I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 2

    Records
    Notice that the word “movie” is not bound to a specific technology. e.g. “Movies” used to be synonymous with “films” – then the film went away, but the pictures remain …

    The same is true of “records” as a noun. Remember, gool ol’ Mr Edison made the first sound recordings on wax cylinders. So “records” is (probably) traced back to “phonograph recording” in some form or other – BUT “wax cylinders” were obviously fragile …

    I’m guessing the “disk shaped vinyl record” that was common for most of the 20th Century came about for practical commercial reasons – that it hit the sweet spot between “cost of production”, “shipping cost/convenience”, and then “sound quality”

    SO “pressed vinyl disks” became synonymous with “records”
    (pop quiz: how many “grooves” does a “vinyl record” have? A: only 1 continuous “groove” – otherwise the recording would “skip”)

    Tapes
    When “tape recordings” became popular they were referred to by the technology (e.g. 8-track, cassette tapes) PROBABLY for simple marketing reasons.

    “Tapes” were obviously more durable than “vinyl records” – i.e. step on the vinyl record that you threw on the floor of your car and it is probably going to break, the cassette might break, while the 8-track would bruise your foot and twist your ankle.

    HOWEVER – the “sound aficionados” out there would probably argue that “vinyl records” always provided superior “sound quality” to both tape technologies.

    “Cassette tape” probably won the technological fight with “8-track” for the same reason “VHS” beat “Betamax.” i.e. The AVERAGE consumer had the ability to “create” recordings with cassette tapes (the dreaded “mixtape”) and then VHS tapes – which made those particular technologies more attractive to the average consumer.

    btw: it seems like I’ve been hearing about how much money “media piracy” costs the “big multinational conglomerate media companies” my entire life – i.e. “that new technology is gonna kill the industry” is something “chicken little executives” have been saying on a regular basis for years

    Don’t get me wrong – “piracy is bad” – but in general the folks pirating content aren’t gonna buy it in the first place (so they aren’t in the “customer” category). The WORST thing a “media company” can do is make it harder for their paying customers to consume media they have purchased – and we are moving on …

    CDs
    then the “compact disk” (CD) was more durable than cassettes AND held more music AND had a better sound quality – so (for the most part) cassettes are no more.

    Ultimately the problem with CDs is lossy compression during digitization – short version: you end up with a “tinny” sound as opposed to the full spectrum preserved with “vinyl record pressings.”

    Speakers
    I always loved the “marketing speak” behind “Hi-Fi” sound systems (i.e. does anyone sell “lo-fi” systems?).

    The term “high fidelity” in regards to “sound recordings” goes back at least to 1938.

    The fact that the recording was supposed to “sound just as good as live” was the whole point of the famous “RCA dog” logo – oh, and then there was “it is live, or is it memorex” back in 1981.

    BUT what gets overlooked is that the sound is coming out of a set of speakers. it doesn’t matter how “hi-fi” your recording medium may be, if you are playing sound out of low quality speakers.

    Well, that is probably why in 2021 we talk about “sound systems” and not necessarily about individual components.

    Cinema Experience
    The obvious advantages that “the cinema” has is (obviously) the “big screen” as well as “theater quality sound.”

    My memory of seeing “Star Wars” (when there was only 1 “Star Wars” movie) “way back when” in a “first run” theater VIVIDLY includes the opening scene with the Star Destroyer coming in from off screen.

    In a “good sound” theater setup you hear and FEEL (through the “bass rumble“) the vessel before it appears on screen (giving the illusion that it is flying overhead and immersing the “younger me” in the movie)

    Obviously I’m a little harder to impress now than “back then” – but “Avatar” in the theater with the 3D-experience was a similar experience. To be clear, I’m not comparing “Star Wars” and “Avatar” as “motion pictures” but as “cinematic experiences.”

    Silent movies
    Since I’ve kind of stumbled into a study of “public domain silent movies” (I’m going to put together a documentary, so I can say I’ve made a “movie”) – I’ll point out that “silent movies” were always accompanied by live music.

    We have come to expect sound and pictures engineered/designed together to create a “cinema experience.” From a practical point of view – that means that any music soundtrack that is included with a “silent” movie was done “after the fact.”

    Kind of like my editing exercise with Home on the Range

  • “Movies”, “Records”, and me – part 1

    All the cool kids are doing it…
    I imagine that most people exist on a sort of “sliding scale” of “fashionableness.” At one extreme end is “hip/cool/fashionable/in style/trendy” near the middle is “not as young – but capable of understanding ‘what the kids are saying’” then the other extreme end is “What is everyone talking about? Get off my lawn!”

    Obviously “chronological age” is NOT directly tied to your position on the imaginary “trendiness” scale (just called TS from here on)- but in general “young folks” as a group will be clustered near one end, the parents of those “younger folks” will cluster near the middle, and then the parents of the parents will tend to be near the other extreme.

    There is still “nothing new under the sun” so we see “fashions” repeating. Of course the “fashion” industry is built on the idea that styles will come and go – so I’m not talking about “physical clothes” so much as “styles” — and the difference between “clothes” and “style” probably deserves its own post —

    Now, a handful of things NEVER go out of style – e.g. “good manners” come immediately to mind, but what you think will never go out of style is probably determined by your current location on the TS.

    Wannabes/Posers/Pretenders
    The tricky concept becomes the fact that having “style” and “BEING in style” at not dependent variables – i.e. you can have one, without the other …

    I will quickly say that I am NOT passing judgement on anyone – I am being very “theoretical” – talking about “forms” as it were.

    With that said – we all know (or have been) the person that “tries too hard” and “just doesn’t get it.” I suppose this is where the concept of “coolness” come into play – i.e. if you are TRYING to be “cool” then by definition you aren’t.

    … and of course being worried about how “cool” you are is another sure sign that you aren’t cool – but then being certain that you “cool” also probably means you aren’t. AND we are moving on …

    Vocabulary/Jargon
    ANYWAY – not to sound like a “self-help book” but a person’s vocabulary advertises who they are. In and of itself this isn’t good or bad – i.e. most professions have some “profession specific vocabulary” and if you can “talk the talk” (in general) people will give you the benefit of the doubt that you can “walk the walk.”

    Examples abound – there is even a word for it -however this diatribe (intended in the archaic “prolonged discourse” sense – as I feel myself sliding further to one side of the TS scale) was motivated by the word “movies.”

    Movie
    The word “movie” in English dates back to 1909 as a shortened/slang version of “motion picture.” In 2021 common usage “movie” has almost completely replaced “motion picture.”

    e.g. no one says “I watched a motion picture last night”

    The same can be said for the word “cinema” which is a shortened version of cinematograph – which came to us through the French “cinématographe” which was from the Greek for “motion” and “writing” (though “cinema” is still more popular than “motion picture”)

    Cinema
    then “cinematography” probably falls into the “movie industry jargon” category – the person in charge of a movies “cinematography” may or may not be operating a camera.

    As any amateur photographer will tell you, getting consistently good “pictures” doesn’t happen by accident – there are multiple factors involved. Being able to manipulate those factors to achieve a desired “look” is (probably) what distinguishes the “professional” from the “amateur” photographer/cinematographer.

    btw: The additional problem for cinematography is that people are moving around (both in front of and behind the camera).

    for what it is worth: I’m not going to do a blanket recommendation for ANY directors “body of work” – but in general Stanley Kubrick, John Ford, David Lean, Steven Spielberg, and Ridley Scott always tend to have great “cinematography” in their movies (which didn’t happen by accident).

    Of course George Lucas always had a “good eye” – but not always the biggest budget. Comments by Mr Lucas led me to watch a lot of Akira Kurosawa movies – most of which hold up very well (if you don’t mind subtitles). I’ll just mention that the movie that Kurosawa-san is most known for in the U.S. (Seven Samurai – known as the inspiration for “The Magnificent Seven”) – is my least favorite (it bogs down in the middle)

    … I’m still in full “ramblin’ mode” but also well into TL;DR space – more tomorrow on “records”

  • An experiment and/or learning opportunity …

    I’ve tried a little of this in the past – It is always weird “talking to myself.” Scratching my head, saying “uh” a lot – I’ll give myself a “6 out of 10” with a LOT of room to improve …

    Just me talking for 20 minutes – mostly about Buster Keaton’s “One Week” silent movie.

    When the “projector” came out – movies increased in length. There were probably obvious “increments” – e.g. from 30 second novelty shorts to 5-7 minutes longer form, then 20 minute features were very popular, eventually the “2 hour runtime” became “normal”.

    There does seem to be something “magical” about the 25-30 minute length, you can get a lot of story into 25 minutes without having to introduce plot complications.

    Modern “sit-coms” tend towards that shorter length (since the goal is “comedy” not “pathos”) while “modern drama” tends to be in the 45-60 minute length.

    Still add a few plot complications and you could easily make that 40 minute “sit-com” into an hour, or strip out the secondary plot and that “hour long drama” could fit into 25 minutes …

    Something about “human attention span length” also applies – but you tend to see a “three act structure” in most modern storytelling forms – that might be a subject for a phd dissertation (requiring some real research to back it up) or just a random observation after spending some time commenting on a silent film from 1920 …

    https://rumble.com/vjuw3d-commentary-on-buster-keatons-one-week.html

  • A rose by any other name …

    The Bard reference:
    An optimistic young singer named Sara Niemietz responded to a fan question by saying something like “she never met a flower she didn’t like” (or maybe it was she “never saw an ugly flower” – it was on her Instagram feed – the exact quote isn’t important)

    Which brought to mind Mr Shakespeare’s line about roses from that Romeo and Juliet thing – which I will resist the temptation to explain.

    Aren’t familiar with the play? I recommend watching one of the MANY versions out there. If you want “stage authenticity” then the BBC version from 1976 is a good choice. If you want the “cinema experience” – the 1968 theatrical version won Oscars for cinematography and costume design.

    Both versions (and a few more) are available for free (streaming) online if you have access to kanopy.com through your local library (the first step in creating an account on their site is checking if your public/college library gives you access).

    Weeds …
    In all fairness Ms Niemietz has been performing a long time – as I write this, Google tells me she is in her late 20’s. BUT anyone born after I graduated high school I tend to call “young.”

    Young doesn’t mean “immature” or even “inexperienced” – just a relative descriptive term for trips around the sun.

    Again, what is in a name?

    My other response to the “never met a flower I didn’t like” concept is that we tend to call “undesirable flowers” by another term – weeds.

    Maybe I’m going for a concept like “If dandelions were hard to grow, people would call them flowers” … the concept has been in my head long enough that I don’t remember where it came from …

    Google tells me Andrew Mason (founder of groupon) gets credit for saying: “If dandelions were hard to grow, they would be most welcome on any lawn” – but I had to Google “Andrew Mason” so the idea pre-dates his quote …

    Will Rogers …
    Then anyone born before me, I tend to call “good ol’ whatever” – SO good ol’ Will Rogers once noted that “He never met a man he didn’t like.”

    Now, ol’ Will was what we call a “humorist” – that died in a plane crash in 1935. He had a kind of easy-going, “affable “, nature – but also “poked fun” at a lot of folks, while talking about the politics of the day.

    To put the quote in context: “I joked about every prominent man of my time, but I never met a man I didn’t like.”

    I guess Will Rogers never met you …
    Now, “liking” someone doesn’t mean that you agree with them or that you approve of their opinions. My personal interpretation is that Will Rogers was able to disagree with folks, while not being disagreeable.

    The same concept is found in the “love your neighbor as yourself” concept – i.e. you don’t have to “approve of them” so much as accept their right to their worldview.

    Ben Franklin …
    I’m doing some “light editing” on a “Story of Ben Franklin” book – that was written for “children” 100 years ago (but the demographic/target audience would be called “young adults” in 2021).

    Good ol’ Mr Franklin loved to argue but the author of the book highlights Franklin’s “Socratic” approach to argument. An approach that reminds me of Will Rogers 😉

    Franklin could also add “inventor/scientist/statesman” to his list of titles. Yes, obviously Ben Franklin has a much deserved place in American history – maybe both men could be considered “entertainer diplomats” – with Franklin also being a “philosopher scientist.”

    The Junto
    I remember reading books about Ben Franklin as a youth – back in the day when if you asked for books on “super heroes” you were led to the “American History” section (seriously, that is one of my early “childhood” memories – I wanted “Spider-Man” comics, they gave me “Ben Franklin”).

    I slogged though a massive modern biography of Franklin a few years back (there have been a couple very good ones – not “bad” just “massive”). What jumped out at me THEN was that Ben Franklin was kind of a “hell-raiser” in his youth – which obviously gets glossed over in the “young adult” books.

    Proof reading the “children’s book” from 100+ years ago – the author is emphasizing Franklin’s “gift for organization” and how he was able to influence public opinion BECAUSE he was trusted by the public.

    Just like Walter Cronkite was once the “most trusted man on television” – Ben Franklin was the “most trusted man in print” back in his day.

    From a “leadership” perspective – Franklin understood his limitations (which is rare) and then also managed to stay within his limits most of the time (even more rare). SO we find Franklin refusing military leadership, because he didn’t have those skills – while also serving as a “regular soldier” in the militia …

    TL;DR
    If you have read this far – hey, how you doin’. One of Franklin’s first “organizations” was named the Junto – in 2021 it would probably be called a “think tank.” Individuals got together and shared discoveries/inventions – with the price of admission basically being “willingness to contribute.”

    Interested? I’ve got a handful of “project ideas” that require “other people” much more than “additional cash” – though if you need a tech/geek/expert for a project, I’m available for that as well like/comment/share/message me and we might get something good going …

  • The business of motion pictures …

    First principles

    In the category of “first principles” put “healthy competition is good for everyone.”

    To be clear – saying “HEALTHY COMPETITION is good” implies that there is such a thing as “unhealthy competition.”

    “Healthy competition” – is a version of the classic “win-win” scenario. Ok, obviously in many/most “competitions” someone “wins” and someone else “loses” – so we have to expand the “concept” of winning to include “short term winning” and “long term winning”.

    Storytime – short term win vs long term success

    Examples from the “world of sport” should be obvious – e.g. that “young talented team” that gets blown out by the “experienced champion team” obviously didn’t win THAT GAME. If that “young team” learned that they need to put in the practice time/effort to improve themselves – then THEY might be a championship team down the road.

    When/if that happens players/coaches might look back and say, “it all really started when we got blown out by ‘so and so’ and learned how much we needed to improve to be a championship team” — again, short term win vs long term win/success.

    Disruption

    Of course, our hypothetical “young talented team” isn’t going to enjoy getting taught the lesson. If that team responds by saying “the game isn’t fair” or “we stink and will never be as good as those guys” – then the result of the hypothetical sport-game above was truly win/lose.

    Sports cliches aside – switching to a “business industry competition” point of view. Competition is usually good for the consumer but always “disruptive” for companies.

    If that “disruption” causes companies to improve their products and services – then we end up with a true “win/win” scenario.

    Motion picture industry disruption

    SO the “motion picture” industry has survived multiple “major disruptive events” in its 120+ year history.

    The first “motion pictures” were short novelty films sold via nickelodeons – i.e. an individual put a nickel in the machine, then watched the short film through a viewing port.

    Thomas Edison is said to have opposed the development of a “projector” (where an audience could all watch the same film at the same time) because it would “kill the motion picture industry.”

    Mr Edison was probably correct – the projector “killed” the nickelodeon film market. The disruption in the market spurred demand for longer narrative features – i.e. “motion pictures” moved from “novelty” to “story telling.”

    Then in the late 1920’s the motion picture industry was disrupted by “sound.” If you were a silent movie star – you probably thought that “sound” killed the motion picture industry.

    Then in the 1950’s “television” came along and disrupted the motion picture industry again.

    Easy to forget in 2021 is that the old “studio system” ended in 1948 (United States v. Paramount) – which much more than television “disrupted” the motion picture industry.

    HOWEVER, you can make a good argument that “television” wouldn’t have had the actors/directors/writers/other technical talent to create that “golden age of American television” if the old “studio system” was still in place.

    The “small screen” didn’t have the prestige of “the movies.” If given the choice between being a “movie star” or a “television star” – my guess is that most “talent” would choose “movie star.” BUT if the choice was between “starving” and “working in television” – well, that choice is obvious as well …

    Television also didn’t have the big production and DISTRIBUTION costs of “the movies.” Which illustrates how “competition” was good for the average consumer (more “entertainment” choices), good for a great number of talented individuals, but bad for the “big movie business studio status quo.”

    Off the top of my head – other disruptors:

    • the “production code” ended in the late 1960’s. In 1968-ish the age based “ratings” system was introduced.
    • “cable tv”/”pay tv” in general – HBO started in 1972
    • disruption can come from “within” the industry as well – e.g. the “summer blockbuster” was accidently created in 1975 when “Jaws” ran into production problems and couldn’t be released until “summer”

    Streaming

    Once again the history of the “internet” is a story that can be told many ways.

    With the caveat that putting an exact date on any “disruption” is problematic:

    This time around I’ll point out that the “internet as industry changing disruption” first hit the financial markets (mid 1990s) with the availability of “stock” information and then the “online brokerages.” THEN the music industry was disrupted (late 1990s) by a combination of Napster/peer to peer file sharing and the DMCA.

    In 2006 Google acquired YouTube (a story for another time) – but as I remember it “video streaming” was on everybody’s radar as the “next big thing.”

    SO in 2007 when Netflix offered a “streaming movies” option it was really just the “other shoe dropping“.

    In 2007 the streaming options were about being “on demand.” i.e. “streaming” in 2007 was a disruptor to “television” NOT to “the movies.”

    the cinema experience
    Then 2020 happened and COVID-19 lockdowns forced movie theaters to shutdown.

    To be honest I don’t think it has ever been “easy” to be in the “movie theater” business. Technology disrupting the “theater business” is another post – but again for the most part the disruptions have been “win/win.”

    From a THEATER point of view – the movies are almost a “loss leader.” The typical theater makes much more money off of selling popcorn/concessions than they do from ticket sales.

    SO (again in general) what the theater is selling is the “movie going experience” – i.e. Something that you can’t replicate at home – whether that is from renting a DVD or paying for a “streaming option.”

    … me thinking out loud …

    From a profit and loss/return on investment point of view – the folks doing best are probably the “second run” theaters.

    Once upon a time – in the “pre digital” world – the “second run” theaters got the “movie film canisters” AFTER the “first run theaters” had shown the movie for several weeks.

    Since the physical film degrades slightly each time the film is run through the projector – the “second run theater” was also a “second class” viewing experience – and so the ticket prices were also much lower BUT the price of concessions were not much lower.

    Remember video tape and then DVDs were only a minor disruptor for “theaters.” For the “movie industry” video tapes and DVDs became another lucrative market – to the point where it became rare for “big Hollywood movies” to lose money (subject for another post 😉 )

    My point is that the primary demographics for “second run theaters” is (probably) “younger folks looking to go out.” The movie is almost a secondary concern, spending time with friends/socializing the goal.

    Back in days of “video rental chains” it was common for a movie to be available to rent for home viewing while the movie was being shown in “second run” theaters.

    Whatever the demographic differences between the two market segments – there were people that would rent the movie and watch it at home, and there were also people that would pay to see it in the “second run theater.”

    (btw: if you want to “watch/examine/interpret” the movie – then home viewing is always better. if you want the movie “experience” – that is better in a theater)

    td;dr

    If someone want to say that “streaming” killed Blockbuster/Hollywood video – I’ll agree with that.

    HOWEVER – “streaming” is good for the motion picture industry in general. Disruptive, yes – but still “good.”

  • Nokia-Microsoft, Compaq-HP, thoughts on company size and culture

    Just watched a documentary “The Rise and Fall of Nokia Mobile” – which is available online from various sources (the link is to Tubi).

    From a “history of tech” point of view it was interesting. Nokia is one of the companies that “invented” the mobile phone – i.e. they tell the story of “mobile communication” from Nokia’s perspective.

    That distinction is important – simply because a lot of “co-invention” is always going on. This tendency for multiple companies/people to be working to solve the same problems, and therefore working on competing technological solutions to those problems – is why we have “patents”/copyrights and intellectual property laws in general.

    SO just like (from a business view) who actually wrote a hit song is not as important as whose names are on the copyright filing – who actually invented a technology isn’t nearly as important as what company owns the patent.

    Now, I am not saying Nokia wasn’t a special place to work or that Nokia engineers didn’t do incredible things – but the “rise and fall” of Nokia tells a very old story.

    you know “It’s still the same old story / A fight for love and glory” – best told over a cold beverage, with a piano playing in the background: “small innovative company with a intimate company culture grows from ‘gimmick company’ to market dominance, fortunes are made and lost, outsiders come in and take control – and ultimately the company is relegated to history”

    That is also the “Compaq computers” story as well as the Commodore story. Of course Compaq was on the decline when HP consumed them (“Compaq” still exists as an HP brand.)

    The Nokia documentary – which was made (in part) to help celebrate Finland’s 100 years of independence – takes the view that the “profit hungry Americans came in and ruined Nokia.”

    Ok, sure, that IS what happened – but my point is that what happened is an example of the problems with organizational growth not an example of “what is good about Finland and what is bad about the United States.”

    e.g. small companies can have a very “team oriented” culture – the competition in these environments tends to be focused outward at “the market” in general or maybe a specific large competitor.

    Meanwhile large companies tend to become inefficient bureaucracies with competition being directed internally against other divisions/sections/whatever.

    Slightly funny is that Steve Jobs apparently did to Nokia and the cell phone market what he did to Xerox and the personal computer gui – i.e. he saw they had a superior product and “appropriated” the idea.

    No, the iPhone is NOT the reason Nokia “fell” – but it certainly hastened the demise as an independent company (Microsoft “acquired” Nokia in 2014 and had “ceased operations” on the last vestiges of Nokia in 2016).

    ANYWAY – in a “free market” the small and the quick usually end up beating the big and slow – maybe file that under “business cycles 101” – on the plus side many “former Nokia employees” have started companies, where they will try to replicate what was good about Nokia.

    The reality is that MOST companies DON’T last – and the process from “vibrant startup” to “old company mentioned in documentaries if remembered at all” looks a lot like the rise and fall of Nokia.

    HOWEVER I will say that Finland looks beautiful in the documentary – I’m not going there in the winter, but I my desire to visit has increased since watching the documentary.

  • Security, “cyber security”, system administration

    “Enough”
    During the “lost decade” of my “20’s” I had a LOT of different jobs. PC repair, high school wrestling coach, security guard, and a lot of “student” time in general.

    The (pre 9/11) “security guard” time was nice because I was usually left alone all night. I was there to be visible and act as a deterrent – not perform heroic acts – which since I was looking for a paycheck and not an adrenaline rush was exactly what I wanted.

    Of course there are also “private security personnel” that are highly trained professionals. Obviously the “highly trained professional” is going to demand a larger paycheck than the employee that did the “1 day orientation/computer training.”

    From an “organizational” point of view – security is similar to “insurance.” Both deal with “risk management” – as in “you can’t eliminate ‘risks’ but you can minimize your vulnerability/exposure”.

    SO the best practice with security and insurance is to have “enough” to cover you needs.

    “Sales”
    Then the question becomes “just how much is enough?”

    Have you seen the commercials for “home security system” where a masked intruder breaks a window (in what looks like a nice suburban home) in the middle of the day?

    Then cut to a frightened child and woman clutching each other in a state of panic – followed by the phone ringing and a reassuring voice saying “We have detected a break in at your premises. Authorities have been notified. Do you require assistance?”

    The relieved/grateful woman picks up the phone and says something like “Thank you security system! I don’t know what we would have done without you.” — and then you get the sales pitch from the security monitoring company (e.g. for less than $ a day you can protect your family…)

    Now, I’m not dismissing the need for/utility of these systems – I’m pointing out that the scenario used is “unlikely” at best and designed to manipulate your emotions. After all – can you put a price on “protecting your family?”

    On a less emotionally charged front – the answer to “can you put a price on the security of your business” is “yes.” In a nutshell – you don’t want to pay more for security than the value of the object being secured.

    SO that storage facility housing spare parts for your “commodity widget” making factory PROBABLY doesn’t need as much security as the distribution center that processes orders from customers for your “commodity widget.”

    Now that sales person working on commission might try to convince the “commodity widget maker upper management” that they need the top end security everywhere – and maybe they do – but obviously the “sales person” is biased.

    SO when the widget making enterprise gets past a certain size – they will probably hire a “director of security” or something to evaluate the needs of the company.

    “Cyber”
    That same process/concept applies to “computer network security.” Q. How much “cyber security” do you need? A. “enough”

    As a long time “I.T. professional” my view of “cyber security” is that it is a marketing term. Obviously I am NOT saying that “computer network security” is irrelevant – just that “good system administration” has ALWAYS included “network security.”

    Consider “automobile security” – how much should someone spend to “secure” their car?

    Well, if you have a beat up Ford Pinto with 500,000 miles on it that starts shaking if you go over 65 miles per hour and you only keep to haul garbage to the landfill – then maybe you are comfortable leaving the keys on the dashboard with the windows rolled down. If someone steals the car they might be doing you a favor.

    BUT if you have “new luxury SUV” you might invest in a car alarm, and some form of remote monitoring. If you live in “big city” you might pay for “off street” parking. In any case you certainly aren’t leaving the keys on the dashboard with the windows rolled down.

    Getting back to “computer network security” – MOST networks probably fall into the “nice four door sedan” category. They need to be secured – and they will be compromised if left un-secured – but they aren’t a specific target.

    e.g. roll up the windows, lock the doors, don’t leave valuables in plain sight – and your “family sedan” is probably secure enough. Adhere to “good system administration practices” and your computer network is “probably” secure enough.

    I also like the idea of a Magnificent Seven approach to security – NOT that you need to hire hackers to protect yourself from hackers, but that you need to secure your network enough to make the “casual attacker” go somewhere else.

    IF someone is intentionally targeting your network AND they are willing to spend money and time THEN they will probably be able to compromise your network. Your goals should be to not “make it easy” for them and also to detect and respond to the intrusion when it happens.

    For individuals your small home network probably is more valuable to the bad actors as a resource for “zombie”/spam activity – but still, don’t make it easy on them.

    If you REALLY want to worry about something – more important than the network itself is the data moving on that network – so the biggest threat to the “average network” is the people using the network. Which is a slightly different subject …

    TL;DR
    Yes, there are needs for “security specific” computer professionals – things like penetration testing and security auditing come immediately to mind. The concept of a security “baked in“/first approach to application development is also obvious. I’m just tired of hearing “cyber security” presented as something new and novel …

    e.g. A combination of good backups, sensible user management, and applying encryption to both file storage and network traffic probably protects 90% of “computer networks”

  • The “regulation” thing

    First Principles
    At a “first principles” point of view – USUALLY the best thing for the U.S. Congress to do is “nothing.”

    Arguably the “Founders” believed the same thing. Which is why the U.S. has the system of gov’ment that we have. Just from a practical “organizational behavior” the larger the group of people – the less likely you are to agree on anything.

    The “wheels of gov’ment” are supposed to be slow moving and inefficient – remember the Founders’ goal was the preservation of individual liberty via the limiting of “gov’ment.”

    SO anything that the gov’ment does do, shouldn’t be fast or drastic – again, just in general “government is best which governs least”

    But then …
    Of course the gov’ment isn’t just window dressing – they are supposed to do SOMETHING. e.g. In times of war trying to rule by committee is a recipe for disaster – which is why the POTUS is “Commander in Chief.”

    In the Ancient Roman Republic – traditionally two “Consuls” were elected to “run” the Republic. The Consuls had full executive power, but each also had veto power over the other. This meant legislative stalemate was the norm and preservation of the status quo was achieved – which was kinda what the “powers that be” wanted.

    BUT in times of emergency/war – i.e. when things needed to “get done” – a single person would be put in charge.

    Fans of Ancient History will be familiar with the story of CIncinnatus – but I’ll move on – after pointing out that in peacetime it is always worth taking the time to examine the issue and “get it right” as opposed to “doing it fast.”

    If it moves regulate it …
    Ronald Reagan described the “government’s” view of the economy as: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

    Which is a great line – but hits on several big issues. The purpose of taxation tends to get “complicated” but isn’t important right now. However, REGULATION should be easier to agree about as far as “purpose” goes. (and subsidizing something is probably just another form of taxation)

    In general “gov’ment regulation” should NEVER be punitory – i.e. protecting the consumer/individual SHOULD always be the purpose of regulation – NOT simply punishing a specific company/industry because it is politically expedient to do so.

    From a practical point of view – that means government should do what individuals can’t do for themselves. SO things like controlling access to a limited resource (e.g. the old radio/television broadcast spectrum), or ensuring that drivers are not a danger to themselves or others (e.g. physical checkup requirements for CDL, or vision tests for driver licenses) are obvious candidates for regulation.

    The form that regulation takes is up for debate – but regulating interstate commerce is obviously one of those functions the Feds are supposed to handle — but one more time “regulation” should not be “political punishment”, it should always serve the consumer.

    Internet/Web/Walled gardens/Facebook…
    The story of the “internet” can be told numerous ways – some of which are interesting, but not important right now.

    (no matter how you choose to tell the “Internet story” – it didn’t just spontaneously appear, but it also wasn’t created by government bureaucrats.)

    If we accept that “sharing information” (to one degree or another) is the point of ANY “network” then the “Internet” has been a great success story.

    BUT you needed affordable personal computers AND the “world wide web” to make it useful to the average person.

    (btw if the “internet” is the “highway” then the “web” is one type of vehicle using that highway – but not the ONLY type of vehicle)

    For a lot of folks back in the early 1990’s “America Online” (AOL) was their first “information service.” AOL charged a monthly fee for access to their network – and bombarded the nation with 3.5″ disks and then CD-ROMs offering monthly free trials.

    Then when the “web” happened – AOL started offering unlimited “Internet” access through their network. AOL still had a lot of “AOL network” content, so people might login to AOL and never leave AOL – this was kind of the “Walled Garden” internet (or if you logged into a local ISP – that homepage might have been your concept of the “web” in general).

    (btw the AOL merger with Time Warner is probably one of the worst mergers of all time from a “combined value” view – i.e. the perception of AOL’s value was much greater than what they actually possessed)

    Maybe the 1990’s could be called the “era of the portal.” The web may have offered access to vast amounts of knowledge – but finding anything was difficult. So “web directories” (like Yahoo! ) ruled the day. Then Google happened in the late 1998 – which is also another story …

    Facebook is just another version of the “walled garden” – and they continue to add services trying to keep users on their platform. Of course the more users accept Facebook as “walled garden” the more Facebook can earn in advertising $$ – which once again, is neither good or bad, just good business

    The important thing to remember is that Facebook is NOT the “Internet.”

    Regulation, but how?
    I’ve seen Facebook running ads (on Facebook) advocating changing the “Internet regulations.” This always comes across as self-serving as well as slightly pernicious – just because the regulations are older than Facebook doesn’t mean they need to be changed JUST for the sake of changing them.

    The problem with “regulation for the sake of regulation” is that it tends to be counter productive. “Big business” actually benefits from “increased regulatory requirements” because it tends to cut down on innovation/disruptive competition.

    “Bad regulation” simply reinforces the status quo and/or cements things in place preventing change. “Good regulation” will protect the consumer while encouraging growth/competition.

    My personal preference would be to apply “newspaper”/media conglomerate standards to Facebook. Hold them accountable for “censorship”, create a truly independent “arbitration board” (not one bought and paid for by Facebook) – but don’t cement them in place as the status quo.

    Regulation should not stifle whatever the “next big thing” may be …

  • Simplicity and Beauty vs Elegance

    Consider the fact that a hammer is “simple” – and in the hands of a killed craftsman might be used in an elegant manner. However, if someone has never seen a nail – what would they think a “claw hammer” does?

    If someone had spent their entire life living in buildings made of stone, they might look at a sledge hammer and assume it is used for breaking stones – but then what if someone has never seen a “stone.”

    The sledge hammer is “simpler” than the claw hammer – but neither qualifies as “elegant.”

    e.g. the hypothetical person that has lived in stone buildings but never seen a sledge hammer used MIGHT assume that the way you use a sledge hammer is to drop it onto the stone, rather than swing the hammer by its handle.

    In the “world if I.T.” the “command line interface” (CLI) is “simple” but not elegant. In much the same way that a keyboard might be considered a “simple” device but a vast amount of “prior knowledge” is required to USE the keyboard to enter commands in a CLI.

    Wait, wait, wait, surely the mouse is “elegant” – nope, sorry. James Doohan in Star Trek IV comes to mind (i.e. the scene with “Scotty” using the 1980’s style personal computer)

    A “graphical user interface” (GUI) can easily be “beautiful” – but again a vast amount of prior knowledge is required e.g. Microsoft famously claimed that the purpose of including solitaire as part of “Microsoft Windows” was so that users could practice using the mouse and interacting with the user interface. As a “long time I.T. professional” it is easy to forget that things like “double clicking, click and drag, etc” have to be learned at some point – so for the novice user, playing Solitaire can actually be a “training exercise.”

    BTW “form follows function” in “computer terms” might be expressed as “software runs on hardware.” The most beautifully designed 2021 GUI quickly becomes unusable if you try to run it on “old” hardware.

    Ten+ years ago I was fond of pointing out that the real difference between Apple, Inc and Microsoft, Inc was that Apple sold high end hardware and included an operating system, while Microsoft sold an operating system that could be installed on the hardware of your choice.

    Of course Apple devices “just worked” but the operating system and hardware were designed to work together – which is a much different than trying to sell an operating system that runs well on unknown hardware configurations.

    Of course in 2021 Apple, Inc is really a cell phone company and Microsoft has become a “software as a subscription” and “cloud services” company (ten+ years ago, I would have called Apple a “consumer electronics” company and Microsoft was still an “operating system” company – and we are moving on)

    The relationship between “simplicity, beauty, elegance” and human beings is probably a “two-drinks” question (i.e. the type of thing best discussed while having a friendly conversation over drinks of your choice).

    Since I’ve been “job interviewing” a lot recently (without much success) – it has occurred to me that I (probably) come across as “arrogant” to the average “job search committee.”

    Am I arrogant – well, obviously I don’t think so – BUT I can understand others perceiving me as arrogant. Being self-confident and sure of your skills does not make you “arrogant” – thinking that you are “superior” makes you arrogant (and I am only a humble servant – maybe my “manner” is perceived as arrogant).

    But here the issue is about “perception and reality” – i.e. simplicity of character that has been acquired from “self examination/introspection” might be beautiful AND therefore a form of “elegance of character” but is easily misunderstood/misinterpreted.

    Maybe this is the difference between “eccentric soul vs crazy old man” – but ANYWAY …

    George Harrison had three #1 hits as a solo artist on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and 5 top ten hits overall – “What Is Life” (mentioned in another post) peaked at #10 in 1971 then 10 years later “All Those Years Ago” peaked at #2

    (other shoe dropping: the #1’s were Got My Mind Set on You” in 1988 – which was a “cover” song. “Give Me Love” – 1973, and finally “My Sweet Lord” – 1970)

    “All Those Years Ago” is obviously about John Lennon – the rumor is that Mr Harrison had written the song before John Lennon was shot (December 8, 1980 – obviously with different lyrics) then reworked the lyrics to become a “tribute” song.

    Tribute songs can be tricky – “George Harrison songwriter” always had an “upbeat” sound (that used to be called “pop rock”) – “George Harrison human being” was the “quiet one” of the “Fab Four.” SO this “tribute” song doesn’t mourn John Lennon’s untimely death but celebrates his life (which is its own form of “elegance”) …

  • User interfaces

    Making a product “easy to use” is never “easy.”

    “Elegant” products are few and far between. Merriam-Webster tells us that “elegant” means “marked by elegance” – which then requires another click for “elegance” and we get “dignified gracefulness or restrained beauty of style”

    An “elegant product” becomes an example of “beautiful simplicity.”

    Under Steve Jobs leadership Apple was known for “striving for elegance.” When he was alive Mr Jobs liked to say that they (i.e. Apple) didn’t do a lot of “product research” – which I believe, BUT we have to distinguish between “product research” as in “asking users what new products they want” and “product testing” as in “testing and improving the user experience with existing products.”

    e.g. Apple did not invent the “mobile music player” but they perfected the “mobile music device” with the iPod. The first couple generations of the iPod become a case study in the “search for elegance.”

    I have had several “iPods” – but I distinctly remember not being able to figure out how to change the volume of an “earlier” release. The product had a “rocker dial” which I assumed if I held down on one side the volume would go up, and if I held down on the other side the volume would go down.

    ANYWAY – It turned out the the volume was controlled by “sliding” and not “rocking” – and once I was shown how it worked it was obvious (and I admit “better”) – so early iPods were beautiful and easy to use, but not “elegant”

    Of course the first step in designing an “elegant” product is that the product does what it is supposed to do (i.e. form still follows function) – this tends to require “high end components”. SO Apple has never sold “cheap” products.

    The number of products that exhibit “pure elegance” is probably zero – i.e. “pure elegance” is (probably) unattainable.

    This becomes an interesting thought experiment: e.g. There are a great number of products that are “easy to use” once you have been shown how to use them. However the number of products that “announce how they work through their design” is very small if not zero.

    Remember that we have to start with a “user” that has no exposure to the product – e.g. if you’ve seen “Demolition Man” (1993) (a “not bad” Sylvester Stallone/Wesley Snipes vehicle) you might remember the “three seashells” joke.

    If you haven’t seen the movie (it is fun, you can probably find it with little effort) – Sylvester Stallone gets brought out of “suspended animation prison” to catch super villain Wesley Snipes – but the plot isn’t important. Mr. Stallone plays the comedic “fish out of water” that doesn’t understand the simplest aspects of “modern civilization” one of which is the “modern” bathroom facilities that consists of “three seashells.”

    The point (if I have one) is that in the movie the “three seashells” are a great example of “un-elegance” (which was used for comedic effect – and no, they never explain how the seashells are used, BUT they make it clear that EVERYONE knows how to use the seashells).

    SO in “modern times” the best we can hope for are products that are obvious to use for those that have experience using similar products.

    The “web design” gold standard has been (some form of) “don’t make the user think” (probably) as long as there have been “web design suggestions.”

    From a “software design” point of view “elegant user interfaces” are also few and far between. “Functional” interfaces are a dime a dozen – but systems that are actually “pleasant to use” are numbered in single digits.

    Combine “functionality” and “ease of use” is never easy BUT if you get it right and have a little bit of luck – you might be the next Google or Facebook …

    This song (“Something” by the Beatles) came to mind as I was composing this post. Beatles fans will recognize this as a “George” song – the song would peak at #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 in November 1969.

    George Harrison was the youngest of the Beatles – which really doesn’t mean anything in the “big picture” (i.e. it isn’t like the age difference was a big deal – they were all within three years of each other) – but becomes significant when we talk about “song writing development”.

    e.g. three years difference is like the difference between “high school seniors” and “high school sophomores” – fwiw: Mr Harrison admitted that he always “looked up” to John Lennon.

    SO “George Harrison songwriter” had the benefit of seeing two of the all time greats become two of the all time greats (“Lennon and McCartney”) but also developed his own distinct “elegant” style.

    (the disadvantage to being a Beatle for “developing song writer” Mr Harrison was that some of his “early” work ends up being compared to “Lennon and McCartney” unfavorably – not that his early work was “bad” so much as “not as good”)

    “Something” becomes a compact “mature love story” – Mr Harrison was in his late 20’s when he wrote the lyrics, so he is writing about the experience of “falling in love” with the realization that what he is feeling might not last.

    Compare that with the “more mature” view in “What is Life” from George Harrison’s first solo album (1970) – and we see why “George was the spiritual one”