5g is it already killed Wifi 6?

Apple Pay and Android Pay are systems that use what is called NFC or near field communication. The phone is a secure device that supports the NFC transition. One of the things that I suspect the implementation of 5g throughout the world that is going to change is that NFC. You see, with 5g, either mobile for fixed (fixed is when the 5g signal goes to the home or business and is then shared by multiple users in a building or home), everything will become NFC. NFC with a lot more data available. I was in downtown DC about two weeks ago, and with a 5g hotspot, I was able to get 1.2 megabytes download and 1.1 megabytes upload. At the same time. I was uploading a one gig file and downloading a one gig file simultaneously.

That’s what 5g brings. The ability for applications to now moves massive amounts of data quickly. That got me thinking about Wifi6. Wifi6 is the upcoming or recently released new standard for Wifi. But with 5g, having more bandwidth in more locations, I wonder if Wifi6 might be the last Wifi ever deployed in the business world. It raises a technology question that isn’t always considered. Does the future now change because of what is happening now? If you watch superhero movies, or movies involving the many time-travel theories you know of the butterfly effect. What that says if you kill a specific bitterly, and that butterfly has an impact on the world, the next day history changes.

Well, the future, that will be the present that could once have been the past, will change.  I wonder having been playing with 5g for a bit now if the future hasn’t already changed. The first significant impact of 5g will be the reality of what people do with devices. I know that the fast runner who leads the pack early in a footrace is called the rabbit. Normally the rabbit slows down and falls back to the pack. But what if because of the evolution, 5g as a rabbit is going to lap the field. Then if 5g slows down, it will take the rest of the pack a long time and a whole track to catch up. Suddenly, the rabbit the race which doesn’t usually happen in footraces.

But it appears that 5g has changed the butterfly. What Wifi 6 was going to bring to the market, 20 years ago, may no longer be relevant now.

,doc

are you the same online or offline>?

Connected or Disconnected, it is a question that many people ask today. The first part of the question comes from the separation of what people now call the real world (IRW or IRL) With the two acronyms meaning in The Real World or real life. First, can I tell you that it makes me laugh that people refer to the world away from online, as the real world? To me, and I realize I did not grow up in the computer age, I was alive before the computer was big, well, that isn’t true. When I was little, computers were not big for homes, but they were physically huge. They filled rooms and basements and entire areas of buildings with a computer that was frankly not as capable of calculations as your smartphone is today.

The reason it makes me smile is that computers and virtual/augmented reality are part of the real world. There is no essential difference between you online and you offline. A good friend of mine at the University of South Carolina (although he is moving to a new job, on a tenure track at a different university) has been working on a study for a long time. It currently helps up in legal, but the intent was to see if people understand that we are in the real world. That what we see and do online, is still part of the real world. There might be situations where we do some level of separation between us and the things online, but the reality is, who we are in the same in either place.

It is easy to get lost online. To dive into the world that exists at your fingertips. With VR/AR, you can even reach out towards that world beyond your fingertips, but it is while part of the real world, no different in the end. There is not IRW or IRL. You are IRL in real life when you type in real life to someone. One of the questions my friend asked several people is how I am going to end my post today. It was a question he first asked a bunch of us about ten years ago. We were all together for a seminar on communication, and he asked this question. It was the basis of his study, and it is one question that I find hard to shake all these years later.

“Do people that physically sit in rooms with you, an nd people that know you online think the same of you?”

.doc

the impact of social media on authors

Several people are picking up the old post-challenge, although I didn’t make it a challenge. Some are sharing authors, short pieces about the author, and some of their older posts. Other people are going back and reading old posts and sharing them. Overall it has been interesting as views are slowly starting to go back up. We are about 20% below where we were last year in terms of views. Posts like this, by the way, do not help, so my apologies for that.

I took 10 of my old posts (so this isn’t scientific). I didn’t want to sue someone else’s old posts to do this experiment.

I shared the photos on the various social media sites I use. Here is what I found.

(please remember these are my posts only)

  1. Facebook – 10 additional views sharing if I share another author on Facebook it is 20 views.
  2. Twitter – 20 additional views (new posts I get 30, other authors posts normally around 10)
  3. Mix – 2 additional views
  4. Reddit – 2 additional views
  5. Tumblr – 2 additional views
  6. Pinterest – 2 additional views
  7. WordPress – 12 additional views.

I understand if you don’t want to share it on social media. But, if you don’t, please consider joining Carol DM’s challenge. You highly another author and include three links to one of those authors’ old posts! Or participate in my old post-challenge, which is, tell people if they add a post (as long as it isn’t something you won’t read) that you will read and comment on their post! Neither of those challenges requires you to share via social media.

I have shared more than 70 of my old posts since January 1. I can tell you that I have nearly 1200 new views from external users in sharing my old posts. It is roughly 15 to 20 views per share, but that is something!

Thank you to everyone who reads and comments on my posts!

.doc

improving views of your posts…

I learned many years ago to spot those who are “all about them.”  These are the people who focus their energy on themselves in every form. You find them often on the internet. They comment on articles and solely express their opinions. They don’t read the article or post the comment. They don’t share information about the author’s work beyond their comment. They may post many articles in a single day. They comment once, sometimes twice on other people’s posts, but they don’t have deep interactions with people. Some of them say something and then add a smiley face. It is ok to say anything you want to say as long as it ends with a smiley face!

When you encounter people like that, the very best thing is to stay away. The end game of any interaction is always going to be the winning, and you are losing. They will comment about you, interrupt conversations you are having with other writers, and do as they please. It is a sad situation. However, that is something I am moving past and ignoring now. I am focused on helping people get views on their blogs. There are several things that people have been trying. One of the things is going back and looking at your old posts. Taking those and sharing them on Social Media. Other writers are writing articles about authors and including older posts of an author to help them.

Getting more views is a combination of SEO, search engine optimization. That isn’t hard; certain things are searched for. If you think about the title of your article, that is what the search engine is going to find first. Some phrases and words always gain views.  Having a great title gets you towards SEO.; SEO will drive external views. I always set view goals for my posts. That way, I know when posts are tracking well or not tracking well. On know on my technology posts that sometimes I go further away from my core audience’s comfort level. Based on that, the views for some posts are way down. As I said, by setting a goal for each post I can watch the post and compare it to what I expected it would do.

Read, comment and share!

.doc

of meetings and meeting rooms

The concept of a meeting room is interesting. It has to have a video camera/speaker and a whiteboard. If you ask my team, they don’t want to have meetings with me in rooms with whiteboards. I do tend to step to the whiteboard and work through things. Which is funny, many years ago I published a poem about Dancing Bears and paintbrushes. It was written about a meeting I had with a bunch of coworkers.

If you can imagine, Dancing Bears do not often listen. Bears are not known as great listeners. They are known for eating honey and for catching salmon. Bears with color paint brushes then might pose a problem. You see, once the Bears start painting, they don’t listen. It becomes hard to get a word in edgewise sometimes, add unicycles, and you have a circus show!

To end this discussion of meeting technology, what do you like to see when you walk into a meeting room? A carafe of tea or coffee? Perhaps three carafes, tea, coffee, and decaffeinated coffee. Do you prefer a muffin tray or cookie tray? One of the things I always check is the chairs. There are conference rooms at my office that have awesome chairs. And conference rooms that have horrible chairs. I think the horrible chairs are in the conference rooms that are for short meetings!

What do you need to have in your meeting rooms?

.doc

the home office of the future

Do you have a clock in your workspace? Either at the office or your home, do you have a visible clock. The reason for asking is the evolution of the office. Well, at least for me. There was a time 10-12 years ago when I had printers, hard drives, and a server sitting in my home office. During my initial IT consulting days, I had 12-14 computers in the space around my home office. It was the lab I used when I was trying to solve customer issues. Today my lab sits either in AWS or Microsoft Azure. Having a cloud lab is much cheaper than having a physical lab. Not that I paid full price for the hardware I had. Customers would give consultants and early access pass when they auctioned old hardware.

My office today still has a printer (my plotter) and one portable printer that I still have. But mostly my office has cables and other things. The evolution of the office from what we did and what we do has been pretty interesting (by we, I mean other IT consultants like myself). The concept of Cloud Computing lets you have many computers (called VMs) in a cloud solution. You can also add virtual load balancers, routers, and Identify management systems to your lab easily. One of the things I have done in the recent past is building a group of servers to test a program. The time it took me to build the images gave me an idea, and I am building that one out for work.

The lab, once done, ran for three days, and then I took the lab down. Unlike the old days, when I would have to reformation hard drivers, reinstall operating systems, I was able to shut the lab down, delete the machines, and move on. It is the power of the cloud. The office of the future is something I think about, and the end state of this post is the office of the future. I wonder how much longer people will have laptops/computers in their lives. I don’t think they are going away in two years. I suspect it is closer to five years. But in the future, I don’t see people using a desktop, laptop, or other windows, Linux, or Macintosh computers. I believe in the future; you will have a monitor and a slot. The slot will allow you to plug your phone in and have a large screen, keyboard, and mouse. Then you take your pheon with you to work and have the same setup. The Laptop and Desktop we all use today is again around for a while, but not forever.

Does that future upset people?

.doc

AI and driverless cars

There are times when, as a technologist, I move beyond the horizon you see in the cover picture. Beyond what most people even think about. In part, that is because I am in a role that forces me to think that way. In part because that is an expansion of the way I grew up. I enjoy seeing just what technology can do. But I also know that technology is a guide and an aide for people, not a replacement. It is why I consider robotics carefully. I don’t agree with the goals similar to Issacs Asimov’s three laws of robotics (originally published in the Novel I Robt, but republished and reused many times since then. The first law is a robot cannot allow hard to come to a human being.

It is the primary argument against driverless cars. The scenario being a group of motorcyclists wipe out on the other side of a sharp curve. As your driverless car comes around the curve, its function would be to preserve the five people that had a bee on the monitor cycles and are now on the road. Your car would swerve off the road. It is slowing hopefully before hitting something. It is the moral dilemma of one, you, versus many, cyclists on the ground. The car’s AI would choose the many. But the problem with that scenario is that it doesn’t include AI. You see, a computer can work in the space a human would need to hit the brakes, evaluate, brake, and see if there are other options.

It is conceivable that a car, traveling at a rate of speed normally reserved for highways, can come to a stop by simply using some of the concepts often associated with drifting. Brakes on a car, use friction. Applied equally to four tires, or more with a bigger vehicle, the brakes attempt to stop the car in time. But if the car suddenly turns to parallel its momentum remains forward (now away from the bikers), and friction (four tires now being stopped horizontally) might result in both the AI car driver being ok (needing four new tries but who cares at that point) and the motorcyclists being ok. There are patterns we as humans wouldn’t have time to process that the AI of a driverless car could.

It becomes an interesting future state question.

(PS, driverless doesn’t mean nobody in the driver’s seat of the car, just that for most situations the computer is driving the human is watching!)