"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


And don't even get me started on this digital TV fiasco.

I spent several hours trying to explain to my son why going to digital TV is
good.
All I got was glassy eyed stares.

But, sometime's it's better to read it. He sent me the following link the
next day with an acknowledgement that he now, "got it".

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar04/3811

Eisboch

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:39:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .


And don't even get me started on this digital TV fiasco.

I spent several hours trying to explain to my son why going to digital TV is
good.
All I got was glassy eyed stares.

But, sometime's it's better to read it. He sent me the following link the
next day with an acknowledgement that he now, "got it".

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar04/3811

I understand the issue - I disagree with the conclusion.

I'll make the same argument that most people seem to be missing. It's
the same kind of blind spot that JimH has.

Eventually, with the lack of systems through put improvement and
increasing complexity of the digital "system" (which is becoming more
and more integrated) one failure point will cause system collapse.

Without the ability to bypass the digital system with analog signals
receivable by simple devices, the ability to communicate emergency
information is severely compromised.

With the increasing use of wireless everything, even simple tasks now
become vulnerable if the power grid fails. You have people who don't
understand why their wireless phones don't work when the power goes
out, how will you get them to understand that their TV won't work
because it's wirelessly connected to the digital cable box.

I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

I won't disagree. Everything's gone to hell since Morse was dropped.
Well, something like that.
And forget about EMP and solar activity.
Me? Wife got me one of those flashlights that you shake to power it.
So I'll be okay. But what about the children?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

I won't disagree. Everything's gone to hell since Morse was dropped.
Well, something like that.
And forget about EMP and solar activity.
Me? Wife got me one of those flashlights that you shake to power it.
So I'll be okay. But what about the children?

--Vic


Don't forget. Morse was digital. And it was more reliable and usable in
bad atmospheric conditions.

Eisboch

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:06:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

I won't disagree. Everything's gone to hell since Morse was dropped.
Well, something like that.
And forget about EMP and solar activity.
Me? Wife got me one of those flashlights that you shake to power it.
So I'll be okay. But what about the children?

--Vic


Don't forget. Morse was digital. And it was more reliable and usable in
bad atmospheric conditions.

Eisboch

Reading the VOIP thread where poles versus buried lines are mentioned
reminded me that I *did* once lose my copper wire phone.
Squirrel chewed through the insulation. Every time after that when I
saw that squirrel running across the line I wondered if he'd cause me
another outage.
But...I didn't have to worry about Injuns or the James' or Youngers
cutting the wires, so considered myself fortunate.

--Vic

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:39:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar04/3811

I understand the issue - I disagree with the conclusion.


I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.



Just think. Your words may forever be considered with a chuckle by future
generations of Google archive viewers, just as Teddy Roosevelt's reluctance
to accept or rely upon the horseless carriage as a replacement for horse
drawn modes of transportation. In 1902 he would ride in a horseless
carriage, but insisted that it be followed by a conventional horse drawn
carriage in case of a breakdown or failure of the new fangled contraption.

-------------------------

The Horseless Carriage
This is very interesting.
A horseless carriage.
What a mysterious thing.

There's a handle in front
That you crank a bit
To wake the contraption up.

There are control things inside
That cause her to start.
Would you care for a ride?

Go ahead. Climb right in.
Crank. Rumble.
We'll give it a spin.

Here we go--a little correction
Of that wheel thing there
Should change our direction.

Well, isn't this fun?
A horseless carriage.
What makes it run?

We're coming to the edge of the lawn.
That's far enough--
Here comes the pond!

Whoa! Oh, no!
What makes it stop?
I said WHOA!

Splash.

(author unknown)

-----------------------------

Eisboch

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:52:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Just think. Your words may forever be considered with a chuckle by future
generations of Google archive viewers, just as Teddy Roosevelt's reluctance
to accept or rely upon the horseless carriage as a replacement for horse
drawn modes of transportation. In 1902 he would ride in a horseless
carriage, but insisted that it be followed by a conventional horse drawn
carriage in case of a breakdown or failure of the new fangled contraption.

So be it and I understand your analogy - it is applicable.

However, consider this. Eventually, the automobile led to tractors
which could pull 40 bottom plows 20 miles in one day - 10 miles out,
ten miles back across the plains of Middle America which eventually
led to the dust bowl and the Depression. What was the cost of
applying the technology in this manner over time?

I'm not playing the role of Ned Ludd nor am I a neo-Luddite although I
do share one belief with them - that the rapid adoption and
application of technology has negative effects on individuals, society
or the planet and can outweigh its benefits by many orders of
magnitude.

For example - just now on the news, they had a segment on outsourcing
personal services. They used the example of one couple who outsources
reading their two children a bed time story to a woman in Croatia -
via the Internet. Or the couple who hired a wedding planner in India
to coordinate a wedding in Milwaukee - he lives in San Diego, she
lives in Phoenix and a gentleman who pays a monthly fee for a "virtual
concierge" in Hungary who handles all his scheduling, travel plans,
business lunches/dinners and a host of other personal services. There
is even a book about it - "The Four Hour Workweek".

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/

That my friend, is a total misapplication of technology.

While I am concerned about social negative effects, my complaint is
about the vulnerability of the system. For example, take the average
home with a couple of kids, three wireless computers, a TiVO with a
wireless connection and VoIP. Think accident with a cup of coffee or
a fall breaking the router. What happens? Do they have a spare? Did
they think far enough ahead about the potential of failure to purchase
a CAT5/6 cable to connect one computer to the modem?

Think back to what happened in Chicago about ten or so years ago when
that 5 dollar part in a phone switch broke collapsing everything from
air traffic control which shut down O'Hare for eight hours to the
Mercantile Exchange and potentially creating financial havoc because
settlements couldn't be executed for 28 hours - the amount of time it
took to find the break in the system.

The larger the digital system becomes, the more centralized the system
is despite the advantages of distributed systems technology - it's
human nature to condense and consolidate. Tom Barbash's 2003 book "On
Top of the World" details the decision of Cantor Fitzgerald to store
back up data off site in New Jersey - originally, they were going to
store it on secure servers on site in the basement of the WTC. Think
about what might have happened if their decision was to keep it at WTC
- one quarter of the world's treasury bond trading passes through
Cantor Fitzgerald. That one simple decision saved the world from the
potential of economic collapse - or at the least slowed conditions as
they tried to reconstruct trading data going back years.

Put simply, the more complex the system, the more complete the
centralization, the more vulnerable the system becomes.

Modified Opinion Disclaimer:

This opinion is offered as is. No claims of economic knowledge,
technical or otherwise; competence or qualifications are implied.

This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests
of forming a different opinion.

Or not caring anymore.

Especially not caring anymore.

Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.

Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of an adult
not associated with rec.boats. Do not under any circumstances take
any opinion offered in rec.boats as the final word.

No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion.

Whenever possible, place people on hold.

This opinion may cause reactions including, but not limited to,
headache, constipation, liver damage, drinking to excess, heroin
addiction. Seek medical advice.

For a good time call 867-5309 - ask for Loogy.

If signs of belief in alien invasion occur, immediately consult with
advisors from Area 51, Roswell Division.

Do not request medical advice from anybody on rec.boats.

Hire people with hooks.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:52:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Just think. Your words may forever be considered with a chuckle by future
generations of Google archive viewers, just as Teddy Roosevelt's
reluctance
to accept or rely upon the horseless carriage as a replacement for horse
drawn modes of transportation. In 1902 he would ride in a horseless
carriage, but insisted that it be followed by a conventional horse drawn
carriage in case of a breakdown or failure of the new fangled contraption.

So be it and I understand your analogy - it is applicable.

However, consider this. Eventually, the automobile led to tractors
which could pull 40 bottom plows 20 miles in one day - 10 miles out,
ten miles back across the plains of Middle America which eventually
led to the dust bowl and the Depression. What was the cost of
applying the technology in this manner over time?

I'm not playing the role of Ned Ludd nor am I a neo-Luddite although I
do share one belief with them - that the rapid adoption and
application of technology has negative effects on individuals, society
or the planet and can outweigh its benefits by many orders of
magnitude.

For example - just now on the news, they had a segment on outsourcing
personal services. They used the example of one couple who outsources
reading their two children a bed time story to a woman in Croatia -
via the Internet. Or the couple who hired a wedding planner in India
to coordinate a wedding in Milwaukee - he lives in San Diego, she
lives in Phoenix and a gentleman who pays a monthly fee for a "virtual
concierge" in Hungary who handles all his scheduling, travel plans,
business lunches/dinners and a host of other personal services. There
is even a book about it - "The Four Hour Workweek".

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/

That my friend, is a total misapplication of technology.

While I am concerned about social negative effects, my complaint is
about the vulnerability of the system. For example, take the average
home with a couple of kids, three wireless computers, a TiVO with a
wireless connection and VoIP. Think accident with a cup of coffee or
a fall breaking the router. What happens? Do they have a spare? Did
they think far enough ahead about the potential of failure to purchase
a CAT5/6 cable to connect one computer to the modem?

Think back to what happened in Chicago about ten or so years ago when
that 5 dollar part in a phone switch broke collapsing everything from
air traffic control which shut down O'Hare for eight hours to the
Mercantile Exchange and potentially creating financial havoc because
settlements couldn't be executed for 28 hours - the amount of time it
took to find the break in the system.

The larger the digital system becomes, the more centralized the system
is despite the advantages of distributed systems technology - it's
human nature to condense and consolidate. Tom Barbash's 2003 book "On
Top of the World" details the decision of Cantor Fitzgerald to store
back up data off site in New Jersey - originally, they were going to
store it on secure servers on site in the basement of the WTC. Think
about what might have happened if their decision was to keep it at WTC
- one quarter of the world's treasury bond trading passes through
Cantor Fitzgerald. That one simple decision saved the world from the
potential of economic collapse - or at the least slowed conditions as
they tried to reconstruct trading data going back years.

Put simply, the more complex the system, the more complete the
centralization, the more vulnerable the system becomes.


Well structured and thoughtfully expressed.

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it. Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

Eisboch

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.

That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
..80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:36:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think that's true on the unintended results. Not to say
snowballs don't happen, but most complex systems are well thought out.
Malicious exploitation is another matter entirely.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.

That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
.80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

That kind of crap happened on trading board floors since people
started yakking and learned the power of rumor. It's simple
irresponsibility and greed, not technology.
Tying the 80 cent gain to that BS is a stretch too. If you listen to
the myriad "reasons" that "analysts" give to any market gains or
losses, it never makes much sense unless it is tied to real
fundamentals. The pipeline didn't even qualify to move the market.
Yak yak yak. Greed, greed, greed.
On the flip side, real info gets to real people, not just insiders,
quickly.

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.

When you consider current complexities and that things aren't breaking
down left and right, it's clear that contingency planning and backup
strategies are well established for most infrastructures.
I know "what ifs" were always a significant part of my job.
It's always going to get down to having thoughtful people in the right
spots. But sometimes the **** will hit the fan anyway.

--Vic