Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Yes that’s the ticket.  The one thing is – if you use the same scripts / 
software etc that you develop to analyse this client’s data to do anything 
similar for another client (or then proceed to sell such software as a product) 
– well, there be dragons.

--srs

On 19/10/16, 11:50 PM, "silklist on behalf of Bhaskar Dasgupta" 
 wrote:

Happy to be corrected but I've used client data quite happily to provide 
additional services back to them. 

If I aggregate the data and flog it to others then I need permission 

 

Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Bhaskar Dasgupta]

Happy to be corrected but I've used client data quite happily to provide 
additional services back to them. 

If I aggregate the data and flog it to others then I need permission 

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
> 
> My bet is that any IP the company derives by making use of client data – even 
> for testing purposes – will very likely meet with a successful claim from the 
> customer’s IP / copyright attorneys.
> 
> Operational metrics are what the approval extends to.  NOT new product 
> development based on those metrics.
> 
> I think you’ll find a standard clause in most such contracts which state that 
> any tools, scripts or similar that the vendor develops for work / processing 
> of the customer data have IP assigned to the customer.
> 
> Gaining control of ALL the deliverables of any such outsourcing assignment is 
> generally standard best practice in the industry.
> 
> I am sure we have enough corporate / IP attorneys here who can comment.  
> Every other silk member seems to be an NLS alumnus or friends with one. ☺
> 
> --srs
> 
> On 19/10/16, 5:04 PM, "silklist on behalf of Bhaskar Dasgupta" 
>  bdasgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>The data belongs to the customer but the supplier has approval to use that 
> data. For operational metrics. 
> 
>What I suggested was to make that into a product instead of just a stupid 
> sla operational report. 
> 
>Jai ho
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [silk] revolutions: industrial, atomic, etc.

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Dave Long  wrote:

> Does anyone have over/under odds on the expected level of
> inter-ideological violence this century, compared with, say, 1914-1989?\
>


Hitler famously asked the Governor of Paris, "Brennt Paris?" (Is Paris
burning?) Previously Hitler had ordered the killing of I think, 20
Parisians for every German killed by the resistance. In the end they only
put to death a small fraction of that number.

In any case let's stick with 20:1 as the ratio of revenge that seemed an
adequate response even to Hitler in his manic end days.

Now taking a look at the informal statistics on IraqBodyCount.com
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/announcements/5/

We have,
*TOTAL IRAQI* *179,240*
US & Coalition military killed 2003–20134 4,804
US & Coalition foreign contractors killed 2003–20135 468
179240:5272

or,

34:1

We've actually gotten very good at killing since WW2, this book goes into
the why and how,

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
Paperback – June 22, 2009
by Dave Grossman
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932



When it comes to inter-racial, inter-civilizational battle the scale of
violence is really something else.

I've always found it odd that Paris didn't burn because there would be no
point, the war was over, but Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo did, precisely
because the war was over.

[silk] revolutions: industrial, atomic, etc.

[Dave Long]

2) Fewer people will need to work to do the "important stuff" ...
3) This will cause a change in ideology. Until now, we've had a  
dominant

notion that we need people to work. ...


When we humans developed tools to help with housework, our  
standards for cleanliness rose. As automation takes over more  
tasks, human attention will turn to all the things we currently  
neglect in order to take care of our basic needs. Lather, rinse,  
repeat.



Does anyone have over/under odds on the expected level of inter- 
ideological violence this century, compared with, say, 1914-1989?


-Dave

Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Heather Madrone]

Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:

On 19/10/16 06:50, Bhaskar Dasgupta wrote:

only issue is, how much will you get paid to just walk around? If we
want to take an example, see the wages of waiters…without minimum
wage floors, its impossible to survive. flip side, who will pay for
it? the average joe or mango man will have very little discretionary
funds to spend on stuff like this. even micro-payments wouldnt help,
you need a bare minimum to get some basics in place and the capacity
or desire to pay for this has gone. Look at our smart phones. besides
the phone itself, pretty much all the value add via the apps are
free. If I look at my app and i look at my interactions, extremely
little is actually being paid for to the creator. very very little.
and that also goes to large corporates who can scale up.


Well, hopefully, this will happen:

1) The cost of living will decrease. Technology should make food,
clothing, and healthcare cheap - and everything else is a luxury apart
from housing, which is a trickier issue. There's a housing bubble in the
UK, and rising population won't help. I feel the problem is human (how
we pay for housing) rather than physical (the actual cost of housing
everyone), however.


Housing costs in Japan are quite reasonable, even in Tokyo. The Japanese 
are able to do this by increasing housing stocks in parallel with the 
population. Other governments might take a tip from the Japanese and 
start planning for the population they have (and are likely to have) 
rather than one they wished they had.



2) Fewer people will need to work to do the "important stuff" (eg,
provide the essentials of living), thanks to automation. More and more
jobs will be in providing things we like, rather than things we need.


Also, things that we need but don't believe we can have. As a species, 
we have a lot of work to do in terms of figuring out how to live well on 
this planet. We could work to solve wars, riots, sexual assault, 
domestic violence, and acts of terrorism. We could work hard to figure 
out how to live on this planet sustainably. We could work on learning 
how to maintain our optimal physical, mental, social, emotional and 
spiritual health, and how to engineer society so that we can all easily 
and joyfully live wonderful lives.



3) This will cause a change in ideology. Until now, we've had a dominant
notion that we need people to work. But with more and more work being,
basically, just for fun (be it somebody else's fun or your own), this
idea should erode.


When we humans developed tools to help with housework, our standards for 
cleanliness rose. As automation takes over more tasks, human attention 
will turn to all the things we currently neglect in order to take care 
of our basic needs. Lather, rinse, repeat.



4) At that point, the idea of moving towards a universal basic income
becomes palatable. As a society, creating an environment where people
don't need to fight for ever scarcer jobs to survive starts to seem a
valid use of taxpayer's money. People can choose to just live, rather
than between "live to work or work to live".


Universal basic income is palatable now. We are holding so much creative 
energy down by insisting that everyone go out and hold miserable jobs in 
order to survive. Once freed of that need, people will find other 
worthwhile pursuits to fill their time.


Sure, some people will spin their wheels (at least for a time) and 
others will engage themselves in pursuits that other people don't 
approve of. Bringing a few really good ideas to fruition should more 
than pay for the ones who waste their time and the ideas that don't pan out.


We have some serious distribution problems.

--hmm

Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

My bet is that any IP the company derives by making use of client data – even 
for testing purposes – will very likely meet with a successful claim from the 
customer’s IP / copyright attorneys.

Operational metrics are what the approval extends to.  NOT new product 
development based on those metrics.

I think you’ll find a standard clause in most such contracts which state that 
any tools, scripts or similar that the vendor develops for work / processing of 
the customer data have IP assigned to the customer.

Gaining control of ALL the deliverables of any such outsourcing assignment is 
generally standard best practice in the industry.

I am sure we have enough corporate / IP attorneys here who can comment.  Every 
other silk member seems to be an NLS alumnus or friends with one. ☺

--srs

On 19/10/16, 5:04 PM, "silklist on behalf of Bhaskar Dasgupta" 
 wrote:

The data belongs to the customer but the supplier has approval to use that 
data. For operational metrics. 

What I suggested was to make that into a product instead of just a stupid 
sla operational report. 

Jai ho
 

Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Bhaskar Dasgupta]

The data belongs to the customer but the supplier has approval to use that 
data. For operational metrics. 

What I suggested was to make that into a product instead of just a stupid sla 
operational report. 

Jai ho

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 06:51, Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
> 
> If that data is their customers’ – it is NOT theirs to play with.
> 
> And any improvements and automation in such data can only be delivered right 
> back to their customer and nobody else, there’s enough NDAs around for that 
> plus serious penalties for when they try to leverage a resource they have 
> available in one team for another team.  TCS found that out the hard way in 
> that Kaiser Permanente case where a former member on their team for that 
> client continued to use his (still active and not shut down as their famed 
> process orientedness should have made them do) kp.com login credentials to 
> access tech support manuals on behalf of another client that he was not 
> licensed for.  And then shared that credential across several other teams, 
> including those that developed a competitor to that very software.  [add 
> “allegedly” to taste for all this, these are the allegations made by the 
> plaintiff against TCS anyway].
> 
> If there’s some software they make that they sell to customers, they would 
> have to be dumb indeed not to leverage the hilt out of any and every bit of 
> analytics and telemetry they get their hands on, but I’m the last person to 
> accuse more than one player in the Indian software industry of intelligence.
> 
> --srs
> 
> On 19/10/16, 11:06 AM, "silklist on behalf of Bhaskar Dasgupta" 
>  bdasgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>one of the examples I had asked to be funded was to leverage their data. 
> this company manages banking processes. what i wanted was to tie up with ISI 
> (not that one) and hire a small skunk work of data scientists and a data 
> design / visualisation centre. And then wanted to do what rolls royce have 
> done with their trent engines - they make a stupendous amount of money by 
> monitoring their engines on a real time basis in flight and saving airlines 
> shed loads of dosh. So i would’ve provided a set of tools, constantly 
> evolving, to the heads of operations on their process flows, heads of sales 
> on sales analytics, heads of product design on competitive features, and so 
> on and so forth. And once I have sufficient coverage, I can setup a banking 
> product market place. World Domination! result? god no, we cant pay these 
> phd’s that much! no? then you will lose them to american firms who can and 
> will. but that will cause the pay scales to be fucked up internally. ok, lets 
> spin off this firm. we don’t do spinoffs. why? 100% owned subsidiaries are 
> good and actually you can IPO it as their multiples will be better. Oh! that 
> decision is above my pay grade (this is the president of the division!) you 
> can fuck off. /facepalm. 
> 
>forget about creating new products, buggers don’t even leverage what they 
> have! they are sitting on a fucking gold mine of rivers of data (if you don’t 
> mind me mangling metaphors) and are happy to sit there and fish for minnows 
> or get paid lowly for tending the sodding river bank. 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 06:06, Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>> 
>> IT companies buying product companies in a desperate bid to innovate .. let 
>> us just say that I’ve seen a lot of that happen at a previous workplace.
>> 
>> The usual end result is that the founders and key employees quit in disgust 
>> after a while and those that are left are gradually absorbed into the 
>> company doing something totally different than what they set out to do.  
>> 
>> And meanwhile the product itself is killed off immediately, or maybe dies a 
>> slow and lingering death with a few legacy customers left behind and 
>> practically zero further development.
>> 
>> Big companies that don’t have DNA beyond being pushers of software that most 
>> if not all users have a visceral hatred for, and/or bloated services 
>> contracts, are absolutely not going to infuse any magical fresh DNA into 
>> them by acquiring successful product companies
>> 
>> The prospect of such foreign DNA taking root in the company is far less than 
>> in the case of an organ transplant – the sort you get in mad scientist 
>> movies where a scientist transplants human dna / tissue / whatever into an 
>> ape and suddenly ends up with a super intelligent planet of the apes or 
>> Gorilla Grodd variety animal.
>> 
>> Mohandas Pai is a smug and opinionated twit but he got one thing right 
>> though. The software industry didn’t die – it will survive and it will 
>> probably hang on, but the traditional indian (or even foreign) services 
>> model is long dead in favour of automation.  The only things that won’t be 
>> automated to a large extent are 

Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Depends on price points.

Out in the middle east, fewer people needed to work period – all the important 
stuff, right from building houses and hauling away trash to keeping the banks 
running were done by people falling on the scale between immigrant (labourer), 
skilled immigrant (person of color with suit and tie and qualifications) and 
expat (white dude with much the same skills as a skilled immigrant).

That didn’t get too far at all – despite impressive levels of automation and 
computerization.

On 19/10/16, 11:54 AM, "silklist on behalf of Alaric Snell-Pym" 
 wrote:

On 19/10/16 06:50, Bhaskar Dasgupta wrote:
> only issue is, how much will you get paid to just walk around? If we
> want to take an example, see the wages of waiters…without minimum
> wage floors, its impossible to survive. flip side, who will pay for
> it? the average joe or mango man will have very little discretionary
> funds to spend on stuff like this. even micro-payments wouldnt help,
> you need a bare minimum to get some basics in place and the capacity
> or desire to pay for this has gone. Look at our smart phones. besides
> the phone itself, pretty much all the value add via the apps are
> free. If I look at my app and i look at my interactions, extremely
> little is actually being paid for to the creator. very very little.
> and that also goes to large corporates who can scale up.

Well, hopefully, this will happen:

1) The cost of living will decrease. Technology should make food,
clothing, and healthcare cheap - and everything else is a luxury apart
from housing, which is a trickier issue. There's a housing bubble in the
UK, and rising population won't help. I feel the problem is human (how
we pay for housing) rather than physical (the actual cost of housing
everyone), however.

2) Fewer people will need to work to do the "important stuff" (eg,
provide the essentials of living), thanks to automation. More and more
jobs will be in providing things we like, rather than things we need.

3) This will cause a change in ideology. Until now, we've had a dominant
notion that we need people to work. But with more and more work being,
basically, just for fun (be it somebody else's fun or your own), this
idea should erode.

4) At that point, the idea of moving towards a universal basic income
becomes palatable. As a society, creating an environment where people
don't need to fight for ever scarcer jobs to survive starts to seem a
valid use of taxpayer's money. People can choose to just live, rather
than between "live to work or work to live".

ABS

-- 
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

Re: [silk] Bump in the road, or end of the road?

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 19/10/16 06:50, Bhaskar Dasgupta wrote:
> only issue is, how much will you get paid to just walk around? If we
> want to take an example, see the wages of waiters…without minimum
> wage floors, its impossible to survive. flip side, who will pay for
> it? the average joe or mango man will have very little discretionary
> funds to spend on stuff like this. even micro-payments wouldnt help,
> you need a bare minimum to get some basics in place and the capacity
> or desire to pay for this has gone. Look at our smart phones. besides
> the phone itself, pretty much all the value add via the apps are
> free. If I look at my app and i look at my interactions, extremely
> little is actually being paid for to the creator. very very little.
> and that also goes to large corporates who can scale up.

Well, hopefully, this will happen:

1) The cost of living will decrease. Technology should make food,
clothing, and healthcare cheap - and everything else is a luxury apart
from housing, which is a trickier issue. There's a housing bubble in the
UK, and rising population won't help. I feel the problem is human (how
we pay for housing) rather than physical (the actual cost of housing
everyone), however.

2) Fewer people will need to work to do the "important stuff" (eg,
provide the essentials of living), thanks to automation. More and more
jobs will be in providing things we like, rather than things we need.

3) This will cause a change in ideology. Until now, we've had a dominant
notion that we need people to work. But with more and more work being,
basically, just for fun (be it somebody else's fun or your own), this
idea should erode.

4) At that point, the idea of moving towards a universal basic income
becomes palatable. As a society, creating an environment where people
don't need to fight for ever scarcer jobs to survive starts to seem a
valid use of taxpayer's money. People can choose to just live, rather
than between "live to work or work to live".

ABS

-- 
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature