8:14 PM
Whizz
This is featured post 1 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
This is featured post 2 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
This is featured post 3 title
Replace these every slider sentences with your featured post descriptions.Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these with your own descriptions.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The psychology of the sign off
The sign off is sometimes pursued and valued as though it were some kind of ancient idol. (The opening scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark comes to mind.) It's taken for granted that it's a necessary part of the processes we use to produce product. But what does the sign off really mean? When you get that signature on the document (or give yours), what is the sign off saying and what are the expectations of both parties going forward?
Webster's online dictionary defines "sign off" as:
to approve or acknowledge something by or as if by a signature <sign off on a memo">
Hey, that sounds pretty innocuous. I showed you something, or did something for you, and you're just signing a piece of paper that says you saw it, or I did it. But of course, the benign nature of that thought belies the social complexities and implications of what that signature really means.
On one level, it's an issue of trust. Why do you need my signature? Isn't it enough that I told you verbally that it's fine? If we worked in a world of implicit trust, that might be OK. But if you're the one looking for that signature from a manager or client, and heard that question, what are the chances you would respond "yes, sure, it's fine?" I say the chances are slim and none. If you could take it on verbal approval, then chances are:
- The decision or deliverable in question is very minor,
- Your organization is extremely small (and likely with a very flat organizational hierarchy), and/or
- You really DO work in an organization with a model of implicit trust (this is rare if (2) is not true).
So if we don't trust each other enough to take everything on verbal approval, the question is why not? What are we afraid will happen if something goes wrong?
In THAT question lies the core issue. It's not what happens when everything goes well ... when the product is delivered on time, on budget, free of defects. At that point, everyone is happy, and someone throws a party. Maybe the only person unhappy with the lack of formal sign off in that situation is the person whose job it is to make sure all the boxes were checked for process' sake.
But when things DO go wrong -- major defects make it into production ("QA is the problem"), business owners or customers report that product features aren't what they wanted ("Requirements are the problem") or delivery is very late or well over budget ("OK, who did it?") -- THAT is when the true nature of the formal sign off shows. That's when fingers get pointed and people dive for cover ... behind the sign off.
I submit that at its core, the formal sign off serves mainly as an abdication of responsibility for a deliverable, or transference of that responsibility to the signatory.
This is why people are so apprehensive to sign off. Because at worst, by signing, the signatory puts him/her self on the hook for the deliverable on which they've just signed off. They've accepted responsibility for something they've likely had no hand in producing, but for which they have to answer. And when things go wrong, they'll be left holding the bag. This is an issue of the culture of the process.
Imagine a large river being fed by several small streams. At the point where each stream feeds into the main river, there's a lock. Water flows from each stream into the main river, but once it's contributed a certain amount, the lock closes. When a storm hits at the mouth of the river, and water is pushed back upstream, the locks are closed and the streams are protected, but the main river (and its surrounding banks) is devastated. This is a metaphor for the classic sign off when things go wrong, and the real tragedy is that in this model, nobody is responsible for the successful delivery of the product (except maybe the last signatory). Everyone else has plausible deniability. If you're contributing to the product, and something goes wrong because of your work, but someone else signed off on it, you can make a case that you're not responsible because they accepted both your work product and the responsibility when they signed off. It doesn't mean they won't try to pin it on you, but in the spirit of legal documents, you hold up the paper and say "I have your signature right here. You said it was correct and authorized it."
Now, contrast this with the model we use in Agile, specifically Scrum. We take a cross functional team, combine that with a business Product Owner and a Scrum Master, and emphasize that together they are the team, together they are collectively responsible for the successful delivery (or failure) of the product. We move away from the silo mentality that fosters people protecting their camp (or stream) at the expense of the product. We move to putting the product first, by ensuring that the product owner is prioritizing the product backlog to ensure we're working on the items with the highest business value first, in every iteration. And we emphasize continuous, open communication on the team.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Agile or Scrum is some magic bullet to avoid the contentious atmosphere that the traditional sign off can foster. Is it possible to poison an Agile development effort by sticking to the old psychology of the sign off? Absolutely. What I am saying is that it provides a framework that can encourage the cultural change that is necessary to change that atmosphere. It's not in our nature and it's not easy ... it takes a willingness by the parties involved to give up the protection of the sign off, and sign up for shared success or failure. Implement this cultural shift in your team or organization, however, and trust and a shared sense of ownership of the product will cement the team together, stronger than the sum of its parts.
What's your sign?
This IT boss stomps into the printer room in a big hurry, reports a pilot fish working there.
"He ignored the warning notices about ensuring no loose clothing was worn near the shredder, and the obvious thing happened," fish says. "His tie got caught in the shredding machine and slowly drew him nearer and nearer to the machines.
"Another member of staff in the printer room at the time was laughing so much he could not help him.
"When he finally managed to stop the machine about three inches from his neck, the knot in the tie was the size of a dollar and we could only get him out of the tie by cutting it off around his neck.
"He did file a claim for a new silk tie from the company, but it was rejected, as he had ignored the warning signs."
Five steps before moving to Windows 7
It is "nearly inevitable" that businesses will migrate to Microsoft's upcoming operating system Windows 7 and they must examine some key issues before making the move, according to Gartner.
In an advisory released Friday, the research firm outlined five key areas companies should evaluate to prepare their migration to the new OS when it is officially launched Oct. 22.
1. Plan to be off Windows XP before end-2012.
Enterprises that had skipped Vista should plan to be leave Win XP by the end of 2012. According to Gartner, while Microsoft will support Win XP with security fixes until April 2014, past experience has shown that independent software vendors (ISVs) will stop testing their apps much earlier. In fact, ISVs will start limiting their support for Win XP after 2011.
Enterprises that had skipped Vista should plan to be leave Win XP by the end of 2012. According to Gartner, while Microsoft will support Win XP with security fixes until April 2014, past experience has shown that independent software vendors (ISVs) will stop testing their apps much earlier. In fact, ISVs will start limiting their support for Win XP after 2011.
"New releases of critical business software will require Windows 7 long before Microsoft support for Win XP ends," Steve Kleynhans, research vice president at Gartner, said in the report. "Organizations that get all of their users off Win XP by the end of 2012 will avoid significant potential problems."
2. Start work on migration plans now.
A typical organization requires 12 to 18 months of waiting, testing and planning before it can start deploying a new client OS, Gartner explained.
A typical organization requires 12 to 18 months of waiting, testing and planning before it can start deploying a new client OS, Gartner explained.
There is also a lot of work to be done in preparation, and delays in getting started will only result in added costs later.
3. Don't wait for Windows 7 SP 1.
Gartner cautioned against waiting Windows 7 Service Pack 1 to begin testing and deploying the new platform, noting that many companies are likely planning to wait until SP1 ships before starting their tests. Instead, organizations should start work now, especially if companies have skipped Windows Vista.
Gartner cautioned against waiting Windows 7 Service Pack 1 to begin testing and deploying the new platform, noting that many companies are likely planning to wait until SP1 ships before starting their tests. Instead, organizations should start work now, especially if companies have skipped Windows Vista.
4. Don't skip Windows 7.
In May 2009, Gartner advised companies to skip Vista and wait for Windows 7, because the latter has important features that Vista did not have. These new tweaks will help improve organizations' abilities to deploy the new platform.
In May 2009, Gartner advised companies to skip Vista and wait for Windows 7, because the latter has important features that Vista did not have. These new tweaks will help improve organizations' abilities to deploy the new platform.
The research house pointed out that Windows 7 is not a major architectural release, focusing mainly on "polishing" or fine-tuning the OS, and builds on the deeper "plumbing" changes Microsoft made in Windows Vista. However, Windows 7 carries improvements in memory management that will allow users to have a better experience than that on Vista, explained Michael Silver, vice president and analyst at Gartner.
5. Budget with care.
Companies should plan their budgets carefully as migration costs vary significantly, depending on the OS the organization has. Gartner estimated that it will cost US$339 to US$510 per user to move from Windows Vista to Windows 7, and US$1,035 to US$1,930 per user to move from Windows XP to Windows 7.
Companies should plan their budgets carefully as migration costs vary significantly, depending on the OS the organization has. Gartner estimated that it will cost US$339 to US$510 per user to move from Windows Vista to Windows 7, and US$1,035 to US$1,930 per user to move from Windows XP to Windows 7.
Seven ways companies go wrong with SOA
Remember, SOA is a journey, not a quick overnight fix. It’s a transformative process that your organization will follow for the long run.
A few years back, I put together a list of where companies appeared to be steering in the wrong direction in terms of SOA implementations. The list bears repeating, because the issues still keep getting in the way of SOA success. Many companies run the risk of jumping into the approach without looking at where they are leaping. Here are the most common pitfalls that could tie an SOA installation into knots.
1) Viewing SOA as a global, enterprise-scale project involving the entire enterprise: An SOA need not be a galactic initiative that sucks up resources all across the enterprise. In fact, one of the beauties of SOA that it can start small and simple, deployed across a single business process. Definitions of SOA vary, but SOA can start with something as simple as some Web services that accomplish an end-to-end process, such as fulfilling a purchase order.
2) Looking to a single vendor to offer very complete SOA solutions:There’s no such thing as buying an SOA solution; there’s no such thing as SOA in a box, no matter what a vendor may tell you. SOA is not a product that a vendor can ship to you for installation over the weekend. Rather, SOA is a philosophy around developing your infrastructure using those vendor tools. If you have a J2EE or .NET Framework, you have a framework. An SOA is what you eventually do with those frameworks.
3) Assuming that SOA will automatically grow out of a primordial soup of Web services: Many companies think they have SOA when they actually have a JBOWS (Just a Bunch of Web Services) architecture. Somehow, there’s an assumption out there that a spaghetti architecture of Web services will somehow evolve into something resembling a full-functioning SOA. Actually, it’s possible (but not advisable) to build an SOA-enabled infrastructure with no Web services at all. An organization could have 1,000 Web services, but unless these services work in concert to address specific end-to-end business processes, that does not an SOA make. One additional point about JBOWS, however — there’s nothing wrong with being in the JBOWS stage of evolution, because that’s what it is, a stage of the evolution. But don’t expect the full-fledged agility of SOA at this stage — that’s where the disappointment has crept in.
4) Build it, and they will come: SOA is not an illuminated ballpark in the middle of a cornfield that can be seen from miles around. No one will take advantage of an SOA-enabled infrastructure if they don’t know where to find it, or even if it exists. There’s a rule that if developers have to spend more than 10 minutes to find what they are looking for (and don’t find it), they will create it themselves. An SOA will never be of value if it’s confined to one silo of the organization, and its components are not made available and shared across business unit. An SOA service built, managed, and used by one business unit will cost just as much as any other legacy application.
5) Assuming that businesspeople don’t, or won’t, understand SOA:Actually, most people on the business side can intuitively grasp the potential savings and opportunities an SOA can bring. And Enterprise 2.0 and the cloud dynamic really drives the points about service orientation home on the business side. The potential of reusing services across various business units, versus paying developers to rebuild a new service in each instance, is Management and Finance 101. The difficult part is building and managing such an infrastructure, applying IT governance, monitoring, and management to ensure that services are kept up and running, are scalable, and perform well.
6) Assuming that IT people don’t, or won’t understand the business: It’s time to put this misconception, which has been weaving its way through conferences, articles, and analyst reports for years, to rest. Indeed, SOA needs to be a multi-disciplinary, cooperative effort between IT and other departments. However, IT is part of the business, and IT professionals’ paychecks are signed by the business. Most IT departments understand that they play a vital role in moving the business forward. However, inevitably, specs and priorities will change during the life of a project, and that’s why projects fail. It’s incumbent on both IT and business users to keep each other informed; both have a financial stake in the business’s success.
7) Treating SOA as something far superior to a mere mortal “project:”SOA success is delivered one project at a time. If you have been to any number of SOA conferences, or tuned into the multitude of SOA Webcasts, you probably have heard the message over and over again that “SOA is more than just another project.” Yes, true. SOA does represent a new way of thinking, and will transform your IT, and ultimately, your business processes. However, SOA still needs to be treated as a project, with the same deliberate planning of timelines, establishment of baselines, and measurement of key performance indicators as other large IT projects. SOA requires executive buy-in, it requires resources, and it requires proof that it is paying off.
Americans do not agree on global warming
From alarmed to dismissive, all over the American map Americans are all over the map on global warming. A survey by Yale and George Mason University researchers found Americans deeply split, and placed the various general public opinions about climate change into six general types.
You can find the full report here. Now, the six types:
The Alarmed, (18 percent of the population) are most convinced that global warming is happening, caused by humans, and a serious and urgent threat.
The Concerned (33 percent) believe global warming is a serious problem and support an active national response, but are less personally involved and have taken fewer actions than the Alarmed.
The Concerned (33 percent) believe global warming is a serious problem and support an active national response, but are less personally involved and have taken fewer actions than the Alarmed.
The Cautious (19 percent) believe global warming is a problem, but are less certain it is happening. They neither view it as a personal threat nor feel a sense of urgency about it.
The Disengaged (12 percent) do not know much about global warming or whether it is happening and have not thought much about the issue.
The Doubtful (11 percent) are not sure whether global warming is happening, but believe that, if it is, it is caused by natural environmental changes and is a distant threat.
The Dismissive (7 percent) are actively engaged in the issue, but believe that global warming is not happening and does not warrant a national response.
The Dismissive (7 percent) are actively engaged in the issue, but believe that global warming is not happening and does not warrant a national response.
This is going to blow some fuses among global warming deniers
Now it seems the marching song of some global warming activists is “Onward Christian Soldiers.” This “take action” tour is led by Reverend Tafue Molu Lausam, a Christian pastor and activist from the South Pacific island of Tuvalu; Sara Kaweesa, who works with the Christian conservation group A-Rocha in Kampala, Uganda; and Peter Ilyn, executive director ofRestoring Eden. Tuvalu is a low-lying island nation in the Pacifric that feels threatened with extinction by rising sea levels.
“The climate change policies of the industrialized nations are destroying innocent people elsewhere in the world, especially in the small low lying island countries in the Pacific,” said Rev. Lusama. “I must carry on this advocacy work to the global church until the world hears and decides on a positive, coherent and meaningful deal for stopping climate change and the tragic impacts that are threatening our very survival.”
The trio is touring Christian churches and colleges throughout the south and Midwest. Bleeding hearts in the heartland, so to speak.
Through the long years of argument over global warming in America it’s been the blue states and the more secular forces of environmental groups arguing for global warming action. More fundamentalist Christian groups have often been aligned with the forces that favor no government intervention, freedom for corporations and overall skepticism about global warming. Denial even. Apparently the good reverend from Tuvalu has now turned to his fellow man for some help, prayer not providing a ready answer at this time.
In some quarters there’s been official church effort to get global warming dealt with. The current Pope, has long been concerned about global warming.* And several Protestant demoninations have also taken public stands in favor of global action on global warming.
* Two previous sentences in this blog were not meant to denigrate the Pope, nor ignore his serious attention to global warming two years ago. I apologize if it appeared that this blog was taking a religious, or anti-religious position.
The perfect computer?
Do we have the technology to build a perfect computer? Would it be perfect for a specific purpose or is it possible to build a perfect general purpose computer? Computers seem to be getting cheaper, but are they getting better?
The last question is easy to answer…certainly not! The other questions are a little more difficult to answer. In order to build a perfect computer we would need to understand and address all of the problems that today’s computers have.
Static electricity
The computers primary components,- the motherboard, processor, add-in cards and memory -- are all vulnerable to electrostatic discharges. This is the common everyday static that you get from rubbing your feet on a carpet and it will instantly destroy any of the computer’s electronic components that it comes into contact with.. This weakness must be fully understood and managed in order to make a perfect computer.
The computers primary components,- the motherboard, processor, add-in cards and memory -- are all vulnerable to electrostatic discharges. This is the common everyday static that you get from rubbing your feet on a carpet and it will instantly destroy any of the computer’s electronic components that it comes into contact with.. This weakness must be fully understood and managed in order to make a perfect computer.
Michael Faraday, a British Physicist widely known for his invention of the electric motor in the 1830’s, solved this problem centuries ago when working with Van de Graff generators. He built a steel cage (today called a Faraday cage) around the operator to protect them from man-made lightning strikes. The steel bars absorbed and grounded the lightning strikes and the operator inside the cage was perfectly safe from the multi-billion volt lighting strikes. We see this same solution today in cars where the outer metal shell of the car keeps the occupants inside safe from lightning strikes. In order to render the computers components impervious to electrostatic discharges we need a “full metal jacket” around the computer. If we build the computer case out of a lightweight metal conductor like aluminum or titanium and remove any plastic, we can completely remove any problems associated with static electricity.
The all-metal case should also be designed for easy service and every component should be removable, off-the-shelf and industry standard. Hard drives should be able to be accessed from the front without opening the computer. The Motherboard should be on a slider for easy removal. All components should be easily accessed and easily removed. There should not be any proprietary components in the computer so that any qualified technician can work on it. The case should use thumbscrews exclusively, so that no tools are required to work on the machine.
Heat
Today’s computers still produce enough heat that the problem has to be addressed and properly managed in order to build a perfect computer. Plastic cases, commonly used in less expensive computers, don’t dissipate heat as well as metal ones. Also, plastic cases are a source of static that actually act as an insulator to trap heat inside the computer. To address the problems associated with heat we need to do three things:
Today’s computers still produce enough heat that the problem has to be addressed and properly managed in order to build a perfect computer. Plastic cases, commonly used in less expensive computers, don’t dissipate heat as well as metal ones. Also, plastic cases are a source of static that actually act as an insulator to trap heat inside the computer. To address the problems associated with heat we need to do three things:
1) Make a metal case for the computer that is the appropriate size
2) Carefully manage the airflow inside the computer case
3) Manage and monitor the fans that are driving the airflow
2) Carefully manage the airflow inside the computer case
3) Manage and monitor the fans that are driving the airflow
Concerning the first issue, don’t just assume that the smaller the better. The best way to manage heat problems is to have a case large enough to make airflow and heat management easy and simple. Most quality motherboards monitor the CPU fan and the chip temperature these days, but why not put a Plexiglas window in the computer case so that all the fans can be monitored with quick glance inside the computer.
Power
The next computer problem is power spikes and brown outs. The power supply of a perfect computer would be a critical component for many reasons. In order to build a perfect computer we need a power supply that is insulated so that it will not burn out any of our other internal components if it ever fails. Most power supplies in the “cheap” computers that are available today are vastly underpowered. Electric power is prone to spikes and brown-outs in residential and light industrial environments. In fact, brown outs are fairly common and electrical grids will at times go down from 110 to 55 volts. Anything below 55 volts will generally trip breakers at the power company and become a blackout rather than a brown out.
The next computer problem is power spikes and brown outs. The power supply of a perfect computer would be a critical component for many reasons. In order to build a perfect computer we need a power supply that is insulated so that it will not burn out any of our other internal components if it ever fails. Most power supplies in the “cheap” computers that are available today are vastly underpowered. Electric power is prone to spikes and brown-outs in residential and light industrial environments. In fact, brown outs are fairly common and electrical grids will at times go down from 110 to 55 volts. Anything below 55 volts will generally trip breakers at the power company and become a blackout rather than a brown out.
So let’s take a look at that and do the math. Most inexpensive desktop computers ship with a 230 watt power supply and the load on that power supply is generally about 185 watts. So if that computer gets hit with a 55 volt brown out (amps x volts equals watts so if the volts get cut in half the watts get cut in half) then we have a 115 watt power supply trying to handle 185 watts. The truth is, that machine will fail and power down. Even if you paid a little more for your computer and got a 300 watt power supply, it is still underpowered and is still likely to go down in the scenario described above.
A perfect computer would need to have enough excess capacity to allow it to continue working through a 55 volt brown out. So let’s say that we install a 700 watt fully insulated power supply (these do exist). Let’s also assume that our perfect computer has a few more bells and whistles, so it can run at about 215 watts of load. Now when we get hit by that 55 volt spike, the 700 watt power supply becomes a 350 watt power supply pulling 215 watts of load. It will continue working through that 55 volt spike with no problem while every other computer in the area affected by the brown-out goes down.
Capacity
In mechanical engineering it is fairly well-known that machines that are running close to full capacity generally have short, problematic lives and machines running at low capacity generally have long, productive lives. This is why automotive engineers have to build cars that will go 120 to 130 miles per hour in order to have them go 70 mph all day long and not break down. That computer with a 230 watt power supply pulling 185 watts of load is running at 80 percent of capacity. A perfect computer would want to be running at about 35 percent of capacity. Again, some quick math shows that a 700 watt power supply pulling 215 watts of load is running at about 31 percent of capacity.
In mechanical engineering it is fairly well-known that machines that are running close to full capacity generally have short, problematic lives and machines running at low capacity generally have long, productive lives. This is why automotive engineers have to build cars that will go 120 to 130 miles per hour in order to have them go 70 mph all day long and not break down. That computer with a 230 watt power supply pulling 185 watts of load is running at 80 percent of capacity. A perfect computer would want to be running at about 35 percent of capacity. Again, some quick math shows that a 700 watt power supply pulling 215 watts of load is running at about 31 percent of capacity.
Motherboards and Chips
In the past if we had done everything described above we would most likely have had a computer that ran trouble free for five to seven years and then, despite its near perfection became obsolete and ended up in a landfill. Clearly, a perfect computer would not end up in a landfill. Several computer and motherboard manufacturers have tried to address this problem by introducing motherboards that can be upgraded in the hopes of keeping them out of landfills. In every case they failed because of Moore’s law which says that chip technology doubles every 18 – 24 months. Chip technology just moves too fast. It is impossible for the motherboard manufacturers to anticipate how the next generation of chips will perform and the upgrades that were available for those upgradeable motherboards were still obsolete three to four years out.
In the past if we had done everything described above we would most likely have had a computer that ran trouble free for five to seven years and then, despite its near perfection became obsolete and ended up in a landfill. Clearly, a perfect computer would not end up in a landfill. Several computer and motherboard manufacturers have tried to address this problem by introducing motherboards that can be upgraded in the hopes of keeping them out of landfills. In every case they failed because of Moore’s law which says that chip technology doubles every 18 – 24 months. Chip technology just moves too fast. It is impossible for the motherboard manufacturers to anticipate how the next generation of chips will perform and the upgrades that were available for those upgradeable motherboards were still obsolete three to four years out.
There is a solution to this problem. If the motherboard assembly was built onto a removable slider for easy service and the machine was built with entirely off-the-shelf industry standard components (as opposed to proprietary technology) then the motherboard and chip could be replaced fairly easily and instead of throwing the entire computer into a landfill we just toss the motherboard and chip. We would then get a new motherboard and chip and get another five to seven years out of it and then toss the motherboard and chip again indefinitely. While this is somewhat less than perfect it is in fact an 80 plus percent improvement over current practices.
Usage
Arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the perfect computer would be to get the end user to keep the computer off the floor. They are called “desktops” for good reason. If your computer is living on the floor it essentially becomes a very expensive dust filter and kick collector. The careful management of airflow described earlier makes for a computer case with negative air pressure (lower than the surrounding environment) so that all manner of animal hair and dust bunnies end up inside the machine. That five inch board on the wall right behind your computer is called a kickboard also for good reason.
Arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the perfect computer would be to get the end user to keep the computer off the floor. They are called “desktops” for good reason. If your computer is living on the floor it essentially becomes a very expensive dust filter and kick collector. The careful management of airflow described earlier makes for a computer case with negative air pressure (lower than the surrounding environment) so that all manner of animal hair and dust bunnies end up inside the machine. That five inch board on the wall right behind your computer is called a kickboard also for good reason.
Customization
Lastly a perfect computer would have to be a custom machine designed for a specific purpose. While we all know that there are tens and probably even hundreds of thousands of applications available for Windows… we all also know what happens to a computer if you load even just a hundred applications onto it. A perfect computer would have everything described above, be designed for specific applications and have a very finite number of applications (ideally less than a dozen) running on it.
Lastly a perfect computer would have to be a custom machine designed for a specific purpose. While we all know that there are tens and probably even hundreds of thousands of applications available for Windows… we all also know what happens to a computer if you load even just a hundred applications onto it. A perfect computer would have everything described above, be designed for specific applications and have a very finite number of applications (ideally less than a dozen) running on it.
It is certainly possible to build the machine described above. Is it perfect? Well it is at least the best machine available today and will last a lifetime. In that lifetime, the user will not only be driving the best machine available, they will end up spending far less money than the user who puts a machine into a landfill every three years.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Malaysian govt defends action in Web censorship
Malaysia's Ministry of Information Communication and Culture has rebuffed allegations the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) abused its power in controlling the new media and condemns comparisons to Adolph Hitler's secret Nazi police "Gestapo".
The ministry said in a statement Thursday the allegations showed that certain groups were attempting to tarnish the image and ridicule the commission as an independent body that regulates the country's Internet facilities and content.
"The ministry takes a serious view of the incorrect and baseless accusations. The commission acts based on the powers provided under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998," according to the statement, published in a report by the national news agency Bernama.
It noted that regulatory measures undertaken by the MCMC, Malaysia's ICT regulator, had always been "transparent, fair and balanced".
"In fact, the commission is an agency that upholds and protects government policies. This has been proven because to date, Malaysia is among the countries that do not impose any restriction on the Internet, except for Web sites that contain pornography, threats to the national security and fraud," the ministry said. It confirmed that certain sites had been closed through legal processes, in line with provisions under the Communications and Multimedia Act.
The ministry said comments by owners of Web sites that had accused the MCMC of purportedly closing down their sites and acting like Gestapo were "slanderous". "What had occurred on the day in question was a technical disruption that resulted in the Web sites concerned to be inaccessible to the public," it said.
It further advised these sites to refrain from writing articles not based on facts and that were slanderous, and called on the public not to be influenced by unfounded accusations.
The ministry did not specify the sites it referred to in its statement but in the past month, the MCMC has been accused of pulling the plug on Malaysia Today, a blog known for its anti-government stand.
The Commission had also been investigating online political news portal Malaysiakini over the posting of two allegedly offensive video clips. The political news site later refused to comply with a Sep. 3 order issued by the MCMC to remove the videos.
The investigation had generated a deluge of negative publicity for the government, including statements from international lobby groups describing the MCMC's action against Malaysiakini as "harassment".
M'sian operator to offer WiMax services in S'pore
Green Packet, through its newly incorporated subsidiary, Packet One (P1) Singapore, has inked an agreement to take over Pacnet's Facilities-based Operator (FBO) license and Wireless Broadband Access (WBA) rights in the island-state.
The deal, if approved, will effectively allow P1 to provide WiMax services in Singapore. The wireless broadband service provider is also a WiMax licensee in Malaysia. Announced Thursday evening, the new agreement is pending approval from Singapore's ICT regulator Infocomm Development Authority (IDA).
According to P1, it currently sits among the world's top five WiMax operators in terms of network size and subscriber base. The company added that the deal will enable better roaming capabilities between the two neighboring countries.
"Our latest partnership will enable Green Packet to support the highly demanding mobile data market in Singapore, enabling consumers to enjoy world class WiMax solutions," Pacnet Singapore's country manager Jacques Grezaud, said in the press statement. "The transfer of this FBO license and WBA spectrum right in Singapore is in line with our strategy of divesting non-core assets and growing our partner network to better serve our customers."
Citing figures from Informa, P1 said the subscriber base of high-speed mobile services is growing, where Singapore's top three wireless broadband operators increased their subscriber numbers on average by some 150 percent to 710,000 subscribers last year.
Frequent travelers between the two countries also stand to gain with the improved roaming experience. Last year's tourism figures put cross-border visitor arrivals between both nations totaled almost 11.7 million.
P1 has committed to offering supplementary bandwidth, which it said would help minimize network congestion for existing telcos, and plans to provide mobility capabilities that fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) players can bundle to complement their services.
Ideal testbed site
Singapore's advanced mobile data demand and tech-savvy market represents ideal conditions for P1 to reference and testbed its products, according to the Malaysia-based company. In particular, the Republic will aid the operator to "develop innovative seamless mobility technology and applications".
Singapore's advanced mobile data demand and tech-savvy market represents ideal conditions for P1 to reference and testbed its products, according to the Malaysia-based company. In particular, the Republic will aid the operator to "develop innovative seamless mobility technology and applications".
It added that the proximity of P1's Singapore outlet to Malaysia also allows the company to tap existing services in Kuala Lumpur, such as billing systems and customer service support, thus, leading to cost savings.
C. C. Puan, Green Packet's group CEO and group managing director, said in the press statement: "P1's extension into Singapore is a first step toward the company's mission to build a multi-market, pan-regional footprint and to become Southeast Asia's leading 4G WiMax operator."
Malaysia fines laggard WiMax licensees
KUALA LUMPUR--Malaysia's telecommunications regulator has fined three of the country's four WiMax licensees a total of 3.8 million ringgit (US$1.1 million) for failing to meet the required network coverage.
According to local media reports, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) earlier this month sent letters containing the result of its audit on network coverage by the four WiMax licensees. The regulator had reportedly instructed a drawdown of the performance bond or bank guarantee parked as a way to compel compliance.
The penalties are seen as a sign the government is losing patience with the mobile operators, which were awarded WiMax licenses in March 2007.
The MCMC then had given licensees until year-end to ensure their network coverage spanned 25 percent of the population in their allotted areas. It later extended the deadline to end-2008 and issued a warning that failure to comply could result in licenses being revoked. Information, Communications, Culture and Arts Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim also recently reminded the MCMC to ensure providers delivered on what they had promised.
Only Packet One Networks (P1) met the target and was spared the indignity of being sanctioned.
YTL E-Solutions, the only licensee that has yet to roll out commercial services, received the heftiest penalty of 1.9 million ringgit (US$555,190). Asiaspace was fined 1.7 million ringgit (US496,750), while REDtone International escaped with a lower 210,000 ringgit (US$61,363) penalty.
License safe, awaiting appeals
For now, at least, the three companies have dodged the bullet and will retain their licenses.
For now, at least, the three companies have dodged the bullet and will retain their licenses.
YTL E-Solutions, part of Malaysian conglomerate YTL Group, and REDtone have appealed against the fines meted out by MCMC. In a statement Thursday, YTL-E said its WiMax-subsidiary Y-MAX Networks (YMN) was awaiting a response from the MCMC.
The operator said it failed to meet the requirement due to a change in its business plan, deciding to build a nationwide network instead of a piecemeal rollout. This revised deployment would result in YMN exceeding the targeted coverage stated by the MCMC "by next year", the company said.
REDtone Group CEO Zainal Amanshah admitted the company had been fined and had submitted an appeal asking to be spared the cash penalty.
"We have made a strong appeal because we know we have done everything in our power to fulfil our commitments. We are discussing this issue with MCMC and we believe MCMC will consider the merits of our appeal and do the right thing by retracting the fine," Zainal said, in a report by The Edge Financial Daily.
YTL had planned to invest up to 2.5 billion ringgit (US$731 million) over the next five years for its WiMax rollout, while AsiaSpace was looking to raise 300 million ringgit (US$87.7 million) after investing close to 100 million ringgit (US$29.2 million) to date. REDtone had planned to raise 40 million ringgit (US$11.7 million).
P1 said it has invested 300 million ringgit (US$87.7 million) and plans to invest another 1 billion ringgit (US$292.2 million) over the next five years.
Its relative success in the market has seen P1 being given greater leeway by the MCMC, which earlier this month gave the go-ahead for the company to expand its services into East Malaysia--previously REDtone's exclusive designated operating area.
P1, YTL E-Solutions and Asiaspace's area of operation was limited to Peninsular Malaysia, while REDtone's was limited to the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak.
P1 also has plans to expand across the region in a bid to build up its WiMax business. Its parent company Green Packet, through its newly incorporated subsidiary Packet One Singapore, last week inked an agreement to take over Pacnet's Facilities-based Operator (FBO) license and Wireless Broadband Access (WBA) rights in Singapore. The deal, if approved, will effectively allow P1 to provide WiMax services in the island-state.
Google open sources Wave components
Google has open sourced two components of its Wave project, as part of a drive to get third-party developers interested in the communications and collaboration platform.
In a blog post on Friday, Google Wave engineers Jochen Bekmann and Sam Thorogood said Google had released two components of Wave under the Apache 2.0 license: the Operational Transform (OT) code, and a basic client/server application prototype based on the Wave protocol.
"While these are still early days for the federation protocol and open-source project, our vision for Wave recognizes the importance of encouraging and promoting third-party implementations, so users and businesses are able to customize and manage everything from the ground up," wrote Bekmann and Thorogood. "We've also Creative Commons-licensed the protocol specification, the white papers and the Google Wave APIs documentation."
Wave, announced in May, is a set of technologies and software designed to combine email, instant messaging, social networking and document collaboration. In Google's terminology, a 'wave' is a conversation including aspects of all these different types of communication.
Waves are intended to be viewed as live documents that can be edited by multiple users in real time. They can be accessed via a dedicated client or embedded in websites or social-networking tools via Wave application programming interfaces (APIs).
Of the two components being released, the OT code is the primary algorithm that manages the collaborative experience inside Wave, Google said. The version that has been released as open source is more highly developed than the algorithm implemented in Google's own servers, according to Bekmann and Thorogood.
The client/server application prototype, the other code released, is intended as a basic implementation to encourage experimentation with the Wave Federation Protocol, the underlying network protocol for sharing waves between wave providers, they said. In total, nearly 40,000 lines of Java code has been released, according to Google.
The source code was released as part of a Google-hosted event on 21 July, according to Bekmann and Thorogood. The event, called Federation Day, brought together 150 developers interested in contributing to the Google Wave Federation Protocol.
The code is available from the Google Wave Federation Protocol website.
Google has said it plans to release Google Wave to about 100,000 beta-test users on 30 September.
How will you use Google Wave?
It may have only been launched a few months ago but Google's Wave collaboration platform is already attracting attention from businesses, according to one of the key architects of the service.
Lars Rasmussen, Google's software engineering manager and co-creator of Wave, said unlike typical Google services, Wave has stoked early interest among both consumers and enterprises.
"Google is a company whose products usually start by capturing the imagination of consumers and then business gets interested but we have already had an enormous amount of interest [from companies]," Rasmussen told the SAP TechEd conference in Vienna yesterday.
The service, announced earlier this year, allows multiple users to chat and work together in real-time within a window Google is calling a 'wave'. In the window, people can exchange real-time IM, photos, videos, maps and documents.
Rasmussen predicted businesses will use Wave to collaborate on writing documents, decision-making and co-ordinating department workflows.
Chinese domain names coming soon to S'pore
SINGAPORE--Starting Nov. 23, businesses and consumers in the country will be able to register URL or Web addresses based on Chinese characters.
In a statement released Tuesday, national domain registrar Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) said it will accept registration for Chinese domain names across second-level and third-level addresses ending with ".sg", ".com.sg", ".org.sg", ".edu.sg" and ".gov.sg".
Registration will be rolled out in phases, starting with government agencies on Nov. 23. Trademark holders and others will have to wait until January 2010 before they can register URL addresses based on Chinese characters.
Chinese domain names will provide greater user choice and add to the range of domain names currently available here, Lim Choon Sai, SGNIC's general manager, said in the press release.
"We believe this is timely given the growing interest, especially among businesses here, to reach the Chinese markets, which may feel more comfortable using their own language," said Lim.
According to SGNIC, countries such as China, Japan and Korea, where English is not the primary language, already offer domain names in their native language.
SGNIC will begin offering Chinese domain name registrations in three phases, charging a premium for those that register in the initial stages. After the first phase launches on Nov. 23, targeted for government agencies, the second phase will commence Jan. 7, 2010, and will be open for trademark holders that have registered their trademarks with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore. The third phase will begin Mar. 25 next year and applicants will have to fork out a priority fee.
The general public launch for Chinese domain names will begin from Jun. 10, 2010, according to SGNIC, which noted it will monitor market demand and developments to determine whether it domain names in other languages should be offered.
SGNIC in 2005 had run trials on multilingual domain names.
3FA not priority for Asian banks, regulators
Regulators and financial institutions in the region are still working to ensure two-factor authentication (2FA) is implemented well, and are unlikely to adopt an additional authentication layer for banking customers yet, says an industry analyst.
Shawn Yip, Asia-Pacific market analyst for IDC's Financial Insights, told ZDNet Asia 2FA has only "recently" been mandated in some countries and "may still be more of a best practice than regulation".
From a regulatory point of view, there does not seem to be a significant push for three-factor authentication (3FA), he said in an e-mail interview.
"Before attempting to impose additional regulatory burden, the authorities would first consider the success of existing form factors currently in place to authenticate transactions, while engaging the banks and their service providers in industry consultations," said Yip. "Of course, they may also take the lead from a proven 3FA success story with a compelling business case."
Two-factor authentication typically requires online banking users to submit a static password, followed by a one-time password (OTP) that is generated by hardware or software tokens, or sent as a SMS from their bank. Within the region, countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore mandate 2FA for data-sensitive transactions, such as third-party fund transfers. In Singapore, 2FA is also required for log-in to online banking accounts.
In an e-mail, a spokesperson from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) said the regulator recognizes that the OTP needs to be adequately protected for the continued effectiveness of 2FA. As such, it issued in July a circular requiring institutions under its purview to implement a number of security measures to guard against Internet banking fraud.
"We believe the measures taken so far are effective," the spokesperson noted. "Nevertheless, the HKMA will closely monitor the trend of fraudulent techniques, and also continue to work with the Hong Kong Police Force and the banking industry to enhance the ongoing customer education program, and further strengthen Internet banking security precautionary measures as appropriate."
ZDNet Asia's sister site ZDNet Australia last month reported that the National Australia Bank was considering implementing 3FA. The bank, which currently uses SMS as a second authentication layer for some transactions, said it was looking at voiceprints as a potential third layer.
According to Yip, NAB appears to be leveraging existing call center investments in speech or voice recognition. He added that banks with the necessary infrastructure investments in place would find it easier to exercise the shift toward 3FA.
The IDC analyst explained that banks in Singapore and the region were unlikely to place 3FA high on their priority list. Instead, they will likely focus on resolving "lingering issues with existing 2FA" rollouts, such as customer dissatisfaction over the inconvenience of physical tokens.
In addition, it was also "difficult to quantify the benefits specific to adding an additional layer of authentication", other than intangible ones such as customer peace of mind, he noted.
Banks ZDNet Asia contacted were unable to share their plans on 3FA implementation, though these banks indicated they would monitor needs and adhere to industry practices.
Rajesh Yohannan, Asia-Pacific head of e-business at Citibank, said in an e-mail that authentication of identity for online transactions "is a fine balance" between ensuring security and making it convenient for customers to adopt.
"Citi already has dual-factor authentication in place that is sufficiently robust for proper customer identification and verification of transactions," Yohannan said. "However, we continue to monitor and evaluate alternative authentication methods including biometricssolutions for our future needs."
A spokesperson from local banking group UOB said in an e-mail: "We are always looking for ways to protect customers online. That said, the level of security we provide must be appropriate and aligned with local conditions."
Standard Chartered Bank also said it would "continue to move in tandem with changes in the industry and implement industry practices".
According to a spokesperson from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), biometrics are "not a panacea with omnipotent effectiveness" even though they can prove to be convenient and effective security tools for some systems. Particularly with large-scale deployments, she noted, it is important to first understand where biometrics do and where they do not work.
"Biometrics are hard to forge but they are not secrets. When used intelligently with other authentication factors, such as PINs and OTPs, they would enhance the security of financial services systems either as two-factor or three-factor authentication solutions," she explained in an e-mail interview.
Technology risk management guidelines, outlined by the MAS, for the banking, securities and insurance industries "envisage different permutations of three authentication factors--what you know, what you have and who you are--to strengthen the security of systems in the financial sector", she noted. "We also encourage financial institutions to constantly assess the viability and applicability of biometric solutions."
Apple to reinvent Apple TV...for the rest of us
It seems Apple is rethinking its TV strategy, in a way that might--if the company can pull it off--give consumers the option to pay Apple less than half as much as they currently pay their cable or satellite provider for a monthly TV subscription.
According to All Things Digital’s Peter Kafka, Apple has been trying to convince programmers to make their shows available as part of a subscription, available via iTunes. The monthly price would be around US$30, he reports.
We’ve heard these rumors before--but that doesn’t mean they’re not true. And the approach makes sense. It would give consumers more of what they really want--a lower bill, anywhere access, without having to buy another gizmo.
It also fixes some problems with Apple’s current TV plans. It’s clear, by Steve Jobs’ own admission, that the company’s Apple TV device is mostly for hobbyists. The products tepid sales may be less a reflection of the product’s quality, than of the simple fact that most humans conceive of TV as a service—something that is simply delivered into their homes, not something they have to buy, set-up and repair. It’s no surprise that Apple tried this approach first; it’s the ultimate “product company,” filled with employees (and a CEO) that like coming to work to create some neat new object of desire. But unlike other forms of media (music fans, for instance, have long purchased their music in the form of a product such as a vinyl album, CD or digital download), TV viewers have always paid that monthly cable or satellite bill (or received terrestrial broadcast TV service for free).
The new subscription approach also fits with what’s happening in the world.Technologically, it fits with the rapid rise of digital streaming, in which a consumer views a piece of content that resides out on the Internet, as opposed to having to store a copy of that content on the hard drive in their PC, iPod or iPhone. So long as the content can be delivered in this manner glitch-free, streamed content fits better with how many people want to get their digital video: on whatever screen is most convenient. While the Apple TV might appeal to people that are fixated on watching Web-fare on their big screen TV, more people I know are far more interested in getting TV content, and any other kind of content, onto their laptop, PC or smartphone.
No company is as well positioned to satisfy this demand than Apple. Many carriers have plans to make their content available in more numerous, and interesting ways. Microsoft continues to push its “Three Screens and a Cloud” vision. But only Apple has iTunes. Hundreds of millions of people have this program installed on their PCs, Macs, iPods and iPhones, and more than 75 million have an ongoing billing relationship with the online store by the same name. Rather than any one product, it seems to me Apple’s greatest imperative should be maintaining iTunes’ role in these consumers’ lives. The Apple TV may never be a hit. But consumers that decide to get their TV via iTunes rather than their current provider will be much more likely to buy new Apple products down the road. Certainly, many would consider a device for watching TV that is more portable than a MacBook, but larger than an iPhone. A tablet device, for example.
All of this remains conjecture, and assumes that Apple iTunes chief Eddy Cue can land the necessary content deals. It won’t be easy, since these partners will be loath to cross their current distributors. But don’t count Cue out. I wrote about him in the magazine recently, and my sources all say he’s an immensely talented negotiator, that has pulled off many deals that looked impossible.
Such was the case when Apple first got studios to sell downloads via iTunes in 2005. After Jobs won over Disney, Cue wooed many of the others, says one former Apple manager. “Once a deal is worked out with a leader in a particular deal--in this case Disney--Eddy’s great at convincing the others that they better get on the bandwagon.” He does it with charm, rather than threats, says the source. “He’s a schmoozer in the grand style--in a good way. Most of the people he deals with think of him as a close personal friend.”
