My friend Terry posted a talk, Place, Space, and the Process of Emancipation on a 19th Century Plantation in St. Mary’s City, Maryland, he did for the Society for Historical Archaeology 45th annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology where he talked about the transition from slavery to freedom in St. Mary’s City in Maryland. I will not paraphrase his talk because Terry is smarter than I am and I would not do it justice; you should watch it.

One of the central themes he discussed was the distinction between space, which he defined as a “geographical area” and place, an “area with cultural or social meanings for certain groups.”

This spawned a short twitter conversation (twit-versation?)

[tweet https://twitter.com/#!/gothmog/status/159720437520138242]

[tweet https://twitter.com/#!/brockter/status/159721159124987904]

While people may metaphorically refer to modern day workplaces as “slavery” which it most certainly is not, I think that the modern workplace does offer a certain analogy to slaves and their quarters. Workers are in an environment which is owned by another entity who has a certain level of power over them. The employer to a large degree controls the environment, from building to furniture to temperature. The employer also can impose rules on the employees as to how they may make their work spaces “there own.”

I have long been a proponent in the technology field for small group offices (2-3 people). While there are clearly benefits in solitude and camaraderie in such a space, I never contemplated until now that offices also allow for the opportunity to most easily customize a workers area to make it much more of a space rather than just a place. Modern office theory for technology workers has shifted from the standard office through the awful stage of cubicals to the newest idea of having “open workspaces.” This seems to lower the opportunity for an individual space although it has been counterbalanced by the loosening of rules of what is appropriate when personalizing your workspace.

How this balances out is a personal matter; I know for me, I prefer the solitude of offices and would prefer that to the open culture where the only solitude you can get is between headphones. I have found that spending the time to make my office more personal through pictures, artwork, desk toys helps me be more relaxed than I would be in a more sterile environment.

[tweet https://twitter.com/#!/gothmog/status/159722663324041216]

I think it is a logical conclusion to draw that the more an individual is able to identify their workspace as a personal space, the happier they will be. It also seems logical to conclude that a happier worker is a more productive worker. Obviously happy involves more than just ones workspace, but it is a factor.

I don’t have any empirical evidence of this theory, but if anyone wants to get a PhD on this topic, I will gladly accept a small footnote thanking me for the idea.

I think everyone who reads this knows that I am a bit of a security wonk, so I read with interest an article about the latest breaches to corporate security and loss of customer data: Even Big Companies Cannot Protect Their Data.

“It’s disturbing,” Ms. Scott said in an interview on Monday. “Companies have to do a better job protecting our privacy. You would think companies like eBay and Amazon have the financial backing and wherewithal to take the proper security measures.” But the article seems to take the question to be “why can’t the companies do better.” I think that is the wrong question. The question is “why_ won’t_ the companies do better.” And I will modestly put forward what I think is the simple answer.

There is no monetary incentive to do so. (yet)

The parenthetical is my optimism that at some point it will be worth it to do it. I am not saying that there are not egregious technical lapses in many pieces of software, but solving the technical problems behind securing data is possible. How expensive it will be is unknown at this point, but I think it is absolutely true that at this moment it is cheaper for the companies to not fix it right now.

Security is a balancing act between risk and reward. In today’s market, the risks (and associated PR flak and monetary costs) are not large enough that the merchants are interested in investing more money to fix the problems. This is partly a result of the current system that the costs associated with most fraud is absorbed by the credit card companies or possibly the insurance companies if they are large enough.

Until those organizations say “enough is enough” and force merchants to invest (which will then filter down to the software companies), the merchants don’t have an incentive to do better.

I am envious of people who, on any topic, seem to have a neverending fount of things to write about. The topic doesn’t really matter, it could be the well known industry experts like John Gruber and Horace Deidu or topic experts like my friend Terry or my friends KT and Liz who write blog entries all the time and write whole books. Writing has always been a chore for me and my lack of writing was even something I used to be proud of, gladly confirming I made it through college without taking a course in the English department (a hard thing to do at a traditional liberal arts university).

But now I wish I had worked harder at it. I doubt that the people I mentioned find it “easy,” but they are clearly better at it than me. I remember a book I read many years ago by Salman Rusdie (yes, that Salman Rusdie) - Haroun and the Sea of Stories. It was a fantastical tale following a child whose father lost the ability to write because the invisible, magical faucet that was in their bathroom that provided inspiration for stories had dried up. This faucet was installed based on some criteria when you became a writer and helped provide you with inspiration. My faucet is still on backorder, I think.

I have long been a consumer of information on all topics. My RSS reader currently has over 100 feeds I look at every day on topics ranging from technical to food to politics. I have been working on reading more of the news, recently renewing my subscription (online and print) to the New York Times.

Recently, I have been making a concerted effort to share more of the items that I find interesting via Twitter and Facebook. I think it is an honorable role to play as a filter. To curate the hundreds of articles that pass by me every day to the select few that others in my social group may find interesting.

Having been doing this sharing role for a month or so, I am finding that it is a logical progression towards creator. On a number of occasions, discussion has been started on one of the social media outlets which has spawned a blog entry.

I think that this shows that, at least for me, writing is just one part of a larger conversation about something I know something about or are interested in. The challenge I think all (many) of us face is that for topics that we know or are experienced about, well, we are experienced about them and they seem “easy” and therefore not worth writing about. The mindset shift that needs to occur is that they are probably not easy for everyone and therefore worth sharing. Therein lies the challenge.

My friend Ben has started a new blog, BK, you should read it.

His post on diversity is very well done and I largely agree with him, but I have a small point on which I would refine. (And since I have been searching for something to write about today, I will stretch it into an entry.)

Ben starts out by saying: “Everybody loves diversity, except when it comes to ideology.”

I would refine this to say that people quietly crave a very specific kind of diversity when it comes to ideology, the duality. The us vs. them mentality is somehow part of the human psyche at a very low level. I don’t think that we are inherently looking for conflict, just that conflict is a required component of feeling a belonging to your own group.

Humans therefore create this duality even when there is in fact a continuum of opinions. Politics is the perfect example. There are not in reality two camps, left and right. There is a very smooth spectrum from Crazy pinko liberals to wack job conservatives. Or you could divide it into libertarians and authoritarians. No matter what metric you use, it will be a roughly even distribution. But acknowledging that makes for poor arguments and bad TV.

While the result is vitriol and animosity, I think the true cause is an attempt to identify self.

An article came out this morning in our local web news site about two restaurants that have closed in Williamsburg,

Two Restaurants Closed, Owe JCC Meals, Business Taxes

I don’t know of the specifics in these cases, but it is the tone of the comments that seems to miss the point. I can think of numerous occasions where people I know have commented “Its too bad restaurant XYZ closed.” And I agree that it is sad to see local restaurants close. But I find that I have to restrain myself from asking what, to me, is the obvious question “Did you frequent them?” Because I am sure that in almost all the instances, the answer is “No.” And if so, why the hell are you surprised they went out of business?

If you value local restaurants and local businesses and you want them to succeed, you need to shop there. That is how you support local businesses; you give them money. Don’t buy your wine at Target or Walmart or even the chain grocery stores, find a local seller. Will it be a bit more expensive? Possibly, but frankly, if you say you support local business and aren’t willing to put your money down to do so, please shut up.

Thank you.

I’ve seen a number of people post pictures and descriptions of what they carry with them every day. Shawn Blanc just linked to a picture of what he was carrying from 2007 and it inspired me to do the same.

A few years back I decided I wanted to go extremely minimalist with what I had on my person at all times. Not a whole lot of describing to do of the items.

• Apple iPhone 4 (AT&T) - This is probably the device that makes it possible to carry so little physically since I am carrying access to so much virtually. I rarely actually use it as a phone. You can’t see the skin on the back, but it is I like Birds by ExplodingDog.
• Slimmy Wallet by Koyono - This is a great, super thin wallet. It has enough room for maybe 3 credit cards, a bit of cash and the random miscellaneous cards one needs (license, insurance, ACLU membership card, etc.). I upgraded to get the exciting red interior which you apparently can’t get anymore.
• Keys and car fob - At the moment I have 4 keys on my keychain. I could almost certainly get it down to 3 and possibly 2 if I really needed to. I may do that. So, there it is. Super minimalist. And I can’t think of anything else I would require to have on a daily basis.

Honesty first, I am a fan of Apple products, I have been for a while and I don’t see that changing. I hope I avoid the fanboy title, but I can’t probably argue too much if it is applied to me. A bad habit I have been indulging in recently could probably be called “Android-baiting.” Tweeting about things like Android OS Fragmentation, Slow Uptake of Ice Cream Sandwich, or the Overabundance of Android Phones. It is all in good fun and I think my Android using (and loving) friends take it in that spirit (I hope so at least).

Recently, a friend responded to a tease by saying “How is the 4G on your iPhone? :)” A valid question that shows a clear technical difference between some of the Android phones and Apple’s iPhones. It is very true to say that as a group, Android handset manufacturers push the technical envelope faster than Apple does.

While I grant that that is a true statement, I don’t really care; it makes no difference to me. That got me thinking; why don’t I care?

I am a geek, have been for years, will probably always be. I build my own servers, I get my enjoyment from upgrading operating systems or setting up IPv6 in my house for no practical purpose. So why don’t I care what specific technology is used in my phone?

As odd as it may sound, I don’t think I categorize my iPhone and iPad in the same mental bucket as my computers.

** What it is vs. What it does for me**

This morning at about 1am that thought came to me and I think that is the proper distinction for how I look at these devices. Things like computers and servers and networks still fall into the standard geek “I care about what it is” category. Faster CPUs, bigger disks, cooler, more esoteric networks. These are all fun pursuits that I can really get into.

I don’t look at my iPhone and iPad that way. I care what they do for me. My concern is not whether it has Edge, 3G, or 4G or a Dual or Quad core CPU. I just don’t care. What I care about is whether I can effortlessly get my email, or play a game, or read the New York Times. That isn’t to say that the technical specs aren’t relevant, just that they are secondary. They are a means to an end. So, for example, my original iPhone was Edge only. While it worked, it definitely was slow to check email, so the update to the 3G model was a welcome improvement. Will 4G make my email experience better, maybe, but I doubt it will be a informational experience.

I don’t like using the word “appliance” but I think that is the best name for devices that fall into the bucket where “what it does for me” is the criteria for success. Rarely do I see people debate the wattage of microwaves as a buying criteria in and of itself. The question is “how quickly can I defrost the meat?”

I like the fact we are moving this way. When my mother calls about her iPad and I can hear the genuine excitement in her voice, it is not excitement about the fact it has 3G or an A5 processor. It is that she just rented a movie online and it showed up on her device and she enjoyed watching it. Those are the things that matter to most people.

[caption id=”” align=”alignright” width=”260” caption=”Demographic of Republican Caucus-goers in Iowa”][/caption]

I will start by saying that I (nor anyone that I have heard) would imply that the demographics of the people participating in the Iowa Caucuses last night would be a representative sample of the population of the United States.

But damn; seriously? This is what is being used to cull the field?

A 99% white participation differs considerably even from the nationwide Republican demographics [1. CNN: Iowa caucus-goers, by the numbers ]. A Gallup survey [2. Gallup: Republicans Nationwide Are Similar in Composition to 2008] showed that nationwide, the Republican party is only 87% non-Hispanic white. So a 12% point difference between Iowa and the rest of the party.

So I think it is fair to say that Iowa represents an extremely homogeneous subsample of the Republican party at least ethnically, but I would argue that it could be stretched to say culturally as well.

So why couldn’t they make up their mind last night? [3. NY Times: Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Votes]

If we look at only the top three candidates, Romney, Santorum, and Paul who probably represent the viable candidates at this point, the breakdown is crazy close. I’m guessing that just by looking at the graph, you can’t tell who won.

The current status seems to be a hard division between fiscal conservatives (Romney), social conservatives (Santorum), and libertarians (Paul). From my perspective, I just don’t see how this has an easy shake out.

The social conservative block has problems with Romney’s historical stance on issues like abortion, something they rarely budge on. And not to mention the unspoken bias against his Mormonism. Paul’s isolationism stance turns off a huge number of people. And his desire to massively trim down the federal government even to a point that it makes some Tea Party people nervous. Santorum just doesn’t seem to have much depth beyond his social issues. [4. NY Times: First Vote Reinforces G.O.P.’s Ideological Divide]

At this point I think it is obvious that Romney will take New Hampshire. I feel like Santorum has a good shot at South Carolina. But that doesn’t seem to settle anything yet.

Gingrich Calls Romney a Liar

This needed more than 140 characters to link to, so I’m trying a mini blog post. This article is a perfect example of why the public (or at least this member of the public) is so fed up with politics. Of course Romney lies, but so does Gingrich, so does every politician out there. It is probably safe to say that to be a politician is to lie. Some more, some less.

I would argue that our form of democracy (ok, republic) requires that politicians be liars. It is almost certainly impossible to get a majority of the population to vote for you without saying things you know are not true or at least not the whole truth. I’m not even sure I am bothered by that fact, as long as it is done with moderation. For me, the kicker is the hypocrisy. The blatant opportunism of it all.

It has been 2 months or so now since I left my job at Swisslog. For those that see me on a regular basis, this is no great surprise, but I have been reluctant to write about it. Partly the words have not quite been there to describe my motivation and some of the mixed feelings I have had.

“Educational.”

Educational is the best single descriptor I have been able to come up with to describe my time at Swisslog. I strongly feel that education as a result is always a positive thing, but the inputs to that education can be positive or negative. Swisslog provided its fair share of negative items to learn from. There is no reason to list their faults because I believe that many of them are inherent to the larger company structure and the industry as a whole.

Like myself, the material handling industry is going through a transition. 20 years ago, “logistics” was all about getting physical products from point A to point B so they could be sold. It was a generally simple affair with large warehouses that would stock up on products to gloss over the variances that occurred in supply and demand. But as the retail model worked to trim costs and players like Target and Walmart became national retailers, the trick to making their operations more efficient was to reduce the inventory both in their stores and in their warehouses. “Just in time” delivery became the watchword.

I will state as a fact that while logistics still needs people to move physical objects from point A to point B, success in the industry is no longer a matter of atoms and molecules, it is one of bits and bytes. In order to efficiently run a nationwide or global company efficiently, you must know where everything is at any given moment and move it around reliably and efficiently.

The logistics industry is now a software industry. And the business strategies and operations of a software company are different than a manufacturing company.

Unfortunately, I think the big players in the industry, Swisslog being one of them, have failed to realize that. Maybe they do intellectually, but not instinctively. Conveyors, cranes, robotics are becoming more and more commoditized and will continue to do so. Software is the area where companies can show distinction. But that requires a change in mindset of the companies. And it means a change in the way a company handles its projects, employees, and business model. Sadly, I did not see Swisslog do that in my tenure.

Reinventing itself is a challenging thing for any company to do. I have my doubts if it is possible once a company has reached a certain size and attained a certain level of inertia. It will be the small, nimble companies that will eat their lunch. Unfortunately, for a software person, the need for change was obvious, but not supported by the business. This was frustrating to say the least.

I learned many things not to do. I believe my philosophy for managing people was solidified from theory into practice. I was forced to work outside my box of purely technical topics and found that I was good at a broader range of topics. All of these were good lessons to learn. But it was time to move on.

I am looking forward to doing better at 3M.