Knowing the BBC, the following link is likely to disappear after about 7 days. Why? Because BBC policy is to remove podcasts for (some?) shows after a week. Why? Nobody knows… not the fellow who responded on behalf of the BBC to my question and not the thousands of listeners, many of whom pay for the BBC as a public service.

Anyway if these podcasts interest you, get them now!

Peter Day’s World of Business page

Press Under Pressure, part 1

Press Under Pressure, part 2

Sigh,
-pmh

ps: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to share these legally downloaded podcasts with those who were unfortunate enough to have missed the publication window. These podcasts will self-destruct in 7 days.

If you meant to take it offline then a redirect would have been polite, no?

-pmh

No need for links, just search on ‘pubsubhubbub’… all hits will be relevant! -LOL
-pmh

So this is the first time since picking up Tapscott’s Grown Up Digital that the Portable Consultant watched what he was really doing as he searched for interesting content on the Net. He now has a greater appreciation for what’s happening here:

Join the dots…
A friend tells me, via email, about a song their kids like and includes a this link to the Hide and Seek video by Imogen Heap.

Yes, I like the song (actually, I’m struck by similarities to Kate Bush) and check Heap’s Wikipedia entry where…

…I find out that, yes, others have made comparisons to Kate Bush’s style and…

…I go(ogle) to Imogen Heap’s web site where I spot a link to…

…her Twitter page where I see she’s got an online concert tonight!, so I…

…loop back an email with that last link to my friend suggesting that they might want to catch the concert too.

But then, since I’m liking the music and I now know she’s got a new album out…

…I check out First Train Home, one of Imogen’s other videos on YouTube and,…

…in the YouTube page’s Video Responses list, I spot an acoustic cover by Anne Legras, who, yes, blows me away so I check out Anne’s YouTube channel, too and…

…loop back again to my friend with a link to another Legras’ YouTube video of L’encre de tes Yeux, a song that almost immediately became one of my favourite songs of all time!

Alright. This, of course, is exactly what everyone under 30 (and many under 40′s) are doing with music. No surprise.

Shining the spotlight…
I have to smile when I hear Roger Faxon, head of EMI, interviewed on a podcast by The Economist. Mr. Faxon takes pains to justify his business’ role in the modern music scene – describing the need for “shining the spotlight” on new performers that deserve to stand out. Explaining why it is necessary for his business to choose the hits Faxon says: “There’s this sort of view of the world that the Internet is this huge democracy and everybody gets to vote. Most people don’t want to vote.”

Nothing new there either, right? There are whole political parties that base their campaigns on that premise. Why shouldn’t those of us who enjoy popular music just follow along as well.

Who makes the choices now?
Still, I can’t help feeling that unless Big Music adapts itself to the world of social networking their business model is doomed. We are now in an environment where a personal search for the music of Imogen Heap (who is, by the way, an indie artist) can uncover a Parisian metro busker with “undiscovered” talent. Now that such undiscovered performers have the capability to make and sell their CD or mp3 directly to me, why in this world wouldn’t I vote for what I want to hear? It’s all about who makes the choices, now.

All the best for your future success, Anne. I’ll be pointing my friends in your direction.

Cheers!

-pmh

What has finally moved the Portable Consultant to post after all this time? Frustration!

So-called “matrix teams” come from different work units, by definition. In my current business environment we come together for a project, apply our subject matter experience, and go on to the next project when done. Each member reports to a different organizational unit, with a ‘dotted line’ to the Project Manager.

Unfortunately, the collaboration systems we use are all too often designed by, and for, those separate work units rather than for the projects.

This results in the following (in no particular order):

• Separate repositories for the business analyst, the infrastructure architect, the project manager, etc.

• Where cross-discipline access has been considered it is likely to be hit-and-miss, depending on who asked for access to the repositories of the other groups and when. This results in name-based rather than role-based access.

• Different naming conventions between repositories.

• Different taxonomies (folder structures) for each work group.

• A general lack of consistency in meta-data (where it exists) and searches (which should be based on that meta-data).

The diagnosis of the To Each His Own approach to collaboration is confirmed by the high number of email attachments that are necessary for the matrix team to keep members informed and documentation current.

In my current situation it wouldn’t even be enough if the project manager were to set up a shared repository – there are two PMs: one for ‘the business’ and one for ‘IT’. Even these PMs don’t share the same repository.

The solution for this To Each His Own approach varies from situation to situation. The first step in all instances, however, must be a realization of how fruitless it is to invest in collaboration without some form of inter-group oversight or cooperation to support the matrix team environment.

Have you encountered this where you work? Did anyone try to address the situation? What approach succeeded? …failed?

Yours sincerely on a typical Monday (but posted on a Tuesday),

Cheers,
-pmh

Let’s be clear: if your property can be altered, recalled, or reclaimed by the seller without your permission and knowledge you never really owned that property. Home foreclosure and car repossession are other examples that come to mind. The CBC article is right to refer to it as the Amazon Kindle Service – a service may be discontinued at any time.

George Orwell would indeed smile to see Amazon fulfilling his vision of the future – along with such better known examples as MS Windows (Genuine Advantage program and the .NET framework assistant) and locked cell phones.

Yes, there are probably legitimate copyright issues here – but this is no way to run an eBusiness. Bad Amazon… bad, bad!

-pmh

Update:

1. This MSNBC article on the Amazon 1984 scandal has a more humorous (sarcastic?) tone.
2. This Fictionmatters article provides balanced and deeper coverage of the underlying issues. (…but I still say “Bad, Amazon… bad, bad!”)
3. Microsoft has apparently updated its .NET Framework Assistant to allow you to uninstall it from Firefox without the need to edit the Windows registry, locate remove system files, etc.

Update 2, The Apology:

Here’s word on Amazon’s apology but note that “…the apology failed to state that Amazon would not do the same thing again in similar circumstances…”

My own use of the online games is minimal because I was always concerned about the permission statements that you get when you sign up for them.

That’s not how I personally use Facebook anyway, but the recent ‘conversion’ of a cute aquarium game (send pretty fishes to your friends’ aquariums) to a dating service with constant emails (“Honestly, Dear… all those speed date emails are spam. All I ever did was send her a fish!”)… well, that was downright naughty. Bad Facebook, bad, bad!

I was struck by one item in the news report that would be funny if it weren’t true:

“- Facebook keeps the profiles of deceased users for “memorial purposes” but does not make this clear. Recommendation: Information about use for memorial purposes should be in Facebook’s privacy policy.”

…Thank you, Facebook, but when the time comes The Portable Consultant would rather have family and friends handle any and all memorials. All social networking sites should delete accounts after an agreed period without any logins, at the very least. (This is a much larger issue, of course.)

Facebook needs to get its act together, but users/consumers also need to understand how important personal info is …and take care not to sign it away without due diligence.

Cheers,
-pmh

Secondly, the heart of the issue as clearly stated by Joseph Bonneau “It’s imperative to view privacy as a design constraint, not a legal add-on”, should be framed and hung on the walls of web designers and managers, not only at social networking sites but also those in the public service, in the private sector, and even corporate intranets.

Cheers,
-pmh

The following ‘story’ has lived on the Internet for many long years. Apparently it first appeared in Datamation Magazine in 1968. I’ve heard that this code actually compiles, but not having a COBOL compiler I have not verified this.

(Apologies to you perfectionists for minor problems with formatting… the WordPress editor seems not to fully respect the venerable PREFORMAT tags… feel free to copy this to your punch cards.)

Cheers,
-pmh

…and, Thank you Grace. Things haven’t been the same since you found that bug.

            THE COMMON BUSINESS ORIENTED GOLDILOCKS
            --- ------ -------- -------- ----------

IDENTIFICATION DIVISON.
PROGRAM ID.           A COBOL FABLE.
SECURITY.             INSECURE.
PROGRAMMER-ID.        ARTHUR SHAPIRO.
REMARKS.              SLIGHTLY MORE MANGLED VERSION OF ONE IN JAN., 1968
               DATAMATION.
DATE WRITTEN.         ONCE UPON A TIME.

ENVIRONMENT DIVISON.
CONFIGURATION SECTION.
OBJECT COMPUTER.      ANY MUSIC BOX, MEMORY SIZE 8X64 BYTES,
                      19 TAPE DRIVES, 11 DISK DRIVES, 1 GOLDILOCKS, 3 BEARS.
INPUT-OUTPUT SECTION.
FILE-CONTROL.
    SELECT TAPE DRIVES, ASSIGN THEM TO CREDITOR.
    SELECT DISK DRIVES.
    SELECT GOLDILOCKS, SELECT BEARS, ASSIGN TO ONE COTTAGE.
I-O CONTROL.
    APPLY RED TAPE TO TAPE DRIVES, APPLY BRAHMS RECORD TO DISK DRIVE,
    APPLY GOLDI, BEARS TO COTTAGE.
    DATA DIVISON.
FD GOLDI.
    LABEL RECORDS ARE STANDARD
    VALUE OF IDENTIFACTION IS "GOLDILOCKS"
    DATA RECORD IS GOLDILOCKS.
01  GOLDILOCKS.
    02    HGT   SIZE IS 62 INS.
    02    WGT   SIZE IS 110 LBS.
    02    VITAL-STATS.
          03    B     38.
          03    W     24.
          03    H     36.
    02    RATING      100%.
FD  THREE-BEARS.
    LABEL RECORDS ARE STANDARD
    VALUE OF IDENTIFICATION IS "BEARS"
    DATA RECORDS ARE DADDY-BEAR, MUMMY-BEAR, BABY-BEAR.
01  DADDY-BEAR.
    02    HGT   70 INS.
    02    WGT   750 LBS.
    02    COLOR-OF-EYES   BLOODSHOT.
    02    DISPOSITION     UNBEARABLE.
01  MUMMY-BEAR.
    02    HGT   65 INS.
    02    WGT   700 LBS.
    02    COLOR-OF-EYES   BLUE.
    02    DISPOSITION     BEARABLE.
01  BABY-BEAR.
    02    HGT   40 INS.
    02    DISPOSITION     INFANTILE.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
01 COTTAGE      PICTURE IS COZY.
    02    KITCHEN.
          03    TABLE     SIZE IS LARGE, VALUE IS 1.
          03    CHAIRS    SIZE IS MEDIUM, VALUE IS 3.
    02    PORRIDGE.
          03    KING-SIZE    OCCURS 1 TIME.
          03    QUEEN-SIZE   OCCURS 1 TIME.
          03    PRINCE-SIZE  OCCURS 1 TIME.
    02    DOOR  SIZE IS USUAL, VALUE IS OPEN.
    02    BEDROOM.
          03    BED.
                04 LARGE     OCCURS 1 TIME.
                04 MEDIUM    OCCURS 1 TIME.
                04 SMALL     OCCURS 1 TIME.
          03    WINDOW    SIZE IS SMALL, VALUE IS OPEN.
01  CORRECT-COTTAGE REDEFINES COTTAGE, VALUE IS SAME.
77 KING-SIZE-BED-SLEPT-IN    SIZE IS BIG, VALUE IS ROCK-BOTTOM.
77 QUEEN-SIZE-BED-SLEPT-IN   SIZE IS MEDIUM, VALUE IS DEPRESSED.
77 NO-PORRIDGE               SIZE IS SMALL, VALUE IS ZERO.
77 SIP                       SIZE IS LITTLE, VALUE IS "SSSLURP".
77 SLUMBERLAND               SIZE IS UNLIMITED, VALUE IS ZZZZZZZZZ.
CONSTANT SECTION.
01 COMMENT1     SIZE IS 36, VALUE IS "SOMEBODY HAS BEEN EATING MY PORRIDGE".
01 COMMENT2     SIZE IS 36, VALUE IS "SOMEBODY HAS BEEN SLEEPING IN MY BED".
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
FOREST SECTION.
START-OF-TALE.
    OPEN STORY. READ FOLLOWING.
FIRST-MOVE.
    MOVE GOLDILOCKS TO COTTAGE.
    IF DOOR IS CLOSED OR BEARS ARE GREATER THAN ZERO ALTER ENTER-GO3
          PROCEED TO HASTY-RETREAT.
ENTER-GOLDILOCKS.
    GO TO KITCHEN-SCENE.
KITCHEN-SCENE.
    IF PORRIDGE IS KING-SIZE, PERFORM TASTE-ROUTINE VARYING PORRIDGE-
          KING-SIZE BY 1 UNTIL PORRIDGE EQUALS PRINCE-SIZE
          OTHERWISE COMPUTE IF COTTAGE = CORRECT-COTTAGE GO TO BEDROOM-SCENE.
TASTE-ROUTINE.
    SUBTRACT SIP FROM PORRIDGE(KING-SIZE).
    SUBTRACT SIP FROM PORRIDGE(QUEEN-SIZE).
    SUBTRACT SIP FROM PORRIDGE(PRINCE-SIZE) GIVING NO-PORRIDGE.
BEDROOM-SCENE.
    MOVE GOLDILOCKS TO BEDROOM.
    ADD GOLDILOCKS TO BED(LARGE). DISPLAY "IT IS TOO HARD".
    SUBTRACT GOLDILOCKS FROM BED(LARGE) GIVING KING-SIZE-BED-SLEPT-IN.
    MOVE GOLDILOCKS TO BED(MEDIUM). DISPLAY "IT IS TOO SOFT".
    SUBTRACT GOLDILOCKS FROM BED(MEDIUM) GIVING OUEEN-SIZE-BED-SLEPT-IN.
    MOVE GOLDILOCKS TO BED(SMALL). DISPLAY "IT IS JUST RIGHT".
    ADD GOLDILOCKS TO SLUMBERLAND.
BEARS-RETURN.
    MOVE DADDY-BEAR, MUMMY-BEAR, BABY-BEAR TO KITCHEN.
    MOVE CORRESPONDING BEARS TO PORRIDGE.
    DISPLAY "DADDY BEAR ", COMMENT1.
    DISPLAY "MUMMY BEAR ", COMMENT1.
    DISPLAY "BABY BEAR ", COMMENT1, " AND EATEN IT ALL UP".
    MOVE BEARS TO BEDROOM.
BEARS-IN-BEDROOM.
    EXAMINE BEDS, REPLACING ALL GOLDILOCKS WITH BEARS.
    DISPLAY "DADDY BEAR ", COMMENT2.
    DISPLAY "MUMMY BEAR ", COMMENT2.
    DISPLAY "BABY BEAR ", COMMENT2, " AND HERE SHE IS".
HASTY-RETREAT.
    IF WINDOW IS OPEN EXIT GOLDILOCKS OTHERWISE MOVE GOLDILOCKS TO DOOR.
END-OF-TALE.
    CLOSE STORY, DISPLAY "WOULD YOU BELIEVE CINDERELLA IN PL/I?".
    STOP RUN.