February, 2009

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Surfing at work isn’t automatically bad

For my course, Business Informatics, we have an assignment based on excel skills that attempts to develop, not only the ability to use a spreadsheet, but to understand some business processes.

For the last few semesters, we have used the idea of an online, affiliate marketing/advertising type of analysis, where students had to decide which items to remove from the listing based on observable patterns in a very small data set.  The idea is to test whether they can create a formula as well as whether they paid attention to any of the lecture material on new business models, etc.  Mostly they didn’t, but some always got it.  They had to do things like add GST, multiply number sold by price and subtract cost, sort according to income, really basic stuff.

This year, we’ve decided to be a bit more topical, because, let’s face it, selling online is old.  One of the things that comes up frequently is the use of social networking sites and how they ‘rob’ time from employers and other bizarre notions.  We want students to analyse time spent at different tasks (mostly online) and determine whether these sites should be blocked, because Management have ‘expressed concern’ about usage patterns.

This was partly suggested by a student from last semester who mentioned, in the lecture on social networking, that her company had decided to block FaceBook because in the last month, people had spent 500 hours on the site.  Of course, they panicked about that, leading them to block it.  We discussed the issue for a while and I eventually asked how many people worked at her place of employ.  Well, it was about 1000.  So, on average, each employe spent half an hour PER MONTH on FaceBook.  This is obviously (note the sarcasm) a Big Problem.  Or not.

So, to assist future managers when confronted by such big numbers with making a decision, we are going to get them to make a decision based on some not entirely real data[1].  The basic problem I’m having is coming up with sites that people who actually work would actually visit for their actual work.

This is the list so far.

www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, www.techdirt.com, scholar.google.com, news.com.au, gmail.com, www.bom.gov.au, www.comsec.com.au, orkut.com, macheist.com, realestate.com.au, digg.com, yahoo.com.au, seek.com.au, twitter.com, bne.com.au, icanhascheezburger, boingboing.com, microsoft.com, apple.com.au, bank.com.au, abc.net.au, ning.com, squidoo.com, flickr.com, imdb.com, paypal.com.au, dominos.com.au, huffingtonpost.com, goldencasket.com, whitepages.com.au, blogger.com, thinkgeek.com, articulate.com, wordpress.com, yellow.com.au, picnik.com, itunes.com, iinet.net.au, lifehacker.com, tvguide.com.au, delicious.com, pcworld.idg.com.au, ted.com, instructables.com, virginmobile.com.au, ourbrisbane.com.au, learningrails.com, www.griffith.edu.au, www.cqu.edu.au, www.uq.edu.au, www.qut.edu.au,  www.ebay.com.au

But it doesn’t seem too real, because there has to be things that people not working in academia would possibly visit in the course of their work and, let’s face it, with the exception of a few, most of them are fairly academic or, a bit on the geeky side.

The second problem I have is to actually work out how such a data set would look, and it will probably be large.  The students will still have to do averages, some basic calculations, the pivot table and a couple of graphs.

I wouldn’t mind adding a second set of data about how much individuals achieve in a month and fudge that data to show that the people who actually achieve the most, also spent the most time on social networking, because that’s what we do!

So, any network enginers out there? Do you have any ideas how this kind of data set would look?

  1. but when have universities been concerned with *real data* – oops more sarcasm [↩]

Tags: ,

Posted in thoughts | No Comments »

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

There’s a pattern here, somewhere

Tracing patterns – there’s something.  It’s not good.  In fact, it’s terrible for us, the people.

  1. Copyright
    1. Copyright was designed in th 1700′s to protect creators from publishers. (Source)
    2. Copyright is an economic right, automatically vested in creators by governments. (Source)
    3. Copyright is now a weapon used against both creators and consumers.
    4. Rightsholders more often seem to be publishers, not creators.
  2. Buttons
    1. The Button Makers Guild was the RIAA of the 1600′s. (Source)
    2. Hollywood owes its location and prominence to its avoidance of paying licence fees to Thomas Edison for making movies. (Source)
    3. CDs, DVDs, whips, buggies, iceboxes, buttons are all outmoded technologies.
    4. We haven’t yet gained the right to make our own modern buttons.
  3. Computers
    1. The Internet and the World Wide Web opened up ways of interconnecting, collaborating and organising.
    2. WWW technologies are law-blind.
    3. Xanadu failed.
    4. Rightsholders want Xanadu, not WWW.
  4. Censorship
    1. The Internet and WWW allow massive sharing and exchange of information.
    2. People love this.
    3. Rightsholders and Governments fear this.
    4. Governments, rightsholders and some corporations have more power.
  5. Technologies
    1. Technology is not neutral.
    2. Many activities are enabled by technology.
    3. Many activities are broken by technology.
    4. Technology can make or break us.
  6. Information
    1. Information is a key to learning.
    2. Learning is a key to participation.
    3. Participation is central to our ways of being.
    4. We are Information.
  7. News
    1. News is dying.
    2. News is ever more important.
    3. Paper is obsolete.
    4. We are news.
  8. Change
    1. Change is necessary for growth.
    2. Technologies change us (see 2, 5 and 6 above)
    3. Some people fear change (see for instance Australian Christian Lobby)
    4. We are change.
  9. Democracy
    1. Dissent is necessary for democracy.
    2. Democracy is about the people.
    3. We are the people.
    4. We are being silenced.

There’s something that links all of these together.  Something bigger than our current economic crisis or even our fight against censorship.  There’s something striking at the heart of us.  I fear we have no power, that our democracy has failed us in the face of massive greed and corporatism.

I used to think that the main difference between Australia and the US was that Australia arose from injustice.  We got the convicts, the US got the Puritans.  This gave us an insight into injustice, even though we perpetuated it here.  It underlies our larrikinism, our dissent against propriety.  But we have been invaded.  We have lost our way.  We are not who we thought we were, and those of us who remember are shaking our heads in dismay.  We are being overwhelmed by a new form of puritanism.

This pattern is pervading my thoughts, and yet I cannot quite see it.  What is it that I see?

Edited to add:

  • Serfdom is making a comeback.
  • People don’t understand numbers.
  • More children are abused in their home than by strangers.
  • Moral panics!

Tags: ,

Posted in Ramblings, innovation | No Comments »

Friday, February 6th, 2009

Keep the Pipes Clean!

I was sending an email this morning and I noticed something about my email signature, which I must admit I have not changed for quite some time (perhaps 2 or 3 years). It reads thusly:

======
Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel. (Socrates, apparently.)
======
++++++
This email is sent using recycled, sustainable electrons!  Keep the pipes clean.
++++++++

I realised, belatedly, that the last bit of that could be interpreted in two ways.  Obviously with the “Clean Feed”, that last statement could be read in support of a filtered internet, but it is not my intent.  Given the analogy that is often used to help explain the internet as a ‘series of tubes‘[1], and the network neutrality debates, I seek to make a statement that the tubes/pipes/network should not be limited nor blocked in any way.

I figure it this way: if all our data flows through these pipes, then any kludge on the sides of the pipes restricts the flow of information.  Providing preferred ‘flow’ for any information, as has been proposed by some very large ISPs particularly in the US, is a form of kludge for all other information.  So too for the “clean feed”.  It is, in effect, a blockage in the system.  It is dirtying the pipes, something we would be loath to do with our actual plumbing.

I guess the real problem, then, is that some people already have their pipes partially blocked with spyware, malware and popup generators of all kinds.  And just like our actual plumbing, when you get a problem on your end, you call a plumber.  You don’t whinge and complain that there is too much poop in your plumbing.  You fix your plumbing.  You clean out your pipes!

Perhaps we need an education program around how much like a toilet your computer really is.  Or perhaps not.

…

But, wait, yes!  This is what we need.  If you are relying on the Government to clean and look after your toilet, there is really something wrong!

Which brings me to the first part of my signature.  Filling a vessel vs kindling a flame.  Two very different views of learning.  One tells us that we have no control, that we are passive and need guidance and will be filled by whatever anyone tells us [2].  The other, well, it points to the very nature of the Internet – a brightly burning source of inspiration, knowledge, connection and the potential to provide for ourselves.

I know which Internet I want.

  1. the plumbing analogy [↩]
  2. I’m looking at YOU, Jim Wallace! [↩]

Tags: ,

Posted in Ramblings | 1 Comment »

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Cars need decorations, don’t they?

Yesterday was my first day back at work.  It didn’t start well.

As I was reversing out of the garage, I heard a thwang, and then noticed the aerial on the car waving at me through the windscreen.  CRAP, I thought.  I stopped the car to view the damage, thought about cutting it off as it was only held on by a piece of copper wire, but decided that a piece of tape or two would hold it.  Upstairs, I went, but on the way, decided to close the garage door.  CRAP, I didn’t reverse out far enough probably because I was disconcerted to see a piece of my car waving at me.

I nearly had an extra stripe across the bonnet with a matching contour.  Tape retrieved, I proceeded to ‘fix’ – in the loosest definition of that word – the aerial.  It seemed like it would hold, and in fact did, but I’ll keep you posted on that.

The new decoration on my car

The new decoration on my car

So then I moved the car back far enough to close the garage.  Garage closed, I proceeded to start the car, again, but as I was doing that, the gate, which is a very large, very hard, very wide gate swung outwards towards my car (you can see it in the picture above).  Oh CRAP! I thought. And had to get out of the car again!

So my first day, I broke my aerial and nearly dinged my car twice and that was before I got out of the driveway.  It does not bode well for the year.

But then, it can only go uphill which is the direction of the driveway.

Tags: ,

Posted in Ramblings | No Comments »

Theme by RoseCityGardens.com
Modified by Me!