Geek News

When the internet is down my radio still works

Guru 42 Blog -

From time to time events in the world remind us that modern technology has limits, as we recently saw with the problems with Amazon Web Services, that took down many major web sites. People were having panic attacks because they were having issues getting to their favorite website.

Theoretically the internet was created to be a better more fault tolerant communications system. As the internet has exploded commercially it has become the exactly the opposite of the original goal. It has created the biggest single point of failure in our world. People forget there are other ways of doing things without using the internet, like using traditional broadcast radio for news and entertainment.

It scares me that some people think that we should use the internet for everything. Instead of making any more comments based on my subjective opinion, I felt inspired to do a little research.

It would appear that traditional radio is still alive and well.

Here are some snippets from Pew Research on radio broadcasting:

"... terrestrial radio continues to reach the overwhelming majority of the public."

As far as using radio for a source of news and information:

"Pew Research Center’s own survey work adds insight here, finding radio to be a common source of news among adults in the U.S. In research asking about how people are learning about the U.S. presidential election, 44% of adults said they learned about it from radio in the past week. "

Source: Pew Research Center Audio: Fact Sheet

To those who say terrestrial radio (traditional broadcast radio) is dead, might be surprised to see that the Pew research numbers show that the percentage of Americans ages 12 or older who listen to terrestrial radio weekly has remained pretty steady at over 90% for the years 2009 through 2015.

Source: Audio: Weekly radio listenership (terrestrial)

Why not always use the internet?

You use the simplest tool you need to solve a problem, why make things more complicated than they need to be?

I want to kick back after dinner, and unwind watching some mindless entertainment. I watch television. The internet can be a pain at times. Connections are slow, websites are take too long to load. Sometimes the alternatives to using the internet are more efficient.

I want to sit on the porch, enjoy a beverage, and relax. I listen to the radio. It is quick and simple. Why would I use anything else?

I am driving in the car, I want some background music to pass the time. I listen to the radio. Why do I need the internet?

What if the power goes out? What happens then? Will my wi-fi work? Or I just could listen to my battery powered radio to connect to the world.

Need any more examples?

Why it makes sense to receive FM Radio on your cell phone

Does it makes sense to eliminate FM radio in favor of digital?
 

Tags: 

Net Neutrality and the myth that the internet is free

Guru 42 Blog -

One argument over net neutrality is the fear that the large Cable TV providers like Comcast controlling internet access as ISPs could charge for various levels of service on the internet in tiers, like they do with Cable TV services. Some people object to that because they believe "the internet should be free."

Entertainment such as radio and television started out as broadcast media, in that you had a receiver in your home to receive the signals broadcast by the local stations. Television grew out of radio. In the early days of television, the 1930s and 1940s, the successful television networks were the ones that started with radio networks.

There are still "free" televisions stations in that you can find many local stations that broadcast a signal through the air that you can receive. Cable TV was initially created to provide television service to areas that did not receive a good broadcast signal. As cable TV expanded in the 1960s and 1970s the Cable TV operators began to add extra channels to their systems that were not derived from broadcast signals.

The internet of today is the next step in the evolution of entertainment. The internet is new way to deliver various content to your homes through wires provided by your Cable TV company that were once used just to deliver television service. Satellite services once developed to compete with cable TV services now also deliver internet access. Radio has also expanded beyond the traditional through the air broadcasting to satellite radio and internet radio.

Broadcast radio is only free in the sense that you do not pay an ongoing fee to listen to the radio. But you pay for in the sense that you listen to advertising that is paid for by someone else. With cable television you are paying for the convenience of having a clear television signal delivered to your home through a wire. The programming is paid for in various ways, sometimes strictly by advertising, just like in the days of broadcasting. Sometimes the programming is paid for by fees through the cable services provider for carrying the channel. In the case of premium services like HBO or Showtime, you get to watch them commercial free, but you pay a premium, as in a charge to view them, that offsets the revenue that the commercials would raise.

Right now internet service providers are providing you with a connection to the services and you are paying for the access just like in the early days of cable TV. There are also premium services on the internet like NetFlix, where you pay a premium to access content, just like you would with premium services like HBO or Showtime.

Gratis versus libre free speech not the same as free beer

I stumbled upon an article about American software freedom activist and programmer Richard Stallman drawing attention to the concept of gratis versus libre and had a massive "ah-huh" moment regarding how this concept of "free" gets twisted in the net neutrality debate.

Richard Stallman is considered the father of the Open Source software movement. Stallman explains that Open Source refers to the preservation of the freedoms to use, study, distribute and modify that software not zero-cost. In illustrating the concept of Gratis versus Libre, Stallman is famous for using the sentence, "free as in free speech not as in free beer."

This dual definition of free can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents.

There's no such thing as a free lunch but you are free to eat your lunch anywhere you want.

The use of the English adjective free often gets twisted because it can be used in one of two meanings. When you say there's no such thing as a free lunch you are using the word free meaning "for zero price" (gratis). When you say you are free to eat your lunch anywhere you want you are using the word free to mean "with little or no restriction" (libre).

The myth that the internet is free

Some people don't like the possibility of the large cable TV providers like Comcast controlling internet access as ISPs where they could charge for various levels of service on the internet in tiers, like they do with Cable TV services. That is part of the battle over net neutrality. Nothing is free.

Traditional radio and television are evolving and expanding and becoming a part of the big picture of media and the internet. If you don't pay an upfront fee to use something, you will pay for it in having to tolerate some form of advertising. If you want a better quality signal someone needs to pay to build up the highway to provide the services, and you will pay for that in service fees. If you want to watch programming or listen to music without commercials, there needs to be a way to license it and collect fees in the form of subscriptions so the content providers get paid for their work.

Part of the debate on a "free" internet is that the concept of free is two fold. You may be free to choose what services you want to use on the internet, but access to use those services is not free from cost or payment.

Graphic: American software freedom activist and programmer Richard Stallman (right) illustrating his famous sentence "free as in free speech not as in free beer", with a beer glass. Brussels, RMLL, 9 July 2013

Save

Tags: 

Net Neutrality and the myth that the internet is free

Guru 42 Blog -

One argument over net neutrality is the fear that the large Cable TV providers like Comcast controlling internet access as ISPs could charge for various levels of service on the internet in tiers, like they do with Cable TV services. Some people object to that because they believe "the internet should be free."

Entertainment such as radio and television started out as broadcast media, in that you had a receiver in your home to receive the signals broadcast by the local stations. Television grew out of radio. In the early days of television, the 1930s and 1940s, the successful television networks were the ones that started with radio networks.

There are still "free" televisions stations in that you can find many local stations that broadcast a signal through the air that you can receive. Cable TV was initially created to provide television service to areas that did not receive a good broadcast signal. As cable TV expanded in the 1960s and 1970s the Cable TV operators began to add extra channels to their systems that were not derived from broadcast signals.

The internet of today is the next step in the evolution of entertainment. The internet is new way to deliver various content to your homes through wires provided by your Cable TV company that were once used just to deliver television service. Satellite services once developed to compete with cable TV services now also deliver internet access. Radio has also expanded beyond the traditional through the air broadcasting to satellite radio and internet radio.

Broadcast radio is only free in the sense that you do not pay an ongoing fee to listen to the radio. But you pay for in the sense that you listen to advertising that is paid for by someone else. With cable television you are paying for the convenience of having a clear television signal delivered to your home through a wire. The programming is paid for in various ways, sometimes strictly by advertising, just like in the days of broadcasting. Sometimes the programming is paid for by fees through the cable services provider for carrying the channel. In the case of premium services like HBO or Showtime, you get to watch them commercial free, but you pay a premium, as in a charge to view them, that offsets the revenue that the commercials would raise.

Right now internet service providers are providing you with a connection to the services and you are paying for the access just like in the early days of cable TV. There are also premium services on the internet like NetFlix, where you pay a premium to access content, just like you would with premium services like HBO or Showtime.

Gratis versus libre free speech not the same as free beer

I stumbled upon an article about American software freedom activist and programmer Richard Stallman drawing attention to the concept of gratis versus libre and had a massive "ah-huh" moment regarding how this concept of "free" gets twisted in the net neutrality debate.

Richard Stallman is considered the father of the Open Source software movement. Stallman explains that Open Source refers to the preservation of the freedoms to use, study, distribute and modify that software not zero-cost. In illustrating the concept of Gratis versus Libre, Stallman is famous for using the sentence, "free as in free speech not as in free beer."

This dual definition of free can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents.

There's no such thing as a free lunch but you are free to eat your lunch anywhere you want.

The use of the English adjective free often gets twisted because it can be used in one of two meanings. When you say there's no such thing as a free lunch you are using the word free meaning "for zero price" (gratis). When you say you are free to eat your lunch anywhere you want you are using the word free to mean "with little or no restriction" (libre).

The myth that the internet is free

Some people don't like the possibility of the large cable TV providers like Comcast controlling internet access as ISPs where they could charge for various levels of service on the internet in tiers, like they do with Cable TV services. That is part of the battle over net neutrality. Nothing is free.

Traditional radio and television are evolving and expanding and becoming a part of the big picture of media and the internet. If you don't pay an upfront fee to use something, you will pay for it in having to tolerate some form of advertising. If you want a better quality signal someone needs to pay to build up the highway to provide the services, and you will pay for that in service fees. If you want to watch programming or listen to music without commercials, there needs to be a way to license it and collect fees in the form of subscriptions so the content providers get paid for their work.

Part of the debate on a "free" internet is that the concept of free is two fold. You may be free to choose what services you want to use on the internet, but access to use those services is not free from cost or payment.

Graphic: American software freedom activist and programmer Richard Stallman (right) illustrating his famous sentence "free as in free speech not as in free beer", with a beer glass. Brussels, RMLL, 9 July 2013

Save

Tags: 

Why it makes sense to receive FM Radio on your cell phone

Guru 42 Blog -

Most smartphones come with FM radio receivers already built in, and the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants you to know that your wireless carrier may be keeping you from using the technology.

Why should you care about using FM Radio on your cell phone?

Emergency management professionals will tell you that traditional radio is a great source for news during times of emergency.

There are people in the cell phone industry that would call the public safety argument for using cell phone FM radio just a marketing ploy by traditional radio, but I would disagree. I know from first hand experience how fickle cell phone service can be.

During an earthquake on the east coast a few years ago everyone picked up their cellphones and began calling everyone they know to see what had happened. The cell phone circuits were overloaded. Thankfully the earthquake was just some rumbling and no major damage was done. But we all saw how vulnerable we are if we rely on cellular phone circuits for information during a time of emergency.

It happened again with Hurricane Sandy, and the problem was compounded by actual damage to cell towers and power outages in addition to increased phone volume. Cell phone users experienced various communications issues.

What is the issue with using FM Radio on your cell phone?

This article from Wired back in July pretty much sums up the issue…("Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?")

"Broadcasters and public safety officials have long urged handset manufacturers and wireless carriers to universally activate the FM chip, and recently brought the campaign to Canada. Carriers have little financial incentive to do so because they profit from streaming data, says Barry Rooke of the National Campus and Community Radio Association."

It's funny that the question being discussed from a Apple leaning publication such as MacRumors (FCC Chairman Encourages Activation of the FM Radio Receiver Built Into Your iPhone) states, "Apple's stance on the activation of FM receivers in iPhones is uncertain."

Other articles such as this one from The Verge ( FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it ) have a different slant on why, "Giving consumers the chance to pick free FM radio also means fewer track sales on iTunes and fewer new subscribers to services like Apple Music. ... That’d be a major downside for Apple, which is probably why it hasn’t embraced FM radio on the iPhone yet."

FM radio alive and well

We recently asked the question, "Does it makes sense to eliminate FM radio in favor of digital?" because in 2017 Norway will become the first country in the world to start shutting down its national FM radio network in favor of digital radio.

Our conclusion was that it makes no sense at all because broadcast radio is alive and well in the United States. There are currently over 6700 commercial FM stations. Not only is traditional FM radio alive and well, traditional FM radio provides a valuable service in time of emergency.
 

Save

Save

Tags: 

Why it makes sense to receive FM Radio on your cell phone

Guru 42 Blog -

Most smartphones come with FM radio receivers already built in, and the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants you to know that your wireless carrier may be keeping you from using the technology.

Why should you care about using FM Radio on your cell phone?

Emergency management professionals will tell you that traditional radio is a great source for news during times of emergency.

There are people in the cell phone industry that would call the public safety argument for using cell phone FM radio just a marketing ploy by traditional radio, but I would disagree. I know from first hand experience how fickle cell phone service can be.

During an earthquake on the east coast a few years ago everyone picked up their cellphones and began calling everyone they know to see what had happened. The cell phone circuits were overloaded. Thankfully the earthquake was just some rumbling and no major damage was done. But we all saw how vulnerable we are if we rely on cellular phone circuits for information during a time of emergency.

It happened again with Hurricane Sandy, and the problem was compounded by actual damage to cell towers and power outages in addition to increased phone volume. Cell phone users experienced various communications issues.

What is the issue with using FM Radio on your cell phone?

This article from Wired back in July pretty much sums up the issue…("Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?")

"Broadcasters and public safety officials have long urged handset manufacturers and wireless carriers to universally activate the FM chip, and recently brought the campaign to Canada. Carriers have little financial incentive to do so because they profit from streaming data, says Barry Rooke of the National Campus and Community Radio Association."

It's funny that the question being discussed from a Apple leaning publication such as MacRumors (FCC Chairman Encourages Activation of the FM Radio Receiver Built Into Your iPhone) states, "Apple's stance on the activation of FM receivers in iPhones is uncertain."

Other articles such as this one from The Verge ( FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it ) have a different slant on why, "Giving consumers the chance to pick free FM radio also means fewer track sales on iTunes and fewer new subscribers to services like Apple Music. ... That’d be a major downside for Apple, which is probably why it hasn’t embraced FM radio on the iPhone yet."

FM radio alive and well

We recently asked the question, "Does it makes sense to eliminate FM radio in favor of digital?" because in 2017 Norway will become the first country in the world to start shutting down its national FM radio network in favor of digital radio.

Our conclusion was that it makes no sense at all because broadcast radio is alive and well in the United States. There are currently over 6700 commercial FM stations. Not only is traditional FM radio alive and well, traditional FM radio provides a valuable service in time of emergency.
 

Save

Save

Tags: 

Will new FCC chairman get rid of Net Neutrality?

Guru 42 Blog -

The mainstream news introduces new Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai as "Net Neutrality Foe." (1) The "Net Neutrality is dead" chant is being stirred up as technology sites like wired are already predicting "Net Neutrality No More." (2)

From many online debates I read in recent months, as well as questions I have been asked, it is obvious that there are many interpretations to the term Net Neutrality. My reaction to the appointment of Ajit Pai as the new FCC chairman is to simply say that since the topic is not clearly defined in the minds of many, the debate over any changes will be ongoing.

As far as technology sites like Wired predicting "Net Neutrality No More," I take that for what its worth. I'll read Wired for what's new in the world of gadgets. I wouldn't read Wired to try to make sense of FCC regulations and pending changes in internet law.

It also becomes a matter of opinions, which are like certain human body parts, everyone has one, and they all stink.

For some opinions that tell a different story...

This article from Forbes written after the appointment of New FCC Chair Ajit Pai backs the opinion that Net Neutrality won't change much. "Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?"(3) ...

"The net neutrality misinformation bandwagon has opened an ugly new front."

"For technology companies here in Silicon Valley and across the Internet ecosystem, Pai’s appointment is very good news. He favors a return to the bi-partisan policy of light-touch regulation established in the early days of the commercial Internet—policies that have made possible the convergence of networks, media and technologies on the single open Internet standard. His FCC is likely to be consistent, professional, and predictable."

This article from Forbes written right after Trump was elected backs the opinion that Net Neutrality won't change much. "The True Fate Of Net Neutrality In A Trump FCC" (4)...

"The basic net neutrality principles—that broadband providers can’t block access to lawful content, can’t intentionally slow network traffic for anti-competitive purposes, or otherwise discriminate against some content providers for non-technical reasons--are perfectly safe, regardless of what policies the Trump Administration ultimately adopts, or who the new President appoints to Chair the FCC."

This is article from IEEE, a technology professional association, does not jump on the net neutrality is dead bandwagon either. " Is Net Neutrality Good or Bad for Innovation?" (5)...

IEEE describes themselves as, "A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity."

"Unfortunately, there is no clear answer. Economists have done plenty of modeling on net neutrality over the past eight years, but there isn’t a strong consensus about whether keeping it or throwing it out would be best for consumers, innovation, or the economy."

"... anyone who tries to reverse U.S. policy on net neutrality will likely have a difficult road ahead. Public sentiment will not be on their side—when the FCC solicited public comments on the issue in 2014, they received a record 3.7 million comments, with the vast majority in favor of net neutrality."

I am more concerned about mergers and acquisitions that reduce competition than I am about changes in Net Neutrality laws.  Comcast recently announced it will roll out a mobile phone service in 2017 using Verizon’s network infrastructure, stirring up speculation of a Comcast and Verizon merger in the future. "Are Wedding Bells On Horizon As Comcast Launches Wireless Service On Verizon Network?" (6)

That is a lot more frightening thought than any net neutrality legislation. The 800 pound gorilla of cable, partners with the giant of wireless. Holy monopoly Batman!

For those who fear new changes in net neutrality will create a new wave of internet censorship, they must have short memories because there have been many proposed laws in recent years to control what content is allowed on the internet, and these laws have been for the most part, independent of the net neutrality debate.

Stay tuned as we continue to follow on ongoing debate over Net Neutrality.

Learn more:

Internet censorship and net neutrality is not a simple matter

Internet equality and net neutrality explained in simple terms
 

Links to news articles:

(1) Report: 'Net Neutrality' Foe Ajit Pai Is New FCC Head
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/report-net-neutrality-foe-aji...

(2) Trump’s FCC Pick Doesn’t Bode Well For Net Neutrality
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trumps-fcc-pick-signals-end-net-neutrality...

(3) Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smea...

(4) The True Fate Of Net Neutrality In A Trump FCC
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2016/11/15/the-true-fate-of-net-...
 
(5) Is Net Neutrality Good or Bad for Innovation?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/does-net-neutrality-...

(6) Are Wedding Bells On Horizon As Comcast Launches Wireless Service On Verizon Network?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2016/09/21/comcast-announces-...
 

Federal Communications Commission Photo: FCC Chairman Genachowski swears in Ajit Pai as a new Commissioner at the FCC headquarters in Washington, DC. May 14, 2012.

 

Save

Save

Tags: 

Automotive dependability ratings skewed by modern technology

Guru 42 Blog -

I am geek who loves to get to the bottom of myths and legends, as well as claims by auto makers in commercials. After watching several television commercials by a certain automaker bragging about earning more J.D. Power Initial Quality awards than any other brand, I decided to do a little research.  Should I really be impressed by all these awards? What exactly do they measure?

The first point is the numbers game. Claiming that your brand has more J.D. Power Initial Quality awards than any other brand has do with the number of models that you sell. Chevy has the most models on the J.D. Power Initial Quality awards list, but Chevy also produces a large number of models when you look at their line of cars and trucks. On the long list of 2016 Initial Quality Ratings I was surprised to see models such as the Hyundai Accent, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Azera, and Kia Soul on the list, all made by the Hyundai Motor Company.

The other issue with the automaker bragging is the value of measuring initial quality. The definition of initial quality is defined as problems experienced by vehicle owners during the first 90 days of ownership.  The first 90 days, that's not a long period of time.  I am pretty happy with my 2008 Mercury Milan, 9 years and 185,000 miles later, and I have never had a major problem. Seems like quality should be measured in larger increments than 90 days.

Studies skewed by modern technology

J.D. Power has two major areas for automobiles, the annual Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) and Initial Quality Study (IQS). I thought I would dig deeper and look for the longer term dependability ratings.  Instead of finding more answers, my search raised many questions of the value of their dependability ratings.

In the world today people see an automotive as more than an transportation vehicle, they see the automobile as a collection of gadgets and gizmos attached to a vehicle on wheels.  Because of this infatuation with technology, issues with entertainment systems and Bluetooth connections can skew automotive dependability ratings.

An article on Autoblog, "J.D. Power needs to rethink its Vehicle Dependability Study," makes the statement, "A poor Bluetooth pairing procedure is not the same as a blown engine."

The Autoblog article explains how the ratings are skewed by modern technology.

"If an owner can't get his or her phone to connect via Bluetooth to the audio system, that's a problem. If an owner's audible command isn't properly deciphered by that annoying synthesized voice all infotainment systems seem plagued by, that's a problem. But are either of those problems as serious as a transmission that won't shift, or an engine that won't start? Not by my standards. But by J.D. Power's, the answer is yes."

An article in Forbes, "Inside The 'Real' J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Ratings"  also explains how the ratings are skewed by modern technology.

"Apparently the notion of what qualifies as an unreliable car no longer means one that leaves its owner stranded at the side of the road or otherwise requires frequent repairs. Today it’s stretched to encompass what some of us might consider minor inconveniences, particularly balky voice control systems and difficulty with Bluetooth mobile phone pairing and connectivity. Issues with electronics now account for 20% of all consumer-reported car problems in J.D. Power’s survey."

Remember when a car was just a car?

If you dig into some of these studies on dependability you will find brands of vehicles where there are better engines and drivetrains with fewer problems, but the overall brands rate lower because of issues with Bluetooth connections or voice activated entertainment systems. Going back to quote the Autoblog article, "A poor Bluetooth pairing procedure is not the same as a blown engine."

I've owned quite a few cars in my lifetime, and a few had major engine problems. I am pretty happy with a car that is 9 years and has 185,000 miles on it. Yea, the voice activated audio system sometimes doesn't understand what I am saying and I sometimes swear at it when the Bluetooth gets temperamental and decides not to connect to my phone.  But it is the most reliable car I have ever owned.

There was a time when someone talked about the dependability of a car, they were primarily talking about the engine and drivetrain, the major components of a car.  Issues with electronics in a car meant static on your radio. If your car radio gave you fits, you ripped it out and through in a new one.  Maybe an upgrade with a tape deck!

After reading several articles explaining these vehicle dependability studies and initial quality studies, I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Image: Screenshot from 1970 Mercury commercial

Explore automotive innovation and invention at Altered Automotive (link is external).  Learn more about the great automotive inventors like Ford and Olds as we explore the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant in Detroit (link is external) and the R.E. Olds Transportation Museum in Lansing, Michigan. (link is external)

Save

Save

Tags: 

Why do some people never fail?

Guru 42 Universe -

The great inventor Thomas Edison is one of the best examples of a successful state of mind. According many popular stories Thomas Edison was asked after several thousand attempts to invent the electric light bulb without success, how he would handle his failure. Edison stated that he had not failed, but rather had produced several thousand outcomes which would lead to success. Several thousand outcomes later Edison successfully produced the electric light bulb, whether consciously or unconsciously, Edison had to program his mind and body to channel his energy into a successful outcome.

A popular myth or a true story?

There are actually two documented variations of a quote by Edison where he downplayed his failures, but focused on his success.

According to Rutgers, Myth Buster: Edison's 10,000 attempts, "The source of the story about Edison trying thousands of experiments or materials is probably an 1890 interview in Harper's Monthly Magazine."

The exact quote by Edison:

"I speak without exaggeration when I say that I have constructed three thousand different theories in connection with the electric light, each one of them reasonable and apparently to be true. Yet only in two cases did my experiments prove the truth of my theory. My chief difficulty, as perhaps you know, was in constructing the carbon filament, the incandescence of which is the source of the light."

The Rutgers article also describes another quote by Edison in a 1910 biography as it relates to Edison's later work on storage batteries.

The book quotes Edison's friend and associate Walter S. Mallory:

"I said: 'Isn't it a shame that with the tremendous amount of work you have done you haven't been able to get any results?' Edison turned on me like a flash, and with a smile replied: 'Results! Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! I know several thousand things that won't work!'"

Edison's legacy was in creating his "invention factory" where Edison used his staff to develop ideas and turn them into patents. Some point to the concept of the invention factory as the reason for his success. Critics say Edison took his invention factory too far, and Edison took credit for any individual creativity by his employees.

How many inventions and innovations made in the name of Apple or Microsoft were not the direct work of Gates or Jobs? How is Edison getting credit for the work of his staff any different that the large number of engineers, designers, and programmers working for Microsoft or Apple, but all we hear about is the success of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?

Edison was a systems thinker and a project manager. Edison took the image of an inventor as one man tinkering alone in a shop and turned it into an industry. He paid workers to conduct numerous tedious experiments so he did not have to do the boring manual tasks himself. I think that is pretty genius.

In our previous article, Why Do Technology Projects Fail? I state that one of the biggest challenges in information technology success is setting proper expectations. The goal is to focus technology conversations on the question, "What exactly is it that you are trying to do?"

Edison was focused on exactly what he wanted to accomplish, he had a specific destination in mind. Edison was focused on a finding an answer to a problem, and he saw each unsuccessful experiment along the way not as a failure, but as one step closer to success.

Failure is an attitude not an outcome

The reason some people never fail, they realize failure is not an outcome, it is a state mind!

 


The Thomas A. Edison Papers of Rutgers University is probably the most reliable source of information on Thomas Edison. See link for complete story Myth Buster: Edison's 10,000 attempts.

Learn more about Thomas Edison at GeekHistory.com:

Thomas Alva Edison prolific inventor and legendary lunatic

You don't need to be a genius to know why Thomas Edison was popular
 

Tags: 

Why do some people never fail?

Guru 42 Universe -

The great inventor Thomas Edison is one of the best examples of a successful state of mind. According many popular stories Thomas Edison was asked after several thousand attempts to invent the electric light bulb without success, how he would handle his failure. Edison stated that he had not failed, but rather had produced several thousand outcomes which would lead to success. Several thousand outcomes later Edison successfully produced the electric light bulb, whether consciously or unconsciously, Edison had to program his mind and body to channel his energy into a successful outcome.

A popular myth or a true story?

There are actually two documented variations of a quote by Edison where he downplayed his failures, but focused on his success.

According to Rutgers, Myth Buster: Edison's 10,000 attempts, "The source of the story about Edison trying thousands of experiments or materials is probably an 1890 interview in Harper's Monthly Magazine."

The exact quote by Edison:

"I speak without exaggeration when I say that I have constructed three thousand different theories in connection with the electric light, each one of them reasonable and apparently to be true. Yet only in two cases did my experiments prove the truth of my theory. My chief difficulty, as perhaps you know, was in constructing the carbon filament, the incandescence of which is the source of the light."

The Rutgers article also describes another quote by Edison in a 1910 biography as it relates to Edison's later work on storage batteries.

The book quotes Edison's friend and associate Walter S. Mallory:

"I said: 'Isn't it a shame that with the tremendous amount of work you have done you haven't been able to get any results?' Edison turned on me like a flash, and with a smile replied: 'Results! Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! I know several thousand things that won't work!'"

Edison's legacy was in creating his "invention factory" where Edison used his staff to develop ideas and turn them into patents. Some point to the concept of the invention factory as the reason for his success. Critics say Edison took his invention factory too far, and Edison took credit for any individual creativity by his employees.

How many inventions and innovations made in the name of Apple or Microsoft were not the direct work of Gates or Jobs? How is Edison getting credit for the work of his staff any different that the large number of engineers, designers, and programmers working for Microsoft or Apple, but all we hear about is the success of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?

Edison was a systems thinker and a project manager. Edison took the image of an inventor as one man tinkering alone in a shop and turned it into an industry. He paid workers to conduct numerous tedious experiments so he did not have to do the boring manual tasks himself. I think that is pretty genius.

In our previous article, Why Do Technology Projects Fail? I state that one of the biggest challenges in information technology success is setting proper expectations. The goal is to focus technology conversations on the question, "What exactly is it that you are trying to do?"

Edison was focused on exactly what he wanted to accomplish, he had a specific destination in mind. Edison was focused on a finding an answer to a problem, and he saw each unsuccessful experiment along the way not as a failure, but as one step closer to success.

Failure is an attitude not an outcome

The reason some people never fail, they realize failure is not an outcome, it is a state mind!

 


The Thomas A. Edison Papers of Rutgers University is probably the most reliable source of information on Thomas Edison. See link for complete story Myth Buster: Edison's 10,000 attempts.

Learn more about Thomas Edison at GeekHistory.com:

Thomas Alva Edison prolific inventor and legendary lunatic

You don't need to be a genius to know why Thomas Edison was popular
 

Tags: 

Success and failure of former Google geek Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer

Guru 42 Blog -

According to various news reports Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, co-founder David Filo and others plan to resign from the company's board when it completes its $4.8 billion sale to Verizon.

Technology rock star Marissa Mayer

Marissa Mayer was Google's first female engineer. She started with Google in 1999 as employee number 20. Mayer worked at Google for 13 years, rising to the role of senior vice president.

Mayer was appointed president and CEO of Yahoo on July 16, 2012. Mayer led Yahoo! to acquire Tumblr in a $1.1 billion acquisition on May 20, 2013. During the summer of 2013, Mayer was looking more like a rock star that a corporate executive as she appeared in an issue of Vogue magazine. Mayer fueled a lot of debate on her office life, mixed with motherhood.  At the peak of Mayer's success in 2013, Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson released the "unauthorized biography" of the Yahoo executive. The biography tells the story of how the painfully shy teenage from small town Wisconsin went on to be the successful geeky girl at Google.

Mayer delivered the keynote address at the 2014 International Consumer Electronics Show at The Las Vegas Hotel & Casino on January 7, 2014. After a demonstration of the Yahoo News Digest, the keynote went on to pitch several products and services. First a new vision for a series of digital magazines was demonstrated, Yahoo Smart TV that recommends shows for your viewing was illustrated, followed by a discussion of trends for Yahoo owned site Tumblr.  The keynote address ended with a presentation on various Yahoo advertising products.

While Yahoo was delivering the message that that they are a big player in the world of news and entertainment, the Marissa Mayer keynote felt a lot more like an hour long infomercial for Yahoo products, rather than anything engaging or entertaining.

Is Marissa Mayer a failure?

It has been three years since Mayer delivered her keynote address at the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show. Yahoo has slipped in popularity over the last three years. Yahoo never became the news and information portal that Meyer pitched at CES in 2014. Yahoo is in the process of being sold to Verizon, and reports state that Marissa Mayer will resign from the company's board and step down as the CEO. Was Marissa Mayer the wrong person for the job or was saving Yahoo as an internet portal an impossible mission? Those are the questions that now fuel the debate over Marissa Mayer.

The headlines once asked, "Is Marissa Mayer technology's new rock star?"  This week, the headlines read, "Is Marissa Mayer a failure?"

What happens to Yahoo?

Yahoo was founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and incorporated on March 2, 1995. When the internet went commercial in the mid 1990s millions of people with computers had no idea where to start. They were clueless how to connect to all the information that would start pouring into the internet.  Yahoo was there as the web portal pioneer that connected everyone to the internet world.

The Yahoo of 2017 is different from the Yahoo of 2012 when Mayer stepped in, and very different from the Yahoo internet directory started by Jerry Yang and David Filo of the 1990s that introduced us to the world wide web.  If the Verizon deal goes through as planned, Yahoo as we know it will pretty much be dead. The new company will be known as Altaba, a combination of the words "alternative" and "Alibaba." Yahoo owns about 15% of Alibaba, a Chinese internet company. Altaba will be a holding company of the assets of the current Yahoo. 

Stayed tuned as we will be watching what happens to the remains of Yahoo, and the career of Marissa Mayer.

Links to news articles:

http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-biography-2013-8?op=1

http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/hail-to-the-chief-yahoos-marissa-m...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/10/marissa-mayer-failure...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/09/yahoo-still-alive-and...

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-yahoos-new-name-new-chairman-internet-compan...

Photo Credit:  CEO of Yahoo! Marissa Mayer (L) and Zachary Bogue attend the Yahoo News/ABCNews Pre-White House Correspondents' dinner reception pre-party at Washington Hilton on May 3, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images for Yahoo News)

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Tags: 

Internet censorship and net neutrality is not a simple matter

Guru 42 Universe -

Many people fearful of net neutrality changes look at censorship issues and editorial control of the internet as part of the net neutrality debate. But there have been many proposed laws to control what content is allowed on the internet, and these laws have been for the most part, independent of the net neutrality debate.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is digital rights organization founded in 1990. As one of the oldest and most well established organizations in understanding the interaction of government and technology the EFF put the recent FCC ruling into context.

The EFF states the delicate balance of governments role in net neutrality pretty clearly: "Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority."

A 2011 bill in the U.S. Senate bill known as PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) had people excited because it would give the government many powers to control "rogue websites." The 2011 House version of the bill was known as Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The 2011 bill was a follow up to a 2010 bill known as Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), which proposed creating an Internet blacklist of sites Americans weren’t allowed to visit.

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA claimed that requiring search engines to delete domain names violated the First Amendment and could begin a worldwide arms race of unprecedented Internet censorship. There were many protests objecting to more government control of the internet, citing concerns over possible damage to freedom of speech, innovation, and Internet integrity.


Equal Access for Everyone!

One of the issues with internet access is, and probably will be for some time, is the highways are not the same in all parts of the country. But the question becomes one of who will build the larger highways. But this takes time, and who would pay the bill?

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler sings the praises of community broadband, while groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), push the "Municipal Telecommunications Private Industry Safeguards Act" to limit local efforts to create public broadband access.

Why doesn't the government just build us bigger highways on the internet, just like on the roadways? Best argument I have heard so far as the why government should stay out of the ISP business is that the local government are going into debt to fund these projects and the locals don't want to pay the bill, in the form of higher taxes.

Government control is a bad thing?

The same people objecting to more government control of the internet on privacy issues, citing concerns over possible damage to freedom of speech, innovation, and Internet integrity, now ask for net neutrality, which means more government control to make sure all access is equal.

It is not as simple as it sounds.

Tags: 

Internet censorship and net neutrality is not a simple matter

Guru 42 Universe -

Many people fearful of net neutrality changes look at censorship issues and editorial control of the internet as part of the net neutrality debate. But there have been many proposed laws to control what content is allowed on the internet, and these laws have been for the most part, independent of the net neutrality debate.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is digital rights organization founded in 1990. As one of the oldest and most well established organizations in understanding the interaction of government and technology the EFF put the recent FCC ruling into context.

The EFF states the delicate balance of governments role in net neutrality pretty clearly: "Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority."

A 2011 bill in the U.S. Senate bill known as PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) had people excited because it would give the government many powers to control "rogue websites." The 2011 House version of the bill was known as Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The 2011 bill was a follow up to a 2010 bill known as Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), which proposed creating an Internet blacklist of sites Americans weren’t allowed to visit.

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA claimed that requiring search engines to delete domain names violated the First Amendment and could begin a worldwide arms race of unprecedented Internet censorship. There were many protests objecting to more government control of the internet, citing concerns over possible damage to freedom of speech, innovation, and Internet integrity.


Equal Access for Everyone!

One of the issues with internet access is, and probably will be for some time, is the highways are not the same in all parts of the country. But the question becomes one of who will build the larger highways. But this takes time, and who would pay the bill?

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler sings the praises of community broadband, while groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), push the "Municipal Telecommunications Private Industry Safeguards Act" to limit local efforts to create public broadband access.

Why doesn't the government just build us bigger highways on the internet, just like on the roadways? Best argument I have heard so far as the why government should stay out of the ISP business is that the local government are going into debt to fund these projects and the locals don't want to pay the bill, in the form of higher taxes.

Government control is a bad thing?

The same people objecting to more government control of the internet on privacy issues, citing concerns over possible damage to freedom of speech, innovation, and Internet integrity, now ask for net neutrality, which means more government control to make sure all access is equal.

It is not as simple as it sounds.

Tags: 

A Gallery of Automotive Innovation and Transportation Museums

Altered Automotive -

We created the Geek History website to give credit to the genius and hard work of the great geeks like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford, as well as look for the forgotten geeks. In the world of industrial age technology we also look at the often forgotten geeks such as George Westinghouse and Reginald Fessenden, and study their contributions to the world. As we learned more about automotive technology and innovation, we realized that people like Ransom Eli Olds from the world of the automotive industry needed to be added to our list of forgotten geeks for his invention and innovation in the early twentieth century.

The founding fathers of Detroit Motor City

If you look at the history of the American auto industry, it is interesting to see how the founding fathers of the companies involved were all connected. While access to various resources and railroads played a part in the evolution of an industry, sometimes it as much the work of a few key inventors and innovators that gets it all started, and the industry expands from there.

Ransom Eli Olds founded the Olds Motor Vehicle Company in Lansing, Michigan in 1897. At the Old Motor Works in Detroit he was the leading American auto producer from 1901 through 1904. Olds had a fight with his investors and left Olds Motor Works in 1904. The Oldsmobile brand would become part of General Motors in 1908. Ransom Olds founded The REO Motor Company, a successful auto manufacturer in his day, the company survived until 1975.

Much like Olds, Henry Ford would also walk away from a manufacturing company that went on to be successful because of a fight with management.  The Detroit Automobile Company was Henry Ford's first attempt at automobile manufacturing, lasting from only 1899 to 1901. The Henry Ford Company was the second company for Henry Ford, founded in 1901. Henry Ford believed having his name associated with a race winning automobile was a valuable asset, his partners did not agree, and Ford walked away from The Henry Ford Company.  

Henry Leland persuaded Ford's partners to reorganize The Henry Ford Company rather than liquidate it. The reorganized company become Cadillac, named for the founder of the city of Detroit. Leland sold Cadillac to General Motors in 1909, and remained on as an executive until 1917. Henry Leland left General Motors in a dispute with company founder William C. Durant.  Shortly after leaving General Motors, Leland would go on to create the Lincoln Motor Company in 1917, which was purchased by Ford in 1922.

Founded by Henry Ford in 1903, The Ford Motor Company has become one of the world's largest and most profitable automotive companies over the past century. Two of the original backers of the Ford Motor Company were Horace Dodge and John Dodge.  The Dodge Brothers took stock in the Ford Motor Company as part of the payment for the engine and chassis components they produced for Ford. In 1914 the Dodge Brothers cashed in their Ford stock to create their own automobile company.  Dodge Brothers cars became the second highest selling cars behind Ford. Sadly both Dodge Brothers died in 1920. Dodge would become part of Chrysler in 1928

William C. Durant founded the Flint Road Cart Company in 1886, transforming it into a leading manufacturer of horse-drawn vehicles. In 1904, Durant purchased a controlling interest in the Buick Motor Company. In 1908 Durant founded founded General Motors by purchasing Buick and Oldsmobile, and added Cadillac in 1909.

Interesting that these famous founding fathers of the automotive industry all started in Michigan. There are also a few automotive pioneers that started in neighboring states, such as Studebaker in Indiana, and Packard in Ohio, that would also become connected to the collective of Detroit Motor City.

Geek History explores auto museums

When we created Geek History, some topics were a natural, such as the history of the internet and modern electronics at silicon valley. As we dug deeper in our studies of famous geeks like Thomas Edison we were also spending more time learning about Henry Ford and the automotive industry. On a road trip to visit the Henry Ford complex in Dearborn, Michigan, we learned just how connected Thomas Edison was to Henry Ford. When we planned a return visit to Michigan in search of more geek history we went back to The Henry Ford Museum complex and looked at some of the things we missed on our first visit, as well as visit many auto museums.

Researching automotive history, and looking over the places we have visited over the years, it seemed a natural extension of the Geek History website to expand our scope into the world of automobiles and transportation. In this section of Altered Automotive we have created an online gallery of Automotive Innovation and Auto Museums. The articles in this section are a brief description of the museums with a hand full of photos.

If you have any comments or questions on any content here, please use the social media links for Geek History to contact us.

Photo by Tom Peracchio taken at Henry Ford Greenfield Village Dearborn Michigan October 2016.

Tags: 

A Gallery of Automotive Innovation and Transportation Museums

Altered Automotive -

We created the Geek History website to give credit to the genius and hard work of the great geeks like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford, as well as look for the forgotten geeks. In the world of industrial age technology we also look at the often forgotten geeks such as George Westinghouse and Reginald Fessenden, and study their contributions to the world. As we learned more about automotive technology and innovation, we realized that people like Ransom Eli Olds from the world of the automotive industry needed to be added to our list of forgotten geeks for his invention and innovation in the early twentieth century.

The founding fathers of Detroit Motor City

If you look at the history of the American auto industry, it is interesting to see how the founding fathers of the companies involved were all connected. While access to various resources and railroads played a part in the evolution of an industry, sometimes it as much the work of a few key inventors and innovators that gets it all started, and the industry expands from there.

Ransom Eli Olds founded the Olds Motor Vehicle Company in Lansing, Michigan in 1897. At the Old Motor Works in Detroit he was the leading American auto producer from 1901 through 1904. Olds had a fight with his investors and left Olds Motor Works in 1904. The Oldsmobile brand would become part of General Motors in 1908. Ransom Olds founded The REO Motor Company, a successful auto manufacturer in his day, the company survived until 1975.

Much like Olds, Henry Ford would also walk away from a manufacturing company that went on to be successful because of a fight with management.  The Detroit Automobile Company was Henry Ford's first attempt at automobile manufacturing, lasting from only 1899 to 1901. The Henry Ford Company was the second company for Henry Ford, founded in 1901. Henry Ford believed having his name associated with a race winning automobile was a valuable asset, his partners did not agree, and Ford walked away from The Henry Ford Company.  

Henry Leland persuaded Ford's partners to reorganize The Henry Ford Company rather than liquidate it. The reorganized company become Cadillac, named for the founder of the city of Detroit. Leland sold Cadillac to General Motors in 1909, and remained on as an executive until 1917. Henry Leland left General Motors in a dispute with company founder William C. Durant.  Shortly after leaving General Motors, Leland would go on to create the Lincoln Motor Company in 1917, which was purchased by Ford in 1922.

Founded by Henry Ford in 1903, The Ford Motor Company has become one of the world's largest and most profitable automotive companies over the past century. Two of the original backers of the Ford Motor Company were Horace Dodge and John Dodge.  The Dodge Brothers took stock in the Ford Motor Company as part of the payment for the engine and chassis components they produced for Ford. In 1914 the Dodge Brothers cashed in their Ford stock to create their own automobile company.  Dodge Brothers cars became the second highest selling cars behind Ford. Sadly both Dodge Brothers died in 1920. Dodge would become part of Chrysler in 1928

William C. Durant founded the Flint Road Cart Company in 1886, transforming it into a leading manufacturer of horse-drawn vehicles. In 1904, Durant purchased a controlling interest in the Buick Motor Company. In 1908 Durant founded founded General Motors by purchasing Buick and Oldsmobile, and added Cadillac in 1909.

Interesting that these famous founding fathers of the automotive industry all started in Michigan. There are also a few automotive pioneers that started in neighboring states, such as Studebaker in Indiana, and Packard in Ohio, that would also become connected to the collective of Detroit Motor City.

Geek History explores auto museums

When we created Geek History, some topics were a natural, such as the history of the internet and modern electronics at silicon valley. As we dug deeper in our studies of famous geeks like Thomas Edison we were also spending more time learning about Henry Ford and the automotive industry. On a road trip to visit the Henry Ford complex in Dearborn, Michigan, we learned just how connected Thomas Edison was to Henry Ford. When we planned a return visit to Michigan in search of more geek history we went back to The Henry Ford Museum complex and looked at some of the things we missed on our first visit, as well as visit many auto museums.

Researching automotive history, and looking over the places we have visited over the years, it seemed a natural extension of the Geek History website to expand our scope into the world of automobiles and transportation. In this section of Altered Automotive we have created an online gallery of Automotive Innovation and Auto Museums. The articles in this section are a brief description of the museums with a hand full of photos.

If you have any comments or questions on any content here, please use the social media links for Geek History to contact us.

Photo by Tom Peracchio taken at Henry Ford Greenfield Village Dearborn Michigan October 2016.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Tags: 

How does the internet work explained in simple terms

Guru 42 Universe -

In its simplest form, the internet is a telecommunications system that allows computers and assorted other devices to communicate with each other using the same communications language, a protocol called TCP/IP, transmission control protocol / internet protocol.

It doesn't matter if the humans using the computers are communicating in English, French, German, or Chinese, the computers are communicating using TCP/IP. That's pretty amazing if you think about it. How many other things are done exactly the same way, everywhere in the world?

I could give a long lecture on all the nuts and bolts, and technical details, but what makes the internet possible is the common language, the protocols, that the computers speak. TCP/IP has spanned across generations of computers, using different operating systems.

To go into a detailed explanation of the geek speak with the concepts of TCP/IP and packet switching, can be confusing for a non technical person. Here at the Guru42 Universe we do what we can to take the geek speak and make it simple. After we cover some of the frequently asked questions answered on how the internet works and its origins, we will point out some links to learn more based on your level of interest.


Why was the Internet invented?

The catalyst for the creation of ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) was the launch of the Russian spy satellite Sputnik in 1957, along with the tensions of the cold war. The goal of ARPA was to address the technology needs of the U.S Department of Defense. ARPA would be the parent of the computer network of the ARPANET.

There are still some people who say that the internet did not evolve from the idea of a network that could survive a catastrophic event. That is a matter of perspective, it definately depends on who you ask. In the 1960s, Paul Baran and the RAND Corporation's "On Distributed Communications" defined the concept of packet switching as an integral part of the new technology that would become the internet. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit think tank created after World War II to connect military planning with research and development decisions.

According to the RAND website on Paul Baran and the Origins of the Internet: 

"In 1962, a nuclear confrontation seemed imminent. The United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were embroiled in the Cuban missile crisis. Both the US and the USSR were in the process of building hair-trigger nuclear ballistic missile systems. Each country pondered post-nuclear attack scenarios."

If you really want to get philosophical on the origins of the concept of the internet and its ties to cold war scenarios, an Atlantic Monthly article in 1945 titled "As We May Think " by Vannevar Bush addressed the aftermath of World War II and was looking at ways to make sure all the scientific data and lessons learned were not lost.

Vannevar Bush outlined the importance of federally funded scientific research and called for a national research foundation in another article published in 1945, "Science-The Endless Frontier." Bush was a pioneer in developing a joint cooperation between the science community and the government.

The internet has been an evolution of ideas over many years, and like the answer to most "who invented it" questions the answers are not always related to one individual at a single point in time.

When was the internet invented?

In the 1960s the vision of a worldwide network of computers by research scientist J.C.R. Licklider would lead to the ARPANET. In the paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” published in 1960, Licklider provided a guide for decades of computer research to follow. Larry Roberts, the principal architect of the ARPANET, would give credit to Licklider's vision.

The next phase in the evolution of the Internet would be the work of Bob Kahn and Vinton Cerf during the 1970s to create TCP/IP, the official language of the internet that made the world wide communications possble..

Some people point to September 2, 1969, the date that the first two computers communicated with each other on what would become the ARPANET as the official bith date of the internet. Others say the modern Internet was born on January 1, 1983 when NCP on the ARPANET was replaced by the TCP/IP protocols.

Who owns the Internet?

When I hear the question of "who owns the internet" I think in terms of ideas and ideals, not a collection of wires, silicon, and copper. The wires, the nuts and bolts, have build the internet, but that alone does not represent the internet. The power of the internet is not in the materials we use to build it, but from the ideas and ideals we use to create it. It is a world wide communications system that is far more fault tolerant than anything that came before because of the rules, the protocols, that the world has agreed upon, to create it.

One of the earliest visionaries that talked about a system of information sharing similar to the internet and the world wide web was Vannevar Bush. In 1945 an Atlantic Monthly article written by Bush titled "As We May Think," describes his theoretical machine called a "memex" that would be able to make links between documents. Many people point to "As We May Think" as the earliest published vision of the concept of hypertext. Another Bush article from 1945 entitled, "Science-The Endless Frontier" was equally influential. Bush outlined the importance of federally funded scientific research and called for a national research foundation.

Bush saw that the advancement of science and technology was a joint effort between government, education, and the business world. The creation of the internet was a combination of government funded research done through various universities, with the cooperation of various businesses. Hopefully everyone can remember how the internet was created, and realize no single entity owns it, and that was the point in creating it.

Do you want to learn more?

For a non technical person, to really understand how does the internet work, I would look at the history of the internet, and how it evolved. The Internet we know today was not developed from a single network that simply grew and grew, it was an evolution of many different communications and technology tools coming together.

I have been studying telecommunications and computing since the 1970s and I am fascinated by the many people who have contributed to technology that are unknown to the average person. The internet is especially interesting. Many of the early visionaries who set forth the ideas that became our modern internet were either government scientists, or in many cases, university professors or graduate students using government grants. They were creating a concept, not working on products to sell.

J.C.R. Licklider is sometimes called "Computing's Johnny Appleseed." In the paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” published in 1960, Licklider provided a guide for decades of computer research to follow.
J.C.R. Licklider guides 1960s ARPA Vision

In the 1960s, Paul Baran, one of the founding fathers of the internet as a researcher at RAND, developed the concept of packet switching as an integral part of the new technology that would become the internet.
Paul Baran developed packet switching

The old proverb necessity is the mother of invention is illustrated in the ideas of Internet and World Wide Web visionaries J.C.R. Licklider and Vannevar Bush. The difficult scenario that was the catalyst of their visionary ideas was surviving a war. Here is a bit more from my perspective.
Internet and World Wide Web visionaries ponder Surviving world war

For someone who is learning technology, and wants to understand how does the internet work at a much deeper level of geek speak ComputerGuru.net explains basic components of computer networks. Here are two links specific to understanding the core principles of the internet.

Packet switching, an integral part of internet technology and internet history explained in simple terms

The Internet protocol suite commonly known as TCP/IP is a set of communications protocols used for the Internet

Save

Tags: 

How does the internet work explained in simple terms

Guru 42 Universe -

In its simplest form, the internet is a telecommunications system that allows computers and assorted other devices to communicate with each other using the same communications language, a protocol called TCP/IP, transmission control protocol / internet protocol.

It doesn't matter if the humans using the computers are communicating in English, French, German, or Chinese, the computers are communicating using TCP/IP. That's pretty amazing if you think about it. How many other things are done exactly the same way, everywhere in the world?

I could give a long lecture on all the nuts and bolts, and technical details, but what makes the internet possible is the common language, the protocols, that the computers speak. TCP/IP has spanned across generations of computers, using different operating systems.

To go into a detailed explanation of the geek speak with the concepts of TCP/IP and packet switching, can be confusing for a non technical person. Here at the Guru42 Universe we do what we can to take the geek speak and make it simple. After we cover some of the frequently asked questions answered on how the internet works and its origins, we will point out some links to learn more based on your level of interest.


Why was the Internet invented?

The catalyst for the creation of ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) was the launch of the Russian spy satellite Sputnik in 1957, along with the tensions of the cold war. The goal of ARPA was to address the technology needs of the U.S Department of Defense. ARPA would be the parent of the computer network of the ARPANET.

There are still some people who say that the internet did not evolve from the idea of a network that could survive a catastrophic event. That is a matter of perspective, it definately depends on who you ask. In the 1960s, Paul Baran and the RAND Corporation's "On Distributed Communications" defined the concept of packet switching as an integral part of the new technology that would become the internet. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit think tank created after World War II to connect military planning with research and development decisions.

According to the RAND website on Paul Baran and the Origins of the Internet: 

"In 1962, a nuclear confrontation seemed imminent. The United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were embroiled in the Cuban missile crisis. Both the US and the USSR were in the process of building hair-trigger nuclear ballistic missile systems. Each country pondered post-nuclear attack scenarios."

If you really want to get philosophical on the origins of the concept of the internet and its ties to cold war scenarios, an Atlantic Monthly article in 1945 titled "As We May Think " by Vannevar Bush addressed the aftermath of World War II and was looking at ways to make sure all the scientific data and lessons learned were not lost.

Vannevar Bush outlined the importance of federally funded scientific research and called for a national research foundation in another article published in 1945, "Science-The Endless Frontier." Bush was a pioneer in developing a joint cooperation between the science community and the government.

The internet has been an evolution of ideas over many years, and like the answer to most "who invented it" questions the answers are not always related to one individual at a single point in time.

When was the internet invented?

In the 1960s the vision of a worldwide network of computers by research scientist J.C.R. Licklider would lead to the ARPANET. In the paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” published in 1960, Licklider provided a guide for decades of computer research to follow. Larry Roberts, the principal architect of the ARPANET, would give credit to Licklider's vision.

The next phase in the evolution of the Internet would be the work of Bob Kahn and Vinton Cerf during the 1970s to create TCP/IP, the official language of the internet that made the world wide communications possble..

Some people point to September 2, 1969, the date that the first two computers communicated with each other on what would become the ARPANET as the official bith date of the internet. Others say the modern Internet was born on January 1, 1983 when NCP on the ARPANET was replaced by the TCP/IP protocols.

Who owns the Internet?

When I hear the question of "who owns the internet" I think in terms of ideas and ideals, not a collection of wires, silicon, and copper. The wires, the nuts and bolts, have build the internet, but that alone does not represent the internet. The power of the internet is not in the materials we use to build it, but from the ideas and ideals we use to create it. It is a world wide communications system that is far more fault tolerant than anything that came before because of the rules, the protocols, that the world has agreed upon, to create it.

One of the earliest visionaries that talked about a system of information sharing similar to the internet and the world wide web was Vannevar Bush. In 1945 an Atlantic Monthly article written by Bush titled "As We May Think," describes his theoretical machine called a "memex" that would be able to make links between documents. Many people point to "As We May Think" as the earliest published vision of the concept of hypertext. Another Bush article from 1945 entitled, "Science-The Endless Frontier" was equally influential. Bush outlined the importance of federally funded scientific research and called for a national research foundation.

Bush saw that the advancement of science and technology was a joint effort between government, education, and the business world. The creation of the internet was a combination of government funded research done through various universities, with the cooperation of various businesses. Hopefully everyone can remember how the internet was created, and realize no single entity owns it, and that was the point in creating it.

Do you want to learn more?

For a non technical person, to really understand how does the internet work, I would look at the history of the internet, and how it evolved. The Internet we know today was not developed from a single network that simply grew and grew, it was an evolution of many different communications and technology tools coming together.

I have been studying telecommunications and computing since the 1970s and I am fascinated by the many people who have contributed to technology that are unknown to the average person. The internet is especially interesting. Many of the early visionaries who set forth the ideas that became our modern internet were either government scientists, or in many cases, university professors or graduate students using government grants. They were creating a concept, not working on products to sell.

J.C.R. Licklider is sometimes called "Computing's Johnny Appleseed." In the paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” published in 1960, Licklider provided a guide for decades of computer research to follow.
J.C.R. Licklider guides 1960s ARPA Vision

In the 1960s, Paul Baran, one of the founding fathers of the internet as a researcher at RAND, developed the concept of packet switching as an integral part of the new technology that would become the internet.
Paul Baran developed packet switching

The old proverb necessity is the mother of invention is illustrated in the ideas of Internet and World Wide Web visionaries J.C.R. Licklider and Vannevar Bush. The difficult scenario that was the catalyst of their visionary ideas was surviving a war. Here is a bit more from my perspective.
Internet and World Wide Web visionaries ponder Surviving world war

For someone who is learning technology, and wants to understand how does the internet work at a much deeper level of geek speak ComputerGuru.net explains basic components of computer networks. Here are two links specific to understanding the core principles of the internet.

Packet switching, an integral part of internet technology and internet history explained in simple terms

The Internet protocol suite commonly known as TCP/IP is a set of communications protocols used for the Internet

Save

Tags: 

Internet equality and net neutrality explained in simple terms

Guru 42 Universe -

You hear many people telling us we need to get excited about net neutrality, but beyond the buzzwords in the media, do people understand the concept?

The main issue behind net neutrality is about controlling traffic on the internet highway system.  The internet service providers are commercial businesses that maintain lanes of access to the highway, but they are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

In December 2010, the Federal Communications Commission approved rules that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals.

The aim of the net neutrality sounds good in concept, requiring internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally.  Where it can become a conflict of interest for companies like Comcast, is that they are a major provider of content, which creates the traffic on the highway,  as well as a large internet service provider, which controls the traffic on the highway.

Comcast owns numerous television networks and movie distribution companies. Comcast could give special treatment, preferred service, to the television networks and movie distribution companies that are owned by Comcast, while giving a lower quality or different class of service to companies that they do not own. For example, Comcast could say all the networks that we own get to use this lane of the highway, which is wider, and never slows down, and all the other guys must use this lane of the highway where the traffic get jammed up or slows down.

What some people fear is that a company like Comcast could create multiple lanes of the highway for internet usage, and charge different rates of service.   Smaller video and audio streaming companies would be at a disadvantage because the people who use their services could be forced to pay more by their ISP to use them on these specially created lanes of the highway.

An analogy to understand net neutrality

The highway system on which we drive our cars is controlled by the government, and is one continuous system that takes us where ever we need to go. Think of the internet in the same way as you do our passenger car highway system.

Just like the passenger car highway system that has different types of vehicles, so does our internet highway system. Think of streaming video on services like NetFlix as a fleet of tractor trailers. Folks using a browser surfing the net would be passenger cars, and someone just sending emails would be like riding a motorcycle.

What if the highway system was owned by numerous corporations who charged you by where you got on the highway, that would be the on ramp that your local company maintained, and they charged you for what type of vehicle you drive, a passenger car, a motorcycle, or a tractor trailer.

Let's expand the analogy, let's say your local neighborhood decided to ban all delivery truck except for one company, or better yet lets say that any deliver truck that was not from the preferred delivery company has to pay an extra fee to enter your neighborhood. Would that be fair to the other delivery trucks?

It doesn't matter if the delivery trucks are delivering emails or web pages, it is not about what they are delivering, it is about the traffic. Trucks delivering streaming audio and video would be coming in and out of your neighbor more often than trucks delivering emails or web pages, because streaming audio and video requires more "packages" of information.

The aim of the Net Neutrality laws is to create a system where all traffic on the highway is treated equally.

What's the problem with net neutrality?

The highways are not the same in all parts of the country. What if you lived in an area where there were only two lane highways, and you drove a passenger car. Would you be bothered if everyone else on the highway was a tractor trailer?

How would you handle the complaints of the passenger car owners against the tractor trailer owners? Would you limit the amount of tractor trailer on the highway?  This would be the equivalent of throttling the bandwidth of certain providers that offer streaming video.

The other approach to the problem is to force the local company to build larger highways. But this takes time, and who would pay the bill?

Like any type of public utility, there has to be some type of regulation so the companies play well together. But you need to be careful with regulation, as the concept of the internet is the ultimate in free enterprise and no government dependency.

The history behind net neutrality

The control of the use of the internet will always be a battleground in the United States. It is very similar to the history of radio, the first form of mass communications.  Since the very beginning of radio, the U.S. government has tried to control radio.  The U.S. Government seized control of radio for the "good of the country" during WWI and seized all amateur radio.  After WWI the government created the monopoly called the "Radio Trust" to manage  the use of radio. The company RCA was basically a government created monopoly for the control of radio patents. 

The FCC was later created to manage radio as it became more and more commercial. Although much has changed since 1934, a lot of the argument now going on regarding net neutrality is based on the premise of the Communications Act of 1934, in that the FCC has the power to manage internet access in the same way they have been managing telephone and radio since 1934.

What started the modern day ruckus was a complaint filed against the Comcast in 2007 by some customers claiming that Comcast was interfering with their use of peer-to-peer networking applications.  The FCC ruled that Comcast's method of bandwidth management breached federal policy.

The most recent ruling establishing so called net neutrality was in December 2010, the Federal Communications Commission approved rules that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals.  The FCC has been in control of the American telecommunications highway system for many years, and so far has be able to maintain the status quo of net neutrality,

How do you regulate chaos?

The concept on which the internet was conceived was to create a network where no single entity had complete control over it. It was designed to survive the next world war. In a world of chaos, if no one is in charge, the system, in this case the internet, is unaffected.

As the amount of traffic on this highway we call the internet continues to increase, the battle to control it and regulate heats up.  The political and economic questions net neutrality raises are not always easy to answer.

Save

Tags: 

Internet equality and net neutrality explained in simple terms

Guru 42 Universe -

You hear many people telling us we need to get excited about net neutrality, but beyond the buzzwords in the media, do people understand the concept?

The main issue behind net neutrality is about controlling traffic on the internet highway system.  The internet service providers are commercial businesses that maintain lanes of access to the highway, but they are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

In December 2010, the Federal Communications Commission approved rules that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals.

The aim of the net neutrality sounds good in concept, requiring internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally.  Where it can become a conflict of interest for companies like Comcast, is that they are a major provider of content, which creates the traffic on the highway,  as well as a large internet service provider, which controls the traffic on the highway.

Comcast owns numerous television networks and movie distribution companies. Comcast could give special treatment, preferred service, to the television networks and movie distribution companies that are owned by Comcast, while giving a lower quality or different class of service to companies that they do not own. For example, Comcast could say all the networks that we own get to use this lane of the highway, which is wider, and never slows down, and all the other guys must use this lane of the highway where the traffic get jammed up or slows down.

What some people fear is that a company like Comcast could create multiple lanes of the highway for internet usage, and charge different rates of service.   Smaller video and audio streaming companies would be at a disadvantage because the people who use their services could be forced to pay more by their ISP to use them on these specially created lanes of the highway.

An analogy to understand net neutrality

The highway system on which we drive our cars is controlled by the government, and is one continuous system that takes us where ever we need to go. Think of the internet in the same way as you do our passenger car highway system.

Just like the passenger car highway system that has different types of vehicles, so does our internet highway system. Think of streaming video on services like NetFlix as a fleet of tractor trailers. Folks using a browser surfing the net would be passenger cars, and someone just sending emails would be like riding a motorcycle.

What if the highway system was owned by numerous corporations who charged you by where you got on the highway, that would be the on ramp that your local company maintained, and they charged you for what type of vehicle you drive, a passenger car, a motorcycle, or a tractor trailer.

Let's expand the analogy, let's say your local neighborhood decided to ban all delivery truck except for one company, or better yet lets say that any deliver truck that was not from the preferred delivery company has to pay an extra fee to enter your neighborhood. Would that be fair to the other delivery trucks?

It doesn't matter if the delivery trucks are delivering emails or web pages, it is not about what they are delivering, it is about the traffic. Trucks delivering streaming audio and video would be coming in and out of your neighbor more often than trucks delivering emails or web pages, because streaming audio and video requires more "packages" of information.

The aim of the Net Neutrality laws is to create a system where all traffic on the highway is treated equally.

What's the problem with net neutrality?

The highways are not the same in all parts of the country. What if you lived in an area where there were only two lane highways, and you drove a passenger car. Would you be bothered if everyone else on the highway was a tractor trailer?

How would you handle the complaints of the passenger car owners against the tractor trailer owners? Would you limit the amount of tractor trailer on the highway?  This would be the equivalent of throttling the bandwidth of certain providers that offer streaming video.

The other approach to the problem is to force the local company to build larger highways. But this takes time, and who would pay the bill?

Like any type of public utility, there has to be some type of regulation so the companies play well together. But you need to be careful with regulation, as the concept of the internet is the ultimate in free enterprise and no government dependency.

The history behind net neutrality

The control of the use of the internet will always be a battleground in the United States. It is very similar to the history of radio, the first form of mass communications.  Since the very beginning of radio, the U.S. government has tried to control radio.  The U.S. Government seized control of radio for the "good of the country" during WWI and seized all amateur radio.  After WWI the government created the monopoly called the "Radio Trust" to manage  the use of radio. The company RCA was basically a government created monopoly for the control of radio patents. 

The FCC was later created to manage radio as it became more and more commercial. Although much has changed since 1934, a lot of the argument now going on regarding net neutrality is based on the premise of the Communications Act of 1934, in that the FCC has the power to manage internet access in the same way they have been managing telephone and radio since 1934.

What started the modern day ruckus was a complaint filed against the Comcast in 2007 by some customers claiming that Comcast was interfering with their use of peer-to-peer networking applications.  The FCC ruled that Comcast's method of bandwidth management breached federal policy.

The most recent ruling establishing so called net neutrality was in December 2010, the Federal Communications Commission approved rules that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, or favor their own services at the expense of smaller rivals.  The FCC has been in control of the American telecommunications highway system for many years, and so far has be able to maintain the status quo of net neutrality,

How do you regulate chaos?

The concept on which the internet was conceived was to create a network where no single entity had complete control over it. It was designed to survive the next world war. In a world of chaos, if no one is in charge, the system, in this case the internet, is unaffected.

As the amount of traffic on this highway we call the internet continues to increase, the battle to control it and regulate heats up.  The political and economic questions net neutrality raises are not always easy to answer.

Save

Tags: 

Business success beyond the technology buzzwords

Guru 42 Universe -

When I asked the question "What do you hate about technology?" the buzzwords of the fan boys came up often.

Buzzwords often derive from technical terms yet often have much of the original technical meaning removed, being simply used to impress others. Buzzwords make me tired. There are so many self proclaimed "experts" that show their alleged superior knowledge by using buzzwords to describe some technology product or feature. Here are some of my most hated buzzwords in the field of technology.

Cloud computing

The phrase "cloud computing" is one of the most obnoxious overused terms in modern technology geek speak. Simply put, the cloud is just the internet. It's when a bunch of computers get networked together and you can access that network from anywhere. Storing data in "the cloud" just means it's available online so you can get it on multiple devices that have access to the internet.

For a few decades, there was the power to the people, with more and more "work" done locally on the computer in front of you, and more files stored on local serve. Computer networks became decentralized.

After technology department spent great sums on money on preparing for Y2K, when the Year 2000 and the dreaded Millennium bug was feared to crash all our computer networks, many cost cutting programs were put in place. Many financially strapped IT departments looked at how to save money, and things started moving away from a very decentralized model to a more centralized model. As technology improved, and strategies such as virtualization evolved, the need for servers scattered throughout an enterprise were moved to smaller but more power devices at a central location.

Now comes the next step in the evolution, those servers at my location are moving to "the cloud." That simply means even larger more powerful devices at a central location shared not only by my enterprise, but by many others.,

The cloud offers the "security" of my information stored on a super secure server that I don't have to worry about. It offers me, as in the local IT department. less worries because someone else maintains the server so that is less I need to worry about, correct? Well, maybe.

Less worries, less need for the local IT department right? So what happens now if the "network goes down" as in we lose an internet connection? No one can do any work. That's progress, back to the future with a the issues we had with a centralized model. Perhaps, in some ways. Companies that went into cloud are now thinking about a hybrid model with a mix of cloud based solutions with some type of local backup. Go figure.

What is the current version of the World Wide Web?

Surfing through various business and technology forums I find people talking about what will be new in Web 3.0 or Web 4.0. The question of defining World Wide Web versions is meaningless because there is no standard definition for terms like Web 3.0.

The term Web 2.0 became popular in 2004 when Tim O'Reilly used it at the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference. The conference was organized by O'Reilly Media, a media company established by Tim O'Reilly that publishes books and websites. It was a buzzword created by a media company used to promote a media event.

One of my favorite quotes on Web 2.0 came from Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium and one of the creators of HTML. When asked about Web 2.0 when that buzzword came out, Tim Berners-Lee's answer to Web 2.0 was “nobody even knows what it means.”

How good is your 4G network?

When the buzzword "4G" started being used in commercials by cell phone carriers, I wrote a few articles explaining it. I noted that the 4G working group defined one of the objectives of the 4G wireless communication standard as "a data rate of at least 100 Mbps between any two points in the world." Verizon was boasting "4G LTE" with speeds "up to 12 Mbps." Other carriers started jumping on the "4G" bandwagon with speeds in the 10 Mbps range, not near the original goal of 4G, which was to be 100 Mbps.

In 2010, Verizon 4G LTE stated speeds, (that were published on Verizon's website), are up to 12 Mbps. That is not a guarantee of 12 Mbps, just that the best possible speed is 12 Mbps. Doing some follow up research, 5 years later, I went to Verizon's website. It took me some searching to find it, but I found that they define 4G as follows: "Verizon 4G LTE wireless broadband is 10 times faster than 3G—able to handle download speeds between 5 and 12 Mbps (Megabits per second) and upload speeds between 2 and 5 Mbps, with peak download speeds approaching 50 Mbps."

That's pretty fuzzy math, anywhere from 2 to 50 Mbps. They have only slightly modified what they call 4G, and 5 years later they still have not reached the original goal of 4g, which was to be 100 Mbps.

The talk has begun on the next generation 5G network, so what does that mean? The short answer is that 5G has yet to be defined. The problem with terms like 4G and 5G is that they become marketing buzzwords rather than technical specifications. The terms 4G and 5G simply mean 4th generation, 5th generation, no real significance beyond that.

Geek speak made simple

The Guru 42 Universe was created to stretch your mind beyond the buzzwords to help you achieve business success. In our world today, and especially in technology, acronyms and geek speak are sometimes hard to avoid. There are times that having a meaningful discussion requires breaking topics down to simple terms.

This section of the Guru 42 Universe will look at some of the buzzwords, and apply our goal of geek speak made simple to various technology topics. Sometimes buzzwords take a concept that already exists and dress it up a bit.

While many people complain about the buzzwords of the fanboys, what can even more frustrating is when the buzzwords used by sales and marketing people. The experts like to make a product sound more up to date and in tune with the trends. Who wouldn't want to be ready for the internet if things and be cloud compliant? In discussion groups, and web site profiles, the bombardment to the brain of massive doses of this jargon makes me want to scream.

Stay on top of business success beyond the technology buzzwords by following our articles here at the Guru 42 Universe. Father of our Constitution James Madison is quoted as saying, "Philosophy is common sense with big words." Madison would probably agree with me on my rants about buzzwords, they are often big words to describe common sense issues.

Save

Tags: 

Business success beyond the technology buzzwords

Guru 42 Universe -

When I asked the question "What do you hate about technology?" the buzzwords of the fan boys came up often.

Buzzwords often derive from technical terms yet often have much of the original technical meaning removed, being simply used to impress others. Buzzwords make me tired. There are so many self proclaimed "experts" that show their alleged superior knowledge by using buzzwords to describe some technology product or feature. Here are some of my most hated buzzwords in the field of technology.

Cloud computing

The phrase "cloud computing" is one of the most obnoxious overused terms in modern technology geek speak. Simply put, the cloud is just the internet. It's when a bunch of computers get networked together and you can access that network from anywhere. Storing data in "the cloud" just means it's available online so you can get it on multiple devices that have access to the internet.

For a few decades, there was the power to the people, with more and more "work" done locally on the computer in front of you, and more files stored on local serve. Computer networks became decentralized.

After technology department spent great sums on money on preparing for Y2K, when the Year 2000 and the dreaded Millennium bug was feared to crash all our computer networks, many cost cutting programs were put in place. Many financially strapped IT departments looked at how to save money, and things started moving away from a very decentralized model to a more centralized model. As technology improved, and strategies such as virtualization evolved, the need for servers scattered throughout an enterprise were moved to smaller but more power devices at a central location.

Now comes the next step in the evolution, those servers at my location are moving to "the cloud." That simply means even larger more powerful devices at a central location shared not only by my enterprise, but by many others.,

The cloud offers the "security" of my information stored on a super secure server that I don't have to worry about. It offers me, as in the local IT department. less worries because someone else maintains the server so that is less I need to worry about, correct? Well, maybe.

Less worries, less need for the local IT department right? So what happens now if the "network goes down" as in we lose an internet connection? No one can do any work. That's progress, back to the future with a the issues we had with a centralized model. Perhaps, in some ways. Companies that went into cloud are now thinking about a hybrid model with a mix of cloud based solutions with some type of local backup. Go figure.

What is the current version of the World Wide Web?

Surfing through various business and technology forums I find people talking about what will be new in Web 3.0 or Web 4.0. The question of defining World Wide Web versions is meaningless because there is no standard definition for terms like Web 3.0.

The term Web 2.0 became popular in 2004 when Tim O'Reilly used it at the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference. The conference was organized by O'Reilly Media, a media company established by Tim O'Reilly that publishes books and websites. It was a buzzword created by a media company used to promote a media event.

One of my favorite quotes on Web 2.0 came from Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium and one of the creators of HTML. When asked about Web 2.0 when that buzzword came out, Tim Berners-Lee's answer to Web 2.0 was “nobody even knows what it means.”

How good is your 4G network?

When the buzzword "4G" started being used in commercials by cell phone carriers, I wrote a few articles explaining it. I noted that the 4G working group defined one of the objectives of the 4G wireless communication standard as "a data rate of at least 100 Mbps between any two points in the world." Verizon was boasting "4G LTE" with speeds "up to 12 Mbps." Other carriers started jumping on the "4G" bandwagon with speeds in the 10 Mbps range, not near the original goal of 4G, which was to be 100 Mbps.

In 2010, Verizon 4G LTE stated speeds, (that were published on Verizon's website), are up to 12 Mbps. That is not a guarantee of 12 Mbps, just that the best possible speed is 12 Mbps. Doing some follow up research, 5 years later, I went to Verizon's website. It took me some searching to find it, but I found that they define 4G as follows: "Verizon 4G LTE wireless broadband is 10 times faster than 3G—able to handle download speeds between 5 and 12 Mbps (Megabits per second) and upload speeds between 2 and 5 Mbps, with peak download speeds approaching 50 Mbps."

That's pretty fuzzy math, anywhere from 2 to 50 Mbps. They have only slightly modified what they call 4G, and 5 years later they still have not reached the original goal of 4g, which was to be 100 Mbps.

The talk has begun on the next generation 5G network, so what does that mean? The short answer is that 5G has yet to be defined. The problem with terms like 4G and 5G is that they become marketing buzzwords rather than technical specifications. The terms 4G and 5G simply mean 4th generation, 5th generation, no real significance beyond that.

Geek speak made simple

The Guru 42 Universe was created to stretch your mind beyond the buzzwords to help you achieve business success. In our world today, and especially in technology, acronyms and geek speak are sometimes hard to avoid. There are times that having a meaningful discussion requires breaking topics down to simple terms.

This section of the Guru 42 Universe will look at some of the buzzwords, and apply our goal of geek speak made simple to various technology topics. Sometimes buzzwords take a concept that already exists and dress it up a bit.

While many people complain about the buzzwords of the fanboys, what can even more frustrating is when the buzzwords used by sales and marketing people. The experts like to make a product sound more up to date and in tune with the trends. Who wouldn't want to be ready for the internet if things and be cloud compliant? In discussion groups, and web site profiles, the bombardment to the brain of massive doses of this jargon makes me want to scream.

Stay on top of business success beyond the technology buzzwords by following our articles here at the Guru 42 Universe. Father of our Constitution James Madison is quoted as saying, "Philosophy is common sense with big words." Madison would probably agree with me on my rants about buzzwords, they are often big words to describe common sense issues.

Save

Tags: 

Pages

Subscribe to Geek History aggregator - Geek News