Group items tagged

The General Services Administration made a bold decision to move its email and collaboration systems to the cloud.  This is a huge win for cloud-computing, but perhaps should have been expected since last week the Feds announced a new requisition and purchase mandate that cloud-computing had to be the FIRST consideration for federal agency purchases.  Note that the General Services Administration oversees requisitions and purchases for all Federal agencies!  This is huge.  Estimated to be worth $8 billion to cloud-computing providers. The cloud-computing market is estimated to be $30 Billion, but Gartner did not anticipate or expect Federal Agencies to embrace cloud-computing let alone issue a mandate for it.   In the RFP issued last June, it was easy to see their goals in the statement of objectives: This Statement of Objectives (SOO) describes the goals that GSA expects to achieve with regard to the 1. modernization of its e-mail system; 2. provision of an effective collaborative working environment; 3. reduction of the government's in-house system maintenance burden by providing related business, technical, and management functions; and 4. application of appropriate security and privacy safeguards. GSA announced yesterday that they choose Google Apps for email and collaboration and Unisys as the implementation partner. So what does this mean? What it means (WIM) #1: GSA employees will be using a next-generation information workplace. And that means mobile, device-agnostic, and location-agile. Gmail on an iPad? No problem. Email from a home computer? Yep. For GSA and for every other agency and most companies, it's important to give employees the tools to be productive and engage from every location on every device. "Work becomes a thing you do and not a place you go." [Thanks to Earl Newsome of Estee Lauder for that quote.] WIM #2: GSA will save 50% of the cost of email over five years. This is also what our research on the cost of email o

December 9th, 2010.  Good roll up.  Market is now said to be $1 Trillion in USA alone.  Google and Microsoft are fighting for BIG Federal contracts, thanks to the recent mandate that Cloud Computing be the first consideration for any software purchase.  Google drew first blood with a $8 B GSA contract.  Microsoft got the FDA contract.  And the BIG loser is IBM Lotus Notes - which lost both contracts!!!  Feds plan on spending $5 - $10 B to improve Cloud-computing security.  Guess all those Google and Microsoft contributions to Obama paid off.  

Google I/O, on the other hand, is about more than just the Chrome Browser-which was barely mentioned in the keynote. Mobile Analyst Sascha Segan had a theory about Google's seeming HTML5 obsession. It's an open "standard." Talking about standards makes government regulatory bodies happy. Google, which grows bigger and more powerful by the minute, is under almost constant scrutiny-look at the trouble it's having completing its AdMob acquisition. If you talk open standards, the feds may assume that you're a company looking to do no harm and to work in harmony with everyone else. It's not a bad theory, but I don't buy it. When looked at alongside other announcements Google made yesterday, you see a company trying to rebuild the Web in its own image. Google wants you to use HTML5, but, like Microsoft, it likely wants you to build things its way. Don't be surprised if little pet tags start to creep in from all interested parties. And then there's video. Google introduced a brand new video code that'll work, naturally, with HTML5 and, conceivably, Flash. It's called VP8.

Adobe has already announced that they'll be adding VP8 support to Flash.

Cisco's James Urquhart discusses the NIST definition of Cloud Computing. The National Institute of Technology and Standards is a non regulatory branch of the Commerce Department and is responsible for much of the USA's official participation in World Standards organizations. This is an important discussion, but i'm a bit disappointed by the loose use of the term "network". I guess they mean the Internet? No mention of RESTfull computing or Open Web Standards either. Some interesting clips: ...(The NIST's) definition of cloud computing will be the de facto standard definition that the entire US government will be given...In creating this definition, NIST consulted extensively with the private sector including a wide range of vendors, consultants and industry pundants including your truly. Below is the draft NIST working definition of Cloud Computing. I should note, this definition is a work in progress and therefore is open to public ratification & comment. The initial feedback was very positive from the federal CIO's who were presented it yesterday in DC. Baring any last minute lobbying I doubt we'll see many more major revisions. ....... Cloud computing is a pay-per-use model for enabling available, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is comprised of five key characteristics, three delivery models, and four deployment models.

Gary, NIST really is not "responsible for much of the USA's official participation in World Standards organizations." Lots of legal analysis omitted, but the bottom line is that NIST would have had to be delegated that responsibility by the President, but never was. However, that did not stop NIST from signing over virtually all responsibility for U.S. participation in international standard development to the private ANSI, without so much as a public notice and comment rulemaking process. See section 3 at http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Conformity/ansimou.cfm. Absolutely illegal, including at least two bright-line violations of the U.S. Constitution. But the Feds have unmistakably abdicated their legal responsibilities in regard to international standards to the private sector.

MindTouch was by far and away the hottest property at the 2009 Web 2.0 Conference. And for good reason. They have figured out how to tap into the productivity value of enterprise collaborative networks. Most their underlying stuff is based on REST based data objects and services, but they also allow for proprietary data bindings. The key to MindTouch seemd to be the easy to fall into and use collaborative interface: imagine a workgroup project centered around a Web page filled with data objects, graphics and content, with each object also having a collabortaive conversation attached to it. Sounds complicated, but that's where the magic of MindTouch kicks in. It's simple. One the things that most impressed me was an interactive graph placed on one of the wiki project pages. The graph was being fed data from a local excel spreadsheet, and could be interacted with in real time. It was simple to change from a pie chart to a bar graph and so on. It was also possible to interact with the data itself and create what-if scenario's. Great stuff. With considerable persistence though, i was able to discover from Aaron that this interactivity and graphical richness was due to a Silverlight plug-in! From the article: "..... Rather than focusing on socialization, one to one interactions and individual enrichment, businesses must be concerned with creating an information fabric within their organizations. This information fabric is a federation of content from the multiplicity of data and application silos utilized on a daily basis; such as, ERP, CRM, file servers, email, databases, web-services infrastructures, etc. When you make this information fabric easy to edit between groups of individuals in a dynamic, secure, governed and real-time manner, it creates a Collaborative Network." "This is very different from social networks or social software, which is focused entirely on enabling conversations. Collaborative Networks are focused on groups accessing and organiz

The more i learn about the Governments illegal and un-Constitutional surveillance activities, the worse it gets.  As i read this article i couldn't help but wonder why the Government would want to disclose the warrantless activities as evidence in court?  Clearly the Government wants to have their violations of carefully enumerated Constitutional protections of individual rights validated by the nations courts.  Scary stuff. excerpt: A recent court case provides a rare glimpse into how some federal agents deal with encryption: by breaking into a suspect's home or office, implanting keystroke-logging software, and spying on what happens from afar. An agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration persuaded a federal judge to authorize him to sneak into an Escondido, Calif., office believed to be a front for manufacturing the drug MDMA, or Ecstasy. The DEA received permission to copy the hard drives' contents and inject a keystroke logger into the computers. That was necessary, according to DEA Agent Greg Coffey, because the suspects were using PGP and the encrypted Web e-mail service Hushmail.com. Coffey asserted that the DEA needed "real-time and meaningful access" to "monitor the keystrokes" for PGP and Hushmail passphrases. The aggressive surveillance techniques employed by the DEA were part of a case that resulted in a ruling on Friday (PDF) by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which primarily dealt with Internet surveillance through a wiretap conducted on a PacBell (now AT&T) business DSL line used by the defendants.

Really interesting blog from Robert X.  Wealth through productivity vs wealth through accumulation and the important but seriously declining role of IPO's. excerpt: "Big business grows by economies of scale, economies of scale are gained by increasing efficiency, and increased efficiency in big business always - always - means creating more economic output with fewer people. More economic output is good, but fewer people is bad if you need 100,000 new jobs per month just to provide for normal U.S. population growth. This is the ultimate irony of policies that declare companies too big to fail when in fact they are more properly too big to survive. Our policy obsession with helping big business no matter which party is in power has been a major factor in our own economic demise because it doesn't create jobs. Our leaders and would-be leaders are really good at talking about the value of small and medium size businesses in America but really terrible about actually doing much to help. Now here comes the important part: if small businesses, young businesses, new businesses create jobs, then Initial Public Offerings create wealth. Wealth creation is just as important as job creation in our economy but too many experts get it wrong when they think wealth creation and wealth preservation are the same things, because they aren't." ................. The fundamental error of trickle-down (Supply Side) economics is that it is dependent on rich people spending money which they structurally can't do fast enough to matter, and philosophically won't do because their role in the food chain is about growth through accumulation, not through new production. ..............................................

I'm less than convinced that IPOs create wealth, in terms of the aggregate wealth of the nation. Most of the "wealth" created by IPOs goes to the previous owner's of the business, plus whatever speculators can maneuver to acquire through capital gains. But waving the "IPO wand" does not magically boost productivity, business outputs, or business profitability. So if "wealth" is created, it is faux wealth. I think Cringely ventures too far from what the real argument is about: levels of government taxation and creating jobs. Supply Side economics is in reality an argument against taxing the wealthy. But Cringely doesn't even touch on the taxation issue. I also do not agree with his "Steve Jobs created 50,000 new jobs" schtick because he does not take into account how many jobs were destroyed in the process. But modern information technology has unquestionably destroyed more jobs than it has created; the technology never would have succeeded had it not boosted individual productivity to a point that massive numbers of employees could be laid off. For example, remember the days when you could call a business and have a human being answer the phone and direct your call to the right person? That lady doesn't have that job anymore because of voice menu/mail technology. IT is all about doing more with fewer people. In the context of jobs and taxation levels, the fundamental error of Supply Side Economics is not the distinction between wealth accumulation and wealth creation. The real fundamental error is globalism, government policies that create enormous incentives to invest capital outside the U.S. Supply Side Economics simply blinks past that enormously inconvenient reality. To illustrate, let's try remodeling trickle-down economics in a way that has a prayer of producing more and better-paying jobs in the U.S. (Over-simplification warning.) -- The U.S. withdraws from all trade agreements standing in the way and repeals all laws inconsistent with the goal of

U.S. Supreme Court finally to decide whether software patent claims are legal? It looks like this may finally be the case. 

From an Fight For the Future mailing: "Here's the deal: yesterday the Senate delayed its expected vote on CISA, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act that would let companies share your private information--like emails and medical records--with the government. "The delay is good news; but it's a delay, not a victory. "We just bought some precious extra time to fight CISA, but we need to use it to go big like we did with SOPA or this bill will still pass. Even if we stop it in September, they'll try again after that. "The truth is that right now, things are looking pretty grim. Democrats and Republicans have been holding closed-door meetings to work out a deal to pass CISA quickly when they return from recess. "Right before the expected Senate vote on CISA, the Obama Administration endorsed the bill, which means if Congress passes it, the White House will definitely sign it.  "We've stalled and delayed CISA and bills like it nearly half a dozen times, but this month could be our last chance to stop it for good." See also http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/125953876003/senate-fails-to-advance-cisa-before-recess-amid (;) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/activists-send-the-senate-6-million-faxes-to-oppose-cyber-bill/ (;) http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/429386027/privacy-advocates-to-senate-cyber-security-bill (.)