Vision: Information [affect] induces implicit cultural change.
View: Technology [effect] enables explicit cultural change.
IOW: Technology ain’t Information. Technology exist because of Information.
I consider information a raw material for an ISE & NetNeutral future.
Information (Data/Content) products are the cargo transported on the Infrastructure Technology (IT) [AKA: Telecommunications Infrastructure]. Processes that produce information products [Data/Content/…] use information as a raw material. Data products are for machines, automation, simulations … science, engineering, industrial … consumption. Content products stories, reports, movies, music … are for human consumption (learning, entertainment …). Data and Content are information products created for and applied to needs/requirements. Are there other basic information products, IDNK? Information obtained by human or electronic sensors are raw until processed (collect, aggregate, analyze …) by automation or human core functions. So, IMO, there is no information symbiosis/processes. Technology symbiosis like industrial processes require information to be functional for performing requirements; Hence, data or content are basic information products transported as cargo on IT (as defined above).
UX/HF/MaMa… are data-derivative processes needed for designing digital/computer and personal interactivity. UserX (a person) is not the UX/HF/MaMa… or information. UserX intransigence (I think) is not due to information, processes, or technology. UserX intransigence (I suspect) is due to frustration with no durable or substantial improvement in work experience a/o environment. The UX/HF/MaMa… provides a product designed (environment, system, hardware, software …) experience, which is not a SME/Work environment experience. During my +30y work experience the environment has always been a Megalithic Human Inference Engine (MHIE) that morphs I/O by apparent caprice inducing errors, which requires a redo-recheck-loop. IMO: UserX intransigence is due to relearning the same SME/work experience for new IT products that result in the same SME/work environment and experience. Science Academia and industry Technology at present levels of capabilities can do far more than industry-only has provided to US.
Collapse of the MHIE technology will not be a crash, IT as defined today (IMO) can cause a catastrophic failure for US (not just a system crash). Our focus on IT as defined today for security (information assurance) has been IMO a failure, because (IMO) the focus should be on “Information Governance” for security of the information.
ISO, W3C, OASIS, IEEE …, Open…Agile concepts … standards/protocols/specifications compliance does solve information interoperability and infrastructure integration requirements. Lack of forced compliance across hardware, software, services, and industry providers causes ISE … extensible lifecycle sustainment and innovation havoc for US (IMO).
Industry (the creators) frequently provides what is required with hooks, warts, and nightmares for the sustainment lifecycle follow-ons. We get what we pay for, which IMO is always less than we need for an innovative strategic lifecycle.
‘With all the varieties of program languages, service busses, signals, and the disparate user base (from novice to super experts, and everything in between...). The mysterious middle-ware provided by the Captains of Industry (CoI) in their interest as the Centers of Influence. IT is bound to get threating-cloudy and war-foggy.’ ISO, W3C … standards compliance resolves even these problems at the point of I/O for data/content information products and often at the point of committed-action.
Cyber-warfare two basic components Infrastructure Security and Information Governance. I suspect that solid Information Governance could sometimes prevent infrastructure breaches. Cyber-warfare is an infrastructure attack, but an information spill, is just bad information governance. Cyber-attacks on industry and government IMO have little noticeable impact on the public. Cyber-attacks IMO do cause politicians and industry to write unenforceable cyber-laws that create criminals and do little to stop cyber-crime/attacks. Government and industry cyber-sloth (easy not better) solutions do cause internet-access and web-services disruptions.
POTUS SOTU stand on Net-Neutrality is of interest. Net-Neutrality protects US from TelCo & CableCo Internet Access Provider (IAP) domination of UserX and Internet Services Providers (ISP) like libraries, news, entertainment, banks …. IAPs charge monthly/yearly internet data-rate fees, which can increase on a whim. ISPs and UserX pay their agreed upon data-rate utility fees for homes and businesses. When ISP or UserX want a higher data-rate (more upload/download bandwidth) they will pay higher fees. The IAPs (IMO) just want to run another swindle on US. Most of the POTUS SOTU stands on social and economic topics, I already knew.
No comments:
Post a Comment