simple click and the reader can bookmark passages and write notes using the keypad. The Kindle comes with 256 megabytes of internal flash memory, with 180 megs available for storage (which equates to about 200 books). Its wireless connectivity means you can download a book directly from the Kindle and, according to Amazon, the process takes less than a minute. It runs on a modified version of the Linux 2.6.10 kernel, so the modified source code is freely available for developers to play around with. It also uses an easily replaceable lithium-polymer battery and Amazon says with the wireless connectivity turned off, you can read for a week on one battery charge.
Cool indeed!
So, I’m not going to buy one.
Why? Because reading a book is an experience to savor. Imagine the sound of the rain as it descends outside your window…the gentle litany is soothing and the quiet rumbling of distant thunder relaxes your mind. The chill in the air is dispelled by the warmth of the cup clasped between your palms. You inhale the evaporating steam and take a sip…the liquid warm and pleasing. The candle’s flicker draws your attention to the table where a book beckons. You replace the drink in your hand with the familiar tome…the nostalgic fragrance of time permeates your memory as you turn the book to that one dog-eared page…
And therein lies my heart. Therein is my joy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
- Urban living beats suburban living
- Air conditioning is better than heating
- Traditional agriculture beats organic
…and more
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.
Major League Baseball is putting the screws to little leaguers who play under the names of the big league teams. How ridiculous is that? Essentially, MLB is telling uniform makers that not only are the big league logos trademarked, but the actual team names, as well. Which means, if the little leaguers wanted to use the name “Red Sox,” for instance, it would be required to pay a licensing fee to MLB. Not only that, they would be required to buy their uniforms from the big league team’s “official” supplier.
So, gone are the days of community baseball where local sponsors support local kids enjoying the great American pastime. Gone also are the kids who grow-up standing in the shoes of baseball greats like Mantle, Ruth, DiMaggio and Gehrig.
I suppose I can understand MLB’s point-of-view. After all, who wants a kid to establish an affinity with a specific major league team? Who needs a life-long fan?
Obviously, MLB doesn’t! They should be ashamed of themselves!
I would be interested to see how lawsuits such as these, brought against the innocent, will affect MLB’s antitrust exemption? The big league should tread lightly, as I have warned before, baseball stands to loose a great deal more than licensing fees should Congress decide that baseball is, in reality, a multi-billion dollar industry and not just a game.
Conrressman Allen Boyd (D-FL) recently introduced legislation that would require Iraq to use its ($60 billion) budget surplus and oil revenue stream to help pay its security and reconstruction costs. The Iraq Shared Investment Act would consider the U.S. funding of Iraq’s reconstruction and security a loan to be repaid to the American taxpayer; currently this funding is considered a grant (to the tune of over $500 billion).
The bill also provides for a change to the Commander’s Emergency Response Program used for mutually agreed upon reconstruction projects. This change would essentially establish a trust fund, a pool of money to be used for these reconstruction projects and the Iraqis would be required to contribute 20 percent of a project’s cost. If the Iraqis fail to contribute the cash, the money the U.S. contributed would then be used to pay down the national debt. The U.S. currently puts $1 billion to $2 billion into the fund annually. With the change: No Iraqi contribution, no project!
According to Congressman Boyd,
“This legislation is not about punishment; it’s about responsibility. It is time for the Iraqi government to invest in its own future and have a greater financial role in their country’s security and reconstruction efforts,” … “With an expected budget surplus this year of $12 billion and an estimated $56 billion from oil revenues alone, the Iraqi government has the means to step up and pay for some of its security and reconstruction costs, and now, Iraq must show that it also has the will to take control of its own country by shouldering more of these costs.”
I could not agree more! Congressman Boyd is using his position on the Defense Subcommittee to insert his legislation into the $102 billion emergency supplemental funding bill currently under development in the House.
It’s about time someone in Congress (and a democrat no less!) takes a responsible approach to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. This legislation will allow the Iraqi government to assume a joint responsibility for the cost of reconstruction and security without taking anything away from our troops. It also allows the Iraqi government to become more self-reliant by making them less financially dependent on Uncle Sam!
After cautioning against any sweeping government housing-crisis bailout, Presidential-hopeful John McCain proposes a–well, how would you describe it?–a sweeping government housing-crisis bailout. McCain’s plan would cost taxpayers $3 to $10 billion and “would allow certain homeowners whose houses are worth less than their mortgages to apply for assistance.” In addition, “their lenders would agree to write off part of the loan. In return, the Federal Housing Administration would guarantee the new loan.” McCain estimates his plan will help 200,000 to 400,000 “deserving homeowners” whose adjustable rate mortgages are resetting at unaffordable levels.
Whatever happened to individual responsibility? After all, just a couple weeks ago Senator McCain said,
“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”
Alas, the man who said he “will not play election year politics with the housing crisis” is doing just that: giving in to political expediency. Disappointing, indeed.
MORE:
Michelle Malkin weighs in and has some commentary on the “subprime boondoggle” the Senate passed this afternoon.
Is there ever a moral justification for lying? No. I’m often criticized for being too black-and-white in my perceptions, but I cannot think of any instance when lying is justified. Even when my wife asks, “how do I look in this dress?” I’m compelled to tell the truth. If I think it isn’t flattering, I will tactfully tell her so, feeling that although she might not like hearing it, she would appreciate an honest answer. It is a matter of trust.
In business, as in one’s personal life, honesty–the truth–is sacred. To lie to an employer or an employee is to deny him or her the truth, even if the lie is told for the person’s benefit. For example, a manager who tells an employee he’s being let go due to cutbacks, when he’s really being fired for poor performance, is really being disrespectful to the employee by not telling him the truth behind his termination. Although he may sincerely be trying to guard the employee’s feelings, the manager fails to provide the employee with knowledge that could potentially preclude this situation from happening in the future.
Because telling the truth can be unpleasant, we sometimes resort to telling a “white lie”. Another example would be the employee who is asked to comment on a sales presentation his employer is going to provide to the board of directors. The employee, trying to be polite, tells his boss all is a-okay when the yellow letters against the slide’s red background is distracting and hard on the eyes. The employee’s white lie may make the employer feel better, but may not prevent his embarrassment in front of the company’s board.
If lying is wrong in one instance, it is wrong in any instance. Lying, regardless of one’s good intentions, is nothing more than a betrayal of trust between one person and another. Lying for any reason is a violation of the business ethics principles of ordinary decency and distributive justice. A person who lies, even to protect the feelings of another, is still a liar. If the lie is discovered, the person may never regain the trust of the other.
In the book, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, author Tom Morris writes, “Truth is just that mapping of reality that corresponds to the way things are.” I find this a very interesting concept and am in total agreement. Mr. Morris is basically saying that truth equals reality. Therefore, truth would be an absolute representation of fact. In this sense, truth gives meaning to and allows for the understanding of the object being considered. This statement is also consistent with correspondence theories, which attribute an existence to objects whether or not those objects are being perceived or even thought about. This means truth is independent of and may conflict with perception.
In simplest terms, and in a physical sense, if I have a red ball, the fact that I’m colorblind and see its color as something other than red, doesn’t change the fact that the ball is red. The truth lies in the ball’s actual color, red, versus my perception of the ball’s color. Therefore, truth gives meaning to the knowledge one possesses of the ball’s actual color. Otherwise, my perception of the color of the ball would be reality.
The “perception is reality” or “what is true for you may not be true for me” philosophy denies truth and is the basic attitude of relativism. Relativism rejects the idea of universal truths and, instead, endorses that truth is only relative to the circumstances to which it is applied. For example, to properly understand the Holocaust, one must consider the beliefs and actions of the German government in a historical or cultural context. In this manner, depending on one’s point-of-view, the senseless killing of thousands of Jews could be considered justified and therefore a true action.
In the working environment, relativism would likely foster an environment of anything goes. Because almost any action can be justified based on one’s perception of a situation, relativism undermines morality. If I believe it is wrong to lie, I just as easily could believe that lying is right, no matter what the circumstances.
If the principle objective of business is to maximize long-term owner value, then anything I do that contributes to that end could be considered right. For example, if an EPA inspector is going to shut down a chemical manufacturing plant for unsafe practices and the forced shut-down is expected to have a negative effect on the maximization of long-term owner value, then the plant manager could be justified in murdering the EPA inspector. I realize this is an extreme example, but it follows the principle of relativism. After all, for a relativist to condemn this action, he would have to consider the act of murder to be fundamentally wrong. This implies a moral absolute that is contrary to the relativist philosophy.
Another, and more realistic, example would be in the area of negotiation. If the rightness of a person’s bargaining position is relative to that individual’s perception of rightness, then it only follows that everyone at the bargaining table is right. The contradiction in this situation is evident when the goal of negotiation is to reach an agreement. If all positions are equally right, they are just as well equally wrong. How could agreement be reached?
The relativist premise, what’s true for you may not be true for me, in the work environment, infuses a severe subjectivity into every aspect of business operation. If what is true to me is false to you, then what is true to you is false to me. Since this philosophy doesn’t recognize anything as absolute, nothing can be considered true. If there is no universal truth, there is no reality.
Most people involved in business, from the CEO of a large corporation to the assembly line worker, will eventually face an ethical dilemma. Although the breadth of responsibility for some business members is much broader than others, all have a responsibility to stakeholders. Because everyone within the business entity can potentially impact the business stakeholders, everyone should fully understand and practice sound business ethics all the time.
Consider the Firestone tire recall of 2000. This was a recall of over 14.5 million tires at a cost of more than 3 billion dollars. The tires had been manufactured at a plant in Decatur, IL, and had defects that resulted in tread separations and rollover accidents. The ethical dilemma for business leadership in this case would be between profit loss and consumer safety. To initiate a recall the tire manufacturer would probably consider the cost of the recall versus the cost of litigation. The lesser of the two would determine the company’s course of action. On the surface, this doesn’t sound very ethical, but from a practical standpoint, it may be. For a tire, there is an acceptable rate of defect and if the harm caused by these defects is within that range, it’s considered ethical to refrain from a product recall. This doesn’t mean the company keeps the information secret or initiates a cover-up. It simply doesn’t undertake what it considers is an unnecessary action. In this respect, one can easily understand the manager’s ethical dilemma and why it’s important to understand and practice sound business ethics. But what of the employee on the assembly line?
The Firestone employee at the Decatur, IL, plant is engaged in the actual manufacture of the tire. Perhaps this employee has been working the job for several months when he discovers that he has been performing a function incorrectly. This inadvertent mistake resulted in a tire defect that could lead to a tread separation. Should the employee inform management of his error and place his job at risk or should he keep quiet, simply make the process correction and eliminate the error. The potential repercussion of his silence would be harm to the consumer and the potential repercussion of his informing on himself would be a recall of the affected tires and his firing or reprimand. How the employee responds to this ethical dilemma could mean serious injury or death to consumers or severe profit loss to his employer in the form of a product recall and ultimately, the termination of his employment. How does the employee determine the right course of action?
An organization should encourage all employees to understand and practice sound business ethics. Incorporation of ethics into the business culture will ensure personnel at all levels make the rightdecision when faced with ethical dilemmas. The Firestone employee who brings his error to the attention of his employers has resolved his ethical dilemma with the right choice. How the employer responds to this information represents his own ethical dilemma and is an indication of the business ethical culture.
I believe the market should determine the level of employee compensation. An employer is interested in hiring an employee at the lowest possible cost. Conversely, the employee is interested in obtaining employment at the highest possible wage. This conflict results in an equilibrium wage being paid to employees by employers. Basically, the scales would balance.
Consider the manager of a fast food restaurant. In the absence of a minimum wage policy established by the government, the manager could offer workers any amount he or she sees fit. Let’s assume the manager offers $4.00 per hour to workers in a market where the average hourly wage was $5.00 per hour. He may be able to fully staff his restaurant, but his employees would likely resign their positions at the first opportunity of new employment for better pay. This high level of employee turnover would have a tremendous negative impact on his business. He would soon be forced to pay a higher wage in order to retain workers. Therefore, all fast food restaurants in a given market would essentially be forced pay the same basic wage.
The market would ensure the employees are treated with fairness and honesty because for the manager, turnover means money. The market would also satisfy distributive justice concerns. Fast food managers would be paying the same basic wage determined by the market they’re in. This would also apply to leadership positions within the restaurants, like assistant manager or shift leader. The manager who is interested in expanding or simply having a day off will need to delegate some managerial responsibility. To do so, he would train one or more of his employees to perform those duties. In order to keep these middle managers, the manager would be forced to pay a competitive wage. Should he fail to do so, his workers would likely take their new training and find employment elsewhere. In this respect, equals would be treated as equals both within the organization and across the given market.
I believe the market should determine the wage-rate for employees. Absent a minimum wage law, the market is a powerful driver and the laws of supply and demand will always result in equilibrium. This balanced scale would ensure the inviolate principle of distributive justice and encourage ordinary decency across the market. Managers who pay a fair market wage will, therefore contribute to maximizing long-term owner value.
President Bush unveiled his FY 2009 budget request today. If enacted, the $3.1 trillion dollar plan would increase the federal deficit beyond $400 billion (up from $162 billion in 2007!). The Bush plan seeks to boost defense, while cutting more than 150 discretionary programs. Since the purpose of government is defending the homeland and not acting as society’s nursemaid, I agree with the budget in principle. However, I just can’t support sinking the United States further into debt. It just doesn’t make sense.
The president claims his proposal will balance the federal budget by 2012. What kind of math is that? A 162% deficit increase will ultimately result in a balanced budget?!? I know sometimes one must spend money to make money, but WTF? I’d love to see the formula that makes that work!
Fortunately, when FY 2009 rolls around on October 1st of this year, Congress will probably pass a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels until the new president takes office. Hopefully, clearer heads will prevail and Congress will pass a more fiscally responsible budget.
(wishful thinking)
Is information meant to be free? That is the question that plagues the masses in this Internet age. There is really no legal debate regarding ownership, it is quite obvious the developer actually owns the intellectual property. This ownership gives him or her the right to hide the source code of the software from the prying eyes of outside developers. The real debate is one of utility. Where is the greatest benefit derived: hiding the code or sharing it?
In 1998, Lego Company introduced the Mindstorms Robotic Invention Systems. This toy allowed users to build and program working robots using a simple computer interface. However, soon after its release, Lego enthusiasts hacked the system’s proprietary source code and posted their discovery on the web for all to see and use. Others built onto the hacked code to improve and enhance Mindstorms software, increasing the utility of the product. Though illegal, this was a boon for Lego because the hackers antics actually fueled sales of the toy; in the first year, Mindstorms would exceed sales projections by over 800 percent. Considering the outcome of the hackers illegal act, did they do anything wrong?
Lego didn’t intend to release Mindstorms source code, so there is no arguing with the fact that the hackers actions were tantamount to stealing, and constituted a criminal act. However, it is quite possible that Mindstorms would not have experienced the level of success it achieved without the help of the hackers as outside developers. This begs the question, what is the value of proprietary software?
Microsoft is the leader of the proprietary software establishment, arguing that unless a company protects it’s intellectual property, it will be stolen. Subsequently, investors will not get a return on their investment and no one will invest in future innovation. Microsoft’s main argument in support of proprietary software is that total cost of ownership is lower using their software than the non-proprietary, open source, alternatives. Microsoft also claims superiority in reliability, security, performance and interoperability, but are these arguments relevant? Certainly they are, but are they substantial?
I believe the answer is unequivocally, no. The problem with proprietary software is that the user never truly knows how good or bad the software is. The manufacturer hides the source code behind binaries so no one can get to them. This centralized management approach will not allow the user to adapt the software into a more useful form. Open source software, on the other hand, takes a decentralized management approach and “harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process”. As well as promising an end to predatory vendor lock-in, the open source initiative touts better quality software that costs less, and is more reliable and flexible than its proprietary counterparts. So, is open source the way to go?
Open source programs significantly increase innovation and utility in the Internet age. Eric S. Maskin, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics, has done significant research in the area of software patents. He determined that innovations in the software market were achieved as a series of sequential steps, where each innovation was built on the work of predecessors. Since each innovator followed a different path to attain the same goal, software patents tended to stifle innovation. The bottom line, as Metcalf’s Law suggests, is that the more attention and software code a company has from outside developers, the greater the utility of the overall product line or brand.
Businesses have the right to protect their intellectual property through software patents and licensing. However, Lego’s Mindstorms experience should serve notice to these proprietary companies that the value of their product is not contained within its secrets. True innovation and ultimately consumer benefit will come at the hands of the users themselves. Like Lego Company, when business expose their code to the open source network of developers, the skies the limit.
An important aspect of network management and potentially the most unpredictable is information security. As the name implies, information security is concerned with monitoring and controlling access to data on a network. This in itself is a daunting task, but companies with a web presence can be even more vulnerable to security breeches.
According to an April 2007, PC World article, eight out of ten web sites contain common flaws that could allow attackers to access networks and steal customer data, create phishing exploits or craft a variety of other attacks. In fact, network security analysis company, WhiteHat, says that 30% of analyzed computer sites contain an urgent vulnerability, such as one that allows direct access to company databases with customer information.
On a positive note, WhiteHat also reports that a type of database vulnerability allowing SQL injection attacks is becoming less common. Fewer than one out of five sites contain this type of vulnerability, but a successful incident can give a sophisticated attacker access to everything in a company’s database. Still, overall WhiteHat’s reporting echoes an increasingly common theme, which is that web-based attacks are growing in prevalence and have grown considerably in the last two years. As web programming grows more sophisticated and complex, allowing for desktop-like applications, it also becomes even more vulnerable. So what is the problem?
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the “trade group that represents the recording industry.” With member organizations that include the “Big Four”, EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. In addition to certifying gold, platinum and diamond sales awards, the RIAA,
“works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conducts consumer, industry and technical research; and monitors and reviews state and federal laws, regulations and policies.”
The RIAA is a fierce opponent of copyright infringement through file-sharing over the internet using P2P software, and rightly so! The RIAA claims the recording industry loses over $4 billion dollars per year through illegal distribution of music over the internet. However, the RIAA now seems to be extending the definition of “copyright infringement” to the copying of a legally owned CD to a personal computer for personal use in an MP3 player, such as an Apple iPod.
Wired magazine posted a letter written by the RIAA to the U.S. Copyright Office, that said “creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use.” Despite the double-negative, the RIAA leaves no doubt that it believes ripping legally owned CDs is illegal. However, this contradicts their previous stance.
In an archived FAQ page, the RIAA said making personal digital copies of CDs is just “great,” in fact they encourage it!
“There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That’s not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that’s great. It’s your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn’t make it right.”
(emphasis added)
As one can easily see, the RIAA didn’t have a problem with personal digital copies, only the distribution of those copies to third parties. So why the change of heart?
The Audio Home Recording Act includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices. The RIAA knows this an is trying to write new legislation through the courts. I believe the RIAA is trying to take advantage of consumers by forcing them to 1) purchase multiple versions of identical music for replay via different media, or perhaps 2) adding fees for permission to rip legally purchased music. Stopping illegal distribution of copyrighted material is one thing, but holding consumers hostage through distribution control is something else altogether. What it all comes down to is corporate greed!
In the business world, the letters “CIO” ostensibly stand for “Chief Information Officer,” but there is a common misconception that they more realistically mean one’s “career is over.” At one time the CIO may have indeed faced a short lifespan within a company, but the fact is today’s CIOs are holding-on to their jobs much longer. This is largely due to the relationship between the CIO and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). So, why the misconception?
The notion of low CIO tenure seems to have its roots in the 1990’s. Allan Alter, writing for CIO Insight, explains that the early CIOs had a difficult time making the transition from “technology manager [to] something far more visible and strategic.” It was generally believed that the average tenure for a CIO during that time period was only 18 months. However, Alter questions the accuracy of the 18-month CIO:
“Critiques of CIO effectiveness, such as the February 26, 1990, Business Week article, “CIO is Starting to Stand for ‘Career is Over,’” popped up regularly in the IT, business and scholarly press. These articles claimed that CIOs had an usually short tenure, and the writers often relied on executive recruiters to provide job turnover data–although the methodologies used by these recruiters weren’t necessarily rigorous.”
Regardless of the accuracy of the reporting, many still believe achieving the position of CIO is the kiss of death, but that simply isn’t the case.
Today’s CIO has been on the job for about 5.7 years, this is an 83 percent increase compared to tenure in 2005. In fact, it appears that the CIO is actually holding his job longer than the average CEO. Allen Bernard, writing for CIO Update, believes the improved tenure resulted from IT being run “like any other operating department” and CIOs are providing some return on investment. Another reason for improved tenure is that today’s CIOs have become IT-business hybrids, rather than placing their reliance in a singular IT background. This is good news for the CEO.
Although some CEOs do not have an accurate view of the important roles CIOs play, this is likely the exception to the rule. The terrific growth in e-commerce has actually led to closer relationships between CIOs and CEOs. The CEO understands that today’s business is inseparable from IT and it is to his advantage to team-up with the CIO to respond to change and build the infrastructure necessary to ensure business success. This results in the CEO understanding more about IT and the CIO understanding more about business.
To effectively compete in today’s e-commerce marketplace requires a heavy reliance on IT. This reliance has led CEOs to partner with CIOs in building an IT infrastructure to support business goals and objectives. This relationship has resulted in increased tenure for CIOs in business organizations. The notion that “CIO” means “career is over” has had its day.
Looks like Intel is pulling out of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program. The OLPC, a noble endeavor and the brainchild of MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte, promised to provide, just as the name implies, one laptop per child all over the world. Evidently, Mr. Negroponte expected Intel to end its support of non-OLPC programs, which also produced low-cost laptops for sale to the general public.
I get the feeling Intel’s business ventures were undercutting Negroponte’s altruism. What does it matter where the laptops come from, as long as they get into the hands of people who need them (and not necessarily just children)?
Shameful!
The OLPC organization needs to reassess the reason it got into this business in the first place!
Sleazy mortgage lenders lobbied their way out of increasing legal restrictions on high-risk subprime home loans. The biggest sleazes were Ameriquest Mortgage and their subsidiaries, who just settled a class action lawsuit in New York to the tune of over $325 million. The agreement requires Ameriquest to pay $295 million restitution to states divided into two separate funds: a $175 million fund to be distributed under a nationwide formula to most consumers who received an Ameriquest loan between Jan. 1, 1999 and April 1, 2003; and a $120 million fund to be divided among the states based on the volume of Ameriquest loans made in each state, to be distributed, at each state’s discretion, to consumers who received an Ameriquest loan between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2005.
The attorneys general from Iowa, California, Illinois, and Washington joined the New York Attorney General’s office in the investigation of Ameriquest. This multistate effort revealed that Ameriquest used predatory and illegal lending practices to entice home owners into refinancing. Ameriquest’s activities included misrepresenting and failing to disclose loan terms, charging excessive loan origination fees, and inflating appraisals to qualify borrowers for loans. As a result, many of these home owners were facing foreclosure.
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, said
“As homeowners throughout the state and the country grapple with the fallout from subprime mortgages we must do all we can to soften the blow, the Ameriquest settlement demonstrates why strong state enforcement to combat predatory lending practices is crucial to protecting consumers. The financial relief provided through this settlement will help borrowers defray the price of these costly loans.”
This sentiment was echoed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:
“Through their aggressive use of deceptive and predatory lending practices, Ameriquest both exploited borrowers and contributed to today’s staggering crisis in the mortgage industry…” “These funds will help undo the damage that Ameriquest caused to thousands of New Yorkers.
I couldn’t agree more, but let’s not forget that state lawmakers foresaw this crisis and not only failed to prevent it, but in my opinion were culpable in its outcome. State legislators fueled this mess by selling-out to lobbyists instead of protecting their constituency. I hope voters will remember this at the polls.
The Apple rumor site, ThinkSecret.com, has settled its nearly 3-year long lawsuit with Apple and will shut-down as a condition of the confidential settlement. Although it may seem that Apple has bullied this blogger into submission, I believe this is actually a victory for ThinkSecret publisher, Nick Ciarelli, specifically, and all bloggers collectively.
In early 2005, Apple sued Ciarelli for posting Apple trade secrets and for encouraging and inducing employees to provide product information in breach of nondisclosure agreements. To Apple’s chagrin, Ciarelli filled a counter suit and ignored the mountains of “cease and desist” letters that followed.
The intent of Apple’s lawsuit was to pressure Ciarelli into revealing his sources and when he balked, he essentially called Apple’s bluff. Why else was there a settlement? If Apple had the legal high-ground, they certainly could’ve induced Ciarelli to reveal the sources of the leaked information or the court would’ve likely held him in contempt. It didn’t go that far because after the counter suit was filed, Apple stopped litigating, and Ciarelli never revealed the sources of his stories. Ciarelli leaves with his integrity intact and this is a boon for online journalists’ First Amendment rights.
Many are speculating over the terms of the settlement and think Ciarelli received a large sum of money to close the ThinkSecret doors, but that’s immaterial. The key to the issue of victory or defeat is the impetus to shut-down the website.
Indeed, Mr. Ciarelli, now a senior at Harvard, told the WSJ that he is shutting down the site because he has other career interests. He’s a senior at Harvard and suggests he was ready to quit anyway. If this is the case, he may have simply agreed to something he was planning on doing anyway. He leaves a winner.
Incidentally, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak urged Apple to call off the dogs, arguing that it hurt the company’s reputation. Apple has never sued a professional news organization for publishing similar stories containing purported “trade secrets.” So why go after “little guy” Ciarelli and ThinkSecret? Because the “little guy” doesn’t have a legal department.
President Bush will soon announce a plan to help homeowners amid this sub-prime mortgage debacle. Once again our government demonstrates that individual responsibility isn’t important by rewarding people who make bad (or risky) decisions. The plan will likely involve temporarily freezing low, introductory mortgage rates, that would otherwise jump higher in the next few years. This intervention is expected to stave the rising number of foreclosures and save the economy from recession (in an election year).
$362 billion in U.S. subprime home mortgages with adjustable interest rates are due to reset at potentially higher rates in the coming year
Part of the reason for the mortgage crisis is the way homes are financed. Long gone are the days of bank and borrower, today’s home loans are bundled together and sold to investors as securities. This ties the hands of lenders who might like to help borrowers in need because they no longer control the loan.
According to Bank of America Securities, as much as $362 billion in U.S. subprime home mortgages with adjustable interest rates are due to reset at potentially higher rates in 2008, risking a wave of defaults by borrowers unable to afford the new monthly payments. That in turn could lead to a wave of write-offs by investors who now own those mortgages. The losses tied to bad mortgages have already reached the tens of billions of dollars and has had a tumultuous effect on the world’s financial markets.
Furthermore, to help one segment of the population, ultimately hurts another. Bush’s plan may help homeowners, but what of the investors? Freezing interest rates for homeowners is, in essence, cheating investors out of their money. Why is this okay?
So what’s the problem? The problem is that no one is held accountable for the decisions they make. I believe the government should not intervene and let the markets correct themselves. Yes, many may find themselves in financial straits for a time, but their situation is a result of a decision freely made. The President’s plan amounts to charity and is not the responsibility of government.
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.
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 consequ