Vista Doesn’t Support Visual Studio 2005

Microsoft announced on MSDN this last week that installation of Visual Studio 2005 unless that a service pack is downloaded (SP1) to support Vista.

I also found a pretty good article on TechAge reporting the Top 8 Vista Annoyances including some self-help tips.

R
www.micklerandassociates.com

Exploding CD ROMS

Okay, so the daughter plugged in a CD ROM from one of her friends in her 52x DVD drive. Suddenly, as the CD ROM was brought up to speed, there was a loud pop. Ejecting the drive, the CD ROM had shattered like glass into a hundred pieces. The CD ROM exploded in the drive!

I was astounded, just astounded, and thought maybe this wasn’t a CD ROM at all. To my surprise, I found the following article from Fujitsu explaining how a CD ROM can, in fact, explode in the drive if spun too quickly and if there’s physical damage to the disk, like a crack, for example.

Also, it turns out that MythBusters did an episode on this as well.

Indeed, it turns out that CD ROM’s can explode in a drive and could present a safety issue when using a personal computer. That’s it: from now on, I’m wearing protective eye-wear.

R
www.micklerandassociates.com

A Discussion on the Future of IT Departments

>Professor Mickler,

Hey Bob -

> I have what I believe to be a strong argument against his theory.

Grin – you’re not alone; Carr is very controversial.

>New entrants likely will not possess the capital to purchase the software outright, so this places a high
>barrier against market entry. Obviously, this allows companies to continue to do business without too
>much stress while exploring other areas in which to regain competitive advantage.

True. New entrants could implement newer technologies faster and more mature companies will experience a switching cost if they are to rapidly deploy technologies. However, if technology is self-adaptive and constantly updating, as we see promise with subscription-based licensing or utilitarian perspectives of resources – like network or computing resources where everyone just has the same access to the Internet – then you can see that the competitive advantage earned by the new entrant is quite diminished. Switching cost is non-existent. There is no competitive advantage in the underlying networking technology because everybody moves just as fast.

> The true value of the IT department that I suspect will emerge from this is the support it lends to other >technologies.

I totally agree that innovation could revolutionize the use of IT. However, many organizations don’t treat their IT departments in this way. IT isn’t a profit center, innovating for new competitive products and services. It’s a cost center, impacted by the Z-Curve, unable to innovate its way out of a paper bag – stuck in the same ruts, supporting the same legacy equipment, working around the same problems. If the IT department was allowed to innovate, that’s great, but the budget numbers speak otherwise. IT, at best, is allowed to _surivive_; this year, we’re seeing COLA adjustments, 4-7-percent increases in annual budgets, no large capital outlays generally for things like Vista or Office 2007 or anything like that. I just don’t think the majority use IT as an innovating force. I just don’t think we fund our IT departments to be innovative. I do believe that folks like Apple, who do use IT in an innovative sense, or companies that farm out their IT expertise to transform themselves into a competitive profit center are far ahead of the curve on this one.

> I have already referred to this with WAl-Mart’s use of IT to support RFID technology, but it doesn’t much>of a stretch of imagination to see programs being designed to support research and development of>products as well as forecasting the viability of the results.

>All of these things become possible with IT support (and some are already being developed or are in limited
> use as you read this). What I’m saying, in the main, here is that the IT department will continue to be a>viable operation, but that it’s focus will shift.

If IT, as a department, is allowed to innovate an become part of the product and marketing solution, sure. The IT department’s mission then shifts from maintaining technology to innovating technology. This would be a dramatic shift in the traditional role of the IT/MIS department, from cost center to profit center. I’m just saying and I think what Carr is trying to say: the maintenance problem as it relates to IT is a non-issue. IT is a utility, a nearly free utility, that anyone can use and have access to. In a world where scarcity is eliminated and abundance reigns, and all of us have the same basic means of production, what will differentiate our competitive strategy? IT as an innovator? Perhaps. But that means IT as we know it is dead, and that’s what Carr is saying. In order to be competitive, companies will deploy new tech to attract and retain customers, but this is a shift from maintaining a data center.

I mean, what if your data center could be spare BIPS from Amazon, Microsoft, or Yahoo!? The future is farmed-out IT to take advantage of economies of scale, or IT as a costless utility, not as large underfunded cost centers.

R
www.micklerandassociates.com

Why I Return Papers at Zero

This came from a question from a DeVry student, asking why her papers have been returned at zero, and whereas she explained that she’s never received anything less than an A in her program.

***

Good questions. Allow me to play devil’s advocate.

[Student], are you saying that you and others are incapable of improving your writing style, mechanics, use of citation, argument, presentation? That there’s nothing more for you to learn here? Maybe what you’re saying is that mediocrity is expected? That every instructor you visit should be exactly the same and grade to a lowest common denominator of expectation? Is mediocrity and a lack of pressure for improvement something you want out of your college program, [Student]?

[Student], I subscribe to none of these ideas.I return papers at zero because, often, I simply cannot grade them. If I cannot validate a student’s source, for example, and adequately examine how the student used that source in the context of their own discussion, I simply cannot grade it. Without intext method for citation, for example, I cannot distinguish a student’s work from their sources, and it’s just impossible to grade. That is why citation method exists.

I return papers at zero because, often, students borrow a lot of what they want to say from 3rd parties. This isn’t your fault, really – it’s our fault, as instructors, in your secondary and post-secondary education system, to spend time with you to explain the problems of authority, paraphrasing, plagiarism, and so on. This is such a huge issue in academics right now because accredation boards are literally saying to universities: you must enforce better writing and study habits to eliminate these problems of citation or we will pull your right to confer a degree. The last thing you ever want to see, [Student], is like what happened to ITT here in Oregon, or the University of Phoenix, where their accredation board yanked their right to confer degrees because their rigor to similar 4 year academic institutions was questionable. There must be equity in excellerated and regular programs; there must be equity in onground and online programs. As an instructor for both online and onground institutions for ten years, I take a vested interest in your education because it represents my future (grin). If online universities are questioned by the market because it’s _value_ as compared to an onground institution (where the standards you’re seeing in me are the norm), then I won’t be teaching much online (grin).

I return papers at zero because, often, other instructors pass by teaching opportunities to instruct better method on concepts like citation. I think you can do better. If it takes a zero to motivate you to do better, so be it. [Student], what I find is that the student will come back, ask good questions, and learn from the experience. Study habits can be improved; methods can be improved; style can be improved; argument can be improved. Those who believe they require no improvement will often not come back to me for clarification or assistance because they feel they’ve nothing else to learn, and I’m just a crackpot (grin), or, they try to report me to the authorities. In ten plus years doing this, I’ve always been celebrated in my dedication to student achievement; I’ve never, not once, been repremanded… although, I likely get some of the lowest approval scores in the surveys (grin). I guess I feel I’m not here to win a popularity contest and just let everything slide. I’m here to be your instructor and give you the best education on the subject I can. Usually my boss or advisor tend to agree with me.

[Student], I have flunked hundreds of students. I work for seven online university systems; I teach graduate and undergraduate tech curriculum for three onground public and private universities. If I did not flunk a single student, or question how a student could do better on their deliverables, then you should question the value of me as an instructor, your program, your degree, and the money you’ve spent thus far.

If you want to blow your mind, do a couple of Google searches on online education, plagiarism, and accredation bodies. Last year, CEC (Career Education Corporation) got slammed by 20/20. The last thing you ever want to see, [Student], is for 90-percent of the student body in your program to be 4.0 students – that’s not a typical scoring distribution – and colleges are being shut down. Imagine opening up the paper one morning to find that DeVry was not accredited or its accredation was suspended after it’s review. These are serious challenges for online universities, and you should really question your program and previous instructors if you’ve never – ever – scored below an A on even papers, [Student]. That’s not useful.

I hope I’ve answered your questions – please feel free to call me if I can be of further assistance.

R
www.micklerandassociates.com