Left-leaning economic populists will deride President Bush’s Mortgage-Relief plan as not going far enough to “right” the mortgage crises. Free-market supply-siders will react to the relief plan as a bailout for the financially reckless. How this will play out during the election year is already quite clear, good versus evil. Democrats will undoubtedly say that the plan illustrates republican greed, by being too restrictive on helping those in need. Meanwhile, Republicans will comeback with arguments of fiscal responsibility against poor risk decisions.
However, I feel the real point, the theory and end-result of economic fallout will be ignored. The free-market system (when left alone) will correct itself as it has here and that in-and-of itself is fundamental to the success of free-market economies. The price of risk leads to prudence and calculated investments. If bailouts become the norm (as in socialist-leaning Europe) the economy and investment market becomes unstable as Smith’s Invisible Hand is replaced by State intervention.
Its not an argument of teaching lessons to risk takers, but rather allowing the market to evolve without regulation and intervention by short-term economic policies.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Small Business - Redefined?
The National Venture Capital Association is backing a bill, passed by the House in September, that redefines the parameters of small businesses and thus their eligibility for grants and federal funding. Under the House version, ownership groups such as those associated with the NVCA would have more ability to go after federal funding programs via majority-owned small business affiliates. Currently, businesses owned primarily by VC firms are not classified as "Small" and thus are excluded from these contracts.
There is a Senate version of this legislation which leaves out the language entitling VC firms to "flood" the market for federal funding. Groups like the American Small Business League and the NFIB are opposed to the House version, but it seems the Senate version may pass, leaving it up to conference to decide the difference.
If it does clear the Senate, the conference committee will have to keep in mind that President Bush has voiced his opinion against the House version and would do well to curb the influence of the VC lobbyists in this process or face the veto pen in 2008.
There is a Senate version of this legislation which leaves out the language entitling VC firms to "flood" the market for federal funding. Groups like the American Small Business League and the NFIB are opposed to the House version, but it seems the Senate version may pass, leaving it up to conference to decide the difference.
If it does clear the Senate, the conference committee will have to keep in mind that President Bush has voiced his opinion against the House version and would do well to curb the influence of the VC lobbyists in this process or face the veto pen in 2008.
When should we believe Intelligence Reports?
I don't know about you, but when I hear that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is commending our intelligence reports, I begin to feel a bit queasy.
I hope that the recent reports on the Iranian nuclear program are accurate, but of course we all are a bit skeptical in the wake of the WMD debacle. The report says Iran stopped all signs of its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Two things strike me about this report. First, 2003 is an interesting time. Could there be a Libya-effect going on in Iran? Did the Iraq invasion send the same message to Iran as it did to Muammar al-Gaddafi, that the US is serious under a Bush adminstration about its claims to follow through on promises against nuclear proliferation. And if so, isn't that tantamount to an admission, at least on some level, to effective foreign policy from the Bush White House?
Second, isn't the meaning of "covert" programs that they are ideally hidden from foreign intelligence and subsequently their reports? Could Iran be learning from the Soviets and actually creating a subterfuge to win international support while at the same time still developing those arms, which if discovered would encourage international sanctions?
We as a nation may have our doubts about "intelligence reports," but I certainly have my doubts about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anything he claims as a victory.
I hope that the recent reports on the Iranian nuclear program are accurate, but of course we all are a bit skeptical in the wake of the WMD debacle. The report says Iran stopped all signs of its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Two things strike me about this report. First, 2003 is an interesting time. Could there be a Libya-effect going on in Iran? Did the Iraq invasion send the same message to Iran as it did to Muammar al-Gaddafi, that the US is serious under a Bush adminstration about its claims to follow through on promises against nuclear proliferation. And if so, isn't that tantamount to an admission, at least on some level, to effective foreign policy from the Bush White House?
Second, isn't the meaning of "covert" programs that they are ideally hidden from foreign intelligence and subsequently their reports? Could Iran be learning from the Soviets and actually creating a subterfuge to win international support while at the same time still developing those arms, which if discovered would encourage international sanctions?
We as a nation may have our doubts about "intelligence reports," but I certainly have my doubts about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anything he claims as a victory.
Article worth a read
If you're looking for an insightful view into management practices as they relate to business risk and national economic policy with the backdrop of the sub-prime crunch and $100-a-barrel oil, then take a look at this month's issue of Fortune Magazine. Fortune's Nina Easton provides an insightful look into our current administration's economic policy with an exclusive interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The former Haliburton CEO and current Veep provides insight into the government's role on bailouts for risk-taking lenders and consumers, as well as thoughts on national risk-aversion policies for preventing an oil shortage.
The former Haliburton CEO and current Veep provides insight into the government's role on bailouts for risk-taking lenders and consumers, as well as thoughts on national risk-aversion policies for preventing an oil shortage.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
New NSA phone is ultra-chic
Forget about the I-Phone or the Crackberry; I want a SecteraEdge. Of course, you have to be on the NSA speed dial to even be considered for one at this point, but talk about a cool phone. General Dynamics, as part of its Secure Communications Interoperable Protocol (SCIP) family of devices, is ready to launch a "mobile phone for spies." For more information, see the company site.
McCain-Huckabee, McCain-Thompson
Monday David Broder, the unofficial Dean of the Washington press corps, wrote a piece encouraging Republicans to consider a McCain-Huckabee ticket for 2008. While I have talked privately to many about this exact ticket, and believe McCain-Huckabee could go a long way to securing a GOP hold on the Whitehouse for the next 16 years, I think it is probably not as a likely as a McCain-Thompson ticket.
Let me explain my logic and unfurl a scenario for McCain to bring back the sometimes misinformed and misled Republican base. First, Iowa and New Hampshire will likely split the vote and possibly give Huckabee and McCain the first two primaries. Huckabee is currently leading in Iowa polls and McCain just received the endorsement of the largest paper in New Hampshire with committed press every week from here on in. Next up is Michigan and Nevada, which could result in a Romney and Giuliani split before we head to the southern states and the conservative base.
It will be at this point, prior to the South Carolina and Nevada primary on January 19th, that I believe Fred Thompson will officially close his “lazy” campaign and call for his supporters to back John McCain, thus creating a 4-way race with only one conservative candidate.
For all the critics who say McCain is not conservative, you might need to check his record. McCain may be a maverick against the establishment and the neo-cons, but his 24-year voting record has always been consistently conservative on taxes, spending, and the role of government both domestically and abroad. In fact, the only reason he did not back Bush’s initial tax plan was because of its lack of spending controls which ended up costing the GOP the congressional majority in 2006.
As a matter of fact, if you go back and look at the record of when McCain broke from the ranks and criticized the Republican leadership, it was over the handling of the Iraq war in 2003 and the lack of spending restraints in the Bush tax bill (a view also shared by Alan Greenspan). His contentious Campaign Finance bill (McCain-Feingold-Thompson, as in Fred) was, in the end, supported by the Bush administration.
Back to the race at hand, the first thing going in McCain’s favor is the lack of an “establishment candidate.” The money players in the GOP don’t really have a strong option, so Giuliani and Romney have tried to vie for this spot. Both, however, have glaring weaknesses and problems fitting in on a myriad of high-profile issues such as abortion, limited government, and taxes. Not to mention, neither has the experience necessary to be considered a strong candidate to lead on foreign policy. Now, you might say as to that last point, neither did George W. in 1999 and 2000, but you have to remember that his candidacy was as much about his “team” as it was about him. Think back to the rumors circulated early that veteran statesman Dick Cheney and former President George H.W. Bush were calling in old allies to bring together a resurgence of the Ford administration from the late 70s. That’s just not the case with Giuliani or Romney.
Also consider that Thompson is a McCain supporter and always has been. He was heavily involved in McCain ’00 and agrees with the Arizona Senator on most issues including the most contentious issues of Campaign Finance Reform and Comprehensive Immigration. Although Thompson has spoken the rhetoric against so-called amnesty, he too was for the bill's provisions for a border security plan coupled with an identification program for the existing 12 million illegal aliens.
Second, Thompson does not have the desire to be President, or at least does not desire putting in the effort to run a national campaign. That was illustrated clearly in a recent NY Times article which states that the former Senator held only one retail campaign event last week. At this event he had supporters standing in a crowded BBQ restaurant for several hours only to give a 30-minute speech before leaving early.
Thompson is a nice guy and is liked by many Washington insiders, but his lack of (or perceived lack of) the drive and determination to fight for votes puts in play many questions about his ability to work 24/7 for our country while in office. However, a cushy Vice-President role is just the spot for Thompson and his supporters, which would turn the tide for McCain in the south and give conservatives a reason to vote against Rudy or Mitt.
Let me explain my logic and unfurl a scenario for McCain to bring back the sometimes misinformed and misled Republican base. First, Iowa and New Hampshire will likely split the vote and possibly give Huckabee and McCain the first two primaries. Huckabee is currently leading in Iowa polls and McCain just received the endorsement of the largest paper in New Hampshire with committed press every week from here on in. Next up is Michigan and Nevada, which could result in a Romney and Giuliani split before we head to the southern states and the conservative base.
It will be at this point, prior to the South Carolina and Nevada primary on January 19th, that I believe Fred Thompson will officially close his “lazy” campaign and call for his supporters to back John McCain, thus creating a 4-way race with only one conservative candidate.
For all the critics who say McCain is not conservative, you might need to check his record. McCain may be a maverick against the establishment and the neo-cons, but his 24-year voting record has always been consistently conservative on taxes, spending, and the role of government both domestically and abroad. In fact, the only reason he did not back Bush’s initial tax plan was because of its lack of spending controls which ended up costing the GOP the congressional majority in 2006.
As a matter of fact, if you go back and look at the record of when McCain broke from the ranks and criticized the Republican leadership, it was over the handling of the Iraq war in 2003 and the lack of spending restraints in the Bush tax bill (a view also shared by Alan Greenspan). His contentious Campaign Finance bill (McCain-Feingold-Thompson, as in Fred) was, in the end, supported by the Bush administration.
Back to the race at hand, the first thing going in McCain’s favor is the lack of an “establishment candidate.” The money players in the GOP don’t really have a strong option, so Giuliani and Romney have tried to vie for this spot. Both, however, have glaring weaknesses and problems fitting in on a myriad of high-profile issues such as abortion, limited government, and taxes. Not to mention, neither has the experience necessary to be considered a strong candidate to lead on foreign policy. Now, you might say as to that last point, neither did George W. in 1999 and 2000, but you have to remember that his candidacy was as much about his “team” as it was about him. Think back to the rumors circulated early that veteran statesman Dick Cheney and former President George H.W. Bush were calling in old allies to bring together a resurgence of the Ford administration from the late 70s. That’s just not the case with Giuliani or Romney.
Also consider that Thompson is a McCain supporter and always has been. He was heavily involved in McCain ’00 and agrees with the Arizona Senator on most issues including the most contentious issues of Campaign Finance Reform and Comprehensive Immigration. Although Thompson has spoken the rhetoric against so-called amnesty, he too was for the bill's provisions for a border security plan coupled with an identification program for the existing 12 million illegal aliens.
Second, Thompson does not have the desire to be President, or at least does not desire putting in the effort to run a national campaign. That was illustrated clearly in a recent NY Times article which states that the former Senator held only one retail campaign event last week. At this event he had supporters standing in a crowded BBQ restaurant for several hours only to give a 30-minute speech before leaving early.
Thompson is a nice guy and is liked by many Washington insiders, but his lack of (or perceived lack of) the drive and determination to fight for votes puts in play many questions about his ability to work 24/7 for our country while in office. However, a cushy Vice-President role is just the spot for Thompson and his supporters, which would turn the tide for McCain in the south and give conservatives a reason to vote against Rudy or Mitt.
Friday, November 30, 2007
GOP debate good, but where is the conservative outcry?
The Grand Ole Party debated on CNN and YouTube Wednesday night (full downloads are available on both sites). While the Republicans barbed with one another, I personally thought the debate was missing some much needed conservative rhetoric. Even ultra-libertarian Ron Paul was too focused (again) on foreign policy isolationism, obfuscating his message of reduced federal impingement on society.
As an example, one question Wednesday night dealt with the issue of NASA funding and a possible trip to Mars in 2020. Responses given by Governor Huckabee and Congressman Tancredo were too focused on Federal spending for my taste (Huckabee for it and Tancredo against it). Rather, as a conservative, I would have liked the answer to be restricted privatization of the entire federal program. We all know that NASA has been hemorrhaging dollars and I argue that it suffers from a lack of “creative destruction.” I say that NASA as a whole is too much of a state program and needs to be put into the hands of society and the marketplace itself.
By allowing NASA (or multiple derivatives thereof) to operate privately with obvious restrictions and allotments for national security (much like the current port systems or critical infrastructure base in this country), we will be able to allow market forces to drive technological advances in space exploration and discovery. Living in an Internet age, all of us should be able to identify the power of such forces. Can you image if the Internet were truly invented by life-long liberal politician Al Gore? We would all be on dial-up, chatting to one another and paying a tax to the National Organization for Telecommunications and Media Emissions (NOTME).
Seriously, we need to be focusing on more ways to pull power back from the state, which has been creating net after net of social programs aimed to pull power and responsibility away from society. Another direct example brought up Wednesday from a viewer in Pittsburgh was our government’s response to lead in toys.
I would love to hear Albert J. Nock’s response to this. Clearly, Nock would point to the involvement of the state in federal oversight commissions over the last 75 years as taking away from the responsibility of resellers and distributors to be held accountable for the safety of toys on their shelves. Ask yourself, living in a world of a thousand federal commissions and the FDA, whom do you blame? Not Wal-Mart, not Tyco. No, it’s the government’s fault. Well my friends, as Nock would say, if we were not so reliant in 2007 on our government to protect us, maybe we would have already protected ourselves by creating an environment where resellers of goods that were unsafe would be facing the very real possibility of going out of business and thus would have instituted measures and safeguards long ago to privately account for the safety of their products.
To conclude, I will offer this final point for thought. In today’s “flat” world, we (society) need to learn to take back responsibility. I say this because our federal government cannot control the whole of the world (no matter how much we try). Therefore, as consumers, as explorers, as a civilization, we need to regain control of our societal power and bear the responsibilities of such a society. That was the essence of the conservative movement when Nock penned “Our Enemy the State” in 1934, and I argue it is as important, if not more so, in 2007.
As an example, one question Wednesday night dealt with the issue of NASA funding and a possible trip to Mars in 2020. Responses given by Governor Huckabee and Congressman Tancredo were too focused on Federal spending for my taste (Huckabee for it and Tancredo against it). Rather, as a conservative, I would have liked the answer to be restricted privatization of the entire federal program. We all know that NASA has been hemorrhaging dollars and I argue that it suffers from a lack of “creative destruction.” I say that NASA as a whole is too much of a state program and needs to be put into the hands of society and the marketplace itself.
By allowing NASA (or multiple derivatives thereof) to operate privately with obvious restrictions and allotments for national security (much like the current port systems or critical infrastructure base in this country), we will be able to allow market forces to drive technological advances in space exploration and discovery. Living in an Internet age, all of us should be able to identify the power of such forces. Can you image if the Internet were truly invented by life-long liberal politician Al Gore? We would all be on dial-up, chatting to one another and paying a tax to the National Organization for Telecommunications and Media Emissions (NOTME).
Seriously, we need to be focusing on more ways to pull power back from the state, which has been creating net after net of social programs aimed to pull power and responsibility away from society. Another direct example brought up Wednesday from a viewer in Pittsburgh was our government’s response to lead in toys.
I would love to hear Albert J. Nock’s response to this. Clearly, Nock would point to the involvement of the state in federal oversight commissions over the last 75 years as taking away from the responsibility of resellers and distributors to be held accountable for the safety of toys on their shelves. Ask yourself, living in a world of a thousand federal commissions and the FDA, whom do you blame? Not Wal-Mart, not Tyco. No, it’s the government’s fault. Well my friends, as Nock would say, if we were not so reliant in 2007 on our government to protect us, maybe we would have already protected ourselves by creating an environment where resellers of goods that were unsafe would be facing the very real possibility of going out of business and thus would have instituted measures and safeguards long ago to privately account for the safety of their products.
To conclude, I will offer this final point for thought. In today’s “flat” world, we (society) need to learn to take back responsibility. I say this because our federal government cannot control the whole of the world (no matter how much we try). Therefore, as consumers, as explorers, as a civilization, we need to regain control of our societal power and bear the responsibilities of such a society. That was the essence of the conservative movement when Nock penned “Our Enemy the State” in 1934, and I argue it is as important, if not more so, in 2007.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Understanding your web presence's presence…
In today’s Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 migration, companies should become cognizant not only of their web presence, but also of the users who find their site relevant. I’m not actually talking about expensive web-monitoring software or Google’s ad-click data, but rather free information available to anyone at anytime.....del.icio.us.
Del.icio.us offers a unique marketing analysis and reflection tool to ensure that your site is getting the right information to the right type of viewers. Although Delicious users are a subset of the entire market, they are an active subset. If your page is saved to Delicious, you know you have an active browser (someone who has taken the time to view your site and save it as RELEVANT). Add to that, users will place tags to categorize web-pages which in and of themselves serve as mini-reviews of their interpretation of your site, content, and most importantly, products.
I recommend taking a look at who’s looking at you and what they are saying. From this, delve a litter deeper and find what sites (companies) they are comparing to you. What tags do they use for your organization and who else is receiving similar marks?
By the way, this is also a good way to read into your competition and discover new trends in the marketplace. But you already knew that…
Del.icio.us offers a unique marketing analysis and reflection tool to ensure that your site is getting the right information to the right type of viewers. Although Delicious users are a subset of the entire market, they are an active subset. If your page is saved to Delicious, you know you have an active browser (someone who has taken the time to view your site and save it as RELEVANT). Add to that, users will place tags to categorize web-pages which in and of themselves serve as mini-reviews of their interpretation of your site, content, and most importantly, products.
I recommend taking a look at who’s looking at you and what they are saying. From this, delve a litter deeper and find what sites (companies) they are comparing to you. What tags do they use for your organization and who else is receiving similar marks?
By the way, this is also a good way to read into your competition and discover new trends in the marketplace. But you already knew that…
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Winsted WELS software is top-notch
I may be a little late to the party on this one, but Winsted's WELS software is tremendous. Winsted, a manufacturer of modular furniture primarily used in Security Operations Centers, has a free software package available to consultants and designers. The software package, known as WELS, is an easy to use interface that allows the user to generate designs for custom configurations in a style similar to Microsoft's Visio.
The differentiating component of this software, is the ability to generate design specs and parts lists (complete with part numbers and commercial-level pricing invoices) for easy to deliver submital packages.
Kudos to Winsted, for delivering a package that is easy to use, creative, and highly functional.
The differentiating component of this software, is the ability to generate design specs and parts lists (complete with part numbers and commercial-level pricing invoices) for easy to deliver submital packages.
Kudos to Winsted, for delivering a package that is easy to use, creative, and highly functional.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Schneider Electric to buy Pelco...
Pelco was up for grabs and the speculation is over now that the French tech firm, Schneider Electric, has negotiated a deal with the video security giant for $1.54 Billion. Schneider will pair the profitable Pelco video line with their recent acquisitions of TAC, Andover Controls and Invensys Building Systems.
Schneider has been engineering high profits globally with specific focus on growth sectors within the Middle East market. Although the acquisition is viewed as a wash to investors (see Forbes article), the addition of Pelco's brand recognition should be a nice fit for the group. (Press release).
Schneider has been engineering high profits globally with specific focus on growth sectors within the Middle East market. Although the acquisition is viewed as a wash to investors (see Forbes article), the addition of Pelco's brand recognition should be a nice fit for the group. (Press release).
Thursday, July 12, 2007
AOL amending cancellation policy?
As part of a $3 million settlement, AOL has agreed to change their cancellation policy. See today's Wall Street Journal for the details.
This is like déjà-vu, all over again.
AOL, who pioneered aggressive cancellation “sales,” has been lambasted for this process for years. For those unaware (I envy you), this process is one where AOL trains their customer service reps to sell you on not cancelling. This customer-retention practice is unscrupulous and involves all kinds of tricks and techniques. This practice includes putting the callers on hold for over 10 minutes (hoping they will hang up without cancelling); restating the question of why do you want to cancel five different ways until you are so frustrated you shout obscenities and then they can justifiably hang up (before you can cancel, of course); and my favorite, the False Acknowledgement, "Okay, Mr. Kellick, we will discontinue your service," only to bill you again next month and the next and so on.
This was supposed to be stopped in 2000. AOL had a ton of bad press after failing to cancel the subscription of a federal judge in DC (nice one), but alas the practice continued and was copied by other companies (see Vonage posts).
We shall see, hopefully AOL gets the message this time, but I'll believe it when I see it.
This is like déjà-vu, all over again.
AOL, who pioneered aggressive cancellation “sales,” has been lambasted for this process for years. For those unaware (I envy you), this process is one where AOL trains their customer service reps to sell you on not cancelling. This customer-retention practice is unscrupulous and involves all kinds of tricks and techniques. This practice includes putting the callers on hold for over 10 minutes (hoping they will hang up without cancelling); restating the question of why do you want to cancel five different ways until you are so frustrated you shout obscenities and then they can justifiably hang up (before you can cancel, of course); and my favorite, the False Acknowledgement, "Okay, Mr. Kellick, we will discontinue your service," only to bill you again next month and the next and so on.
This was supposed to be stopped in 2000. AOL had a ton of bad press after failing to cancel the subscription of a federal judge in DC (nice one), but alas the practice continued and was copied by other companies (see Vonage posts).
We shall see, hopefully AOL gets the message this time, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Sprint's customer service faux pas
This week Sprint announced plans to cut subscribers who were a hindrance on their bottom line -- customers who call customer support "an excessive amount" and who use too much roam-time while subscribed to the unlimited plan.
Wow!
That's right, Sprint's bean counters may be looking at ways to trim the fat, but allowing this to make headlines yesterday is not a good move. Sprint, whose customer service has been traditionally the worst in the industry, just got another whopping black eye. To Sprint's credit, they are "allowing" these customers to leave without paying an early-termination fee.
That's nice (tongue-in-cheek)!
Really, I hope the marketing folks were kept in the dark on this decision, because there is no way they could really have allowed this to occur. Ever hear of a loss-leader? By keeping these customers and eating the costs associated, Sprint could have avoided this bad press and the potential loss of current or future "good" customers. Truly, as a customer-centric business professional, this one baffles me.
Wow!
That's right, Sprint's bean counters may be looking at ways to trim the fat, but allowing this to make headlines yesterday is not a good move. Sprint, whose customer service has been traditionally the worst in the industry, just got another whopping black eye. To Sprint's credit, they are "allowing" these customers to leave without paying an early-termination fee.
That's nice (tongue-in-cheek)!
Really, I hope the marketing folks were kept in the dark on this decision, because there is no way they could really have allowed this to occur. Ever hear of a loss-leader? By keeping these customers and eating the costs associated, Sprint could have avoided this bad press and the potential loss of current or future "good" customers. Truly, as a customer-centric business professional, this one baffles me.
Joost invites
Does anyone want Joost invites? I finally have some… If so, send me an email and I’ll put you on the list. You’ll get an email from Joost (make sure it doesn’t go in your spam filter).
Joost is an online video-channel program created by the guys who founded Skype and Kazaa. You can only download if you have an invite (reverse psychology viral marketing); they want to make it seem exclusive and make you have to work to get a copy (not a bad theory). Anyway, I just started beta-testing it myself; it seems pretty slick and it's getting a lot of buzz.
Joost is an online video-channel program created by the guys who founded Skype and Kazaa. You can only download if you have an invite (reverse psychology viral marketing); they want to make it seem exclusive and make you have to work to get a copy (not a bad theory). Anyway, I just started beta-testing it myself; it seems pretty slick and it's getting a lot of buzz.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Border Security
Secretary Chertoff was all over the press this morning. After addressing the events in the UK, he did take some time to speak on the border enforcement / immigration bill. While his point about the inadequacies of a "big fence" may be overlooked by casual observers, most of us in the security field know its a very valid point.
Chertoff brought up a casual example of tunnels. Tunnels have existed, and will exist, across the border for quite some time. Our goal as security professionals is to protect the area with a myriad of technologies. A "big fence" alone will not suffice. Ground radar, IP analytics, border personnel, and proper survey policies are all components that must be addressed, and DHS will need more money to handle all these needs. Remember, this is a federal department and even though they are allocated $X, we must always anticipate budgeting projects for $X + $Y.
Chertoff brought up a casual example of tunnels. Tunnels have existed, and will exist, across the border for quite some time. Our goal as security professionals is to protect the area with a myriad of technologies. A "big fence" alone will not suffice. Ground radar, IP analytics, border personnel, and proper survey policies are all components that must be addressed, and DHS will need more money to handle all these needs. Remember, this is a federal department and even though they are allocated $X, we must always anticipate budgeting projects for $X + $Y.
Money race is in full swing
Obama and Hillary: Tomorrow's discussions won't be about the debate last week, but rather how much money they are raising. The quarterly financials are in, and boy, we Americans have a lot of money to give to our political causes.
http://www.tray.com/ has the results.
By the way, when did we declare our winners and losers 15 months prior to the election based solely on if they can raise over $20 million. Well, I guess that is why Bloomberg is looking so good these days. By the way the pundits rate the "money race," it looks like a 2008 presidential general election of Clinton (D), Giuliani (R), and Bloomberg (I).
I wouldn't mind so much if I were voting for Mayor of NYC, but I happen to believe the rest of the country might want a say in who will lead them for the next 4 years.
http://www.tray.com/ has the results.
By the way, when did we declare our winners and losers 15 months prior to the election based solely on if they can raise over $20 million. Well, I guess that is why Bloomberg is looking so good these days. By the way the pundits rate the "money race," it looks like a 2008 presidential general election of Clinton (D), Giuliani (R), and Bloomberg (I).
I wouldn't mind so much if I were voting for Mayor of NYC, but I happen to believe the rest of the country might want a say in who will lead them for the next 4 years.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Immigration reform is gone again...
Here we go again...
Politicking and fear tactics prevail in stopping progressive legislation. I am honestly very tired and upset about the misinformation campaigns from my "self-proclaimed" conservative brethren regarding the now dead immigration bill. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, unless they speak Spanish…"
Both as a political participant and as a security professional, I am extremely dismayed by the actions and strong support garnered by the fanatical right-wing talking heads. What they don't get, and never got, was that a comprehensive border security bill must go hand-in-hand with a true immigration reform package. It will never be more cut and dry than that.
The not-so-understated racism and fear-mongering set out by the right was downright offensive. The actions by the 53 senators voting against this bill was a move away from pragmatism and their constitutional duty to create legislation that actually addresses the nation's issues. With no alternative measures being brought forward (Mr. Tancredo), we have ruined our first chance of addressing a problem that has a real chance of hurting our economy and national security. We have waited 21 years for our legislators to move on this issue, and at a time when both the congress and senate are sitting at all-time low approval ratings, our politicians pander to the talk-show hosts and far wings of the right and left without working towards the center on a bill that the majority of this nation is actually for.
I am well versed with this legislation, and after studying each twist and turn for the past two years, I can confidently say this was a path forward -- comprehensive border security, a national ID program with biometric identifiers, and most importantly a way to deal with the "real" problem of 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Bipartisan efforts, collaboration with the executive branch, DHS, and the Commerce Department are things you can't simply dismiss with a one-word backlash like "amnesty."
Please don't come at me with the "unfair for those who didn't break the law" argument. Be realistic here -- if there is not a concrete way to incentivize the current base of illeagls in this country, we will not be able to properly identify and deal with the problem head on. No one is offering citizenship "willy-nilly." Rather, the restrictions imposed on those for vying for full citizenship were very much a life-trial and hardship. Z-Visas are not green cards. Rather, they are simply a way to acknowledge the strong economic impact these workers currently have on our macro-economy. A Z-Visa holder would have to go through red tape and massive document trails (all feeding a centralized database) as well as fines of over $5,000 (a true test for individuals making minimum wage and below). Finally, these people would not benefit from their past discretions; instead they would be taxed, contribute to our national economy, and all the while be forced to the back of the "citizenship" line.
Twenty-one years ago, we did not have the technology to implement a comprehensive tracking program for immigration to the US. No biometric technologies could be employed, no rapid communication systems for transferring large amounts of data, and no real implementation schemas to hold, host, and mine that data. That is not the case now. We have the technology... we just don't have the vision to use it.
To the 53 senators, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, and all of the others espousing fear and radical loss of national sense, I ask: What do we do now? Can you provide us with a plan that will garner support and realistically address a problem such as this? And most-importantly, when did our great nation become so fragile that bilingual education can threaten our very existence?
Politicking and fear tactics prevail in stopping progressive legislation. I am honestly very tired and upset about the misinformation campaigns from my "self-proclaimed" conservative brethren regarding the now dead immigration bill. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, unless they speak Spanish…"
Both as a political participant and as a security professional, I am extremely dismayed by the actions and strong support garnered by the fanatical right-wing talking heads. What they don't get, and never got, was that a comprehensive border security bill must go hand-in-hand with a true immigration reform package. It will never be more cut and dry than that.
The not-so-understated racism and fear-mongering set out by the right was downright offensive. The actions by the 53 senators voting against this bill was a move away from pragmatism and their constitutional duty to create legislation that actually addresses the nation's issues. With no alternative measures being brought forward (Mr. Tancredo), we have ruined our first chance of addressing a problem that has a real chance of hurting our economy and national security. We have waited 21 years for our legislators to move on this issue, and at a time when both the congress and senate are sitting at all-time low approval ratings, our politicians pander to the talk-show hosts and far wings of the right and left without working towards the center on a bill that the majority of this nation is actually for.
I am well versed with this legislation, and after studying each twist and turn for the past two years, I can confidently say this was a path forward -- comprehensive border security, a national ID program with biometric identifiers, and most importantly a way to deal with the "real" problem of 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Bipartisan efforts, collaboration with the executive branch, DHS, and the Commerce Department are things you can't simply dismiss with a one-word backlash like "amnesty."
Please don't come at me with the "unfair for those who didn't break the law" argument. Be realistic here -- if there is not a concrete way to incentivize the current base of illeagls in this country, we will not be able to properly identify and deal with the problem head on. No one is offering citizenship "willy-nilly." Rather, the restrictions imposed on those for vying for full citizenship were very much a life-trial and hardship. Z-Visas are not green cards. Rather, they are simply a way to acknowledge the strong economic impact these workers currently have on our macro-economy. A Z-Visa holder would have to go through red tape and massive document trails (all feeding a centralized database) as well as fines of over $5,000 (a true test for individuals making minimum wage and below). Finally, these people would not benefit from their past discretions; instead they would be taxed, contribute to our national economy, and all the while be forced to the back of the "citizenship" line.
Twenty-one years ago, we did not have the technology to implement a comprehensive tracking program for immigration to the US. No biometric technologies could be employed, no rapid communication systems for transferring large amounts of data, and no real implementation schemas to hold, host, and mine that data. That is not the case now. We have the technology... we just don't have the vision to use it.
To the 53 senators, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, and all of the others espousing fear and radical loss of national sense, I ask: What do we do now? Can you provide us with a plan that will garner support and realistically address a problem such as this? And most-importantly, when did our great nation become so fragile that bilingual education can threaten our very existence?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Politics of Homeland Security
One of the primary purposes of corporate blogs like this one is to generate discussion and provoke response. To date, in our short blog life we have not posed too many questions to our readers, but I do have some this morning.
A couple of reports were released earlier this year from DHS preparing to analyze spending and budgets created for the year. One report was updating the UASI list of vulnerable cities. For those unaware of the acronym, UASI stands for the “Urban Areas Security Initiative.” This program was designed to identify areas of need (based on infrastructure, population, port security, and a host of other factors) for federal grant monies issued by the “bank” of homeland security.
The report update replaces four cities in efforts to recognize the need for higher funding allotment to border security. On the surface, the cities being removed in favor of the new ones (Toledo, Baton Rouge, Louisville and Omaha replaced by El Paso, Tucson, Providence and Norfolk) are seemingly reflective of an effort to secure border and port cities. However, it does make me wonder: How much politicking is going on in Washington?
Here is an interesting metric for determining your vote for local politicians. “How much money can you win from the DHS lottery?”
Now I am being slightly humorous here, and yes, I do appreciate the need and encourage the programs for funding grants that can assist in offsetting costs for logistics, local police, and law enforcement. In today’s security environment it is sound theory to assume national security does include domestic policing, security, and intelligence gathering. The federal government, as is the policy promoted by the UASI analysis process, offers opportunities to apply for grants based on a selection process with a host of conditions and rules that are beginning to mirror IRS tax code. And as much as we all admire the IRS tax code, this entire process is smelling like pork to me.
Now I am not going to rip DHS for removing Baton Rouge, LA from the list even though it is also ranked as one of lowest in scoring for emergency communications (right down there with American Samoa), but I will point out yet again that DHS is a political organization and there are more justifications for grants than simply immediate need. Remember, also, this is a process to allow for cities to compete for funding not a guarantee that they will receive it.
QUESTIONS:
How is this process affecting your business, or is it? Does anyone prepare metrics for an influx of grant funds to your servicing area, and are you contacting facilities that could collect in order to generate new security-related business?
A couple of reports were released earlier this year from DHS preparing to analyze spending and budgets created for the year. One report was updating the UASI list of vulnerable cities. For those unaware of the acronym, UASI stands for the “Urban Areas Security Initiative.” This program was designed to identify areas of need (based on infrastructure, population, port security, and a host of other factors) for federal grant monies issued by the “bank” of homeland security.
The report update replaces four cities in efforts to recognize the need for higher funding allotment to border security. On the surface, the cities being removed in favor of the new ones (Toledo, Baton Rouge, Louisville and Omaha replaced by El Paso, Tucson, Providence and Norfolk) are seemingly reflective of an effort to secure border and port cities. However, it does make me wonder: How much politicking is going on in Washington?
Here is an interesting metric for determining your vote for local politicians. “How much money can you win from the DHS lottery?”
Now I am being slightly humorous here, and yes, I do appreciate the need and encourage the programs for funding grants that can assist in offsetting costs for logistics, local police, and law enforcement. In today’s security environment it is sound theory to assume national security does include domestic policing, security, and intelligence gathering. The federal government, as is the policy promoted by the UASI analysis process, offers opportunities to apply for grants based on a selection process with a host of conditions and rules that are beginning to mirror IRS tax code. And as much as we all admire the IRS tax code, this entire process is smelling like pork to me.
Now I am not going to rip DHS for removing Baton Rouge, LA from the list even though it is also ranked as one of lowest in scoring for emergency communications (right down there with American Samoa), but I will point out yet again that DHS is a political organization and there are more justifications for grants than simply immediate need. Remember, also, this is a process to allow for cities to compete for funding not a guarantee that they will receive it.
QUESTIONS:
How is this process affecting your business, or is it? Does anyone prepare metrics for an influx of grant funds to your servicing area, and are you contacting facilities that could collect in order to generate new security-related business?
Honey, I'm Home
Calling your home from your cell phone to alert your presence may no longer be just a courtesy. A new form of access control technology is being tested in Europe utilizing GSM technology. The system recognizes the caller ID from your cell phone to identify and provide access to your home/facility. More can be found in a related blog: (http://www.securitypark.co.uk/security_article259680.html).
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
Background:
The Supreme Court unveiled a series of 5-4 rulings Monday which included the decision in favor of the Wisconsin Right to Life group. In short, the ruling found that provisions in the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance reform law were unconstitutional. The opinion specifically states that interest groups, unions, and corporations may use issued advocacy advertisements in the final weeks of the campaign (a practice that had been banned under the current law).
A challenge is laid before us:
The intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was to enable free speech by limiting the amount of dilution from excessive campaign advertisements via big business, unions, and advocacy groups. A key argument to the legislation was formed by years of common law practice recognizing the corrupting influence of corporate treasury expenditures on federal elections. This practice goes back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.
However, as Justice Scalia points out in his concurring opinion to Chief Justice Roberts, BCRA makes it a crime to criticize policy if the speaker is acting on behalf of a union or advocacy group during a window prior to an election. How can we criminalize criticism of policy under the constitution and the free speech amendment at any time during the election process?
Therefore, it is up to the supporters of a thoughtful Campaign Finance Reform Law to look at the rulings at face value and go back to the drawing board. We do need to have restrictions on overspending so that it does not dilute free speech from individuals, but at the same time recognize the rights of advocacy groups and unions to participate in the political debate through the entire campaign process. It is a tough issue and one that requires hard debate, but one that needs to be championed and not lost.
Ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf
The Supreme Court unveiled a series of 5-4 rulings Monday which included the decision in favor of the Wisconsin Right to Life group. In short, the ruling found that provisions in the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance reform law were unconstitutional. The opinion specifically states that interest groups, unions, and corporations may use issued advocacy advertisements in the final weeks of the campaign (a practice that had been banned under the current law).
A challenge is laid before us:
The intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was to enable free speech by limiting the amount of dilution from excessive campaign advertisements via big business, unions, and advocacy groups. A key argument to the legislation was formed by years of common law practice recognizing the corrupting influence of corporate treasury expenditures on federal elections. This practice goes back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.
However, as Justice Scalia points out in his concurring opinion to Chief Justice Roberts, BCRA makes it a crime to criticize policy if the speaker is acting on behalf of a union or advocacy group during a window prior to an election. How can we criminalize criticism of policy under the constitution and the free speech amendment at any time during the election process?
Therefore, it is up to the supporters of a thoughtful Campaign Finance Reform Law to look at the rulings at face value and go back to the drawing board. We do need to have restrictions on overspending so that it does not dilute free speech from individuals, but at the same time recognize the rights of advocacy groups and unions to participate in the political debate through the entire campaign process. It is a tough issue and one that requires hard debate, but one that needs to be championed and not lost.
Ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf
Friday, June 22, 2007
AMPS Sunset delay is rejected
The FCC agreed not to extend the “sunset” date for critical AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System) equipment that provides alarm communications relays in a substantial amount of security installations. The current deadline date remains set for February 18, 2008.
According to Wikipedia, “AMPS is a first-generation cellular technology that uses separate frequencies, or "channels", for each conversation. It therefore requires considerable bandwidth for a large number of users. In general terms, AMPS is very similar to the older "0G" IMTS service, but uses considerably more computing power in order to select frequencies, hand off conversations to POTS lines, and handle billing and call setup.”
In the security industry, AMPS was typically used as auxiliary or redundant communications means to relay alarm data to central stations. A more in-depth article regarding this news can be found at SecurityInfoWatch.com
According to Wikipedia, “AMPS is a first-generation cellular technology that uses separate frequencies, or "channels", for each conversation. It therefore requires considerable bandwidth for a large number of users. In general terms, AMPS is very similar to the older "0G" IMTS service, but uses considerably more computing power in order to select frequencies, hand off conversations to POTS lines, and handle billing and call setup.”
In the security industry, AMPS was typically used as auxiliary or redundant communications means to relay alarm data to central stations. A more in-depth article regarding this news can be found at SecurityInfoWatch.com
Monday, May 7, 2007
France goes Conservative
In recent history, France has been considered an obstacle of progress in European economics, a socialist haven, and a punch line to jokes. Arguably, France has been a sickly stepsister to the other European powers. That said, it looks as if the voters have finally had enough. It might have been the 9% jobless rate, the perception of weakness regarding national security, or excessive spending; but whatever the motivation, France has decided to elect a conservative President and is likely to vote along similar lines for Parliament next month.
Nicolas Sarkozy, son of a Hungarian immigrant, will face stiff challenges in addressing the free-wheeling spending patterns as well as national philosophies on world trade, defense, and the European Union. During his campaign, Mr. Sarkozy spoke of tightening the budget and defining relations with the E.U. and the United States. In his acceptance speech, he specifically spoke of France’s relationship with the U.S. and reassured the world that “France will always be by the U.S.’s side when it needs her.”
Personally, I am optimistic that the growth of a fiscally sound European Union and a conservative France (I know it's hard to say without chuckling) would go a long way in creating a global trading partner that can help propel technology and labor over the next several decades. Only time will tell, but from this side of the Atlantic it sure looks like a step forward.
Nicolas Sarkozy, son of a Hungarian immigrant, will face stiff challenges in addressing the free-wheeling spending patterns as well as national philosophies on world trade, defense, and the European Union. During his campaign, Mr. Sarkozy spoke of tightening the budget and defining relations with the E.U. and the United States. In his acceptance speech, he specifically spoke of France’s relationship with the U.S. and reassured the world that “France will always be by the U.S.’s side when it needs her.”
Personally, I am optimistic that the growth of a fiscally sound European Union and a conservative France (I know it's hard to say without chuckling) would go a long way in creating a global trading partner that can help propel technology and labor over the next several decades. Only time will tell, but from this side of the Atlantic it sure looks like a step forward.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Microsoft, Yahoo and a heap of dough...
Is the rumored Microsoft/Yahoo deal about search and online advertising or something more? If you own Microsoft stock, you better hope it’s more because a $50 billion price tag on Yahoo does not forebode ROI for quite some time.
Microsoft still leads the way in business software, from their hugely popular operating systems and office product lines, but change may be on the horizon. More and more, in the Web 2.0 world, organizations are leaning towards online processes for business development, and arch-rival Google is positioning to fill this void. Through shared application and collaboration services like SharePoint (a Microsoft product), businesses are exploring more ways to migrate from PC-based (stand-alone) to inter/intra-net-based mechanisms for work product development. Companies are also “searching” for ways to increase productivity with business products through cost-effective means.
Personally, I am a huge fan of Office 2007, both as a shared application and stand-alone, but the price is steep ($559 for an upgrade to Office 2007 Ultimate and $800 for the full version). Microsoft must find ways to create and develop profit margins in this unit as it expands with the Office-Live initiative without passing the bill directly to the consumer. If Microsoft cannot adapt to more effective price models, they risk losing their “Golden Egg” to Google. One speculative possibility for these "alternative" profit-making measures is through targeted online advertising, of which Yahoo is the "second-most" authority in the world. Their assistance in this effort might very well be the answer and the rationale for spending the $50B.
Microsoft still leads the way in business software, from their hugely popular operating systems and office product lines, but change may be on the horizon. More and more, in the Web 2.0 world, organizations are leaning towards online processes for business development, and arch-rival Google is positioning to fill this void. Through shared application and collaboration services like SharePoint (a Microsoft product), businesses are exploring more ways to migrate from PC-based (stand-alone) to inter/intra-net-based mechanisms for work product development. Companies are also “searching” for ways to increase productivity with business products through cost-effective means.
Personally, I am a huge fan of Office 2007, both as a shared application and stand-alone, but the price is steep ($559 for an upgrade to Office 2007 Ultimate and $800 for the full version). Microsoft must find ways to create and develop profit margins in this unit as it expands with the Office-Live initiative without passing the bill directly to the consumer. If Microsoft cannot adapt to more effective price models, they risk losing their “Golden Egg” to Google. One speculative possibility for these "alternative" profit-making measures is through targeted online advertising, of which Yahoo is the "second-most" authority in the world. Their assistance in this effort might very well be the answer and the rationale for spending the $50B.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Dems Debate in South Carolina tonight
If you haven’t heard, the Dems are getting together tonight for a little debate. Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards will be among the 8 candidates espousing on the issues tonight at 7PM on MSNBC.
I’ll be watching to see how far left John Edwards can swing trying to woo liberal voters in the South. His populist message should have businesses concerned if he does begin to make a dent in the lead held by Hillary and a fast approaching Obama.
Hillary will no doubt try to come off as a more personable candidate and look to regain some of the southern appeal that won her husband two terms in office. However, I am truly intrigued by Senator Barack Obama. While his voting record seems to indicate alignment with traditional democratic views, his speeches and demeanor have people on Wall Street thinking he might be a very favorable candidate.
It’s still very early, but with the nation concerned about current events, this debate should set the tone for hot-button issues for both parties.
I’ll be watching to see how far left John Edwards can swing trying to woo liberal voters in the South. His populist message should have businesses concerned if he does begin to make a dent in the lead held by Hillary and a fast approaching Obama.
Hillary will no doubt try to come off as a more personable candidate and look to regain some of the southern appeal that won her husband two terms in office. However, I am truly intrigued by Senator Barack Obama. While his voting record seems to indicate alignment with traditional democratic views, his speeches and demeanor have people on Wall Street thinking he might be a very favorable candidate.
It’s still very early, but with the nation concerned about current events, this debate should set the tone for hot-button issues for both parties.
DOW tops 13,000 on the way to 14K?
It is worth noting that the Dow Jones Industrial Average did close above 13,000 for the first time ever yesterday. It is also worth noting that most analysts do not foresee a slow down anytime soon, and the average could be on its way to 14,000 before the end of summer. While the Dow only represents 30 blue-chip stocks, it has always been a barometer for the pulse of the general economy and, in particular, this year indicates a very positive earnings season.
Other stocks of note fairing very well are Apple, up 6% last night after positive earnings, Coca-Cola and Pepsi were both positive, as was Amazon moving up a whopping 27%.
Other stocks of note fairing very well are Apple, up 6% last night after positive earnings, Coca-Cola and Pepsi were both positive, as was Amazon moving up a whopping 27%.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Campus Security
Campus security remains a high topic of discussion this week through all the major news outlets. Collectively, we share the deepest of sympathies for the victims and families of the tragedy that occurred earlier this week at Virginia Tech.
As a result, I would like to address the issue of educational security. It should be noted I am not addressing the specific issues that occurred at Virginia Tech, rather looking at the topic from a wide lens to highlight areas worth focusing on at every campus. I have, however, analyzed the events at Virginia Tech and have found similarities to events at quite a few campuses including my own experiences in 1996 at Johns Hopkins University, which included the shooting death of a fellow student, Rex Chao.
In order to address the needs, we need to understand what barriers stand in our way from properly securing campus environments. Campus security is not an easy task. You need to secure a wide area, enforce policy, and yet enable personnel movement between areas. You want to create an environment that exudes safety while offering the perspective of freedom for thoughts and interaction between the inhabitants and outside guests.
The threats/risks are varied. We must account for individual and group safety at all times. The threats can stem from common theft and burglary to violent crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, or even disorderly conduct that could lead to injury. The more possible threats, the greater the security “net” has to be. Enhanced Video, Analytics, Call-Boxes, Access Control are all measures that need to be evaluated and implemented.
With all that said, the biggest area of concern as a security professional is communication, both between security personnel and with security devices. Educational campuses share similarities with large corporate campuses by their need for efficient communication. Too many times today, as campuses expand, we find a “hodgepodge” of technologies in place as a result of disparate funding to separate departments each running their own mini-security operations center. This variance in technologies and systems creates problems when attempting to respond to a threat. Not only do the systems not communicate, but as a result of their make-up, they require individual policies for implementation. Therefore, we have separate systems working with numerous implementation procedures and varying triggering policies.
Campuses need to address centralizing their security procedures and security technologies. Security Management Systems that enable the integration of various technologies to create a standard protocol are essential for threat management.
As a result, I would like to address the issue of educational security. It should be noted I am not addressing the specific issues that occurred at Virginia Tech, rather looking at the topic from a wide lens to highlight areas worth focusing on at every campus. I have, however, analyzed the events at Virginia Tech and have found similarities to events at quite a few campuses including my own experiences in 1996 at Johns Hopkins University, which included the shooting death of a fellow student, Rex Chao.
In order to address the needs, we need to understand what barriers stand in our way from properly securing campus environments. Campus security is not an easy task. You need to secure a wide area, enforce policy, and yet enable personnel movement between areas. You want to create an environment that exudes safety while offering the perspective of freedom for thoughts and interaction between the inhabitants and outside guests.
The threats/risks are varied. We must account for individual and group safety at all times. The threats can stem from common theft and burglary to violent crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, or even disorderly conduct that could lead to injury. The more possible threats, the greater the security “net” has to be. Enhanced Video, Analytics, Call-Boxes, Access Control are all measures that need to be evaluated and implemented.
With all that said, the biggest area of concern as a security professional is communication, both between security personnel and with security devices. Educational campuses share similarities with large corporate campuses by their need for efficient communication. Too many times today, as campuses expand, we find a “hodgepodge” of technologies in place as a result of disparate funding to separate departments each running their own mini-security operations center. This variance in technologies and systems creates problems when attempting to respond to a threat. Not only do the systems not communicate, but as a result of their make-up, they require individual policies for implementation. Therefore, we have separate systems working with numerous implementation procedures and varying triggering policies.
Campuses need to address centralizing their security procedures and security technologies. Security Management Systems that enable the integration of various technologies to create a standard protocol are essential for threat management.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Silverlight is illuminating
Just a quick note, in case you don't subscribe to Microsoft Blogs.
Microsoft has come up with a name for their new graphics platform, formerly known as "codename" WPF/E. The new platform, set to compete with Adobe Flash, is called Silverlight.
From a marketing perspective, an application that competes with (and actually surpasses) Flash, that is a cross-platform and cross-browser plug-in capable of supporting HD-type video, is something worth noting. The sample applications such as the video library and page-turn gizmo are really nice (and fast).
Of course, this application was not created solely for designing web-sites or making new whiz-bang presentations, but more likely designed also as a format to drive the next YouTube and be omnipresent in the evolution of the Network-TV-Internet led by YouTube and Joost.
Kudos to Mike Harsh and the rest of the guys at Microsoft.
Microsoft has come up with a name for their new graphics platform, formerly known as "codename" WPF/E. The new platform, set to compete with Adobe Flash, is called Silverlight.
From a marketing perspective, an application that competes with (and actually surpasses) Flash, that is a cross-platform and cross-browser plug-in capable of supporting HD-type video, is something worth noting. The sample applications such as the video library and page-turn gizmo are really nice (and fast).
Of course, this application was not created solely for designing web-sites or making new whiz-bang presentations, but more likely designed also as a format to drive the next YouTube and be omnipresent in the evolution of the Network-TV-Internet led by YouTube and Joost.
Kudos to Mike Harsh and the rest of the guys at Microsoft.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Joost follow-up
By the way,
Viacom announced plans in February to host TV shows on Joost (see January Blog), but yesterday published specific shows in the Wall Street Journal, such as CSI, NCIS, and the Evening News with Katie Couric.
Also, interestingly enough, in a semi-related article, Robert Scoble talks about the next generation of targeted advertisement technologies on Scobleizer. These are ads that display in the border of internet video and are rotated, based on the content discussed at that moment.
We are fast approaching a time when traditional cable will become akin to the 8-track player, a nostalgic memory.
Viacom announced plans in February to host TV shows on Joost (see January Blog), but yesterday published specific shows in the Wall Street Journal, such as CSI, NCIS, and the Evening News with Katie Couric.
Also, interestingly enough, in a semi-related article, Robert Scoble talks about the next generation of targeted advertisement technologies on Scobleizer. These are ads that display in the border of internet video and are rotated, based on the content discussed at that moment.
We are fast approaching a time when traditional cable will become akin to the 8-track player, a nostalgic memory.
A good "Friday the 13th" scare
Geoff Khol, of Security Info Watch, provided an interesting scenario on his blog today. Geoff, we have yet to meet in person, but I am a big fan of your work. We need more proactive persons in this industry to keep us moving forward. Biometrics and Analytics are great, but we absolutely need to have more discussions on policy and overall preventive measures from a “common sense” approach, especially in regard to identity theft.
For those who have not already, I encourage you to visit the blog topic: In short, Geoff describes a scenario in which a common laptop theft can cause great financial pain to an organization. One point, which Geoff absolutely nails, is that despite new hard-drive protections and encryptions, a host of sensitive data is still stored, or cached, on legacy systems. Laptops and PCs that do not have great protections depend on the organization and the user to be cognizant of the threat they represent.
Policies for data distribution need to be put in place at the admin level. Databases should not be allowed access to write or store information on networked PCs that could cause a threat. This can be achieved via proper network policies. We can secure a Data-Center much easier than common-area office space.
Also, developmental “test” servers should only host fictitious or “junk” data that cannot be compromised. It is when we become lazy in our testing that we fail to create false data and instead use old copies of client information.
Finally, mobile workstations must be equipped with hard-drive protections. IBM offers a great product as do several third-party software providers. Protections at the hard-drive level is the best security currently available for mobile units. This is not everything, but at least it's a start.
Great job, Geoff. We can always use a good scare on Friday the 13th.
My direct comments to Geoff:
Geoff, great narrative. These are the types of scenarios more CSO's, and maybe more importantly CFO's, need to be thinking about. It has been said many times, “Security is only as good as the enforcement policies behind it.”
No matter how great your Optical Turnstiles and Door Sense Monitors work, if you don't enforce passback , the technology is meaningless. The same can be said for data-security. The best bit-lockers and firewalls don't do anything for the employee who is not reprimanded for taking sensitive data home on his laptop or for leaving his PC in an unsecured location.
Granted, there is only so much we can do to prevent data theft, but as a collective group of security professionals, we have not done nearly enough.
For those who have not already, I encourage you to visit the blog topic: In short, Geoff describes a scenario in which a common laptop theft can cause great financial pain to an organization. One point, which Geoff absolutely nails, is that despite new hard-drive protections and encryptions, a host of sensitive data is still stored, or cached, on legacy systems. Laptops and PCs that do not have great protections depend on the organization and the user to be cognizant of the threat they represent.
Policies for data distribution need to be put in place at the admin level. Databases should not be allowed access to write or store information on networked PCs that could cause a threat. This can be achieved via proper network policies. We can secure a Data-Center much easier than common-area office space.
Also, developmental “test” servers should only host fictitious or “junk” data that cannot be compromised. It is when we become lazy in our testing that we fail to create false data and instead use old copies of client information.
Finally, mobile workstations must be equipped with hard-drive protections. IBM offers a great product as do several third-party software providers. Protections at the hard-drive level is the best security currently available for mobile units. This is not everything, but at least it's a start.
Great job, Geoff. We can always use a good scare on Friday the 13th.
My direct comments to Geoff:
Geoff, great narrative. These are the types of scenarios more CSO's, and maybe more importantly CFO's, need to be thinking about. It has been said many times, “Security is only as good as the enforcement policies behind it.”
No matter how great your Optical Turnstiles and Door Sense Monitors work, if you don't enforce passback , the technology is meaningless. The same can be said for data-security. The best bit-lockers and firewalls don't do anything for the employee who is not reprimanded for taking sensitive data home on his laptop or for leaving his PC in an unsecured location.
Granted, there is only so much we can do to prevent data theft, but as a collective group of security professionals, we have not done nearly enough.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Protection design offers insight to border security
We’ve been addressing immigration policy in the national press for the past few years, trying to find a balance between protectionism and our “melting-pot” heritage. For me, understanding the complexities of our current system is somewhat mindboggling, but it does offer some intriguing thoughts.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Visa limit shows lack of planning for immigration
One thing I detest about management is an arbitrary decision-making process. I don’t care if you are a small business, a fortune 500, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the United States of America; you need to have some thought behind your decisions.
As I have blogged about earlier, the limit on H-1B visas (the process for foreign citizens to work in the United States) was arbitrarily reduced to 65,000 slots. In 2006 this was filled up within weeks. This year 150,000 applications (more than double the limit) was reached within the first few hours. Most of these applications are from tech firms such as Microsoft, Intel, or staffing agencies looking to fill the gap of qualified design engineers and consultants.
This onslaught of applications prompted the US immigration service to announce that selections would be based strictly on an “ARBITRARY” lottery system. Therefore, the deciding factor as to who will enter our country and possibly add to or detract from our collective economy will be RANDOM. No prejudice towards education or experience, but just sheer luck-of-the-draw.
Now you cannot tell me that in a country with the greatest minds, companies, and ALGORITHMS in the world, we cannot come up with a thoughtful process for ranking, rating, and qualifying the applications for admission. If we are stuck with this absurd cap, the least we can do is qualify who makes the cut.
As I have blogged about earlier, the limit on H-1B visas (the process for foreign citizens to work in the United States) was arbitrarily reduced to 65,000 slots. In 2006 this was filled up within weeks. This year 150,000 applications (more than double the limit) was reached within the first few hours. Most of these applications are from tech firms such as Microsoft, Intel, or staffing agencies looking to fill the gap of qualified design engineers and consultants.
This onslaught of applications prompted the US immigration service to announce that selections would be based strictly on an “ARBITRARY” lottery system. Therefore, the deciding factor as to who will enter our country and possibly add to or detract from our collective economy will be RANDOM. No prejudice towards education or experience, but just sheer luck-of-the-draw.
Now you cannot tell me that in a country with the greatest minds, companies, and ALGORITHMS in the world, we cannot come up with a thoughtful process for ranking, rating, and qualifying the applications for admission. If we are stuck with this absurd cap, the least we can do is qualify who makes the cut.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Security "Grows-up" in '07
Is the security industry maturing right before our eyes? Maybe. Sure, security itself is as old as dirt, but as a private industry it did not truly begin to evolve until after World War II. The introduction of the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) was not even formed until 1956.
So how is it maturing in 2007? Well let’s analyze this past week’s ISC-West (International Security Conference) trade show in Las Vegas. The keynote was delivered by Guido Jouret, Chief Technology Officer of Cisco, and one of the highlight booths (at least for me) was none other than International Business Machines, commonly referred to as simply IBM. I dare say this is what the pundits might call CONVERGENCE. Are we finally seeing the big money IT firms take a stake in the Security industry?
Of course we are. The big money goes where big money can be made. Security, as a corporate industry, is now a player in B2B services. It has always been there, but with the events and technology development of the past 10 years, card access and CCTV monitoring has moved from a luxury to an absolute necessity. Throw in analytics, biometrics, and data-mining and it is a no-brainer to see IT take a vested interest in this evolving sector.
Thus, let’s ponder the technology on display at this year’s show.
Analytics, the term is as broad as employee-management. Every company with a camera and a digital recorder is touting their latest analytic package. This means the ability to “analyze” and to some extent interpret the digital data from video to illicit a response. Although it is not limited to video, as there are some progressive employee-management companies also using analytics to mine data from traffic patterns and access groupings, it is most commonly associated with the video side of security.
That being said, I was impressed with the ability of a couple of companies and their "analytic" development. One such company is Agent Vi (pronounced “Vee-I”) or Agent Video Intelligence. Formerly Aspectus, Agent Vi is the result of a calculated branding effort to stress true Video Intelligence without most of the price barriers associated with video analytics.
Of course, all of us in the industry should be cognizant of the movements made by Cisco since their acquisition of SyPixx in ’06. Their IP cameras have been designed with network security and bandwidth restraints in mind (see Security InfoWatch story).
Another video company that gets “it” when talking about convergence is IPVision (http://www.ipvisionsoftware.com/). This is a little company with some very big goals and unlimited potential. Look out for these guys and their top notch “edge” device management ability.
Finally, check out these other links for more info on this year's show.
www.SecurityDreamer.com
www.SecurityInfoWatch.com
www.ISCWest.com
So how is it maturing in 2007? Well let’s analyze this past week’s ISC-West (International Security Conference) trade show in Las Vegas. The keynote was delivered by Guido Jouret, Chief Technology Officer of Cisco, and one of the highlight booths (at least for me) was none other than International Business Machines, commonly referred to as simply IBM. I dare say this is what the pundits might call CONVERGENCE. Are we finally seeing the big money IT firms take a stake in the Security industry?
Of course we are. The big money goes where big money can be made. Security, as a corporate industry, is now a player in B2B services. It has always been there, but with the events and technology development of the past 10 years, card access and CCTV monitoring has moved from a luxury to an absolute necessity. Throw in analytics, biometrics, and data-mining and it is a no-brainer to see IT take a vested interest in this evolving sector.
Thus, let’s ponder the technology on display at this year’s show.
Analytics, the term is as broad as employee-management. Every company with a camera and a digital recorder is touting their latest analytic package. This means the ability to “analyze” and to some extent interpret the digital data from video to illicit a response. Although it is not limited to video, as there are some progressive employee-management companies also using analytics to mine data from traffic patterns and access groupings, it is most commonly associated with the video side of security.
That being said, I was impressed with the ability of a couple of companies and their "analytic" development. One such company is Agent Vi (pronounced “Vee-I”) or Agent Video Intelligence. Formerly Aspectus, Agent Vi is the result of a calculated branding effort to stress true Video Intelligence without most of the price barriers associated with video analytics.
Of course, all of us in the industry should be cognizant of the movements made by Cisco since their acquisition of SyPixx in ’06. Their IP cameras have been designed with network security and bandwidth restraints in mind (see Security InfoWatch story).
Another video company that gets “it” when talking about convergence is IPVision (http://www.ipvisionsoftware.com/). This is a little company with some very big goals and unlimited potential. Look out for these guys and their top notch “edge” device management ability.
Finally, check out these other links for more info on this year's show.
www.SecurityDreamer.com
www.SecurityInfoWatch.com
www.ISCWest.com
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Does immigration process hinder US innovation?
Does the current H1-B visa immigration system hinder US innovation, dissuade domestic research and development, and create more of a job gap by increasing the demand for off-shoring and outsourcing? This is the question that Congress has been pondering over the past few weeks. On March 7, 2007 Bill Gates (Chairman of Microsoft and Co-Chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), spoke on this topic as well as education policies during an open hearing to the US Senate committee on Education and Labor.
I want to post some excerpts of Mr. Gates speech on immigration reform. The entire testimony can be found here. Mr. Gates addresses the need to not only increase the number of foreign engineers and developers that may come to the US, but also to retain the engineers that are being trained in our own universities. Mr. Gates speaks eloquently and succinctly on the pitfalls of the current practice and the “backwards” logic of our current regulations.
From Mr. Gates Testimony on 3/7/2007:
“Unfortunately, America’s immigration policies are driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them most. I appreciate the vital national security goals that motivate many of these policies. I am convinced, however, that we can protect our national security in ways that do less damage to our competitiveness and prosperity. Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well trained, highly skilled individuals – many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities – that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message.
This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains. I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.
For Fiscal Year 2008, H-1Bs are expected to run out next month, the first month that it is possible to apply for them. This means that no new H-1B visas – often the only visa category available to recruit critically needed professional workers – will be available for a nearly 18-month period. Moreover, this year, for the first time in the history of the program, the supply will run out before the year’s graduating students get their degrees. This means that U.S. employers will not be able to get H-1B visas for an entire crop of U.S. graduates. We are essentially asking top talent to leave the U.S. As with H-1B visas, the demand for green cards far exceeds the supply. Today, only 140,000 permanent employment-based visas are available each year, which must cover both key employees and their family members. There is a massive backlog in many of the employment-based green card categories, and wait times routinely reach five years. Ironically, waiting periods are even longer for nationals of India and China – the very countries that are key recruiting grounds for the professionals desperately needed in many innovative fields.
In the past, we have succeeded in attracting the world’s best and brightest to study and work in the United States, and we can and must do it again. We must move beyond the debate about numbers, quotas, and caps. Rather, I urge Congress to ask, “How do we create a system that supports and sustains the innovation that drives American growth, economic opportunity and prosperity?” Congress can answer that question by acting immediately in two significant ways.
First, we need to encourage the best students from abroad to enroll in our colleges and universities, and to remain in the United States when their studies are completed. Today,
we take exactly the opposite approach. Foreign students who apply for a student visa to the United States today must prove that they do not intend to remain here once they receive their degrees. This makes no sense. If we are going to invest in educating foreign students – which we should and must continue to do – why drive them away just when this investment starts to pay off for the American economy?
Barring high-skilled immigrants from entry to the U.S., and forcing the ones that are here to leave because they cannot obtain a visa, ultimately forces U.S. employers to shift development work and other critical projects offshore. This can also force U.S. companies to fill related management, design, and business positions with foreign workers, thereby causing further lost U.S. job opportunities even in areas where America is strong, allowing other countries to bootstrap” themselves into these areas, and further weakening our global competitive strength. If we can retain these research projects in the United States, by contrast, we can stimulate domestic job and economic growth. In short, where innovation and innovators go, jobs are soon to follow.
Second, Congress should expedite the path to Permanent Resident status for highly skilled workers. The reality for Microsoft and many other U.S. employers is that the H1-B visa program is temporary only in the sense that it is the visa we use while working assiduously to make our H1-B hires – whether educated in the U.S. or abroad – permanent U.S. residents. Rather than pretend that we want these highly skilled, well trained innovators to remain for only a temporary period, we should accept and indeed embrace the fact that we want them to become permanent U.S. residents so that they can drive innovation and economic growth alongside America’s native born talent. These reforms do not pit U.S. workers against those foreign born. They do not seek to make or perpetuate distinctions among the best and brightest on the basis of national origin. They simply recognize the fact that America’s need for highly skilled workers has never been greater, and that broad-based prosperity in America depends on having enough such workers to satisfy our demand. Far from displacing U.S. workers, highly skilled foreign-born workers will continue to function as they always have: as net job
creators.”
I want to post some excerpts of Mr. Gates speech on immigration reform. The entire testimony can be found here. Mr. Gates addresses the need to not only increase the number of foreign engineers and developers that may come to the US, but also to retain the engineers that are being trained in our own universities. Mr. Gates speaks eloquently and succinctly on the pitfalls of the current practice and the “backwards” logic of our current regulations.
From Mr. Gates Testimony on 3/7/2007:
“Unfortunately, America’s immigration policies are driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them most. I appreciate the vital national security goals that motivate many of these policies. I am convinced, however, that we can protect our national security in ways that do less damage to our competitiveness and prosperity. Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well trained, highly skilled individuals – many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities – that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message.
This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains. I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.
For Fiscal Year 2008, H-1Bs are expected to run out next month, the first month that it is possible to apply for them. This means that no new H-1B visas – often the only visa category available to recruit critically needed professional workers – will be available for a nearly 18-month period. Moreover, this year, for the first time in the history of the program, the supply will run out before the year’s graduating students get their degrees. This means that U.S. employers will not be able to get H-1B visas for an entire crop of U.S. graduates. We are essentially asking top talent to leave the U.S. As with H-1B visas, the demand for green cards far exceeds the supply. Today, only 140,000 permanent employment-based visas are available each year, which must cover both key employees and their family members. There is a massive backlog in many of the employment-based green card categories, and wait times routinely reach five years. Ironically, waiting periods are even longer for nationals of India and China – the very countries that are key recruiting grounds for the professionals desperately needed in many innovative fields.
In the past, we have succeeded in attracting the world’s best and brightest to study and work in the United States, and we can and must do it again. We must move beyond the debate about numbers, quotas, and caps. Rather, I urge Congress to ask, “How do we create a system that supports and sustains the innovation that drives American growth, economic opportunity and prosperity?” Congress can answer that question by acting immediately in two significant ways.
First, we need to encourage the best students from abroad to enroll in our colleges and universities, and to remain in the United States when their studies are completed. Today,
we take exactly the opposite approach. Foreign students who apply for a student visa to the United States today must prove that they do not intend to remain here once they receive their degrees. This makes no sense. If we are going to invest in educating foreign students – which we should and must continue to do – why drive them away just when this investment starts to pay off for the American economy?
Barring high-skilled immigrants from entry to the U.S., and forcing the ones that are here to leave because they cannot obtain a visa, ultimately forces U.S. employers to shift development work and other critical projects offshore. This can also force U.S. companies to fill related management, design, and business positions with foreign workers, thereby causing further lost U.S. job opportunities even in areas where America is strong, allowing other countries to bootstrap” themselves into these areas, and further weakening our global competitive strength. If we can retain these research projects in the United States, by contrast, we can stimulate domestic job and economic growth. In short, where innovation and innovators go, jobs are soon to follow.
Second, Congress should expedite the path to Permanent Resident status for highly skilled workers. The reality for Microsoft and many other U.S. employers is that the H1-B visa program is temporary only in the sense that it is the visa we use while working assiduously to make our H1-B hires – whether educated in the U.S. or abroad – permanent U.S. residents. Rather than pretend that we want these highly skilled, well trained innovators to remain for only a temporary period, we should accept and indeed embrace the fact that we want them to become permanent U.S. residents so that they can drive innovation and economic growth alongside America’s native born talent. These reforms do not pit U.S. workers against those foreign born. They do not seek to make or perpetuate distinctions among the best and brightest on the basis of national origin. They simply recognize the fact that America’s need for highly skilled workers has never been greater, and that broad-based prosperity in America depends on having enough such workers to satisfy our demand. Far from displacing U.S. workers, highly skilled foreign-born workers will continue to function as they always have: as net job
creators.”
Monday, March 19, 2007
Ciscex-Webisco?
$3.2 billion was the price tag announced last Thursday when corporate tech giant (soon to be conglomerate) Cisco purchased web-conferencing magnate WebEx. I cannot say that I am shocked. Cisco has been expanding its core business for some time now, ever since a scare by Bay Networks in 1999, Cisco has been making a run beyond networks. In 2005 Cisco jumped into the physical security space with an IP camera offering, but this foray continues to show the movement of our tech giants from vertical segmentation to complete encapsulation of the business process.
What does surprise me is the price tag, which includes a buyout of remaining shares at $57/share. The market price at the time of the deal was $46 and change, and honestly I thought WebEx was beginning to lose its cachet a bit. Service offerings from GoToMyPC and Live Office (Microsoft) have definitely made a dent in Web-Ex’s market appeal. Although as a former user, I do enjoy the advanced functionality but could have lived without the advanced price-tag.
In the end though, I believe this deal speaks more about Cisco’s expansion than Web-Ex’s economic development. Cisco is a huge player, they always have been, but their migration from networks to services is something to write books about.
What does surprise me is the price tag, which includes a buyout of remaining shares at $57/share. The market price at the time of the deal was $46 and change, and honestly I thought WebEx was beginning to lose its cachet a bit. Service offerings from GoToMyPC and Live Office (Microsoft) have definitely made a dent in Web-Ex’s market appeal. Although as a former user, I do enjoy the advanced functionality but could have lived without the advanced price-tag.
In the end though, I believe this deal speaks more about Cisco’s expansion than Web-Ex’s economic development. Cisco is a huge player, they always have been, but their migration from networks to services is something to write books about.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Don't Forget About DST
Just a friendly reminder, several weeks ahead, that Daylight Savings Time will be undergoing a change this year. First mentioned by Benjamin Franklin, and first observed in the US in 1918, Daylight Savings Time will shift its schedule this year as part of an energy plan presented by President Bush last year. The plan, while currently under a trial basis, is hypothesized to cut energy costs by shifting the amount of time spent at home and in the office during sunlight hours and adding approximately four weeks to DST.
Why mention it now? Well, for those applications running on legacy operating systems, there might be a slight hiccup in their automatic time adjustments. For some of my friends still using Time-lapse VCRs (dinosaurs), this is just a reminder to set your schedule a bit differently this year. If you are running systems by Microsoft, here is a good link to keep you up-to-date on the updates for your PCs. If you are running a Unix-based DVR/NVR, you may have to adjust the schedule manually at 2AM on March 11th. Any comments on other update sites are appreciated.
Why mention it now? Well, for those applications running on legacy operating systems, there might be a slight hiccup in their automatic time adjustments. For some of my friends still using Time-lapse VCRs (dinosaurs), this is just a reminder to set your schedule a bit differently this year. If you are running systems by Microsoft, here is a good link to keep you up-to-date on the updates for your PCs. If you are running a Unix-based DVR/NVR, you may have to adjust the schedule manually at 2AM on March 11th. Any comments on other update sites are appreciated.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Visio or AutoCAD?
Site design is an important process in security analysis. Understanding where and why devices need to be placed and relaying that information to the executive or building management in a visual manner is of critical import for any security team. Traditionally, this process has been done using Autodesk’s design software AutoCAD. AutoCAD was designed primarily for building architecture and infrastructure layout.
The downside to AutoCAD or CAD (Computer Aided Design) programs, in general, is the learning curve can be steep. This is especially true for sales professionals who are trying to understand what to bid in a quote or RFP and don’t have the time to fiddle with nuances of a program for each individual bid. For some sales teams the answer was yet another Microsoft product called Visio. Visio made its introduction in Microsoft Office 2000, and has progressed with each subsequent release of the Office suite up to this year’s release, Visio 2007.
I have worked with both programs and usually found Visio to be rudimentary when compared with AutoCAD, but I must say I am quite taken with the flexibility and ease of use of Visio 2007. There are still some quirks that bother me, but for the most part Visio is a tool that can be a great find for a security team or sales department. The learning curve is easy and the integration to Office applications and PDFs is inherent.
The downside to AutoCAD or CAD (Computer Aided Design) programs, in general, is the learning curve can be steep. This is especially true for sales professionals who are trying to understand what to bid in a quote or RFP and don’t have the time to fiddle with nuances of a program for each individual bid. For some sales teams the answer was yet another Microsoft product called Visio. Visio made its introduction in Microsoft Office 2000, and has progressed with each subsequent release of the Office suite up to this year’s release, Visio 2007.
I have worked with both programs and usually found Visio to be rudimentary when compared with AutoCAD, but I must say I am quite taken with the flexibility and ease of use of Visio 2007. There are still some quirks that bother me, but for the most part Visio is a tool that can be a great find for a security team or sales department. The learning curve is easy and the integration to Office applications and PDFs is inherent.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A SharePoint Revelation; Maybe a Revolution?
Talk about your epiphany moments:
First, if you haven’t read Thomas Friedman’s latest updated revision of “The World is Flat,” I highly suggest you pick up a copy. The text illustrates a flattening of the global community by illustrating the leveling factors of politics and technology over the last 20 years. It is a truly insightful look at how we have moved into “an age of the individual.” This is a time when, based on technological advancements in the PC, the World Wide Web and telecommunications that any one person (the individual) can make an impact felt globally through digitization and mass communication.
As I was contemplating the astuteness and breadth of Mr. Friedman’s rationale, I was also separately doing some research on Microsoft’s advancement with their SharePoint platform. I was simply blown away by the scope of possibilities now available within this framework. Of course, there are a tremendous amount of blogs on the topic, but one of my favorites is Sahil Malik’s blah.WebSmarts page.
What I found (and I am far from the first) is that literally one person or a small group of savvy techs (not necessarily programmers, mind you) can utilize the framework of SharePoint to accomplish a wide array of business functions, up to and including application development.
With assistance from third-party providers like CorasWorks (Reston, Virginia), any size company, division, or department can literally compete on a global scale to provide the same advanced business functions, both internally and externally, as Fortune 100s.
The use of a SharePoint platform to develop functions and applications visually and without thousands of coding man-hours is a huge “flattening” development. As SharePoint and third-party providers continue to expand upon these capabilities, more and more processes and innovations will stem from this leveled playing field.
To fully understand where I am coming from, I recommend the book and highly recommend looking into the “quiet” revolution Microsoft is putting together with SharePoint. As I am still grasping the capabilities of WSS and MOSS, I welcome readers’ comments and thoughts.
By the way, it is not lost on me that I am writing a blog enabled by technology to reach anyone in this “flattened” world.
First, if you haven’t read Thomas Friedman’s latest updated revision of “The World is Flat,” I highly suggest you pick up a copy. The text illustrates a flattening of the global community by illustrating the leveling factors of politics and technology over the last 20 years. It is a truly insightful look at how we have moved into “an age of the individual.” This is a time when, based on technological advancements in the PC, the World Wide Web and telecommunications that any one person (the individual) can make an impact felt globally through digitization and mass communication.
As I was contemplating the astuteness and breadth of Mr. Friedman’s rationale, I was also separately doing some research on Microsoft’s advancement with their SharePoint platform. I was simply blown away by the scope of possibilities now available within this framework. Of course, there are a tremendous amount of blogs on the topic, but one of my favorites is Sahil Malik’s blah.WebSmarts page.
What I found (and I am far from the first) is that literally one person or a small group of savvy techs (not necessarily programmers, mind you) can utilize the framework of SharePoint to accomplish a wide array of business functions, up to and including application development.
With assistance from third-party providers like CorasWorks (Reston, Virginia), any size company, division, or department can literally compete on a global scale to provide the same advanced business functions, both internally and externally, as Fortune 100s.
The use of a SharePoint platform to develop functions and applications visually and without thousands of coding man-hours is a huge “flattening” development. As SharePoint and third-party providers continue to expand upon these capabilities, more and more processes and innovations will stem from this leveled playing field.
To fully understand where I am coming from, I recommend the book and highly recommend looking into the “quiet” revolution Microsoft is putting together with SharePoint. As I am still grasping the capabilities of WSS and MOSS, I welcome readers’ comments and thoughts.
By the way, it is not lost on me that I am writing a blog enabled by technology to reach anyone in this “flattened” world.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Joost and Boost
As an aspiring serial entrepreneur, I am interested in what successful serials have done or continue to do. This morning an article in today’s Journal caught my eye.
Remember Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom? You know these guys -- they came up with KaZaa, the file sharing program that helped to rock the music industry while Napster was shut down and in court. They followed this success by forming a company called Skype which earned a modest $2.6 billion in a sale to eBay in ’05.
Recently the Swedish duo announced plans to launch a video content provider (formerly titled “The Venice Project”) to compete with the ever popular You-Tube. The catch, however, is that their site (Joost) is looking to offer higher quality content, up to and including commercialized network TV shows and movies. Keep your eye on this company; if past success is an indicator of future projections, Joost should bode well in this space.
Another venture (not-related) that caught my eye this morning was an initiative called Boost from Sprint Nextel. Boost is a subscription service that enables users to monitor their network contacts via GPS through their cell-phone. This has been used by service B2B companies for some time through the Nextel arm of Sprint Nextel, but is now being marketed to social networking “twenty-somethings” and families concerned about their children’s whereabouts.
The $9.99-a-month service called “Family Locator” is an interesting tool in line with family plans by Sprint’s competitor AT&T’s Cingular Wireless. Talk about knowing where your child is, this service allows parents to turn on their phone and look directly at a GPS map with an indicator of the child (or at least the child's phone). I guess the parent will have to actually call to ensure he or she didn’t simply hide the phone inside a copy of War and Peace at the school library.
Remember Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom? You know these guys -- they came up with KaZaa, the file sharing program that helped to rock the music industry while Napster was shut down and in court. They followed this success by forming a company called Skype which earned a modest $2.6 billion in a sale to eBay in ’05.
Recently the Swedish duo announced plans to launch a video content provider (formerly titled “The Venice Project”) to compete with the ever popular You-Tube. The catch, however, is that their site (Joost) is looking to offer higher quality content, up to and including commercialized network TV shows and movies. Keep your eye on this company; if past success is an indicator of future projections, Joost should bode well in this space.
Another venture (not-related) that caught my eye this morning was an initiative called Boost from Sprint Nextel. Boost is a subscription service that enables users to monitor their network contacts via GPS through their cell-phone. This has been used by service B2B companies for some time through the Nextel arm of Sprint Nextel, but is now being marketed to social networking “twenty-somethings” and families concerned about their children’s whereabouts.
The $9.99-a-month service called “Family Locator” is an interesting tool in line with family plans by Sprint’s competitor AT&T’s Cingular Wireless. Talk about knowing where your child is, this service allows parents to turn on their phone and look directly at a GPS map with an indicator of the child (or at least the child's phone). I guess the parent will have to actually call to ensure he or she didn’t simply hide the phone inside a copy of War and Peace at the school library.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Apple has Chutzpah?
Apple Inc., the official new title for the company formerly known as Apple Computers, is trying to beat Microsoft at its own game. No, I’m not talking about their OS-X software or a new line of office products. Nope, I am referring to the title of a most brazen, disregarding company. Apple is now so big they don’t have to worry about trifling items like trademarks or patent law.
Of course I am referring to the iPhone and the blatant trademark infringement upon Cisco. It is amazing to me that anticipated sales would be so large they assume they could handle such a clear-cut lawsuit from a player like Cisco. Hey, that takes some Chutzpah, Cojones, Bigones.
Yes, I think the iPhone looks cool. A full touch screen with an embedded Mac OS-X and the ability to make calls and the special feature called visual voice mail (really neat). Sounds great. However, they made a few assumptions that could cause a lot of problems for the electronics giant. First, they partnered with AT&T’s Cingular Wireless exclusively. While it was probably a good move not to sub-lease airtime, it may not be wise to become beholden to one service provider for the next 2 years. Secondly, Apple is coming to market with a $499-$599 price tag (depending on hard drive size). While the cellular market is huge, only 5% is spent on phones over $300. Mr. Jobs is quoted as saying they are targeting 1% of the market or 10 million phones through the end of 2008. That is a huge target when analyzing the type of consumers who purchase “high-end” smart phones are not traditionally swayed by Apple’s style-over-substance approach.
All of this risk and a legitimate claim against the title by Cisco could mean another phone disaster for Apple. Even if they do get some traction with the iPhone, they risk losing their marketing progress when the courts award the claim to Cisco. Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after acquiring Infogear. Linksys (a subsidiary of Cisco) launched plans for an iPhone of their own last summer. The idea differs from a cellphone (as is Apple’s iPhone), but rather a device to integrate home, mobile, and work phones as one.
Long and short, big risk for Apple, all to make waves at the CES tradeshow this week.
Of course I am referring to the iPhone and the blatant trademark infringement upon Cisco. It is amazing to me that anticipated sales would be so large they assume they could handle such a clear-cut lawsuit from a player like Cisco. Hey, that takes some Chutzpah, Cojones, Bigones.
Yes, I think the iPhone looks cool. A full touch screen with an embedded Mac OS-X and the ability to make calls and the special feature called visual voice mail (really neat). Sounds great. However, they made a few assumptions that could cause a lot of problems for the electronics giant. First, they partnered with AT&T’s Cingular Wireless exclusively. While it was probably a good move not to sub-lease airtime, it may not be wise to become beholden to one service provider for the next 2 years. Secondly, Apple is coming to market with a $499-$599 price tag (depending on hard drive size). While the cellular market is huge, only 5% is spent on phones over $300. Mr. Jobs is quoted as saying they are targeting 1% of the market or 10 million phones through the end of 2008. That is a huge target when analyzing the type of consumers who purchase “high-end” smart phones are not traditionally swayed by Apple’s style-over-substance approach.
All of this risk and a legitimate claim against the title by Cisco could mean another phone disaster for Apple. Even if they do get some traction with the iPhone, they risk losing their marketing progress when the courts award the claim to Cisco. Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after acquiring Infogear. Linksys (a subsidiary of Cisco) launched plans for an iPhone of their own last summer. The idea differs from a cellphone (as is Apple’s iPhone), but rather a device to integrate home, mobile, and work phones as one.
Long and short, big risk for Apple, all to make waves at the CES tradeshow this week.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Response to Emails About President's Speech
Whew! The emails are coming in regarding my last post on the President's Speech, "President Responds to Study Group."
The purpose of my blogs in general are to muse on business and the security industry. I am not writing a slanted political blog one way or the other (I have enough outlets for that). However, I felt that the President's speech last night was particularly important because of its historical significance.
If you can, put politics and personal thoughts of the war aside for one moment and consider the foreign relations import of the speech and what it stood for.
My attempt in the previous post was to point out that we (as a society) can avoid acting rash and emotional and rather take a strong analytic approach. Find out what the problem is, where it stems from, and try to address it from all aspects (military, policing, economics, and religion). It is a bold approach to foreign relations, to have a group (of the stature of the Iraq Study Group) propose a plan of action for the nation, and for the President to acknowledge these suggestions (in a time of war) and act upon them. History, decades from now, will view this as not a power play by a sitting President but rather an admission that other views are relevant and act publicly on this admission.
The purpose of my blogs in general are to muse on business and the security industry. I am not writing a slanted political blog one way or the other (I have enough outlets for that). However, I felt that the President's speech last night was particularly important because of its historical significance.
If you can, put politics and personal thoughts of the war aside for one moment and consider the foreign relations import of the speech and what it stood for.
My attempt in the previous post was to point out that we (as a society) can avoid acting rash and emotional and rather take a strong analytic approach. Find out what the problem is, where it stems from, and try to address it from all aspects (military, policing, economics, and religion). It is a bold approach to foreign relations, to have a group (of the stature of the Iraq Study Group) propose a plan of action for the nation, and for the President to acknowledge these suggestions (in a time of war) and act upon them. History, decades from now, will view this as not a power play by a sitting President but rather an admission that other views are relevant and act publicly on this admission.
President Responds to Study Group
For anyone who missed President Bush’s address last evening, I encourage that you take a serious look at the video or official transcript. Without getting into partisan politics in this piece, I am encouraging those following current events and modern history to take note of the next few months. Among the notable aspects of the speech, it was hard to miss the definite overtones from the Iraq Study group. The failure to “clear and hold” troubled areas was mentioned as a crucial stumbling block that requires immediate attention. Study group recommendations #26 thru #28 regarding constitutional review, de-Baathification, and oil revenue sharing were addressed almost verbatim, as was mention of the troubling attempts with training and embedding military leadership with Iraqi forces.
While everyone freely admits the answer is not clear-cut by any means, the President is showing the ability that this nation has to draw upon our resources of a qualified intellectual base. Regardless of political affiliation, Americans, all humanity, should be encouraged by the development of a process to resolve a painful and inhumane situation. While the trouble in Iraq with sectarian violence, poverty, and limited expectations may not be resolved overnight, there is hope that by analyzing the trouble openly and devoting resources globally, we may be able to provide a positive influence in 2007.
The President has used political verbiage to address a strategy; it is now up to the global society to listen to the words and respond to the actions in an attempt to move forward in 2007 and beyond.
While everyone freely admits the answer is not clear-cut by any means, the President is showing the ability that this nation has to draw upon our resources of a qualified intellectual base. Regardless of political affiliation, Americans, all humanity, should be encouraged by the development of a process to resolve a painful and inhumane situation. While the trouble in Iraq with sectarian violence, poverty, and limited expectations may not be resolved overnight, there is hope that by analyzing the trouble openly and devoting resources globally, we may be able to provide a positive influence in 2007.
The President has used political verbiage to address a strategy; it is now up to the global society to listen to the words and respond to the actions in an attempt to move forward in 2007 and beyond.
Monday, January 8, 2007
The Blogosphere, RSS, and the Wall Street Journal
I need to say “Thank you” to my local paper delivery service for not being able to deliver the Wall Street Journal. I have been a WSJ subscriber for years and I still believe the Journal is the best source for unbiased and critical reporting of today’s top issues. However, upon moving about a year ago, I was dismayed to find out that even though I have moved to the fastest growing county in Virginia, I could not receive morning delivery of the Journal. Instead, I would have to wait until the postal mail came sometime after lunch to get the news that I needed to keep on top of the day. Obviously, short of starting my own paper-route there was nothing I could do that would allow me to keep my routine of reading the top stories with my morning java, or was there? Along with my print subscription to the Journal, I also signed up for an online version that I could read 24/7 (as the news broke). Of course, I set my homepage (or actually one of my home "tabs" using IE 7.0) to this link and I was back in business.
Now by starting my cyber-routine at “coffee-time,” I can not only browse the Journal article I want, but I can scan my RSS feeds and keep up on the blogs that are of interest to me. That’s the difference in today’s online media versus the old days of 2002-03. Today we are much more aware of targeted media outlets like blogs or RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds that allow us to digest more relevant information and not wade through the cosmetic crap that fills up the AOL or MSN homepages.
Most of the readers on this page have probably figured out how to use RSS or scan blogs, but for those unlucky few who came across my musings by happenstance, I have listed a couple of tips that may help you consolidate your morning routine and ensure you have the information that is important to you.
First, get yourself a good mail program and/or browser. As a “Microsoft” guy, I use Outlook 2007 and IE 7.0, but you can use Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird as a ready alternative. The key is to have the ability to integrate RSS feeds into your mail or favorite websites section. There are specific RSS Readers that are great for this ,too. With a little preparation, you can open your program of choice and, voila, have the news feeds you care about. They may be from the Journal, Department of Homeland Security, or possibly Bob the Builder. Whatever it is that you are looking for, if it was posted, written about, or captured on video while you slept, it will be ready for you first thing in the morning. Personally, I like the integration with Outlook 2007 and IE 7.0. When I subscribe to a feed using the RSS button in IE 7.0, it automatically adds the feed to Outlook. Then any time a new feed is written, it comes into my mailbox like email messages. I can scan the subject line and determine its relevance before I engage the story itself.
But how do you find what you are looking for? Well, fortunately most traditional news outlets use RSS today, and most have topical RSS feeds (such as Tech Journal or Washington Wire). Also, a lot of today’s companies are instituting RSS feeds or blogs to discuss topics relevant to their development. If you want information from a supplier or vendor and want to be alerted of a change, a blog subscription or RSS feed is a great way to stay on top of it (i.e. Suite-Soft Blogs). Finally, there are several engines devoted to sorting out relevant blogs. My favorite is Technorati (http://www.technorati.com/). Blogs are a great way of communicating with other like-minded thinkers out there. Some great blog topics for businesses deal with tax strategies, corporate policy, and, of course, a plethora of sites on programming.
By the way, look for the RSS Gadget in the Microsoft Windows Vista™ Operating System. It is nice to have a feed for RSS always on the desktop. I am sure there is a “Widget” available for you Mac guys as well. Finally, I have a friend who lives by the phrase “Cash is King,” but I am repeatedly thinking to myself, “Information is King,” and the blogosphere is becoming a great place to find it.
Now by starting my cyber-routine at “coffee-time,” I can not only browse the Journal article I want, but I can scan my RSS feeds and keep up on the blogs that are of interest to me. That’s the difference in today’s online media versus the old days of 2002-03. Today we are much more aware of targeted media outlets like blogs or RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds that allow us to digest more relevant information and not wade through the cosmetic crap that fills up the AOL or MSN homepages.
Most of the readers on this page have probably figured out how to use RSS or scan blogs, but for those unlucky few who came across my musings by happenstance, I have listed a couple of tips that may help you consolidate your morning routine and ensure you have the information that is important to you.
First, get yourself a good mail program and/or browser. As a “Microsoft” guy, I use Outlook 2007 and IE 7.0, but you can use Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird as a ready alternative. The key is to have the ability to integrate RSS feeds into your mail or favorite websites section. There are specific RSS Readers that are great for this ,too. With a little preparation, you can open your program of choice and, voila, have the news feeds you care about. They may be from the Journal, Department of Homeland Security, or possibly Bob the Builder. Whatever it is that you are looking for, if it was posted, written about, or captured on video while you slept, it will be ready for you first thing in the morning. Personally, I like the integration with Outlook 2007 and IE 7.0. When I subscribe to a feed using the RSS button in IE 7.0, it automatically adds the feed to Outlook. Then any time a new feed is written, it comes into my mailbox like email messages. I can scan the subject line and determine its relevance before I engage the story itself.
But how do you find what you are looking for? Well, fortunately most traditional news outlets use RSS today, and most have topical RSS feeds (such as Tech Journal or Washington Wire). Also, a lot of today’s companies are instituting RSS feeds or blogs to discuss topics relevant to their development. If you want information from a supplier or vendor and want to be alerted of a change, a blog subscription or RSS feed is a great way to stay on top of it (i.e. Suite-Soft Blogs). Finally, there are several engines devoted to sorting out relevant blogs. My favorite is Technorati (http://www.technorati.com/). Blogs are a great way of communicating with other like-minded thinkers out there. Some great blog topics for businesses deal with tax strategies, corporate policy, and, of course, a plethora of sites on programming.
By the way, look for the RSS Gadget in the Microsoft Windows Vista™ Operating System. It is nice to have a feed for RSS always on the desktop. I am sure there is a “Widget” available for you Mac guys as well. Finally, I have a friend who lives by the phrase “Cash is King,” but I am repeatedly thinking to myself, “Information is King,” and the blogosphere is becoming a great place to find it.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Business Networking
I think I will end this week of blogging by stating an absolutely obvious statement, “Networking is an instrumental component to any company’s success.”
Of course that is true. The question is: What are some new ways to network using today’s “cyber-based” society? One such way is by using LinkedIn.com. I was first turned on to this site about a year ago from a venture capitalist. I paid little attention to the site for a few months, and then during our fundraising efforts I started connecting some of my contacts from my “little black book” (No, not that one, the other one, with professionals… oh, that doesn’t sound right, either).
Anyway, I have found it to be somewhat useful, and based on a handful of articles I have read, so have many others. A relevant example can be found in this link from Business 2.0. Another example is from a much more relevant blogger than I, Guy Kawasaki, who lists 10 ways to use LinkedIn.
If you are interested in joining, you can take a look at my profile and contact me directly as a connection. I am more than happy to promote cyber-socialism (That doesn’t sound right, either). Other hip forms of networking are through MySpace.com or SecondLife.com. MySpace, of course, is much more social than professional and SecondLife is… well that’s a whole separate blog. Best of luck and good hunting.
Of course that is true. The question is: What are some new ways to network using today’s “cyber-based” society? One such way is by using LinkedIn.com. I was first turned on to this site about a year ago from a venture capitalist. I paid little attention to the site for a few months, and then during our fundraising efforts I started connecting some of my contacts from my “little black book” (No, not that one, the other one, with professionals… oh, that doesn’t sound right, either).
Anyway, I have found it to be somewhat useful, and based on a handful of articles I have read, so have many others. A relevant example can be found in this link from Business 2.0. Another example is from a much more relevant blogger than I, Guy Kawasaki, who lists 10 ways to use LinkedIn.
If you are interested in joining, you can take a look at my profile and contact me directly as a connection. I am more than happy to promote cyber-socialism (That doesn’t sound right, either). Other hip forms of networking are through MySpace.com or SecondLife.com. MySpace, of course, is much more social than professional and SecondLife is… well that’s a whole separate blog. Best of luck and good hunting.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
“Constitutional Crisis”, Defended
Happy New Year!!! 2007 is already shaping up as a banner year. Well, that is for you fellow Penn State, USC, Auburn, Boise State or Wisconsin fans out there.
Let us begin 2007 with a nod to Chief Justice John Roberts’ new report on judicial pay. For those of you unaware, here here is a link to a “biased” report from today’s WSJ blog.
Let me preface my opinion by saying that I was fortunate enough to attend a breakfast seminar last month with Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and heard a parallel lecture by the former lawyer and law professor, followed by a thoughtful defense and somewhat worrisome forecast that is thoroughly neglected in the linked blog.
To sum the report by the Chief Justice, there is a need for pay increases in the judicial branch in order to compete for the best and brightest legal minds. The objective is to recruit thoughtful professionals to sit on the bench and give us an unbiased approach in the duties of legal interpretation.
Even though there are obvious opinions levied in the WSJ piece, I highly doubt Mr. Roberts’ report was created out of greed. In fact, I would argue that the Chief Justice is financially “okay” and far from needing a handout. Therefore, rather than selfish motivations, Mr. Roberts is illustrating effective corporate forecasting. He understands the marketplace trends and is presenting a logical approach to correct market imbalances. Mr. Roberts does not use personal citations in his report; nor is it an indictment on existing judges and their ability to perform. It is, rather, a thoughtful social exercise that assumes trends based on capital market philosophies. In order to assume the best interpretation of law is being made, we would want the best legal minds responsible to issue those interpretations. In our capitalistic society, compensation is a barometer for achievement, and while the argument is not to compete entirely to scale with private sector firms, there should be some attempts to correct the gross imbalance and make the honor of Judge a notable achievement again.
Currently, salaries for District Judges are fractionally higher than those of other state legal positions such as associate attorneys at the state and local levels, but significantly lower than counterparts from the private sector. Again, I do not (and neither do Justices Roberts or Scalia) advocate matching salaries, but at least increase the pay to allow for some of these legal minds to entertain the possibility of serving on the bench without the penalty of departure from their current lifestyle.
The fear here is that we are encouraging the process of promoting a prosecutor whose only career experience is that of a state employee to become a judge whose job it is to mediate cases directed against the state. To me, that sounds a little too socialistic for my tastes. As a business owner, I want my judges to have a firm understanding of the private sector and what it means to defend us from the oft-times overbearing nature of government. Of course, if you don’t believe Justice Roberts or Scalia and want to view a case study of this process yourself, simply analyze corporate law in the European Union.
Let us begin 2007 with a nod to Chief Justice John Roberts’ new report on judicial pay. For those of you unaware, here here is a link to a “biased” report from today’s WSJ blog.
Let me preface my opinion by saying that I was fortunate enough to attend a breakfast seminar last month with Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and heard a parallel lecture by the former lawyer and law professor, followed by a thoughtful defense and somewhat worrisome forecast that is thoroughly neglected in the linked blog.
To sum the report by the Chief Justice, there is a need for pay increases in the judicial branch in order to compete for the best and brightest legal minds. The objective is to recruit thoughtful professionals to sit on the bench and give us an unbiased approach in the duties of legal interpretation.
Even though there are obvious opinions levied in the WSJ piece, I highly doubt Mr. Roberts’ report was created out of greed. In fact, I would argue that the Chief Justice is financially “okay” and far from needing a handout. Therefore, rather than selfish motivations, Mr. Roberts is illustrating effective corporate forecasting. He understands the marketplace trends and is presenting a logical approach to correct market imbalances. Mr. Roberts does not use personal citations in his report; nor is it an indictment on existing judges and their ability to perform. It is, rather, a thoughtful social exercise that assumes trends based on capital market philosophies. In order to assume the best interpretation of law is being made, we would want the best legal minds responsible to issue those interpretations. In our capitalistic society, compensation is a barometer for achievement, and while the argument is not to compete entirely to scale with private sector firms, there should be some attempts to correct the gross imbalance and make the honor of Judge a notable achievement again.
Currently, salaries for District Judges are fractionally higher than those of other state legal positions such as associate attorneys at the state and local levels, but significantly lower than counterparts from the private sector. Again, I do not (and neither do Justices Roberts or Scalia) advocate matching salaries, but at least increase the pay to allow for some of these legal minds to entertain the possibility of serving on the bench without the penalty of departure from their current lifestyle.
The fear here is that we are encouraging the process of promoting a prosecutor whose only career experience is that of a state employee to become a judge whose job it is to mediate cases directed against the state. To me, that sounds a little too socialistic for my tastes. As a business owner, I want my judges to have a firm understanding of the private sector and what it means to defend us from the oft-times overbearing nature of government. Of course, if you don’t believe Justice Roberts or Scalia and want to view a case study of this process yourself, simply analyze corporate law in the European Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
