Ohio IT Skills Blog

IBM Labs sees five innovations in five years - Network World

Link: IBM Labs sees five innovations in five years - Network World.

IBM is a very different company than it was 5, 10 or 20 years ago.  They are thriving - but as integrators of systems and solvers of problems, rather than simply hardware/software providers.  They are on their way to becoming the largest purveyor of Linux - an open source operating system!  Tom Watson must be spinning!

This article points to one of the reasons for IBM's current and continuing success - they recognize change is inevitable and they work hard to remain players in the results of that change.  So it is imperative for them to plan years ahead - they undertake big problems and those problems have big solutions - not something you knock out in a couple of weeks.  They are dedicating resources today to be a viable company in 5 years.

• real time translation
• sensor technology for medical and related uses
• nano technology for real-world problems like water filtration
• 3-D Internet for better collaboration, and commerce
• advanced "presence technology"

Not everyone is going to share this same list of concerns and priorities.  But everyone would probably benefit from having a list.  Check out this story, and see what skills you might require to meld into a technology movement or product line in the decade to come.

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)

The death of computing : Future of Computing : BCS

Link: The death of computing : Future of Computing : BCS.

This op-ed from a lecturer at the De Montfort University in the UK - and member of the British Computing Society - asks the question "Is computer science education so out of whack with real-world needs, that the existence of the field is threatened?"

Many curricula in higher education must adjust regularly to changing conditions in their disciplines.  Technology changes, discoveries change perceptions and theories, the outside world changes the need and/or the execution of the discipline.  Two of the most drastically impacted  areas of study are bioscience and computer science. Bioscience has actually made a trade of leap-frogging research and constantly changing educational paths and content.

Computer science - the theoretical basis of Information Technology, has not pursued such a high-profile nor rigorous program of research or change, lately.  For one thing - the commercial sector has arguably decimated the ranks of potential university researchers and teachers.  Moreover, the new developments are more of a problem-solving nature, than a result of the examination of basic principles, or the discovery of new facts or theories. 

A five-minute brainstorm - even among laymen - can assemble a pretty respectable and lengthy list of issues deserving investigation in the bioscience fields.  The open questions in computer science seem much more obscure -and much less relevant to any real world curiosity or commercial potential.  We live in a time where better computing as resolved into faster processors.  The biggest news in new computing science seems to fall to any new announcement from Intel or AMD or IBM about miniaturization of traditional chip architectures - or application of alternate transmission media - like light - to carry and process information.

The biosciences have large and very public problems to solve - cures for devastating diseases, enhancement of biological systems, the "map" of genomes (literally harking back to that internal need for exploration and adventure).  The world eagerly awaits every drop of news - and there are assertive business people waiting to implement new ideas, foundations ready to fund distribution and education - it's a social movement!

We know that there are problems whose solutions  would improve computing. But the potential for making any fundamental changes in the way computing is done, the base technologies that enable and support it - are slim and none.

Bill Gates has recently been bemoaning the state of the education-turning-to-employee pipeline in the computing science field.  But, ironically, Microsoft itself may be one of the greatest obstacles to ramping up any excitement about research and growth in the field.  Microsoft's dominance is such that no independent idea has very good odds of succeeding (and investors are notoriously skittish about going up against the king of all "established leaders").  And the process for getting new ideas even considered is simply unknown to outsiders of the company.

And the days of "one guy in a garage" making a big difference - especially a fundamental difference - are long gone.  Just as bioscience has out-grown the lone experimenter and turned into massive collaboration projects - so has computing science where hardware advances occur at the nano level, and software advances require simultaneous changes in multiple levels of systems.

The open source movement might have some potential for enabling groups of people to tackle large problems - but so far those teams have focused on applications - most often open source versions - read "free distribution" - of profit-making applications.  Searching for fundamental new ways to compute, for new techniques for security, encryption, networking or any of a host of other projects - is going to be pursued by people who are convinced their creative energies will lead them to wealth and personal freedom.

Microsoft is not an evil bad guy as far as the future of computer science - is concerned - but the company does represent a real obstacle to progress - and a real potential for change.  If we could find ways to openly identify the big problems of computing - and find ways to make their research open and exciting again - with rewards given where rewards are due - outside of the paranoid limits of patents and secrecy and all the rest - we might get computing science back on track.

Meanwhile, IT remains the kingpin. Practical problem-solving - and the application of all the sciences that converge on computing - will remain the outpost for new frontiers.  And we'll go as far as we need to go.

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)

Is traditional view of IT getting in the way of innovation?

Link: Google exec says IT 'crisis' preventing business innovation.

The idea of creative destruction is one thing when applied to a business idea - but quite something else when applied to your career - especially while you are still pursuing it!  And that is one of the reasons management is so slow to catch up with new business paradigms often enabled - or even mandated - by technology changes in IT.  Only the new, young entrants in the profession are willing to try radical new approaches (to systems design, to management schemes, to control models): they have little to lose at that early stage.  But senior management has built up everything - from reputation to compensation - based on an understanding and a path that was emerging when they were young,  but is now seen as stable.

And this may explain why change in fast-moving fields like IT seems to take such frustratingly long times to pick up on innovation.  The system - for all its stated desire for innovation - is actually fortified against the most fundamental changes.  Or - at least - change that affects me.  Change that affects you - well, I can live with that.  But change to my plans is a whole other matter.

The linked article describes a talk by Google's Dave Girouard, and helps point out why we need to look for more flexibility and willingness to adapt.  He is concerned that the complexity built into IT systems is now preventing efficient innovation.  Part of the complexity is borne of the pace of change:  A really nifty advance in one area may require a temporary bridge to other components of the system - until they can catch up.  Unfortunately some of those bridges, patches and fixes become so integrated into the operation that they no longer behave as a temporary fix - they are now part of the system.

Girouard's point is that - at some point - a CIO and other senior management need to stand back and look at the totality of what major change - beneficial change - could achieve by making some drastic  eliminations of complex systems - where much simpler and cheaper alternatives exist.  In the  end, he says “A lot of things that people think of as core IT functions need to disappear into the ether so that the IT organization can properly focus on the value-added [activities]."

To shore up the concept, he points out that many large companies at one time had a VP of Electricity.  But that function was absorbed into a larger concern about overall facilities.  Certain IT functions may be in that category - they may need to fade away - replaced by outsourcing or technology - to make way to spend the time and energy finding more profitable ways to generate new products and solve problems.

By happenstance, another piece appeared the other day - called "Who killed the Webmaster" - pointing out that the management of Web presence has evolved to something considerably different than merely the staff who prepared and maintained Web pages, as it emerged in the late '90's.

Between technology changes - especially the capabilities of so-called Web 2.0 (scripting, AJAX and the like) - and economic changes forcing Web considerations into other departments in the corporate hierarchy, the role of the Web master has grown well beyond the individual with hands-on control over the medium. 

IT careers are on the bleeding edge of progress because the careers are evolving almost as quickly as the technology itself - in spite of the gray-heads who are trying to keep things stable until they can retire.  Other professions are changing rapidly as well - from engineering to medicine, from accounting to art - everyone is absorbing new tools and new goals enabled by those tools, into their career considerations.  But the IT professional is on the front line - which is what makes it exciting and - to some extent - dangerous.  That front line exposure is also what makes it rewarding in every sense of the word.

As we encourage new talent and young people to consider IT and computer science related paths to their new professions - we need to keep it honest - and make sure that everyone appreciates that IT is a whole-body full-immersion experience.  You can't phone it in - and you can't very long tinker along the edges.  IT is the career for the future - and the challenge is what makes it fun!

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)

New old technology - where has it been?

The purpose of this blog is not to tout new technology, but sometimes things happen that you simply can walk past.

Over 100 years ago, Nikola Tesla - one of the greatest inventors of all time - was working with the mysteries of electricity.  He got himself entangled in a wild variety of issues and arguments and personalities.  As a result, some of the more intriguing allusions and promises he made have been lost to us.  The results of his genius linger - we all use AC current in our homes today because of Tesla.  And movies like The Prestige (a wonderful flick, BTW - and wait till you see who plays Tesla) have revitalized his genius and his mystery.

One of the promises had to do with the wireless transmission of electricity.  Imagine the power of that concept.  Today, we have vastly improved the battery technology that makes electricity portable - compared to what it was in Tesla's day.  But he wasn't talking about batteries - he was talking about permanent wireless transmission.  An electrical grid, if you will, without the connectors - the wires.  Everyone thought Tesla was more than a little crazy - and in fact he was, especially in later years.  But now it turns out that scientists may have figured out a practical way to deliver on that long-ago promise.

MIT announced they have discovered a way to move electricity - in a sense - over the air. 

So why would anyone interested in the IT field, or considering new programs regarding IT Skills, care about this?  Because all the assumptions we make about anything stable in this field are ultimately worthless.  If ever there was a solid, immutable fact of life - it has been that most power, and the most reliable power, comes from a wired network.  No way around it.  But now we find that fundamental assumption challenged.  And that could radically change everything from systems security, to systems design, to daily operations - and probably more.

We have to make assumptions in order to plan at all.  But we have to learn that any of those assumptions can change at any moment, and we must have the intellectual tools and emotional stamina to accept those changes - and change our own assumptions and move on.

Could be - the most elemental IT Skill of all is the ability to accept - if not anticipate - change.  And - to some extent - the wildest most improbable change imaginable.

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)

First Dorkbot Columbus Event Announced!

October 17 will be a red-letter day for the central Ohio area - as the first Dorkbot Columbus event kicks off a season of get-togethers of "people doing strange things with electricity!"

Ken Rinaldo, professor of Art and Technology at Ohio State University, will present a report of his sabbatical work, at the Wexner Center at 6pm on Tuesday October 17.  That focus will take us on a tour of the world of Autoelematic Spiders - a project on which Rinaldo has been working.  It promises to be a great time - the Dorkbot Columbus Web site is now open for business, and contains all the details you need to attend - plus some information about future events.

Dorkbot groups are either opened or planned for Dayton and the Cleveland areas.  Check the main Dorkbot site for other locations around the world.

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)

The dark side of "innovation"

Link: United States Patent Application: 0050244804.

OK, this is completely nuts.  The US Patent and Trademark Office has made itself look foolish in recent years - from the joke application it took seriously to issue a patent on a tree swing, to the whole genre of "business process" patents - a lot of nutty stuff has entered the commercial and legal marketplace.  But the events of yesterday - Nov 3 2005 - pretty much take the cake. 

The USPTO has issued a provisional patent for - wait for it - a "story line."  To be clear: this is not a term of art that refers to some mechnical device - or even a productive process.  This refers - just as it sounds - to the description of a series of plot points in a story.  In this case, the story is called "The Zombie Stare" by Andrew F. Knight, of Canon GA.  The patent itself refers to "Process of relaying a story having a unique plot" but in fact the "process of relaying" is not defined, only the sequencing of plot points. 

Thus, this is literally a patent on the sequence of events described in a fictional story.  Not a copyright - a patent.  As Richard Stallman has pointed out - a large number of classic works would never have been able to be written if such rules were in place earlier in history (Stallman mentions Les Miserable by Vistor Hugo, but virtually all of Shakespeare -and a host of other "classic" works - are derived from other sources). 

Given that tradition in our culture - it is difficult - well, impossible, really - to see how issuing patents on storylines meets one the key goals of a patent system - cultivating creativity.  Has any amateur novelist ever been deterred from writing because of the liklihood he/she would never be published?  Not many.  But if any bad writer can stake a claim to a storyline, and then spend the rest of his/her life looking for a better writer to use it and make money off of it - who really cares about the tradition of literature?  What is the incentive of the good writer, then, to create a new work, knowing it would be impossible to know fior sure whether salient parts of the plot had already been claimed?

What a mess!  The current hit Broadway show Wicked! might not ever have got off the ground if L. Frank Baum had had the wits about him to patent the story of the Wizard of OZ.  Carried to its logical conclusion, there would be no more variations on Christmas stories or any other myths, fables or legends of the culture.  Even technical manuals and educational materials would be stymied - because they all describe sequences of events - like say, um, HISTORY! - that are the skeleton on which instruction is hung.

Where is the strong leader who has the weight to stand up and say "Enough of this nonsense is enough!"

If you think this is a completely nutty development – follow these steps:

             1.Write to your Congressperson
            2. Complete and mail (registered) your patent application for those comments
            3. Mail letter to Congressperson

It is difficult to see how progress can be helped by this turn of events - but I'd love to know about any ideas that show it can be helped.  Share with us - what possible good can come from this concept?

This is innovation alright - but it's not innovation that opens doors and extends horizons.  It's the innovation of greed and selfishness.  And that - along with institutionalizing the results of the greed and selfishness through a system of law - more than any other factor in this "World is Flat" era - may really be our biggest threat.

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)

RetroBox - recycling tech into profit

Link: RetroBox| CTC TechProfile.

While the so-called "venture capitalists" are off seeking easy paths to vast riches, innovative realists are building businesses in central Ohio.  High tech companies don't have to break through high barriers to achieve miracles, they must simply find a market needs and fill it.  Stampp Corbin and his team are building a future, along with a business center locally that the community should not overlook.

(-- originally posted by Rich Bowers, Coordinator, Ohio IT Clearinghouse)