QuickStart

To create a new thread, click on the "post new thread" button.


To add to a thread, click on the"reply" or the "reply with quote" link.

Members: please log in with your web account in order to join the discussion. Non-members: you can get a free web account by following the link on the login screen.

 

Feedback Message Board

This section of the President’s Corner is provided for anyone—Computer Society members and non members—to communicate and discuss issues, problems, concerns, ideas, etc., that can help us improve our services and products for members of our profession.  Please use this webpage to start new threads, or participate in discussions of existing ones.  We can only improve what we do if we hear from you.

·         -Sorel Reisman

« Back to Member Feedback

The user as architect/designer

Combination View Flat View Tree View
Threads [ Previous | Next ]
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences.

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences.

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

? PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303 AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
We all know that women are crazy for bags, in the past time, fashion men leather briefcase is not accepted by man, they think that bags are only for women, but now, the conception has been changed. When you go out at the street, you can see that most men have a unique style mens briefcase. Every year at the fashion show, you also can seen many mens briefcase has been released. You may do not know why leather bag for men has been becoming so popular. That maybe because of that fashion is also becoming an important part for a man. Fashion can create a person.
 
For most of men, with a fashion men leather briefcase, they can carry the paper and files. Paper and files are the main work for a man who working in offices, usually, busy men bring paper and files work home, so the leather bag for men is needed. Besides, the leather bag for men last for a long time and can handle voluminous paper loads. This is exactly what leather is all about.
 
online has been the main way for shopping, most men maybe confused at how to find a fashion men leather briefcase online, in my view, you can find a fashion mens briefcase online with a simplest way. For example, the black fashion men leather briefcase.
 

 
Firstly: something to look out for when choosing a men leather briefcase online, if it is a designer handbag, to ensure you don’t buy a replica by mistake. This is particularly critical if you buy it from eBay. Make sure you purchase from a much regarded seller. You can search more information of the seller at your Brower.
 
Secondly: make sure you look at the feedback of the seller and find the one that provides extensive positive feedback and incredibly few problems and also make sure the feedback is for purses rather than minor items. The picture you see online may not look the same as the true, you can ask the seller if the picture has show the really details of the fashion men leather briefcase.
 
Lastly: you can compare the fashion men leather briefcase between different sellers. You can search some information through the internet, search “mens briefcase” you can find variety style leather bag for man, this will help you to find a style of briefcase that you will like, if you have a desire to buy a leather bag for men, the long tail keywords will be more useful.
 
Compared lots of sellers, if you want to buy a fashion men leather briefcase, Dssfashion can be your best choice where you can not only buy the latest fashion mens briefcase, but also know the latest fashion trends of 2012.
We all know that women are crazy for bags, in the past time, fashion men leather briefcase is not accepted by man, they think that bags are only for women, but now, the conception has been changed. When you go out at the street, you can see that most men have a unique style mens briefcase. Every year at the fashion show, you also can seen many mens briefcase has been released. You may do not know why leather bag for men has been becoming so popular. That maybe because of that fashion is also becoming an important part for a man. Fashion can create a person.
 
For most of men, with a fashion men leather briefcase, they can carry the paper and files. Paper and files are the main work for a man who working in offices, usually, busy men bring paper and files work home, so the leather bag for men is needed. Besides, the leather bag for men last for a long time and can handle voluminous paper loads. This is exactly what leather is all about.
 
online has been the main way for shopping, most men maybe confused at how to find a fashion men leather briefcase online, in my view, you can find a fashion mens briefcase online with a simplest way. For example, the black fashion men leather briefcase.
 

 
Firstly: something to look out for when choosing a men leather briefcase online, if it is a designer handbag, to ensure you don’t buy a replica by mistake. This is particularly critical if you buy it from eBay. Make sure you purchase from a much regarded seller. You can search more information of the seller at your Brower.
 
Secondly: make sure you look at the feedback of the seller and find the one that provides extensive positive feedback and incredibly few problems and also make sure the feedback is for purses rather than minor items. The picture you see online may not look the same as the true, you can ask the seller if the picture has show the really details of the fashion men leather briefcase.
 
Lastly: you can compare the fashion men leather briefcase between different sellers. You can search some information through the internet, search “mens briefcase” you can find variety style leather bag for man, this will help you to find a style of briefcase that you will like, if you have a desire to buy a leather bag for men, the long tail keywords will be more useful.
 
Compared lots of sellers, if you want to buy a fashion men leather briefcase, Dssfashion can be your best choice where you can not only buy the latest fashion mens briefcase, but also know the latest fashion trends of 2012.
moncler gamme bleu
We all know that women are crazy for bags,  in the past time, fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/bags-for-men.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=men%2Bleather%2Bbriefcase]men  leather briefcase[/url] is not accepted by man, they think that bags are only for  women, but now, the conception has been changed. When you go out at the street,  you can see that most men have a unique style mens briefcase. Every year at the  fashion show, you also can seen many mens briefcase has been released. You may  do not know why leather bag for men has been becoming so popular. That maybe because  of that fashion is also becoming an important part for a man. Fashion can create a  person.
&nbsp&#x3b;
For most of men, with a fashion men leather  briefcase, they can carry the paper and files. Paper and files are the main  work for a man who working in offices, usually, busy men bring paper and files  work home, so the leather bag for men is needed. Besides, the leather bag for  men last for a long time and can handle voluminous paper loads. This is exactly  what leather is all about.
&nbsp&#x3b;
online has been the main way for shopping,  most men maybe confused at how to find a fashion men leather briefcase online, in  my view, you can find a fashion mens briefcase online with a simplest way. For  example, the black fashion [b]men leather  briefcase.[/b]
&nbsp&#x3b;
[img]http://www.dssfashion.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/a/ha_m10006.jpg[/img]
&nbsp&#x3b;
Firstly: something to look out for when  choosing a men leather briefcase online, if it is a [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=designer%2Bhandbag]designer  handbag[/url], to ensure you don&rsquo&#x3b;t buy a replica by mistake. This is particularly  critical if you buy it from eBay. Make sure you purchase from a much regarded  seller. You can search more information of the seller at your Brower.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Secondly: make sure you look at the  feedback of the seller and find the one that provides extensive positive  feedback and incredibly few problems and also make sure the feedback is for  purses rather than minor items. The picture you see online may not look the  same as the true, you can ask the seller if the picture has show the really  details of the fashion men leather briefcase.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Lastly: you can compare the fashion men  leather briefcase between different sellers. You can search some information  through the internet, search &ldquo&#x3b;mens briefcase&rdquo&#x3b; you can find variety style  leather bag for man, this will help you to find a style of briefcase that you  will like, if you have a desire to buy a leather bag for men, the long tail  keywords will be more useful.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Compared lots of sellers, if you want to buy  a fashion men leather briefcase, Dssfashion can be your best choice where you  can not only buy the latest fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=mens%2Bbriefcase]mens  briefcase[/url], but also know the latest fashion trends of 2012.
louboutin sale
We all know that women are crazy for bags,  in the past time, fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/bags-for-men.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=men%2Bleather%2Bbriefcase]men  leather briefcase[/url] is not accepted by man, they think that bags are only for  women, but now, the conception has been changed. When you go out at the street,  you can see that most men have a unique style mens briefcase. Every year at the  fashion show, you also can seen many mens briefcase has been released. You may  do not know why leather bag for men has been becoming so popular. That maybe because  of that fashion is also becoming an important part for a man. Fashion can create a  person.
&nbsp&#x3b;
For most of men, with a fashion men leather  briefcase, they can carry the paper and files. Paper and files are the main  work for a man who working in offices, usually, busy men bring paper and files  work home, so the leather bag for men is needed. Besides, the leather bag for  men last for a long time and can handle voluminous paper loads. This is exactly  what leather is all about.
&nbsp&#x3b;
online has been the main way for shopping,  most men maybe confused at how to find a fashion men leather briefcase online, in  my view, you can find a fashion mens briefcase online with a simplest way. For  example, the black fashion [b]men leather  briefcase.[/b]
&nbsp&#x3b;
[img]http://www.dssfashion.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/a/ha_m10006.jpg[/img]
&nbsp&#x3b;
Firstly: something to look out for when  choosing a men leather briefcase online, if it is a [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=designer%2Bhandbag]designer  handbag[/url], to ensure you don&rsquo&#x3b;t buy a replica by mistake. This is particularly  critical if you buy it from eBay. Make sure you purchase from a much regarded  seller. You can search more information of the seller at your Brower.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Secondly: make sure you look at the  feedback of the seller and find the one that provides extensive positive  feedback and incredibly few problems and also make sure the feedback is for  purses rather than minor items. The picture you see online may not look the  same as the true, you can ask the seller if the picture has show the really  details of the fashion men leather briefcase.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Lastly: you can compare the fashion men  leather briefcase between different sellers. You can search some information  through the internet, search &ldquo&#x3b;mens briefcase&rdquo&#x3b; you can find variety style  leather bag for man, this will help you to find a style of briefcase that you  will like, if you have a desire to buy a leather bag for men, the long tail  keywords will be more useful.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Compared lots of sellers, if you want to buy  a fashion men leather briefcase, Dssfashion can be your best choice where you  can not only buy the latest fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=mens%2Bbriefcase]mens  briefcase[/url], but also know the latest fashion trends of 2012.
Lululemon Australia
We all know that women are crazy for bags,  in the past time, fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/bags-for-men.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=men%2Bleather%2Bbriefcase]men  leather briefcase[/url] is not accepted by man, they think that bags are only for  women, but now, the conception has been changed. When you go out at the street,  you can see that most men have a unique style mens briefcase. Every year at the  fashion show, you also can seen many mens briefcase has been released. You may  do not know why leather bag for men has been becoming so popular. That maybe because  of that fashion is also becoming an important part for a man. Fashion can create a  person.
&nbsp&#x3b;
For most of men, with a fashion men leather  briefcase, they can carry the paper and files. Paper and files are the main  work for a man who working in offices, usually, busy men bring paper and files  work home, so the leather bag for men is needed. Besides, the leather bag for  men last for a long time and can handle voluminous paper loads. This is exactly  what leather is all about.
&nbsp&#x3b;
online has been the main way for shopping,  most men maybe confused at how to find a fashion men leather briefcase online, in  my view, you can find a fashion mens briefcase online with a simplest way. For  example, the black fashion [b]men leather  briefcase.[/b]
&nbsp&#x3b;
[img]http://www.dssfashion.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/a/ha_m10006.jpg[/img]
&nbsp&#x3b;
Firstly: something to look out for when  choosing a men leather briefcase online, if it is a [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=designer%2Bhandbag]designer  handbag[/url], to ensure you don&rsquo&#x3b;t buy a replica by mistake. This is particularly  critical if you buy it from eBay. Make sure you purchase from a much regarded  seller. You can search more information of the seller at your Brower.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Secondly: make sure you look at the  feedback of the seller and find the one that provides extensive positive  feedback and incredibly few problems and also make sure the feedback is for  purses rather than minor items. The picture you see online may not look the  same as the true, you can ask the seller if the picture has show the really  details of the fashion men leather briefcase.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Lastly: you can compare the fashion men  leather briefcase between different sellers. You can search some information  through the internet, search &ldquo&#x3b;mens briefcase&rdquo&#x3b; you can find variety style  leather bag for man, this will help you to find a style of briefcase that you  will like, if you have a desire to buy a leather bag for men, the long tail  keywords will be more useful.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Compared lots of sellers, if you want to buy  a fashion men leather briefcase, Dssfashion can be your best choice where you  can not only buy the latest fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=mens%2Bbriefcase]mens  briefcase[/url], but also know the latest fashion trends of 2012.
Cheap Michael Kors Bags
We all know that women are crazy for bags,  in the past time, fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/bags-for-men.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=men%2Bleather%2Bbriefcase]men  leather briefcase[/url] is not accepted by man, they think that bags are only for  women, but now, the conception has been changed. When you go out at the street,  you can see that most men have a unique style mens briefcase. Every year at the  fashion show, you also can seen many mens briefcase has been released. You may  do not know why leather bag for men has been becoming so popular. That maybe because  of that fashion is also becoming an important part for a man. Fashion can create a  person.
&nbsp&#x3b;
For most of men, with a fashion men leather  briefcase, they can carry the paper and files. Paper and files are the main  work for a man who working in offices, usually, busy men bring paper and files  work home, so the leather bag for men is needed. Besides, the leather bag for  men last for a long time and can handle voluminous paper loads. This is exactly  what leather is all about.
&nbsp&#x3b;
online has been the main way for shopping,  most men maybe confused at how to find a fashion men leather briefcase online, in  my view, you can find a fashion mens briefcase online with a simplest way. For  example, the black fashion [b]men leather  briefcase.[/b]
&nbsp&#x3b;
[img]http://www.dssfashion.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/a/ha_m10006.jpg[/img]
&nbsp&#x3b;
Firstly: something to look out for when  choosing a men leather briefcase online, if it is a [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=designer%2Bhandbag]designer  handbag[/url], to ensure you don&rsquo&#x3b;t buy a replica by mistake. This is particularly  critical if you buy it from eBay. Make sure you purchase from a much regarded  seller. You can search more information of the seller at your Brower.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Secondly: make sure you look at the  feedback of the seller and find the one that provides extensive positive  feedback and incredibly few problems and also make sure the feedback is for  purses rather than minor items. The picture you see online may not look the  same as the true, you can ask the seller if the picture has show the really  details of the fashion men leather briefcase.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Lastly: you can compare the fashion men  leather briefcase between different sellers. You can search some information  through the internet, search &ldquo&#x3b;mens briefcase&rdquo&#x3b; you can find variety style  leather bag for man, this will help you to find a style of briefcase that you  will like, if you have a desire to buy a leather bag for men, the long tail  keywords will be more useful.
&nbsp&#x3b;
Compared lots of sellers, if you want to buy  a fashion men leather briefcase, Dssfashion can be your best choice where you  can not only buy the latest fashion [url=http://www.dssfashion.com/black-genuine-leather-men-briefcase.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=jane&utm_campaign=mens%2Bbriefcase]mens  briefcase[/url], but also know the latest fashion trends of 2012.
Cheap Michael Kors Bags
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
nike tn pas cher
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
tn pas cher
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Nike Free 3.0
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
nike tn pas cher
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
China NFL Jerseys
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Borsa Louis Vuitton
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
moncler outlet online
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
lv speedy damier
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
cheap nfl authentic jerseys
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Cheap Louboutin Shoes
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Cheap Nike Air Max
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
????? ???
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
???? ??
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences.

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences.

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

? PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303 AIM: pcbarch
Oakley España
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Gafas oakley baratas
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
BURBERRY HOMME
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Burberry Store Fashion
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences.

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences.

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

? PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303 AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
bljkconf
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Wholesale Nike Shoes
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
wholesale nike shox shoes
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
http://www.travelblog.org/Antarctica/Antarctica/Belgrano-II-Station/blog-838465.html
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences. 

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences. 

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

?	PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com               Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303                              AIM: pcbarch

"Total architecture is not a choice - it is a concession to reality."
www.total-architecture.com
Succeeding With SOA: Realizing Business Value Through Total Architecture
Implementing SOA: Total Architecture In Practice

The SOA Manifesto: soa-manifesto.org
****************************************************************************************
Top sale jordans
Your “Planning for an Inevitable Future” article resonated with my recent experiences working in the commercial IT world and I think are indicative of the need for change in our own perspective. I remember a projection (source forgotten, but from the 1970’s or 1980’s) that, given the growth rate of programming, by the early 21st century everyone on earth would have to be a programmer. Well, I think we’re there – but in a different form.

In your article you mentioned technology-driven social changes, but I see them as technology-enabled social changes. People are no longer being given tightly constrained tools to work with, they are being given building blocks from which they assemble their own systems and interact with one another in an ad-hoc manner, thereby defining and creating their own experiences.

In assembling their own systems in this ad-hoc manner, people are making design decisions – often without understanding the consequences. Consider, for example, the issues of security, trust, and identity. Every time a user clicks on a link, they are (to some extent) trusting the identity claim (the label on the link) and trusting the system at the other end of the link not to do anything untoward to their environment and data. They are also trusting that the little padlock security icon to indicate that the communications is, itself, secure.

Using this as a narrow example, I see an expanded role for the CS to help educate the broader public about concepts like these and what they mean in their everyday lives. Most of the available plain-language material on these topics comes from vendors pushing products and services. It’s biased, often heavily slanted, and is surrounded by the marketing/sales hype associated with the products or services. It’s nearly impossible to find a simple layman’s description. IEEE CS, in this respect, could be a trusted neutral source of factual information – if we build the IEEE CS brand recognition.

A possible venue for communications in this regard might be Wikipedia. Plain-language explanations of concepts important to the general public, backed by references to the more technical underpinnings, could be a starting point for discussing what are really some complex social issues. The relationship between identity and identity authorities, and the implicit trust in the authority is something everyone ought to understand. Not the technical issues (which tend to be the focus of our discussions), but the societal ones. What constitutes an authority that can be trusted? Why do you need identifiers? How are identifiers associated with individuals? How can this association be validated?

Lying at the core of this are some very touchy political issues whose discussion often lacks a sound factual basis. A national identifier is, in this country, a political anathema. Yet it is not hard to make the case that without a reliable identifier for individuals and organizations, interactions with third parties always carries a significant element of risk. The more such issues are clearly understood, the better decisions people can make – both in their own ad-hoc systems designs and in the political and social decisions they make.

I have picked on security to illustrate the concept, but more and more the broad user community is becoming the de-facto system architect and engineer. I think there is an important role for the IEEE CS to play in helping them understand, in plain language, the design decisions they are making and their potential consequences.

I hope the concept is clear – I just jotted this off-the-cuff.

? PCB

****************************************************************************************
Paul C. Brown
Principal Software Architect
TIBCO Software Inc.
Email: pbrown@tibco.com Mobile: 518-424-5360
Yahoo:pbrown12_12303 AIM: pcbarch
Cheap Oakley Plate