Microsoft Troubles XVII: Vanity Fair on what "Felled a Tech Giant"

The mainstream media has released an major investigative report on Microsoft.
The link is "a teaser", not the full article.

Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside the Executive E-mails and Cannibalistic Culture That Felled a Tech Giant
by Vanity Fair 12:00 AM, JULY 3 2012

IPV6: Adoption driven by smartphones?

Horace Dediu of asymco charts commodity computing up-take (as yearly sales) since 1975 in  "The evolution of the computing value chain". It includes personal computers, smartphones and more.

Current PC (desktop+laptop) and Android sales are about equal at 350MM/year, with iPhones ~150MM/year and iPads closing in on 100MM/year: or near 1Bn new personal compute devices per year.

With current growth rates, how soon will we saturate the IPV4 address space?

Microsoft Troubles XVI: Hard Data is emerging

Horace Dediu of asymco has written two recent posts on Microsoft:

• "The evolution of the computing value chain", and
•  "Who will be Microsoft's Tim Cook?"

I find Dediu's work outstanding: he provides hard data for the points he argues...

Cyberwar: paper-tiger or real threat?

Marcus Ranum, renowned IT Security expert, has interesting views on Cyberwar.
It's a lot more nuanced and subtle than "One Big Attack".

Where I diverge: a Big Event is a great distraction for really 'interesting', subtle actions - and can be just as simple as the First Worm by Morris. Oooops, it wasn't meant to do that...

Things you should read or view:

• RSA Conference, 2012, On Cyberwarfare
• Fabius Maximus posts on cyberwar
• You must Be >this< Tall To Play Cyberwar (has DoD grown enough yet?)
• Cyberwar: The Pentagon Cyberstrategy
• Cyberwar: About Stuxnet‏, the next generation of warfare?
• Congress Authorizes Pentagon to Wage Internet War [Wired. Ryan Singel]
• M.R. on rearguard-security: Cyberwar

NBN, stuxnet and Security: It's worse than you can believe

What  did US Intelligence tell the Australian Government about Real Network Security when a chinese vendor was vetoed  as supplier of NBN (central?) switches?
Now that we have O'bama admitting "we did Stuxnet, with a little help", we know that they aren't just capable and active, but aware of higher level attacks and defences: you never admit to your highest-level capability.

Yesterday I read two pieces that gave me pause: the first, the US Navy replacing Windows with Linux for an armed drone was hopeful, the other should frighten anyone who understands Security: there's now a market in Zero-Day vulnerabilities.

The things the new-world of the NBN has to protect us against just got a lot worse than you can imagine.

NBN: Will Apple's Next Big Thing "Break the Internet" as we know it?

Will Apple, in 2013, release its next Game Changer for Television following on from the iPod, iPhone, and iPad?
If they do, will that break the Internet as we know it when 50-250MM people trying to stream a World Cup final?

Nobody can supply Terrabit server links, let alone afford them. To reinvent watching TV, Apple has to reinvent its distribution over the Internet.

The surprising thing is we were first on the cusp of wide-scale "Video-on-Demand" in 1993.
Can, twenty years later, we get there this time?

NBN: Needed for "Smart Grid" and other New Century Industries

With the release by IBM of "Australia's Digital Future to 2050" by Phil Ruthven of IBISworld there is now some very good modelling to say "The Internet Changes Everything", with some Industry bulwarks of the past set to disappear or radically shrink and others, "New Century Industries" (my words), that don't yet exist at scale, will come to the fore of our economy.

Previous pieces that link the NBN/Smart-Internet with "Negawatt" programs are now more relevant:

• Smart Internet+Smart-Grid: making money and reducing carbon footprint
• Smart-Grids and Carbon Trading: Enough for an economic Negawatt scheme?

test of gdocs

Groklaw's "Curing the Problem of Software Patents"

Link on Sites... "Curing the Problem of Software Patents"

What is Software? Why does it matter?

Software is the stuff that runs on computers.
It's invisible, intangible and isn't even 'isomorphic': exactly one form for one thing. There's an infinite number of representations of a single function, program or thing, producing the identical result.

Computers are active cognitive processing engines.
They can be electronic, mechanical, relays or "wetware" like brains.

If you don't know what you're working on and with, then:

• You can't answer: What is it that we Do?
• Nor can you talk about: What's the best way to do what we do? How do we assess results?
• Nor: What is unique to what we do Professionally? What is the stuff that is ours alone?

The wonderful Pamela Jones of Groklaw persuaded a very insightful Intellectual Property (I.P.) expert, Michael Risch, to contribute a piece: "Curing the Problem of Software Patents".

I attempted a contribution countering the notion that "Software is Mathematics" and it was lost in the noise.

I can't demand respect for having practiced I.T. for longer than 50-75% of the respondents have been alive, nor quote my "hours of experience" like pilots or enumerate the really big, really tough systems I've built, saved or worked on.

Nor can I meaningfully demonstrate the breadth and depth of my Professional Library,

nor, like professional pilots, show my type-certifications and specialist training and ratings.

On Wild Wild Web, my experience and insight is lost because the I.T. Profession has no insight into itself nor engages in any systemic introspection. If you've written a 100-line Vbasic or C programme, you've qualified to espouse your opinion on all things Software...

Discussing "Software Patents", or the Intellectual Property rights over Software, is a deep and complex issue. One that engaged the courts for over two decades of its 50 year history. Around 1970, Thompson and Ritchie of Bell Labs patented the "Set UID bit" of the first Unix system [and placed the patent in the public domain when issued.] This was before there was a clear acceptance of Software Patents.

But why does nobody comment that the very stuff in question, "Software", isn't just not well-defined, there is no commonly accepted definition and description.

My thesis is that Software cannot be adequately covered by existing I.P. regimes, because it is something completely new and different.

Computers were described in the early days as "Thinking Machines", capitalised.

They do execute the cognitive steps encoded in software, but don't yet "Think" as people might, but do small-t 'think'.

This is my hierarchy of the I.P. protections we have now:

• Things we make, artefacts. [Trade Marks and Registered Designs]
• a Creative Expression, potentially copyable, more than simple artefacts. [Copyright]
• Processes, Designs and Methods for creating 'stuff'. [Patents]

Software has elements of each one of these:

• it appears as an artefact, such as on an optical disk or USB drive, as a string of bits that can be executed directly on a real or virtual piece of hardware. The binary form.
• It appears as copyrightable source code, a creative expression of a person or team.
• The essential ideas and innovations can be described and enumerated in a Patent Specification.

But Software is only software when it is running, when it is a series of cognitive steps being executed on a processing engine.

Stored on disk, it is only latent: the string of bits could represent anything, could be interpreted or executed in many distinct ways.

Software does not arrive out of the blue: it results from conscious, directed cognitive effort.

The classic Software Engineering process includes meta-layers and processes:

• Business Case or System Description
• Requirements
• Functional Specification
• Detailed Software Design
• the source code, libraries and tool-chains to create it,
• the functional test suites
• Debugging tools and test/acceptance teams
• Version Control, Release Management and Deployment systems.
• Defect, request and upgrade tracking systems
• Project Management systems
• Quality and Performance management support.

One of the essential characteristics of modern computers is they are General Purpose Computers.

They are empty vessels capable of solving an infinite array of Problems, waiting for specific Software to be loaded and run, making them for that time perform defined cognitive tasks.

The major advance circa 1940's was the "Stored Program".

The CPU (Central Processing Unit) was capable of executing 'instructions', or micro cognitive steps, but prior to the "Stored Program", only what was fixed at construction time.

Storing "executable code" in memory, treating it like loadable and modifiable data, created a completely New Thing on the planet:

  a constructed machine that was a Programmable General Purpose Computer.

"software" can't be disassociated from the platform that it runs on.

And importantly, it only exists when running, the dynamic execution of cognitive steps by an engine marks what it is, nothing else.

The 3 basic building blocks of Software written in functional not declarative languages are:

• sequential statements [mathematical calculations and other actions]
• repetitions and loops [actions]
• conditionals [predicate logic]

These are constructs unique to Software, they are not Logic or Mathematics.

Alan Kay described writing software as "building a convincing proof".

But it is more than just proving a hypothesis, its a result that goes further:

It combines Logic, Actions and Algorithms.

The next breakthrough was I/O (Input/Output).

Whilst a CPU could process cognitive steps stored in memory and solve not just an individual problem, but all problems of a class, this had no use without being able to communicate the results or have the problem input communicated to it.

The four elements described, CPU, Memory (RAM), Persistent Storage and I/O, are common and necessary characteristics of the platform on which Software may run.

Software has the potential to embody any and all cognitive tasks of a human mind that we can precisely describe. Is there any reason it can't Learn and Adapt, fully emulating a human brain?

Already the best chess players are embodied in software. There are symbolic solvers for maths and logic problems, and automated reasoning solving Formal Proofs of problems (like Software itself).

There is a confusion between using Mathematical/Logical proofs to show that a specific piece of Software (often the source code) on a specific platform meets a Formal Specification, and hence Software must be a Mathematical construct.

I posit that Software is composed of cognitive actions and a mathematical/logical proof can be derived to show it conforms to a specification of actions.

Software can be self-modifying, the trivial current example is "on-the-fly compilation".

Mathematical Algorithms are not. 

Software can Learn and Adapt in exactly the same way that the human mind does.

This is not Consciousness. That is a whole other discussion.

Once someone has a precise, testable definition of that, perhaps it can be embodied in Software.

The Turning Test addresses this problem, roughly as "If it walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck, ..., it's a duck" [or person].

This is an extremely powerful and deep point. Nothing similar applies to any branch of Mathematics,  Logic or reasoning:

The Turing Test explicitly says we cannot tell the difference between Software executing on a machine platform and a human mind. All we can evaluate is responses and executing Software can be indistinguishable from a living person.

Importantly a piece of Software cannot directly determine upon what platform it is being run, if it is being run directly on hardware or emulated, being interpreted or a human is carefully and slowly stepping through some code examining it or understanding it.

The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has for over 4 decades attempted to understand the human brain in finer and finer detail and build Software for electronic compute platforms that precisely emulate those human behaviours. Including Learning and Adaption.

Any theory of Software must allow for self-modifying and evolving code. 

Software isn't a branch of Mathematics and Logic. It is far, far more.

• It's dynamic, not a static proof or algorithm.
• It's invisible, intangible and infinite representations exist for the same functionality.
• It performs I/O, stores results and changes its behaviour.
• It interacts with the Real World and suffers 'bit rot'.
• Software is a sequence of cognitive actions, not a proof or algorithm on a page.

My objection to Software Patents is two-fold:

• Software is enumerated cognitive actions. If you can't Patent Ideas, why can you patent thought processes that lead to ideas or solve problems?
• It's at a level above Designs etc embodied in Patents. It's a completely different entity.

More to follow...

Cyberwar: Bush/O'Bama authorised Stuxnet

We've crossed a Internet Security Rubicon: the USA admits to combined cyber-attack operations with Israel against Iran's nuclear enrichment program.[NY Times]

The Washington Post's "Zero Day" series says a lot more.

It's a very important event when a government goes public with its most-secret security or intelligence programs: it took over 4-decades after WWII (and the 'Spycatcher' court case) for news of just part of the Allied SIGINT activities to become public.

The work of Bletchley Park, the home of Alan Turning's biggest contribution, was kept secret to the point of allowing mass casualties rather than give it away.

The only reason I can think of for O'Bama to publicise the USA's active, and successful, practice of cyber-attack is they think they've developed protections against it.

NBN: Demand Forecasts and Liberal Policies

The NBN started as an estimated $5B Rudd/Conroy project tender to deploy Fibre-to-the-Node, to which the owner of the copper network to the Nodes, Telstra, declined to respond beyond a single page.

The next iteration was the $43B Rudd/Conroy Fibre-to-the-Home (FttH) scheme as a tertiary-level Stimulus Package, addressing longer-term impacts of the GFC. It hadn't been ALP policy before then.

After Kevin '07 became Toast '10, Gillard/Conroy had the opportunity to walk away from the NBN, but the ALP became wedded to the NBN in the 2010 election.

In the spirit of the knife-edge Parliament, the Abbott/Turnbull Opposition stance on the NBN is "not what they said", with Turnbull initially charged by Abbott with "destroy the NBN" and now having morphed that into "we'll do it cheaper, with less waste".

The NBN is the most notable current place where Politics meets Engineering.

Changing IT from a Cost Centre to a Profit Centre.

1. ICT is a "force multiplier" (or 'cognitive amplifier').
It enables services and work to be performed "Better, Cheaper, Faster" (BCE).

It Amplifies the Effectiveness of staff at 3 levels:

• individuals can perform tasks "Better, Cheaper, Faster", can need 5-25 times fewer staff.
• co-ordination and communication tasks become 'zero-friction' improving cross-boundary efficiency and effectiveness. 
• Reducing team & Department sizes removes delays and other barriers to productivity and efficiency.
• Organisationally, decisions can be taken faster, with more informed sources and promulgated/implemented in real-time. Yielding much more agile and responsive products and services.

The future of IT Performance Analysis and Reporting

As IT/Computing moves through successive "event horizons" to becoming Ubiquitous, Universal and Invisible [like petrol, tyres, home telephones, plastic bags and ATM's], I think we need to monitor, model and report "Performance" in 3 areas:

• Organisationally: For every dollar spent on ICT, what revenue and profit does it bring?
• Technically: For each IT system and Computing Application, how does it scale, where are its bottlenecks and 
• Business Systems and Apps: What are our ICT, staff and resource input costs? Where our bottlenecks? What investments are needed to optimise throughput, reduce costs and increase revenues?

E-mail privacy: can I send a copy without permission?

This is not an extensive review of the field, nor is it legal advice.

I wanted to inform myself of the limits of what I could do with an email that had come into my possession. One of the parties, known from the content to be very aggressive and sometimes threatening, I wasn't prepared to approach for permission, whilst the other, when I did, was happy to publish the interchange on-line.

NBN: Turnbull and 'inside the house' costs. Nope!

Malcolm Turnbull trotted this out and it really needs to be highlighted and responded to in and of itself:

it's is so fundamentally flawed as to be inconceivable for an informed person, let alone the expert commentator he'd like to portray himself as

From Malcolm Turnbull's "Comms Day" 2012 speech:

Another takeaway is that ‘inside the house’ costs for FTTP can mount and become a serious economic factor. These costs tend to fall over time, and vary from place to place, but in the UK ‘inside the house’ expenses have been estimated to be 20 per cent of total FTTP costs. 

The Telstra fibre rollout in South Brisbane likewise indicates this expense is likely to be material – Telstra this week confirmed industry reports that it is using up to a day of technician labour at each residential premise, adding up to $1000 to the cost of the cutover. 

It is not clear NBN Co has budgeted for this expense anywhere. If it has, it would be instructive for someone from NBN Co to explain where and how.

No Telco has ever been responsible for 'inside the home costs'.

NBN and the impact of Australian Telco's Business Practices.

AUSTRALIAN TELCO BUSINESS PRACTICES

Australian Telcos aren't just uncooperative, their behaviours are pernicious, obstructive and often perversely self-injurious. This (and the GFC) is why Telstra's share price fell around three times pre-NBN, and has recovered over 10% in the short time since the NBN arrangement has been completed.

There are 4 incontestable examples of this:

• Telstra/Optus cable rollout.
• ISDN only as a 'premium service'.
• ADSL 1 (ACCC intervention), ADSL 2 turn-on and ADSL 2 DSLAMs & ULL (non) churning.
• Mobile roaming.

The NBN and defending against Cyber warfare attacks.

CYBER-WARFARE and the Australian NBN.

We know from "Stuxnet" that Nation States are actively building and deploying Cyber warfare tools, applying them to National Security concerns and running them as Military, not technical, operations. This includes accurate reconnaissance and network topology and vulnerability mapping. The worst case is that attackers will gain access to the network control tools and infrastructure.

Recent coverage suggests that Obama denied a US Military request to launch a cyber attack on Syria's infrastructure during the recent 'troubles'.

From the "slammer" worm, we know that any Cyber warfare attack will be fully developed within 3 minutes, and any attack will be launched at the worst possible time for defenders, possibly accompanied by physical distractions.

Recovery from "munitions grade" worm/malware compromise will be long and expensive. Experience is that malware infections is as damaging to businesses as a fire: Within 12 months of a fire, 80-90% of small businesses fail.

The NBN as an Essential Strategic Defence for Cyber-warfare.

Whilst reading this piece today I 'had a thought'.

"Militarisation of cyberspace: how the global power struggle moved

online",  Nick Hopkins, guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 April 2012 15.00 BST

One argument in support of the NBN I've not heard is about Security, but not the "how to keep your bank account and credit card safe" kind - the usual direct theft or Identity Fraud talked about at Cyber-Security conferences.

The National Security kind that interest the Intelligence agencies and Military, a.k.a. "Cyber-warfare".

This is as far removed from normal Cyber-security as guarding bank vaults is from fighting a war. Attack, and hence Defence, is taken to a whole new level: because the resources employed and what is at stake is taken to a whole new level.

The NBN we had to have, and the one we'll likely get.

Yesterday I read Robert Gottliebsen's, "Who wants a poor man's NBN?" and thought, "Am I the only person who remembers why we had to have the NBN?"

We got the NBN for a number of reasons, few of them necessary or good, in my opinion:

Smart-Grids and Carbon Trading: Enough for an economic Negawatt scheme?

Can the Smart-Grid and Carbon Trading create a new, economically viable marketplace in saving power?

In 1997, Amory B. Lovins co-authored a book with a radical new idea to address the Energy Crisis and our Environmental problems (now it might be "Climate Change"):

the negawatt negative watts of power consumed by creating lower demand through more efficient power use.

It is still much cheaper to "save a watt" than for a Power Generator to "build a watt", and the marginal cost of production and distribution is zero to the Generator. The consumer still has to maintain and replace their infrastructure investment.

So why hasn't the negawatt market happened? What's different now that it could work?