Last Man Standing Wins

So it has always amazed me how until modern times, armies would line up and face-off on the battlefield to basically bash each others skulls in. 

Whether in medieval times or in the civil war...it goes something like this. 

- Red coats line up on this side. 

- Blue coats line up on that side. 

- Everyone pull out their weapons.

- Scream your bloody heads off.

- And run towards each other swinging. 

- The last man standing from either side is the winning army!

How brilliant is that? 

Basically, mass suicide for both sides (like trying to take the hill running straight into machine gun fire). 

These days, there is a notion at least of using stealth, smart bombs, and sending in drones or robots, so as not to risk real people's lives unnecessarily. 

But I guess that takes the fun out of it--can't slice and dice and smash the enemy with your bare hands.

Last weekend, I watched people who like to fight the old fashioned way, dress up in medieval gear, take their sides on the field in the park, and go at it. 

They had swords, and clubs, and javelins, and bow and arrows, and more.  

They even had roles, and one guy I talked to was actually the king for one side of the fight--and apparently you have to earn that role in battle and in council vote. 

On the battlefield then the people get together and go at it hitting each other with some pretty scary weapons that fortunately are (mostly) padded, but still they seemed to get some pretty good zets!

Honestly, it sort of looked like a lot of fun and good exercise, but probably (more than) a little dangerous too. 

I saw one combatant coming off the field, taking off his outfit as it was pretty hot out, and he literally had layers of shielding on, so aside from seeing them take hits again and again, I could see that they felt they needed the protection. 

What was also interesting watching this--and I understand sometimes they get about 150 people on the field at a time to go at it--is that people seem to really want to go back in time to the way things were...more natural, more real, and even more deadly--up close and personal!

We are so much in a virtual world or like Elon Musk (CEO of SpaceX and Tesla) said living in a simulation, that there is just a wild yearning and craving to get back to nature, basics, and what's tangible and real. 

Even if it means bashing heads on a hot Summer's day...and reenacting the times of lore...put your smartphones down and pull out your swords and clubs--it's a new day and age. ;-) 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Last Man Standing Wins

Goods AND Serices --> AMAZON

Really like what I read yesterday...Amazon is expanding from selling goods to also adding services.

Amazon is the #1 stop for just about any daily purchase (except things like cars and houses, which I think Amazon will eventually consider for an acquisition in the future as well). 

With their nearly effortless shopping experience, free shipping (for "Prime" customers), and easy returns, it is eCommerce as it was meant to be!

Now according to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon is adding local service providers from plumbers to electricians.

The cross-selling possibilities are luring--so that as you purchase a household item, up pops local services providers for someone to install or service the item--it's all integrated.

Moreover, Amazon will do background checks on these service partners, determine if they have liability insurance, and offer a money-back guarantee on the services rendered (Oy vey to Craigslist and Angie's List).

Amazon is a brilliant retailer, once they have holodeck like virtual reality experience where you can simulate actually being next the goods to look at them, feel them, even try them (on), then we will achieve shopping nirvana and will never have to enter a Best Buy or other useless and obsolete bricks and mortar retailer again. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Yo Mostro)

Goods AND Serices --> AMAZON

Now You See It, Now You Don't

Very cool new military technology by BAE Systems called Adaptiv--it's an invisibility cloak (yes, we now have the technology of the Klingon Empire at our disposal!)

Hexagonal pixel plates are affixed to tanks (and soon battle ships) and these can change temperatures to be invisible to infra-red sensors and confuse heat seeking missiles.

Moreover, onboard cameras pick up surrounding scenarios and can display this onto the vehicle's pixels, so that the military vehicles blend right into their environs.

Another trick, is that that the pixels can display alternate images to masquerade itself-- so a tank is now a simple car or even a cow (according to Wired UK, 6 Sept 2011).

Like the Trojan Horse, I can only imagine what a military power could do by fully exploiting this capability--whether through the conduct of hit and run maneuvers or by invading and conquering an unsuspecting foe.

This is the emergence of a whole new era of war-fighting capabilities, where camouflage is no longer just covering yourself with the basic elements, but rather where technology is used to create a virtual reality that masks the true physical.

On the battlefield, this technology will enable us to seemingly be there one minute, and gone the next (machines and people)--that's technology magic that even Houdini would be envious of.

And yet, this is still just the beginning...we are only now bordering on the capabilities inherent in the Star Trek holodeck--where whole alternate environments are just a simulation away.

Now You See It, Now You Don't

Watson Can Swim

With IBM's Watson beating the pants off Jennings and Rutter in Jeopardy, a lot of people want to know can computers can really think?

Both sides of this debate have shown up in the last few weeks in some fascinating editorials in the Wall Street Journal.

On one hand, on 23 February 2011, John Searle of the University of California, Berkeley wrote that "IBM invented an ingenious program--not a computer that can think." According to Searle, Watson (or any computer for that matter) is not thinking but is simulating thinking.

In his most passionate expression, Searle exclaims: "Watson did not understand the questions, nor its answers, not that some of its answers were right and some wrong, not that it was playing a game, nor that it won--because it doesn't understand anything."

Today, on 14 March 2011 on the other hand, Stephen Baker, author of "Final Jeopardy--Man vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything" took the opposing view and stated: "Watson is an early sighting of a highly disruptive force...one that can handle [information] jobs held by people."

To the question of whether machine thinking is "real" thinking? Baker quotes David Ferrucci, IBM's chief scientist who when asked if Watson can think, responded "Can a submarine swim?"

The analogy is a very good one.

Just because a submarine doesn't swim like a fish or a person, doesn't mean it can't swim. In fact and in a sense, for the very reason that it doesn't swim exactly like a fish or person, it actually can swim better.

So too with computers, just because they don't "think" like humans doesn't mean they don't think. They just think differently and again in sense, maybe for the very same reason, in certain ways they can think better.

How can a computer sometimes think better than a person? Well here are just some possible examples (non-exhaustive):

- Computers can evaluate options purely based on facts (and not get "bogged down" in emotions, conflict, ego, and so forth like human beings).

- Computers can add processing power and storage at the push of button, like in cloud computing (people have the gray matter between their ears that G-d gave them, period).

- Computers do not tire by a problem--they will literally mechanically keep attacking it until solved (like cracking a password).

- Computers can be upgraded over time with new hardware, software, and operating systems (unlike people who age and pass).

At the same time, it is important to note that people still trump computers in a number of facets:

- We can evaluate things based on our conscience and think in terms of good and evil, and faith in a higher power (a topic of a prior blog).

- We can care for one another--especially children and the needy--in a altruistic way that is not based on information or facts, but on love.

- We can work together like ants in a colony or bees in a hive or crowdsourcing on- or off-line to get large jobs done with diversity and empowerment.

- We are motivated to better ourselves and our world--to advance ourselves, families, and society through continuous improvement.

Perhaps, like the submarine and the fish, both of which can "swim" in their own ways, so too both computers and people can "think"--each in their own capacity. Together, computers and people can augment the other--being stronger and more effective in carrying out the great tasks and challenges that confront us and await.

Watson Can Swim

Spore and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal, 2 September 2008 reports that Electronic Arts is releasing this week, “Spore, one of the most talked-about titles in videogame history.”

What is Spore?

Spore is a simulation game (like the The Sims and Grand Theft Auto). In Spore, “players shape the evolution of everything from tiny organisms to mature creatures to planets and galaxies. The most unusual feature is that users’ creations are not only theirs to view; they become part of the environment experienced by others.”

The interactive last part sounds like a prehistoric version of Second Life, which just may be the most interesting part to the new game.

On a recent vacation, I had the opportunity to test a free software download version called Spore Creature Creator, and while the game concept and the strange looking creatures were intriguing, I found the game quickly turned ho hum, boring.

Why is Spore so Important to Electronic Arts?

Electronic Arts has had six consecutive money losing quarters and is desperate for a product winner.

“Analysts have chided the company for being too reliant on sequels to its successful game franchises [such as Madden Football etc.], rather than developing new titles to spur growth.”

At a development cost of $50M, and $25M in marketing, distribution, and manufacturing costs, the company needs to sell a whopping million and a half copies of Spore at a price of $50 just to break even. (Note: a “blockbuster—generally mean sales of one million units or more for a PC game).

What is wrong with Electronic Arts Spore game concept?

Desperate times lead to desperate measures—Electronic Arts is losing money and prestige and is desperate for a hit, and one that signals a turnaround for the company. However, Spore is not a game changing event.

First, Spore is based on other simulation style games and is adding what? I’d say, aside from some creative graphics, not much. So it’s not particularly innovative, which is what they really need a dose of (you can’t keep milking the same cow endlessly with sequels—even Star Wars and Harry Potter eventually run out of steam).

Second, when organizations, like Electronic Arts are struggling and faced with daunting challenges, they need to be careful not to fall into the desperate flailing of a drowning victim. It’s important to remain calm, keep your whits about you, and always follow a careful thought out plan to survive.

To me that’s really the essence of Enterprise Architecture, sound planning and governance.

In the case of Electronic Arts, instead of simply rolling out their next sequel, they needed to be planning on their next big innovation. While Spore may be a cultural curiosity or phenomenon for a while, it does not measure up to true innovation.

Spore and Enterprise Architecture