He’s a bit indignant that so much energy goes to sporting events like the Olympics rather than more important news that isn’t getting reported around the world.

This is in a year when tons of journalists are getting laid off.

This is in a year when there are tons of stories around the world that aren’t getting reported on.

Could we take half of those photographers and send them to Russia, for instance

Reminds me of a feeling I had back in college as an undergrad student studying social sciences and humanities, about the way my friends who were physicists interacted with the world. They were so awed by the stars, Mars, astrophysics, and it seemed to me interesting but altogether unimportant. They argued they may find something outside our planet that could help solve Earth-bound problems like disease, or find the origins of earth and humanity — but really they were doing it because they loved it. One of my friends had a good argument, though — there are enough people right now that we can specialize in what we care about, and there will still be others covering other topics. He could be a physicist and look into the universe’s origin, while I studied social interaction and writing, and our other friends looked into solving cancer or eradicating invasive plants in the native wetlands. We have to specialize, and there are enough of us to do it too.

I think it’s the same way in journalism — whether it’s sports, celebrity journalism, or coverage of politics and war, there are a lot of opportunities right now for journalists. Of course the business model is changing, and some old-schoolers won’t know how to roll with that, but generations change slowly; we’re learning.

Also, the Olympics is seen as more than a sporting event, it’s also a symbol of world competition and cooperation too — a way for countries to come together and share entertainment globally. I think that’s worth covering.

In the second post, Robert Scoble says there are plenty of great journalists but the public doesn’t care. In some ways I have to agree with that, but I don’t think it’s negative, necessarily. I had a conversation with someone the other day about world news reportage. He says, “I was just reading this story, but what does it matter to me if there’s a flood in some city in another country I’ll never visit and some farmer lost his sheep?” World news is only important when it’s relevant, so it’s no wonder that many people don’t care — if they don’t know much about the area, and it doesn’t affect them, they have no incentive to give it full attention. You can call that apathy, but I think it’s an important selectivity skill that humans have. We have to choose what to give priority to, so if nothing stands out as being particularly important, we just ignore it or gloss over it. Human nature…

Also I think the common person today just gets desensitized and doesn’t know where to turn their energy, when surrounded by so many crises. Either you focus on one specialty and do your best to work toward one cause in your life — and maybe that’s just in the course of your daily work — or you become a complete Attention-Deficit-Disorder case and bounce from one problem to the next, without knowing how to solve anything. That just causes a sense of bewilderment, despair, and either that bogs you down or eventually you get desensitized.

There’s a commenter on Scoble’s blog, Spencer, who talks about this generation’s apathy. There are so many people who want to blame today’s generation or the young generation for this “apathy” that they sense. But I see it as a survival mechanism that arises from the way information flows these days. We’re surrounded by crises, everyone wants us to know about them — the water shortage, global warming, death in Iraq, the national deficit. Okay, crisis, I get it. But no one gives a real clear idea on what any individual is really supposed to do to solve the problem. You can’t get involved with one global cause, without ignoring all the others, and if you do get involved it’s likely to become your life’s purpose. Most people are concerned with other things — their families, their work, personal development, their homes and futures, and really that’s enough to take up all their time.

I’m always amazed when I read about the early unionists. Emma Goldman for example, the activist who pushed for the 8-hr workday, and campaigned for free love in the early 1900s when women were still wearing corsets, used to work 16 hour factory days as a seamstress, then lead meetings late into the night. Today we lead cushy lives comparatively–8 hour days, plus commute and lunch, family time, dinner time, gym maybe, sleep… but it still doesn’t seem like we ever have enough energy and time.

What Emma had that most people today don’t, is a community living in the same conditions as herself, with clear goals about what they were campaigning for, and a cause that affected their own daily lives. Today, unionism and local activism is in much shorter supply, in part due to the many people who work fairly comfy desk jobs, and the problem that everyone has his own specialization, works in a cubicle, does his or her own thing. The problems we’re facing today in terms of global warming, global water shortage, aren’t the same kinds of problems that activists have fought for in the past, and there’s no clear road map for how to solve them. Our leaders sure aren’t leading the way.

What we do have, at least, is the Olympics, which is an age old symbol of international cooperation, play and competition…so, uh, go sports! As for full disclosure, I don’t actually have a TV and haven’t watched the Olympics in many years, but I do try taking short showers–does that help?

An interesting excerpt:

“CIOs have emphasized to us that they are buying on a need versus want basis, are often downsizing deals to fit with current budget constraints…In fact, contrary to general tightening in spending, purchases with an especially compelling ROI are being accelerated in the current environment.”

Hmm. Certainly we all understand prioritizing what to buy on need versus want– my friend who runs an art gallery that has only sold one piece in the past 2 months can certainly explain it. I “need” that Picasso? But does it take the entire economy slowing down before CIOs, even at Fortune 100 companies, to focus on ROI? So it’s not surprising what showed up at the top of the list for spending priorities for 2008-2009:

1. Server Virtualization
2. Server Consolidation
3. Cost Cutting

At the bottom of the list, grid computing and on-demand computing.

Compare this to last year’s spending survey where the top 10 priorities by rank were:

1. Applications integration
2. Security
3. Cost Cutting
4. BI
5. ERP
6. Web-based app development
7. Datacenter consolidation
8. Disaster Recovery
9. Compliance/risk management
10. Identity and access management

So in one year, the very hot “server virtualization” (and quite similar server consolidation) jumped to the top of the spending priority list. Can anyone have predicted just how much mindshare virtualization would capture in such a short time? Virtualization is not a new concept; it just seems that way. What will be # 1 next year?

ShareThis

Stacey Higginbotham adds a “dose of reality” to the cloud computing craze in her post on “10 Reasons Enterprises Aren’t Ready to Trust the Cloud”. Check the link for the full list which include security, portability and reliability. Cloud Computing – the next big thing, emphasis on “next”.

This just tickled my funny bone. And made me feel sorry for a certain technical marketing manager… But really, if it’s that hard to explain where the name came from, you’re not paying your marketing people enough. ;-p

As IT spending growth slows, virtualization (and the ROI it promises) rises to the top. According to a Goldman Sachs report, “server virtualization” and “consolidation” are the top priorities for technology executives. Goldman predicts the overall growth in spending to slip from “7 percent to 5 percent this year.”

Butler Group analyst Roy Illsley shares his advice for implementing holistic systems management or “simplification, so that the IT department can manage the technology stack at a higher level, and therefore enable it to manage a wider range of technologies more efficiently. Hmm… simplifying IT, breaking down silos, automation, visibility across heterogeneous infrastructure…sounds very very familiar.

ShareThis

Here's how it works: Inferno uses four frequencies spread out over 2 to 5 kHz. The idea behind it is that unlike a regular siren, these particular frequencies have a uniquely disturbing effect on people (and presumably cats, dogs and any other living thing). At 123 dB, it's loud, but not significantly louder than any other alarm system. The advantage, according to Dr. Goldman, is the combination of frequencies. The human ear just doesn't like it. I agree, I really didn't like it.

Note to the TSA: Dr. Goldman has had no problems bringing this thing onto airplanes.

I was looking at some of my favorite CEP companies this morning and noticed that Goldman Sachs analyst Derek Bingham just downgraded vendor TIBCO Software (TIBX) to Sell.

According to Bingham, here,

… customers will move away from buying more expensive “best-of-breed” offerings, like Tibco’’s products, and more toward buying less expensive “good enough” substitutes that are bundled with broader solutions from the likes of IBM, Oracle Corp. and SAP AG.

At the time of this post, TIBCO was down around 5 percent in premarket trading.

There are three important issues in this story — and in the sub-prime crisis in general — that all good risk management professionals know, and should keep in mind as often as possible.

1. Accepting risk can offer substantial competitive advantages. While some argue that Goldman Sachs got lucky on many of its assumptions, the company has a history of aggressive, intelligent risk taking. The lesson here, whether evaluating investments, business partners, emerging markets, or new technologies, is to effectively measure and understand risk exposure to know when it’s worth taking certain chances.

2. Risk management decisions are being closely watched. Customers, business partners, and investors alike have more access to risk management information than ever, thanks in part to rating agencies and regulatory filings. More risk-savvy media are also becoming more likely expose companies demonstrating poor risk management strategies or a lack of commitment to all stakeholders. Case in point, the Wall Street Journal questioned how clients will ultimately react knowing that Goldman Sachs profited greatly by betting against products the company continued to sell them.

3. Widespread risk management failures will get legislators’ attention. It’s still early to tell how far fallout from the sub-prime crisis will reach, but the number of consumers affected has already convinced lawmakers to get involved. We’ve seen other industry-wide risk management failures heading toward this level of attention with pharmaceutical, food, and toy companies. The risk of attracting tighter regulatory pressure should help encourage greater risk and compliance responsibility, and in some cases, cooperation around industry standards and best practices.

I was a big fan of Heroes last year and, to my surprise, it was a big hit even outside of the sci-fi, superhero, geek space.  The combination of the good stories, the new revelations each week and the soap-opera-like connections between the different characters appeared to a bit wider audience than might've been expected.

As Season 2 kicks off tonight, I'm jazzed to watch, but even more jazzed about the Fall TV legacy of Heroes!  What do I mean by that?  Well, when a show is popular and starts getting good ratings, what does it mean?  You can bet that TV executives will come up with shows in the same genre, shows that are similar, shows that try to change very part of the show to keep it similar, but make it just different enough to attract other viewers...  how else to explain the thousands of reality shows that bombard us?

So the legacy of Heroes that excites me is some of the shows in the fall lineup that might not have got the green light without the Heroes success last year.  Here are some I'm looking forward to, including the NBC Super Monday line-up (that is up against my wife's shows - Dancing with the Stars and the Bachelor - thank goodness for Media Center / DVRs).  This is premiere week and here is my lineup:

• Chuck - Monday 8pm / NBC - A Geek Squad, er Nerd Herd, manager teamed with a hot government agent to protect the nation.  Woot!
• Heroes - Monday 9pm / NBC
• Journeyman - Monday 10pm / NBC - about a guy who travels back in time and, presumably, makes changes that affect his life (and the plot) in the current time.
• Reaper - Tuesday 9pm / CW - What if your parents sold your soul to the devil before you were born?  I think its a comedy ... ;-)
• Pushing Daisies - Wednesday 8pm / ABC - Ned can bring folks back to life with a touch.  Of course, the downside is a second touch sends them back the embrace of death.  While teaming with a detective, Ned brings back his childhood sweetheart, who he can never touch or she'll die again...
• The Bionic Woman - Wednesday 9pm / NBC - A new Jaime Sommers hits the screen.  They should have cast Lindsay Wagner as the "Goldman" role...
• Smallville - Thursday 8pm / CW - Okay, it predates Heroes and probably paved the way for Heroes in the first place...
• Moonlight - Friday 9pm / CBS - Detective gets bitten by his Vampire bride 60 years ago, now fighting the good fight as undead detective Mick St. John.

At the same time, I'd like to have a moment of silence for Day Break and The Dresden Files, two excellent series from last year that didn't get renewed... and recognize that probably 5 of the 6 new shows I listed above will not make it into Season 2.