|
 |
Monday, December 29, 2003 |
 Does anyone really believe there was such a thing as "the greatest generation?" I know enough about history to confirm in my mind that the WW2 generation, the Depression generation, the Civil War generation, and the Revolutionary War generation were just as divided and confused as we are today. One major difference between today and those previous generations is that they were all involved. Today, war is a spectator sport enjoyed by people that would never involve themselves or their children. War is our modern coliseum.
10:33:17 PM 
|
|
Booming concepts for 2003 that will do well in 2004 (initial list):
- RSS 2.0 aggregators and feeds: Wow, what a year! More feeds than any of us can keep up with!
- Cameraphones: More cameraphones were sold than digital cameras earlier this year. This will become ubiquitous.
- Guerrilla warfare (IEDs, RPGs, and suicide cars): Watch what happens to Iraqi infrastructure over the next year. Will the US stay in Iraq through the year with 2-3 casualties a day?
- Political weblogs (and political social software): Dean has the oppportunity to build a third party based on his campaign's Internet efforts. Nuff said.
- Personal hard-drives (multimedia players with attachments): Storage is on a roll, step aside if you are in the way. Watch for screens, TiVo like functionality, and more to take off.
- Second Superpower movements: All over the global map. Challenging nation-states and corporations everywhere. Powered by social technology.
- Professional virus developers. Watch 2004 to see where many of the world's most talented software developers are spending their time. This isn't for teenagers anymore. A virus with a professional development cycle is an amazing thing to watch.
- Skype and VoIP software. On a roll. Simple and effective.
Bust concepts for 2003 that will continue to decline in 2004 (initial list):
- Personal privacy and fair use rights. Thank you MPAA and the RIAA!
- The Bill of Rights. Thank you Bush and the Patriot Act II!
- Cures for currently incurable diseases. Thank you to the Religious Right and the Bush Administration!
- Social networking software (it will take another year to work out how to use it correctly). Friendster et. al. in retreat.
- Most wanted lists. It takes more than eliminating certain despised individuals to change the world.
- Prosecution of corporate and financial bad behavior. Not in my lifetime. Steal $1,000 from the house of the guy down the street and he will chase you with a gun. Steal $1,000 from him via abuse of his pension fund and he doesn't have a clue, nor do the authorities have a clue how to prosecute the perps.
- P2P software. The lawsuits have done their work to slow adoption. Adware and spyware included with P2P systems have finished the job.
- The UN. On the run in 2003. Will continue in 2004. Without US support, the UN is useless.
7:36:42 PM
|
|
One of the most overhyped products of 2003: Weblogs. One of the most anti-hyped products of 2003 (there are journalists and consultants that make a living on anti-hype): Weblogs. One of the most useful, long lasting products of 2003: Weblogs.
6:47:54 PM
|
|
I should probably put together a decision support tool for helping people decide which RSS aggregator/tool works best for them. Totally objective (I don't have any conflicts). Any interest in this? Regardless, I am probably going to do it. I will post a list of systems I will review tomorrow and a list of attributes to review the day after.
5:20:53 PM
|
|
Do network-centric cells of terrorists need to plan and coordinate moderate to large operations along traditional lines? Probably not. Here's why.
The traditional approach (at least the way I used to do it in special ops) is to first gather a team of specialists to develop an operations plan. The plan is then built, either over hours or days, with a limited amount of flexibility built in. Time is closely managed. Targets are precisely defined. Unit operations are tightly coupled to ensure economy of force. In execution, the plan is overseen by specialist team managers and senior staff. Decision makers on the ground typically have little flexiblity other than to abort the mission.
In the emerging world of next generation terrorism, enabled by rapid communications and plentiful targets of opportunity, the traditional approach is counterproductive. A loose approach composed of ad hoc communications and individual initiative can provide much greater levels of security and higher probabilities of success.
In this approach cells would develop a range of targets within general guidelines (a section of a city) based on their capabilities (a type of attack). The time schedule would be fluid. The date for an op would be set within a general time frame without specifics. Coordinated action would be done in an ad hoc manner. For example: "once your cell begins operations, my cell will begins too." "Your cell just hit this target, my cell will hit this complimentary target." Abort points would be determined based on what each cell sees on the ground or what other cells communicate to each other on the fly (ie. "flash me an SMS message to abort and throw away the phone"). Ops could continue indefinitely using this method until local conditions are too difficult to ensure success.
The benefits of this approach would be as follows:
- Difficult to disrupt. The loss of any one cell would not necessarily imperil the operation since there are few co-dependencies. For example: if a single cell was shut down, other cells could continue operations since no one cell would have another cell's list of targets, an overarching mission plan, or require the other cell's support to continue operations.
- Hard to defend against. The time period of the op could be sufficiently large to make a high level readiness difficult to maintain (could you imagine months of Orange alert?).
- Nearly impossible to detect. Decision cycles would be slow and communications would only be made when security was assured. Target selection would be wide ranging and independently authored.
The real power of a framework like this is in its ability to disrupt systems. More on that later.
1:51:27 PM
|
|
I notice that Kerry has joined Clark by advertising on the Dean keyword in Google. No ads are attached to the Bush, Clark, or Kerry keyword. Hmm... Looks like a missed opportunity. This is even more interesting. Nothing is attached to issue keywords like Iraq, Medicare, or the Environment. This is a big mistake. Google performance marketing on issue keywords would be very effective in the 2004 presidential campaigns.
Performance marketing online is something my team and I pioneered while at Gomez in the late 90's. We used our analyst's branded objective research to build decision making tools for consumers who were interested in online brokerage or banking services. These firms paid us based on new accounts that were opened (which is much more effective than the pay-per-click method Google uses). Our system was able to provide customers to the banks and brokers that were confident in their selection at a fraction of the price standard TV, radio, or banner advertising (~ 5% of all online financial accounts were sourced through Gomez in 1999). Most companies told us that the customers we sent to them were the best in comparison to all other sources of customer acquisition.
The opportunity space available to candidates today is to provide solid information to voters who are interested in various issues. Forget the spin and the sales approach. Put up sites on each issue with supporting information. Provide decision making tools that compare and contrast candidates. Run ads on Google and other locations that support pay-per-click. Own the keywords that define the candidate.
Important rule: Help people make informed decisions, regardless of whether they select your candidate, and they will respect you. If they do select you, they will be very unlikely to stray. Set the standard of what it means to talk to voters directly without talking down to them.
9:41:33 AM
|
|
Kevin Sites blog (from Iraq) brings back memories of when I used to work at night as a pilot in special ops -- the time the US military prefers to fight. At the time, I used binocular Night Vision Goggles (NVGs). Attached to my helmet and weighing in at about ~5 lbs, the goggles put a big strain on my neck after 6 or 7 hours of use. They also had unwanted visual effects. Using NVGs, my vision dropped to 20/200 (~legally blind). To see the aircraft's instruments, you had to tilt your head back and peer beneath the goggles (since the goggles prevented all visual accuity nearer than 6 feet). The instruments were, of course, illuminated with red light (which prevented the loss of the eye's night vision capacity and prevented the goggle's from being washed out by rogue reflections off of the dash).
Light levels were measured based on the precentage of a clear starry night with a full moon (100%). Light levels at 30% and above were comfortable. At 5%, it got dicey. Landing a plane with NVGs at 5% illumination is akin to a descent into a black hole (only God knows how I survived that). Flying in clouds and rain with NVGs was also fun since it was almost impossible to judge when you were about to fly into the weather or how long it would last.
8:58:00 AM
|
|
Congrats to Adam on his shiny new pilot's license. Welcome to the club. Adam, are you going for a commercial rating too?
8:10:42 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2004 John Robb.
|
|
|
