It’s all my ISP’s fault. If they didn’t offer unlimited subdomains as part of my hosting deal, I wouldn’t have even thought about it. But it was there, after my initial “what the hell am I going to do with a subdomain?” question, bubbling away in my cunning, reptilian brain, filtered by geekgirliness. (That’s copyright me, by the way. I’m hoping it’ll end up as popular as “truthiness”.)

At first, it was only a little step … the carving off of the blog to its own little empire. Then, as I started to struggle with putting the podcast on feed from my main site, it all became too difficult, and a voice said to me: say, why not create another subdomain for the podcasts? This, I have done. Behold, it is here. I’m still working on getting all three domains inter-related, which is going to be a major pain if I have any major updates I’m contemplating, but it should mean easier access for you to my various bits and pieces. You are worth it, aren’t you?

So that was my punishment for the past couple of days — creating the podcast site. Now, it’s your turn. After that wonderful review of Combat! from Maria Zannini, she is interviewing me at her blog. It was a great interview and I had a lot of fun, so I hope you enjoy it too! Thank you, Maria; you’re a great friend.

Summary for today:

Maria interviews me: mariazannini.blogspot.com
My main website: www.ksaugustin.com
My blog (here, that is): blog.ksaugustin.com
My podcast: radiofreebliss.ksaugustin.com

I’m in search of a medicinal scotch next.

** Because ‘Back to the Future’ was a tad too obvious. **

The moon was back in the news this past week so I thought I’d blog about that, rather than my regular scheduled topic. The attention is due to Google’s $30m Lunar X prize, and yes I’m referring to that Google. It sounds like a lot, but US$30 million is a pittance for the giant of search engines when you think of all the attendant publicity that’s going to occur in the next few years. Hmmmm, starting to get a bit snarky, aren’t I? Okay. According to the prize’s website, the money goes to the the team who manages to:

land a privately funded robotic craft on the Moon that is capable of roaming the lunar surface for at least 500 meters [sic] and [send] video, images and data back to Earth.

Before I continue, let me take you back to … oh, let’s say 1966. What was the world’s state of play in that year? Well,

• India and Pakistan sign a peace agreement (but neglected to tackle Kashmir … an opportunity lost)
• the United States of America was still involved in the Vietnam War
• Robert Menzies had just resigned as Prime Minister of Australia
• Ian Smith still governed Rhodesia

All those things set the time clearly for me, but are all political aren’t they? Let’s see if I can find something else:

• PanAm is still a viable US airline
• Hewlett-Packard releases its very first computer
• IBM releases DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory). Yes, the precursor of all that RAM you read about in PCs nowadays
• The world’s first effective rubella vaccine is introduced
• Andrew Warhol is still alive
• The Beatles were still together (Yellow Submarine album)

The following books were released:

• The Comedians by Graham Greene
• The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein
• A Dream of Africa by Camara Laye
• Rocannon’s World by Ursula K le Guin
• The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon
• The Thirty-First Floor by Per Wahlöö

and the following TV shows had just started:

• Batman (the Adam West version)
• Star Trek (Classic, with William Shatner)
• also The Green Hornet (with Bruce Lee), The Monkees, and Mission Impossible (the original series)

Okay, got the picture? (The snapshot is thanks to reading at Answers.com, by the way.) Why am I harping on 1966? Because that’s the year Luna 9 landed on the Moon and sent back postcards (five black-and-white stereoscopic panorama photos of the lunar surface).

The mention of the Lunar X prize gives me the opportunity to correct a few misconceptions that have been bugging me for a while. It was the Soviets, not the Americans, who put the first man-made object on the moon, way back in 1959 (Luna 2), just as they put the first probe into Earth’s orbit in 1957 (Sputnik), and just as they put the first man into space in 1961. Everybody knows about Yuri Gagarin, but it really is troubling that the space programme of the Soviets (developed without the kind of help from, as Jon Stewart once put it, the “ageing Nazi scientists” that the USA had) has somehow been forgotten.

The Soviets had a very healthy and successful lunar exploration programme that began in the late 1950s and went right through to 1976, centred primarily around … tell me if this sounds familiar … self-contained robotic probes. And now, almost 50 years — or, half a CENTURY — later, we’re trying to replicate that?! Doesn’t it all sound a bit retrogressive to you? Surely after five decades of technological advance, we should be a teenier step further along the space exploration timeline?

The answer in this particular case is, of course, political will. For both empires’ space programmes, the 1970s (for various reasons) spelt the death-knell for lunar habitats and all that kind of space-geek candy. If there’s anything that so starkly illustrates the way human will trumps technology, it’s the space programme. Likewise, whenever I hear about a “ground-breaking technological advance that will change the very way we live”, I always try delving into the human factors behind it … like the ageing baby boomer generation and Viagra. Yeah, couldn’t see that one coming (no pun intended). * snicker * The human factors determine the technology, which then determines other, consequent, human factors. But the human factor was there first … always is.

So now we have those factors coming into play again (Google, fame, sense of romance, entrepreneurship, government apathy) and we’re back to where we were HALF A CENTURY AGO (just in case you’d forgotten). Oh joy. Can’t wait. Be still my racing heart, etc. etc.

POSTSCRIPT: A great book on the invisible topic of the Soviet space programme is Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration by Brian Harvey. We have it in our library.

I was flicking through a recent issue of Wired magazine and noted that one of their coolest geek toys was a standalone tabletop induction cooktop panel that you could pick up for a mere US$1400. Induction cooking is very cool. You can turn on the hotplate and put your hand on it and, as long as you’re not wearing iron-based jewellery (I wasn’t going to chance it while wearing my wedding band, tbh), the plate will feel cool. Yet, put a saucepan of cold water on the same plate and it will boil within 30 seconds. I remember a vivid ad which showed an egg, half on the induction hotplate, the other half in a cross-sectioned saucepan. The half in the saucepan was frying nicely while the half that was slopped on the hotplate remained raw. This side-effect (the hotplate not the saucepan) has the further advantage of being easy to clean because no food ‘cooks’ on the hotplate, and I’m all for lazy cooking.

The way induction works has to do with magnetic fields and electrical resistance, so I won’t go through it here. (I know, I really am restraining myself! Aargh, losing battle … electricity is used to set up a magnetic field which causes heat due to resistance within the non-pure base of the iron-based saucepan. And that’s all I’m saying.) However, I will show you our cooktop.

Isn’t it a beauty? How could we not buy one? It even lights up with flashing blue LEDs when the power is on and I’m a sucker for flashing blue LEDs. Akira is a local Singapore brand, which explains why it was cheaper than the usual Japanese imports. During the Chinese New Year sale at a local Carrefour store, we paid SG$109 for it. And included with the hob was a saucepan with glass lid. That works out to about US$76 or EUR52 for the set. And the speed of cooking is blinding, much faster even than gas. So fast, in fact, that prep work is essential.

Of course there’s always a downside: my earthenware pots — not containing any iron — can’t be used with induction cooking, and neither can my Pyrex dishes. And the hotplate has questionable value for a wok. Also, aluminium/aluminum pans can’t be used either. This is not a problem for us, because most of our cookware is cast-iron or the heavy-bottomed steel-copper type, but it may be a problem for you, so check your cookware and review your cooking habits first if you’re thinking of investing in this energy-efficient über-cool gadget.

When we finally move to a place of our own, I’ll be bugging J for an induction/gas hybrid cooktop. But I don’t think I’ll have to do too much persuading because he’s sold on it too. And did I tell you that, because of its energy efficiency, the electricity bills will be lower? Win-win for safety, clean-up and money. And that’s exactly the way I like it.

UPDATE: In the interests of good science, I put my wedding-band hand on a working induction plate set to boil water. Y’know, there’s always that conflict between rationality (my wedding ring is gold, which should not contain any iron compounds, therefore it will not heat up) versus emotion (put my hand on a hotplate that can boil water in less than 30 seconds?! Are you crazy?!). I’m happy to report that my hand, and ring, survived intact. Ah, the things I do for my readers.

FURTHER WARNING: While the hotplate remains cool until something iron-based is put on it, the plate retains the heat of the saucepan after it’s done. While heat dissipation is quick, the plate is hot after cooking. Or, to put it another way, if you don’t believe me and want to try the hand-on-the-hotplate trick for yourself, do it before you begin cooking, not after, or you may get a nasty burn.

Well, I didn’t win a Psyche (that was my category at the CAPAs) BUT I lost to Joy Nash and her book Deep Magic. Joy just happens to be a best-selling USA Today author so, all in all, I’m not feeling too bad. Congratulations Joy!

The subject of interest in ITlandia at the moment is the bid by Microsoft Corporation (the lumbering, myopic rhinoceros, perhaps) for Yahoo (the injured, undernourished gazelle), with Google as the stalking cheetah following the hunt across the savannah. In a recent news item from the San Jose Mercury News, the Good Morning Silicon Valley section (via their email newsletter) had this to say:

In an internet moment, retired advertising executive Roy Bostock was thrust in the middle of a high-stakes Silicon Valley drama. Minutes after he was appointed Yahoo’s chairman Jan. 31, Microsoft phoned with its takeover offer.

Minutes after? Do you wonder how that phone conversation went?

MS: Good morning, I’d like to speak to your chairman please?
YH: May I ask who’s calling?
MS: Microsoft Corporation.
YH: Yeah right, and I’m Albert Einstein. Piss off, you freak!

or

MS: May I speak with Terry Semel please?
YH: I’m sorry, Mr Semel is no longer with the company.
MS: Oh well, whoever is Chairman nowadays. And make it pronto!

or even

MS: May I speak with Roy Bostock please?
YH: I’m sorry, we have no Mr Bostock working for our company.
MS: Of course you do, you moron, he’s the new Chairman. Jeez, no wonder we’re trying to take you over!

I wonder, too, if there are codewords that business owners use to identify that they’re bona fide billionaires, instead of one of the great unwashed masses pranking in their spare time.

AP: Hi, I’d like to talk to Steve Ballmer.
MS: I’m afraid Mr Ballmer is–
AP: The ice moves swiftly when salty.
MS: Oh, hold on a minute Mr Jobs, and I’ll put you straight through.

And how would a retired advertising executive, no less, deal with a call from Microsoft, offering $31 per Yahoo share? “Yeah, whatever sweetheart. Look, why don’t you get your people to call my people and we’ll set up lunch, say, next Tuesday? You eat Italian? I love Italian. If we’re lucky, I’ll get Tiger Woods to join us. We completed a great campaign with him for steel-reinforced jockey shorts before I left Scratchy and Scratchy.” It’s hard to know who would be more stunned by such a conversation.

So that’s the way my mind works when the truth was actually a lot more prosaic. Co-founder of Yahoo, Jerry Yang, got a call from Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, and that’s when the offer was made.

JY: (phone rings) Hi, this is Jerry.
SB: Jerr, this is Steve. Steve Ballmer. How are ya, pal?
JY: Great Steve, and you?
SB: Fine. Fine. How’re the kids? And the wife?
JY: Oh you know, ticking over. What about you?
SB: Oh same ole, same ole. What about those 49ers, eh?
JY: (chuckles) Yeah. Say, I’m taking the Gulfstream down to Atlanta to catch a game next month. Care to join me?
SB: Sure. Just let me know when, in case it clashes with my regular poker night.
JY: I’ll get my PA to confirm with yours.
SB: Great. Looking forward to it. Say, since I’ve got you on the line…

The Valley being a small place, these guys probably bump into each other at Fry’s every other week, and they’ve probably got each other’s private mobile number on speed-dial. But it’s still nice to muse on hypotheticals …

Generations ago (computer time), Information Technology/Computing was the place to be. It seemed that if you had a degree in computing, a job was assured. And that was correct. While I saw teachers, airline pilots, dentists, struggle through recessions, I was inured to this because I worked in IT.

Then, in the late 90s, the boom-crunch cycle started to accelerate for those of us in the business. It used to be 3-4 years between boom and crunch. Now, it’s more like 3-4 months. I’m writing this because I recently found out about the oil company, Shell, sacking 3,200 of its IT staff this year. In an effort to cut costs by GBP250 million a year, Shell is essentially outsourcing its entire IT infrastructure. Both J and I have been through restructures, retrenchments, reassignments. You can call it whatever you like, but it all boils down to reduction for all concerned … reduction in salary, responsibilities, career opportunities. Sometimes it means nothing more than termination.

I don’t give a lot of sympathy on this blog, but my heart goes out to all the Shell employees who’ll be affected by this. Doubly so because this is a dumb-ass decision and time will vindicate all of us … but not before a lot of lives are thrown onto life’s rubbish heap.

There have been a few spectacular IT blunders over the past few years. Well, too many to name, but I’ll focus on two of my favourites.

Number one, China. Do you remember when China was the Hot IT Destination? When companies wet their pants waiting to “penetrate” the giant Chinese market? At that time, both J and I were managers with large IT companies and, at the weekly meetings, we both (independently) used to tell our employers the same thing: China is a trap. The culture and way of business is different. You’re stepping in their territory which puts you at a disadvantage. Chinese companies will take whatever you do, replicate it and undersell you under your very noses. You don’t have enough people who know the language and you can’t trust the blanket loyalty of those local staff you hire. Given a choice, we said, invest in south-east Asia, where you’re a bigger player and are more likely to have more influence in negotiations. In south-east Asia, governments will want to work with you; in China, they’ll want to analyse then compete against you on the world market.

Blackberry wanted to enter the Chinese market. Lots of angst ensued as RIM tried to negotiate penetration protocols with the Chinese government. Tried, failed, tried, failed. It finally succeeded in getting an okay date for the middle of 2006…only to find the Chinese got there first with their—get this—Redberry. J and I laughed so hard we pissed ourselves. It didn’t stop there. Patent disputes, trademark suits. What did RIM expect? A level playing field? In China? Now we’re finding that companies are slowly backing away from the behemoth. Oh, they’re putting a lot of spin on it, but it seems they’re finally using some of that caution that was so absent when they were thinking with their “little heads”.

Number two, outsourcing. I don’t get it. Even economics professors are touting the benefits of outsourcing. But how can it possibly be profitable? In the money sense, you now have at least two companies having to justify the one budget, and all the companies involved want a profit. They want profit, they want growth. In the medium- to long-term, this can only mean a ballooning of expenditure, even if the initial Powerpoint presentation looked damned fine and contained many impressive animations.*

Okay, say you outsource to some mob in the Asian sub-continent, as Shell are doing. Costs are down. But so is customer service. There are technical, infrastructure, cultural and language difficulties. And as much as people like to bash the Asian outsourcing, even if you choose a Western company, you still have problems. The time to problem resolution is greater. Efficiency and productivity, naturally, falls. As more than one commentator to the Shell news notes, jobs for customers that used to take a quick 5 minutes will turn into 6 months of contract negotiations and project specifications, with appropriate cost/time/resource blowouts.

And how do you effectively manage such situations when Shell’s management is sitting several levels above (and geographically away) from the coal-face workers? But, then again, why should top management care, as long as they pocket their insanely large end-of-year bonuses? And you just know what each level of the ensuing bureaucracy is thinking: “I don’t need to oversee the expenditure directly. I’ll just hand it over to my good friend over here and he’ll do it. Oh, after I’ve taken my cut, of course.” Outsourcing, human nature and creative accounting. It’s a combination that goes together like lamb and garlic, bacon and eggs, or roti and curry.

It’s my belief that the same thing will happen with outsourcing as is happening with China. That is, the rosy spectacles will fall off and companies will start to wonder what the hell they were thinking for so many years, and start building up their in-house expertise again. In the meantime, though, how many workers will be destroyed?

Reuters reported on an annual medical survey recently, that ranked 19 of the world’s industrialised nations on the scale of 1 to, obviously, 19 on deaths through treatable (that is, deaths that “could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care”) diseases. The list includes things like stroke, some cancers, diabetes, heart disease, some bacterial infections and complications from common surgical procedures.

Now, that’s a pretty serious topic, handled by Doctors Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Because you’re probably curious, France topped the list and the USA came last (falling four places in 10 years). The Senior [EDIT: Vice] President of one of the bodies that funded the study, Cathy Schoen, said:

It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance … The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference.

This is no surprise to many Americans. But, just to show that humour can be found in even the most serious of issues, Reuters obviously decided that they needed some sound bites from one of the researchers, and Dr. Nolte ponied up to the telephone. What is it about scientists and the bleeding obvious these days? Nolte said:

[T]he large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance — about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates — probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

Probably was a key? Oh, it gets better. Bear in mind that this survey was all about the general population’s access to health care:

I wouldn’t say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don’t, I think that’s the main problem, isn’t it?

Bwaahahahahahaha. That’s like saying it’s wrong to mention that certain laptops shouldn’t be used because of exploding batteries, because in the laptops that don’t have exploding batteries, the laptop works really well. You can read the full Reuters article here.

And, in fact, please do, because I noticed something else at the end of the article’s first page. Namely,

In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 … [finding s]uch deaths accounted for 23 percent of overall deaths in men and 32 percent of deaths in women.

Now, that’s no laughing matter. Another way of putting it is that, across all the 19 industrialised nations, 40% more women than men die from preventable disease. FORTY. PER. CENT. Isn’t that just a tad…oh crap, what’s the word I’m looking for here?…oh yeah…SIGNIFICANT?

I’ve dropped Drs. Nolte and McKee a line and mentioned this. If they get back to me, I’ll let you know.

POSTSCRIPT: It’s not only in medicine that the USA is falling. It’s not pheromone-crazed snakes on a mutha-f*ing plane, people. It’s only dying mice. Awwwww.