On the y2k bug being one of the great legend...or farce?

I can't help but think back what the y2k bug had been for all of us. Don't get me wrong, I did not underestimate what potential problems that could have surfaced, should the issues in various places, far and wide, not been fixed. I know, because I'm on the technical side, working in overdrive in an international bank to fix their foreign exchange and backoffice systems.

Back then, the forex system is pretty much fine. Afterall, it's on much newer platforms. The backoffice mainframe is another completely different story. We (the forex folks) have to be there, because those stupid DECS are still around, and those backoffice programmers (yes, they're called programmers, not developers or engineers) still work with screen-scraped green screens on black terminals. And they're the ones who can't shake off the DDMMYY hangover after 30 years.

(PS here: But it is quite safe to say that, those programmers are really the winners in this globalization world. Afterall, they don't even teach COBOL in schools, local or overseas, anymore. So, their jobs are pretty secure, and it's quite safe to say that, they can probably ride it to the sunset. Happy or sad ending? You be the judge. But it's sad to me.)

Perhaps we could say that the efforts to fix the y2k bug by various industries (including the government, financial, manufacturing, telcos, utility, media, and most every day-to-day system that we might come across) had been such a huge success, that we never got to hear horror stories, like B52 bombers didn't flip to fly upside-down when they cross the equators, or some such.

And believe me, I know how horrible it could have gone wrong. Afterall, I started out with COBOL (remember that language that marks CICS?!?), and I'm all too familiar with the DDMMYY. (I was more than ecstatic to switch to c, c++, and then java, after paying my short dues in COBOL.)

After all these times though, I don't subscribe to the notion that everything in the society was going to fall down on its face. Of course, after seven years now, we can quite safely say so. But I have always felt this way. A lot of it is due to media hype. And consulting outfits like IBM and CSC are all too happy to drum up the beat for them, and a huge troop of consultants in tow.

(Another PS here: Most everyone who's not in the know of the technicalities are pretty ignorant to what the y2k bug was. There was even a news story of a peasant woman in rural China who died of pesticide. Cause of death? She drank the pesticide after hearing the y2k bug news report, thinking that she'd be infected. Sad, aye?!)

On George W Bush's hurried peace attempt...

Granted that all attempts in peace-making should be lauded, the first (and probably last) attempt of Bush in brokering peace in the Mid East seems anything but.

It's only now that W learns the wisdom that US cannot impose its vision on Mid East? Does it take any reasonable, average-wit person seven years in learning some wisdom? Obviously, considering that Bush has nothing but his legacy to worry about now (with only the Iraq war left to fill a big hole), he's a man in hurry, to want to finish a peace deal before his second term ends. But he should realize by now (I hope), that declaring "mission accomplished," is cheap talk, if he really hasn't done much. And history will not take it kindly on his "mission accomplished" landing, and the mess that follows the Iraq fall.

With a leader of this much "intelligence," it's no doubt too, that it takes years for Condi Rice to turn from her comfortable zone of dealing with Russia (where her pre-administration days of studies were focused on), to the MidEast, to realize what a big gap in the world order America has overlooked in these seven years' void.

Bush should also realize by now that, not only does his lame-duck phase of presidency would hamper whatever that he might want to accomplish, but his moral credibility has sunk this low that, his call for "whatever" just move anybody.

On Matt Damon becoming the Sexiest Man Alive in 2007...

It's refreshing, for a change, to have the People's Magazine to choose Matt Damon as the Sexiest Man Alive in 2007, not solely based on the ounce of muscles that he has (though he has alot to offer), but also on his personality.

People should start to realize (and wake up, both men and women) that women do not simply find a guy "sexy" on sexual appeal alone. For a guy that comes across as funny, witty, down-to-earth, and brainy, can be very powerful and sexy too. It's nice to look at a pretty face, but a man has to come across with something more substantial than simply a six-pack and bulging biceps in order to be impressive. One must admit, to see a guy who would blush on compliments, that's quite cute.

It's also nice to see that this group of friends (Damon, Pitt, and Clooney) who have not only looks, but certain substance in the brain, and they don't do cat fights like the women celebrity are. I hope it serves as a powerful reminder to the rest of the male population that women look for more than just looks in a man. (Well, I *hope* women do...at least those who are smart.)

On Sarkozy, the new Bush lap dog...

Isn't it great, to have one lap dog in the path of down-and-out, when you have another lap dog standing by to take its place?!?

I'm talking about Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French president who pledges his tie and closer relationship to US ("America can count on France") and the new lap dog of George W Bush who would gladly go to country with Bush and loves everything that has the America label on it, when the old lap dog of John Howard struggling to retain his own parliamentary seat, not to mention the general election and his grip of the government. There is an old Chinese saying, "one rooster dies, and you hear from another rooster." Rooster-1 is Howard, Rooster-2 is Sarkozy.

I'll take my time to see when Sarkozy is going to go down, to the same path as Howard who has lost touch with the people, thinking that a great economy is all that matters, when Howard fails to understand that the electorate looks for more than just economic stewardship, but leadership in social responsibility. Howard and Bush have failed so utterly, in the latter.

On Facebook Ad...

It's the moment of truth, with Big Brother Watching you, circa 2007. That's Facebook Ad, which previously insists users to enter real personal data, and who now turns to sell the users out by exposing them to ads by advertisers.

I suppose it's just a matter of time. I'm not sure why anyone would want to put in any real data on the web. Perhaps the previous argument by the Facebook users was that, it's a closed network, and they were only "seen" by their own friends, or those in the larger academic/university community. Even for this blog, which is a handy way for something else to host my journal of thoughts, I don't think I'll ever put down my (real) name, or where I live etc (though I would have exposed bits and pieces of my personal details, like having kids, and marital status, and gender and so on, they are generic enough that I would not care).

I have hated the idea of having Google searching my gmail contents to target ads to me. That's why nothing is sensitive or too personal in my emails. And, I never, ever pay any attention to those Google ads when I login to gmail anyways. How "targeted" those ads really are, is highly questionable to me.

The act of Facebook in putting out Facebook Ad so soon after Microsoft acquiring a stake in it, reminds me of the Big Brother that Microsoft has always wanted to be, and how easily and quickly Zuckerberg will sell out his users/friends for a good profit. While it might make perfect economical sense for him, shame on him. Let's just wait and see how quick the 50 million users of his are going to ditch him and Facebook.

On MIT suing Frank Gehry...

I don't know what would enjoy the architecture of Frank Gehry, but I'm certainly, absolutely not one of them. His design is just so darn ugly.

Granted, I'm still surprised to learn of the lawsuit that MIT is mounting, against Frank Gehry and the construction company of the Stata Building, alleging major leaks and flaws in the design and construction of the building. But I'm equally surprised (but not impressed) by the response by Gehry to MIT's lawsuit, saying that it's a complex building (implying issues are bound to surface). I don't think architecture of his design is anywhere nearly as complicated as building a space shuttle by NASA. What would we have, if NASA tells us that, accidents are bound to happen, since this is complex stuffs?!? I certainly do not appreciate the high attitude of Gehry, that he would dismiss criticisms and would not admit to flaws or mistakes. What a jerk.

On Google's new Android platform for mobile...

There is big, splashing news about the Android platform from Google for the mobile arena which was announced in the last few days. It would include everything there is, including the OS, API, and even a browser for cell phone.

Naturally, that would mean Google has to butt heads with entrenched interests like cell providers (AT&T, etc) and OS vendors (like Microsoft and Palm). One noticeable missing voice is Sun. I can't help but wonder if this spells the beginning of the end for Java as a viable option in the mobile arena. While Google is good at announcing big, grand plans that grabs headline news, but alot of them eventually fizzle out, I wonder if Sun has any counter argument for it. In fact, Sun has let Java languished for some years now. Although Java has become the de-facto language of choice for backend/server-side development, its influence and usage have been retreating with accelerated pace. Remember java swing or AWT, or the mobile edition of java, anyone? (It's sad...)

On voyeurism and exhibitionsim...

Humans are an interesting (if perverse) animal. Their behaviors can be so different from those of others in the animal kingdom.

Yes yes, you know we're supposed to be the most intelligent in the nature. We learn the ability to use tools, and sophisticated languages. The list goes on. Those are the good side.

On the flip side, there are humans (or, those who are or turn evils) who enjoy inflicting pains on others to derive pleasure. And then there are yet others who enjoy voyeurism and exhibitionism. Are there any animal species out there that do the same? I can't think of any.

Funny how the net for the military and academia, which evolves into the web for the general public, helps us in so many other ways. The positive ways. Now it's spinning into this social-networking scenes (aka MySpace, Facebook, etc) that allow people to voluntarily expose and exhibit themselves to an audience unbeknown to them (though some might think only their friends check them out).

And now, the interesting article in New York Times examining how the exhibitionism and voyeurism are taking a reverse spin to go from the web back to a physical format, in which people would choose to live in a glass house, and expose their every single (potentially crass and unsavory) details of their lives to anyone who cares to see. Surely there will be people out there who like to gawk into others' window to see how it's decorated or what the residents might be doing. But to expose oneself in the bathroom?!? What are these people thinking, really?

Another failed "grand scheme"...

Just when I was talking about those failed grand old visions and scheme, remnants from the late 90s for company elders to build conglomerate-style bloaters, and how most every one of them seems to be buckling, there's news today that InterActive Group (IAC) is going down the same path, which is going to be split into five different companies.

No more surprises. It's just a matter of time.

On Giuliani's tough talking and waterboarding...

It's infuriating, reading news about Rudy Giuliani's trashing John McCain in not being tough due to McCain's rejection of torture methods like waterboarding, and for McCain's lack of experience in running an establishment (like a city, for example, as Giuliani did in New York City).

While I do not doubt the latter claim since McCain was never a mayor of any kind, as Giuliani did. (Whether I care for it is an entirely different matter.) And while I'm no fan of GOP, I find it very disturbing, for Giuliani to imply that McCain is not being tough since McCain disagrees with torture methods.

Giuliani has never been in war. He's never even been TO a war. Being a prosecutor in grilling suspects (and I have no doubts that anyone would want to strangle those definitive suspects in heinous crimes) is one thing, but torturing human beings is another, totally. Time and again, studies show that torture does not yield superior results in extracting useful results from suspects since they're prone to giving in to say whatever that the torturer wants to hear.

But why does men want to stick to the use of torture? It probably has more to the fact that, when you hate the other person (suspect) so much, you want to hurt them; of course if you can extract any useful info from them, that would be added bonus. That's my suspicion of it.

Giuliani reminds me of his tough talking colleague of George W Bush who himself was never in any way, yet claim to know everything there is, about being tough and all in war. It's laughable that cowards like these can twist facts, and turn around to point fingers at McCain and John Kerry (by Bush during the 2004 election) for not being tough enough for handling wars. Of course, we now know Bush is only good at slinging guns, but no good at all in handling anything that requires the use of his brain. While Giuliani can at least talk properly (as compared to Bush), he would turn out to be just another gun slinger.

PS: Then again, I don't expect Giuliani to win the GOP primary anyways...

On the MI5 head speaking out on trust and counter terrorism...

I must say, Brits have their own way of playing politics and managing the public, that I find it fascinating to watch. One of the displays is the recent public speech by the head of MI5, speaking out on the subject of counter terrorism and trust.

The speech itself is eloquent enough, and it sounds so forthcoming and candid, that would appeal to anyone who might even disdain anything that is government. The thing I find it most fascinating is that, MI5 would even take a course of action like this. You would definitely not find CIA or FBI or any government organization in China or Europe or Russia doing the same thing. But in doing so, it solicits the public that you could not have achieved in most other ways.

It is also one reason why Brits had (and still have) been able to lord over all those colonies in the imperial days. They would divide behind-the-scene, but they would unite and conquer in public. You probably won't find it working without the subtle English charm.

Perhaps the only other people who might remotely pull that tactic, and have it work is Israel (that would appeal to its own people).

On the grand scheme of things in business from the 1990s...

The 1990s offered a few things to us. The roller-coaster ride in the stock market and the tech bubble (that bursts in 2001). And in business, there was the legion of business super-leaders, who had this grand vision of all things conglomerate-style. There was the Sandy Weill and his rise with Travelers Group to the building of bloated Citigroup. There was Jack Welch and his run in GE. There was the big shift of focus in IBM with Lou Gerstner. Of course we can't miss the big blow-ups like the failed marriage between AOL and Time Warner led by Stephen Case. The list goes on and on.

It's hard to see through all the hoopla in the heat of the moment. With hindsight almost a decade later now, we have the benefit to see which one works (rarely) and which one doesn't (mostly all of them).

In a way, I almost feel sorry for the "second generation" CEO's who are to be gatekeepers of those grand schemes, only to struggle to get them to work. There is Dick Parsons, and Jeff Immelt, and Chuck Prince, of course, who was just ousted from Citigroup for the big blow-up in the subprime market. The only thing that they have in common is that, they all fail to ignite growth in stock price since they came to power.

Some, like Jeff Immelt, have more admirable vision to move the behemoth of GE to new direction (but it's too bloated to move any faster that it could). Some simply strut along with the same old "grand vision," like Chuck Prince, when they were handed with the rein. But mostly, they all go to show that the grand scheme from the elder (and now retired) CEO's by simply growing the companies with serial M&A in order to facilitate cross-sell simply doesn't work, no matter how you slice and dice it. When the times are good, when the market is flush with money, the party goes on...until the music stops, and we can see who's left standing with no place to sit. Those elders are lucky bastards to have exited the stage, or else they'll be left standing with no pants on.

On the primary battle and comparison between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton...

There is an excellent article in NYTimes on Barack Obama, and his (uphill) battle for Democratic nomination in the primary against, chief of all, Hilary Clinton.

It's excellent, not because of the subject itself since it's been done infinitely many times by so many other sources and reports; but rather, it's done from the vantage point on the Obama side. The hope, the support he's got from seemingly unlikely sources including ex-Clintonites during the Bill Clinton era, and the frustration that his message doesn't seem to get through still (when first primary is only two months away).

There was this novelty factor when Obama first came out, and it certainly a breath of fresh air (much like John Edwards had been in his "two Americas" talk during his 2004 presidential bid, even Howard Dean and outpouring of support to Dean from the web mostly in 2004). Fresh air aside, with the primary being pushed further up, the novelty factor can wear out quite quickly, and mostly potential voters are left with whatever residue they have in memory of any particular candidates.

I have watched most major candidates (both GOP and Dem) for a while. I must admit that Obama came out very interestingly, from the left field, mostly since I was never aware of this person before, and it's interesting/useful to find out what his views are, what he stands for, his integrity, and how much of a chance he has in winning back the White House (no, I don't want another GOP administration).

The Obama camp likes to paint (perhaps it is in fact so) him as having the fresh-eyed approach on things, everything. It's refreshing to see that someone like him is getting support. The Clinton camp likes to attack him like he's 8 year old, and doesn't know how the real world operates. Perhaps it could be true that an 8-year-old's approach can be effective, particularly in its surprised-factor. I'm not entirely sure if it'll work, in the long-winding bureaucracy of getting substantial changes in through the Congress and the world at large. I had had hopes that the health care reform that Hilary Clinton had tried to push through (but subsequently failed), but hers back then is the 8-year-old's approach.

To me, Hilary has lived and learnt and graduated into the real world, when she still has some ounces of idealism left in her. Her ascent to be the first female president would be very inspirational to future generations to come. As to Barack, his ascent as the first black president (with Muslim roots, no less) would certainly be equally inspirational. So, either one of them (as agent from a minority) to sit in the White House is good enough for me.

As to policies and procedures, it's easy talk for fresh approach from Barack, but I have the feelings that Hilary is careful enough these days (after seeing how the real world does business) not to promise something that she knows would fail. I see it as the same way I would do things, as compared to my 4-year-old kid, for example. He might want to do this in this way, but I would tell him, no it won't work and I would tell him how I would do it. Naturally, I do not expect my kid to copy every single thing I tell him (otherwise it would have killed all his imagination and creativity), but I equally do not want him to try things that I know are definitely harmful (eg. doing drugs). Going back to the Obama/Clinton comparison, I see Obama like my 4-year-old kid, and I see Clinton like myself. While I certainly do not want to come out and tell him "I told you so," I know what consequence is going to come out.

So, the question here becomes, do I value experience (Clinton) more, or do I value fresh approach (Obama) more. I would choose Clinton. It's not because I do not want or dislike the fresh approach from Obama, but I want Clinton to hit the ground running, at day one when she's in the White House, again. (And, having Bill Clinton on her side, it's certainly a big help.)

As to being a fighter and be mean enough to fight (and beat) the GOP in the general election, that gets me worried most about Obama. He would certainly look like an 8-year-old on stage if he's up there debating Giuliani or Romney (he'll probably win). When a Dem is up there fighting the fight, I don't need a Mr Nice Guy, as Obama has time and again wanted to portrait himself. I want the candidate to be mean and tough enough to fight back. During the past few Dem debates among the Dem candidates, I can't say I'm very impressed by Obama's performance. And that's BEFORE the primaries. What are his chances when he's up against GOP? I have most serious concerns about this.

Back to the article from NYTimes, when toward the end, Obama almost sounds bitter, and counters what kind of "experience" that Clinton has that he hasn't, and what kind of "crises" that Clinton has really handled, and so on. He might be glad to hear that there isn't anything concrete, so the answer is no (that's what you get from a poll). But the total package of Clinton (including Bill in tow) would tell us, everything is a resounding yes. While that might not be a fault on Obama in particular, it is something that he does not have, not even any chance of "improving."

On assigning credit where it's due...

The gross injustice must have been painfully felt, when one works your butt off trying to get the job done, and the credit goes to someone else instead.

I'm talking about the upcoming movie "American Gangster," where its revisionist history rewrites who should get the credit for bringing down the black drug lord Frank Lucas. Have the screenwriter(s) and director been so sloppy in its research in undercover where the credit should have laid, or do they simply take the easy way out and put a one-man-hero as the poster boy for the whole operation?

It's indeed so unfair because people will eventually die, but the movie lives to tell a story that is half true, yet labeling it "based on a true story." I'm sure teams of lawyers can argue down to the last dots and crosses, that it's just "based" on a true story, but it's not necessarily the whole true story.

There is a tremendous amount of social responsibility, for movie makers to make movies based on true stories to do due diligence, and be as factual as can be. It does not seem to be the case here, unfortunately.