GoJ and the need for validation.

Why does the Government of Jamaica feel they need validation from some foreign consulting firm for even the most benign and obvious things? The OUR was charged with the task of overseeing the implementation of number portability since the inception of the incandescent light bulb, and yet all the news we can get from them relates to the hiring a consultant to tell them what they could have easily discerned for far less money, in a far shorter time, using abundant local resources.

It's an ever growing trend. Whether it's a case of needing an outsider to hold their hand and pat them on the head, or simply a "cover your 'ass'ets" strategy, where they feel a foreign consultant grants them indemnity in the event things go south, it's time we move past this phase of inadequacy, start to trust our own technologists and people on the ground, and push ahead with initiatives that have been lingering for years.

I'm truly disturbed.

--
http://www.our.gov.jm - contract award for number portability feasibility study

To reminisce is human

I wrote this once. Don't hold it against me. http://www.techjamaica.com/content/view/343/51/

Shopping with Alzhemier's

Amazon, I love you, but sometimes I just don't get you. I'm a fairly loyal and frequent Amazon shopper. I can categorically state that I've spent more of my hard and not so hard earned funds with Amazon over the years than I have with any other single retailer in my entire life. I say this to paint a picture about just how well Amazon knows me and my habits. No entity, private, public or otherwise, could make that boast. So I'm sometimes a bit perplexed about how Amazon makes use of that information.

Take one recent purchase; the much hyped and totally worth it Kindle wireless reading device. I opted for the 3G model since $50 for unlimited almost-anywhere data sounded like a pretty good deal. Amazon takes the fact that I've purchased a Kindle (or anything else) to display on subsequent visits, items they think would fit my interest. So imagine my confusion when on my return, the predominant recommendation isn't for a book, perhaps a best seller or an electronic version of a title I already own; it isn't for a nice leather cover; it isn't even for a reading light. Instead it's, get this, a Kindle.

Do Kindle owners generally purchase new Kindles once the smell has worn off the ones they got last week? The question might be relevant, except Amazon does it for the vast majority of things I purchase. My current Amazon homepage is littered with recommendations for sneakers, cell phones, and guitar stands; all recent purchases and all, I would imagine, at least once a year purchases for most people. Unless the end goal is to instill buyer's remorse in their shoppers, I can't see the logic behind this.

Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems. I'm aware that my recommendations come from an algorithm that looks at my shopping and browsing habits, and this could be something specific to me and my eclectic purchasing history, but I can't help but think that with all the stuff Amazon knows about me, and all the things they could predict, they sure do make a mess of the opportunity.

Anonytext for Android

Anonymous messaging from your Android device. Enjoy.

Microsoft, patents, and a reminder as to why Open Source is "good enough".

Today came word that a US Court of Appeal has denied Microsoft's appeal in a case regarding an XML related patent lawsuit filed by the Canadian company, i4i. The initial injunction handed down in August 2009 claimed that Microsoft had infringed on a patent held by the company and prohibited Microsoft from selling copies of Word 2007 in the US. This move, while appearing draconian and downright silly in nature, is just another example of the dangers of software patents and how it can stifle innovation. This story however isn't about the lawsuit, the injunction, or the denied appeal by Microsoft. This story is about Microsoft's approach to making things right and their choice of words in expressing it.

Today Microsoft issued a press release outlining their plan of action. Of particular note is the following statement:

With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature (emphasis mine) from these products.

I don't believe there are many ways of interpreting this statement. Microsoft has, in their own words, pointed out that a particular feature found in one of their products is hardly used by its customers. This obviously isn't a groundbreaking or even unknown fact, but it does bear acknowledgement.

One pervasive complaint when it comes to utilizing Open Source software in place of incumbent proprietary systems has been the often times true observation that Open Source tends to have a smaller feature set. Very few persons in the know would deny this fact, however proponents of Open Source will often times refer to the venerable 80-20 rule: 80% of a system's features are used by only 20% of its users. What this simply means is that a smaller feature set, in the grand scheme of things, may have little effect on a user's productivity and in many cases simply contributes to software bloat. Microsoft's statement seems to not only reinforce this notion, but manages to single out a very relevant example.

I hope people can take a simple lesson from this. Certainly a product with millions of dollars spent on R&D will excel in feature count over a F/LOSS variant, but persons should always ask themselves whether these features apply to their particular case and if it's worth the extra money (acquisition, training, maintenance, upgrades) to get them.

I'm not an evangelist of Open Source, I'm an evangelist of knowledge and choice.

Linked List Exclusion

I wrote this paper for you. Enjoy: Linked List Exclusion.

The Difference

Turing test at its best. Enjoy:

http://qntm.org/?difference