Information update

Friday, May 25, 2007

Green card dreams in trouble 24 May, 2007

NEW DELHI:
In the immigration debate that is sweeping the corridors of power in the US Capitol, skilled visas — or H1-B — may escape the really acrimonious exchanges.

But on the sacrificial pyre of the US immigration churn will probably fall the much loved and much desired 'green card'. There is a serious case for increasing the number of H1-B visas, though the House version of the immigration Bill barely mentioned them. The Senate version proposes raising the H1-B cap to 1,15,000 from the present 65,000, with optimists projecting an increase to 1,80,000 in future, but a decision on this is still pending.

It will be the green card holders that may face trouble. The centrepiece of the immigration reform, which is to legalise over 12 million illegal immigrants in the US including 3,00,000 Indians, may end up penalising legal immigrants. Indian-Americans don't win by numbers compared to illegal workers, but they are definitely an asset to the American society. Largely law abiding, highly motivated and skilled, by some estimates, these people are responsible for starting up to 25% of the companies in the Silicon Valley.

The new law proposes to restrict the current family-based immigration system that many Indian-Americans rely upon to join their families who live and work in the US.

While the legislation will open the doors for these Indian-Americans to live and work in the US, their future settlement will depend on their education, skills and how they benefit the US economy. Indian-American lobby groups claim this threatens their interests as it moves away from the family-oriented process, which is currently in place, and puts parents, children and siblings of citizens and green card holders in the firing line. The Bill may also completely wipe out the option of green cards for siblings and adult children of US citizens. It may even cap visas for parents of US citizens, besides eliminating the Diversity Lottery Programme, under which US grants 50,000 green cards on a random basis every year.

The Bill also requires applicants who filed their petitions after May 2005 to re-apply, resulting in processing delays. The shape of the Bill shows the more active and powerful lobbying abilities of Hispanic immigrants in the US. Indian immigrants form the largest number of legal and affluent immigrants, but their lobbying capabilities are clearly pathetic, because the proposed immigration Bill will actually target their interests, in the two most crucial aspects: hi-tech visas and green cards.

The bright side is that the US immigration system is moving the Australia and UK way — a merits-based system, under which immigrants with education, skills, backgrounds that benefit the US will be rewarded extra points. Immigrants will also be granted weightage on the basis of their English, technical skills and endorsement by US employers. All of this weighs in favour of Indians seeking to live and migrate to the US. In addition, the heated politics attending the immigration reform debate, particularly in the backdrop of forthcoming elections in the US, it's unlikely that H1-B visas will see a huge jump.

24 May, 2007 l 0326 hrs IST
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

What is Responsive Listening?

8:35 AM | by One4All | No comments

In yesterdays post on Conflict Resolution, one of the techniques mentioned is Responsive Listening and a few folks have e-mailed me on what does that mean?
Essentially it is a method of communication that facilitates problem-solving by using opening acknowledgements, non-responsive listening, confirmation responses, and feedback to help build understanding between the speaker and listener.

Recommended Use

Use Responsive Listening to:
· help a person identify and work through a problem, while keeping the problem with its owner,
· prevent or reduce misunderstandings in person-to-person communication,
· motivate staff through acceptance and empathy,
· help with conflict resolution.

Method

Part 1: UNDERSTAND THE USE OF RESPONSIVE LISTENING

Purpose of Responsive Listening

To listen responsively, listen with the intent of understanding, instead of replying. Use responsive listening to enhance the ability to:

· obtain information,
· identify problems,
· resolve conflicts,
· improve the accuracy of communication,
· solve problems,
· motivate the speaker.

Obtain Information

To obtain and retain information, concentrate on what is being said. We think faster than a person can speak. To increase retention and understanding, use the gap between thinking and speaking to make a mental summary of what was said, relate the information to personal experience, or organize the information into central ideas.

Identify Problems

The first step towards solving a problem is to identify and define the problem. Often a speaker will express a problem subtly. Look for non-verbal clues, provide non-judgmental feedback, and ask questions to help the person clarify the problem. It is important that the owner of the problem keep the responsibility of solving the problem. Avoid taking on a problem that is not yours while assisting with the clarification of the problem.

Resolve Conflicts

Listen carefully to a person that disagrees with you. If you listen, the other person will often listen as well. Frequently, people say the same thing in two different ways, but don’t bother to listen closely enough to realize they agree. If you are a mediator, encourage responsive listening on the part of the people who are part of the conflict.

Improve Communication

When giving information, use responsive listening to obtain feedback and ensure the recipient of the information understands the content. When receiving information, clarify your interpretation by restating your understanding of what the person is telling you.

Solve Problems

Frequently, a number of people work together to solve a problem. In such situations, it is important that each person’s ideas are heard without judgement. Each person must be allowed to speak without interruption. People cannot solve problems effectively when they feel they are being forced to change, or when they feel they are being judged, threatened, insulted, or analyzed. Also, when you listen to people and allow a free flow of ideas, they are more willing to speak and the number of creative ideas increases.

Motivate Others

Listening responsively conveys appreciation to the speaker and can motivate the person to take positive action, rather than negative.

Often a person needs an outlet for feelings of frustration or anger. Responsive listening allows a person to vent feelings without judgement. Expressing these feelings helps diminish them and can eliminate roadblocks to productivity.

Part 2: ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE LISTENING

Identify Barriers

Every person has experiences, values, and attitudes that can affect their ability to listen. To enhance responsive listening, identify and eliminate barriers that can decrease your willingness to listen. These barriers can include:

· the delivery of the message,
· biases,
· self-interest,
· prejudgment,
· distractions,
· daydreaming,
· failure to provide feedback or ask questions.

The Delivery of the Message

A nervous habit of a speaker or boring delivery can block listening. However, a good listener must focus on the content of a message, rather than how the message is delivered.

Biases

Often we hear only what we want to hear. Words that convey information that is contrary to our opinion can be very difficult to hear. Biases regarding the speaker may also affect our listening ability. Try to listen with an open mind.

Self Interest

We are sometimes so busy thinking of what to say next, we do not listen. In extreme cases, we do not let the speaker finish talking. Concentrate on understanding what the speaker is saying and ask questions to let the person know you are listening.

Prejudgment

Often we are too quick to decide what the message is. Let the speaker finish before you decide what is being said.

Distractions
Distractions make the speaker feel unimportant. Eliminate distractions whenever possible. For example, stop your phone calls if you are in a conference situation.

Daydreaming

People speak slower than we think, so there is time to daydream. Instead of daydreaming, stay involved. For example, during the gap, mentally summarize the ideas presented so far.

Failure to Provide Feedback or Ask Questions

Everyone has their own perspective, so the same words can mean different things to different people. Provide feedback and ask questions to ensure your understanding is the same as the meaning the speaker is trying to convey.

Part 3: HELP PEOPLE START TALKING

Ways to Encourage Talking

People do not want to feel that they are imposing on others. However, a person must start talking before his or her problem can be solved. The person with the problem needs to know that the listener is interested before he or she will continue talking. Use responsive listening to encourage a person to speak freely. For example, use:

· opening acknowledgements,
· passive listening,
· confirmation responses,
· non-judgmental feedback.

Opening Acknowledgements

Opening acknowledgements convey the message that the person with the problem is not an imposition and that the listener is interested. Opening acknowledgements tell the person with the problem that you want to hear more.

Examples of opening acknowledgements are:

· "Would you like to talk about it?"
· "Can I help?"
· "I would like to hear more."
· "I have some free time if you want to talk now."
· "This sounds interesting."

Passive Listening

Remaining silent is usually interpreted as interest and concern on the part of the listener. Often, saying nothing is enough encouragement for people to continue talking.

Confirmation Responses

If the listener is silent for too long, the speaker begins to wonder if the listener is really listening. Confirmation responses from the listener let the speaker know that the listener is listening, without influencing the speaker.

Common confirmation responses include:

· Nodding,
· Eye contact,
· "I see,"
· "Mm-hmm,"
· "Yes,"
· "Go on,"
· "Oh,"
· "Really,"
· "I understand."

Non-Judgmental Feedback

Give the listener non-judgmental feedback that allows the speaker to reflect on his or her thoughts. For example, "You feel the situation is hopeless," rather than "I agree the situation is hopeless." When the listener remains neutral, the speaker is left with the responsibility of deciding whether his or her feelings are valid.

Avoid judgmental responses that can make a person defensive, angry, or silent.

Part 4: DETERMINE WHEN TO USE RESPONSIVE LISTENING

Determine Amount of Responsive Listening

Responsive listening is not always appropriate. There are times, particularly if you are a manager, when you will have to give advice, ask questions, offer solutions, or provide direction. Also, too much responsive listening can seem insincere.

Too Much Feedback

It is not necessary to give non-judgmental feedback on every statement. Door openers, passive listening, and acknowledgement responses can be just as effective. Sometimes, the listener will not sufficiently understand the message of the speaker to provide feedback.

When Listening is not Enough

Responsive listening helps define the problem, but some situations require action on the part of the listener. For example, if an employee complains that staff meetings are running into overtime, causing her to miss her ride home, she requires action on your part to solve the problem. Listening is not enough. She cannot solve her own problem.

Listen When You Have Time

If you do not have the time to give your full attention to a person, you should ask him or her to come back when you can. You will both be better off if you meet when you can listen attentively. Employees will sense when you are distracted. Most problems can wait a few hours or even days until you are ready to devote the necessary time to help solve the problem.

When Listening is Necessary

It is not necessary that you always listen. It is necessary that when you listen, you do so with understanding, acceptance, and caring.

Example

1 – A HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATION

The effectiveness of Responsive Listening in keeping responsibility entirely with the problem owner (and at the same time be a catalyst to help the person work through the problem-solving process) comes through in the following dialogue between a supervisor and one of her subordinates.

Stewart: "Do you have a few minutes to give me some help on a problem, Nancy?"

Nancy: "Sure, Stewart. I have a half hour before a meeting. Is that enough?"

Stewart: "Oh, plenty. It's not a very complicated problem, but it's sure beginning to bother me."

Nancy: "You're really beginning to feel bothered by this problem?"

Stewart: "Yeah. I really am. I've got a woman working for me that really puzzles me. I just can't figure her out. I thought maybe you might know what to do with a person like her."

Nancy: "Sounds like you're really stumped."

Stewart: "Yeah. I've never seen anyone quite like her. Well, let's see. How should I describe her? She's very intelligent and she knows it. The trouble is, she thinks she has the answer to everything. If I make a suggestion to her, she always finds something wrong with it, some reason why it won't work."

Nancy: "You see her ideas as too novel or too unique or maybe you're saying they would require too much deviation from what you're used to doing on your project."

Stewart: "Well, I don't mind constructive suggestions occasionally. But she gives me the feeling, every single day, that our way of doing things is outmoded or old-fashioned!"

Nancy: "You don't like being made to feel you're behind the times."

Stewart: "Certainly not! Sometimes people coming right out of university have the idea that they know everything, that everything has to be changed. I get tired of hearing that all the time! They don't seem to appreciate the need for following procedures."

Nancy: "You hate to have to explain your reasons again and again, and you get fed up with her trying to pressure you to change things."

Stewart: "I sure do! I've got to admit that some of her ideas are not bad. After all, I should be pleased that she is taking such an interest in her work. I just wish I knew how to get her to appreciate the need for some of our procedures and not assume that everything we do is wrong."

Nancy: "You really value some of her ideas, but you want her to appreciate you."

Stewart: "I don't really need appreciation. We've got our share of problems, but what project doesn't? There just isn't time to deal with all of them."

Nancy: "You're aware of where improvements could be made, but you feel you can't find the time to tackle all those problems."

Stewart: "That's right. I guess we could schedule a special meeting some night after work."

Nancy: "That's a possibility, huh."

Stewart: "Yeah. Then I wouldn't be the only one who has to defend a lot of the things we're doing. The other people on the project might convince her."

Nancy: "You'd like to have others help you, and reach an agreement everyone can be happy with."

Stewart: "I sure would. And we might also make a few changes, which would be fine with me."

Nancy: "You're thinking that a meeting would help improve team communications and also uncover some areas for improvement in procedures."

Stewart: "Yes, I think so. We need to get together as a group more. I'm going to schedule a meeting next week. The earlier the better."

Nancy: "It's such a good idea, you want to move fast on this."

Stewart: "Yeah. I should be getting back to work now. I still have to figure out a way to solve the network problem we found yesterday. Thanks for hearing me out, Nancy."

Nancy: "You're welcome, Stewart."

Did you notice that Nancy never took the problem away from Stewart?

She listened empathetically, she used feedback after each of Stewart's messages, and she avoided being judgmental.

Stewart's lack of defensiveness was apparent, enabling him to come up with a solution that pleased him.

2 – JUDGMENTAL RESPONSES VERSUS RESPONSIVE LISTENING

Explanation Through Example

For each sample message below, two responses are given. The first response is an example of a judgmental response. The second response is an example of responsive listening. Pretend that you are the speaker and imagine your reaction to each response.

Praising, Buttering Up

Speaker: "Why am I always the one that gets assigned this task?"

Listener: "Because you do it so well."

Responsive Listening Response

Listener: "Sounds like you're ready to try something new."

Judging, Criticizing

Speaker: "That's the last time I go out on a limb in a meeting."

Listener: "Let's face it, John. You were out of line."

Responsive Listening Response

Listener: "You're sorry you spoke up during the meeting."

Moralizing, Preaching

Speaker: "Filling out this report is such a waste of time."

Listener: "It's something that has to be done."

Responsive Listening Response

Listener: "I gather, you're finding it too time-consuming and question its usefulness."

Reassuring

Speaker: "I don't feel I'm qualified to do the job."

Listener: "I know you can do it if you try."

Responsive Listening Response

Listener: "You're afraid it will be too much for you."

3 – RESPONSIVE LISTENING PRACTICE

Practice Exercises

Becoming a good listener requires practice. Everyday situations provide ample opportunity to practice responsive listening.

Respond to the speaker's messages below. Determine if any of your responses are judgmental.

Exercise 1

Speaker: "I'm never going to get all of my work done."

Responsive Listening Responses

"Sounds like you're afraid you'll miss your deadline."
"I gather you have a lot of work to do."
"You're wondering where you're going to find the time."

Exercise 2

Speaker: "I don't care what happens. I'm not working this weekend!"

Responsive Listening Responses

"Sounds like you don't want to work this weekend."
"You're afraid you'll be asked to work the weekend."
"It sounds like you've already made other plans."

Exercise 3

Speaker: "That meeting was such a waste of time."

Responsive Listening Responses

"You feel the meeting didn't accomplish anything."
"Sounds like you feel your time could have been better spent."
"You're feeling like you just wasted two hours of your time."

References

Gordon, Thomas Dr. Leader Effectiveness Training. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.

Craig Borysowich(Chief Technology Tactician) Posted 7/21/2006

Compiled vs. Interpreted Languages

8:06 AM | by One4All | No comments

Programming languages generally fall into one of two categories: Compiled or Interpreted. With a compiled language, code you enter is reduced to a set of machine-specific instructions before being saved as an executable file. With interpreted languages, the code is saved in the same format that you entered. Compiled programs generally run faster than interpreted ones because interpreted programs must be reduced to machine instructions at runtime.

However, with an interpreted language you can do things that cannot be done in a compiled language. For example, interpreted programs can modify themselves by adding or changing functions at runtime. It is also usually easier to develop applications in an interpreted environment because you don't have to recompile your application each time you want to test a small section.

So, which is DScript, compiled or interpreted? Actually, DScript is both. When you enter definitions in DScript, they are immediately reduced to a set of basic primitives. If you enter

x:=2+3
DScript reduces this to
_DEF(x,_ADD(2,3))

The original code you enter is discarded and only this simplified code is saved. When you open a saved application and view its node definitions, DScript decompiles the simplified code to generate a presentation that is similar to the code you originally entered.
When you execute an application, DScript interprets the reduced code at runtime. Therefore,

DScript is partly an interpreted language. However, code is interpreted only the first time it is executed. Every time after that, the compiled code is executed.

For example, consider the following loop:
for(var n=0; n<1000;>

In executing this code, each separate expression will be evaluated 1000 times. However, DScript will interpret the code only on the first iteration and use the compiled code for the remaining 999 iterations. Since virtually all CPU time a program consumes is used inside loops, this execution strategy significantly improves performance while maintaining the flexibility of an interpreted language.

Green Power: The U.S.'s Top 10 Cities

1:24 PM | by One4All | No comments

Green Power: The U.S.'s Top 10 Cities
oakland photo: in2jazz
Which of the United State's 50 biggest cities is the greenest when it comes to using renewable energy? Portland, Oregon? San Francisco, perhaps? Seattle? Nope. The top spot goes to Oakland, the city across the Bay from San Francisco whose gritty reputation belies its crunchy environmental policies. Oakland gets 17 percent of its electricity from renewable sources such as geothermal, solar and wind, according to SustainLane, a San Francisco firm that compiles data on government sustainability initiatives. Three other California cities tied for second place with 12 percent of their electricity generated from renewable sources: San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento.
Here's the rest of the list:
Portland, Oregon: 10 percent
Boston: 8.6 percent
San Diego: 8 percent
Austin: 6 percent
Los Angeles: 5 percent
Minneapolis: 4.5 percent
Seattle: 3.5 percent
Chicago: 2.5 percent
It's no accident that six of the top cities are in California. The Golden State has set aggressive renewable energy portfolio standards for its three big investor-owned utilities - PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE). And city-owned utilities like the Sacramento Municipal Utility District have been green-energy pioneers. One city to watch is Austin. The Texas capital's government has committed itself to going carbon neutral by 2020, and its municipal owned utility - Austin Energy, a leader in renewable energy - has been given a mandate to generate 100 megawatts of solar power and make all new plants zero emission.

The Twenty Largest Countries in the World

9:38 PM | by One4All | No comments

Feb 8 2006The Twenty Largest Countries in Area in the World by area, in both square kilometers and square miles.1. Russia: 17,075,200 km2 (6,591,027 mi2)2. Canada: 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,082 mi2)3. United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)4. China: 9,596,960 km2 (3,704,426 mi2)5. Brazil: 8,511,965 km2 (3,285,618 mi2)6. Australia: 7,686,850 km2 (2,967,124 mi2)7. India: 3,287,590 km2 (1,269,009 mi2)8. Argentina: 2,766,890 km2 (1,068,019 mi2)9. Kazakhstan: 2,717,300 km2 (1,048,877 mi2)10. Sudan: 2,505,810 km2 (967,243 mi2)11. Algeria: 2,381,740 km2 (919,352 mi2)12. Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 2,345,410 km2 (905,328 mi2)13. Mexico: 1,972,550 km2 (761,404 mi2)14. Saudi Arabia: 1,960,582 km2 (756,785 mi2)15. Indonesia: 1,919,440 km2 (740,904 mi2)16. Libya: 1,759,540 km2 (679,182 mi2)17. Iran: 1,648,000 km2 (636,128 mi2)18. Mongolia: 1,564,116 km2 (603,749 mi2)19. Peru: 1,285,220 km2 (496,095 mi2)20. Chad: 1,284,000 km2 (495,624 mi2)

Dec 7 2005
Countries with the Largest Population
This is a listing of the 23 most populous countries in the world (those having a population over fifty million). Data are estimates from mid-2005.

China - 1,306,313,812

India - 1,080,264,388

United States - 295,734,134

Indonesia - 241,973,879

Brazil - 186,112,794

Pakistan - 162,419,946

Bangladesh - 144,319,628

Russia - 143,420,309

Nigeria - 128,765,768

Japan - 127,417,244

Mexico - 106,202,903

Philippines - 87,857,473

Vietnam - 83,535,576

Germany - 82,431,390

Egypt - 77,505,756

Ethiopia - 73,053,286

Turkey - 69,660,559

Iran - 68,017,860

Thailand - 64,185,502

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 60,764,490

France - 60,656,178

United Kingdom - 60,441,457

Italy - 58,103,033

Source: U.S. Census Bureau International Data Base

The twenty largest countries in the world

9:29 PM | by One4All | No comments

Feb 8 2006
The Twenty Largest Countries in Area in the World by area, in both square kilometers and square miles.

1. Russia: 17,075,200 km2 (6,591,027 mi2)
2. Canada: 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,082 mi2)
3. United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)
4. China: 9,596,960 km2 (3,704,426 mi2)
5. Brazil: 8,511,965 km2 (3,285,618 mi2)
6. Australia: 7,686,850 km2 (2,967,124 mi2)
7. India: 3,287,590 km2 (1,269,009 mi2)
8. Argentina: 2,766,890 km2 (1,068,019 mi2)
9. Kazakhstan: 2,717,300 km2 (1,048,877 mi2)
10. Sudan: 2,505,810 km2 (967,243 mi2)
11. Algeria: 2,381,740 km2 (919,352 mi2)
12. Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 2,345,410 km2 (905,328 mi2)
13. Mexico: 1,972,550 km2 (761,404 mi2)
14. Saudi Arabia: 1,960,582 km2 (756,785 mi2)
15. Indonesia: 1,919,440 km2 (740,904 mi2)
16. Libya: 1,759,540 km2 (679,182 mi2)
17. Iran: 1,648,000 km2 (636,128 mi2)
18. Mongolia: 1,564,116 km2 (603,749 mi2)
19. Peru: 1,285,220 km2 (496,095 mi2)
20. Chad: 1,284,000 km2 (495,624 mi2)

-----

New Microsoft Browser Raises Google's Hackles

6:02 PM | by One4All | No comments

Source: The New York Times

May 1, 2006
New Microsoft Browser Raises Google's Hackles
By STEVE LOHR
With a $10 billion advertising market at stake, Google, the fast-rising Internet star, is raising objections to the way that it says Microsoft, the incumbent powerhouse of computing, is wielding control over Internet searching in its new Web browser.
Google, which only recently began beefing up its lobbying efforts in Washington, says it expressed concerns about competition in the Web search business in recent talks with the Justice Department and the European Commission, both of which have brought previous antitrust actions against Microsoft.
The new browser includes a search box in the upper-right corner that is typically set up to send users to Microsoft's MSN search service. Google contends that this puts Microsoft in a position to unfairly grab Web traffic and advertising dollars from its competitors.
The move, Google claims, limits consumer choice and is reminiscent of the tactics that got Microsoft into antitrust trouble in the late 1990's.
"The market favors open choice for search, and companies should compete for users based on the quality of their search services," said Marissa Mayer, the vice president for search products at Google. "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose."
Microsoft replies that Google is misreading its intentions and actions. It says the default settings in the browser, Internet Explorer 7, are easy to change. And it says the product was designed with consumers and many partners in mind — even though it might not be to the liking of Google, the leading search engine.
"Whatever behavior happened in the past, the guiding principle we had is that the user is in control," said Dean Hachamovitch, general manager of the Internet Explorer group.
Companies often talk with antitrust officials, and the talks do not imply that an investigation is imminent. But they do indicate that Google is pursuing every option in its escalating rivalry with Microsoft, which has already led to some public battles.
Last December, Google outbid Microsoft to remain the primary search service on America Online, paying $1 billion and taking a 5 percent stake in AOL. Last year, Microsoft sued Google to stop a star computer scientist and manager at Microsoft, Kai-Fu Lee, from working on search technology at Google. The suit was settled, and Mr. Lee runs Google's operations in China.
The browser that set off the latest dispute has been in development for some time, but Microsoft first made it available to the public for downloading last week in a test version. It is the first new release of Microsoft's browser in five years. A final version is expected to be released this summer and will be included in Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista, which is scheduled for release next January.
The focus of Google's concern is a slender box in the corner of the browser window that allows users to start a search directly instead of first going to the Web site of a search engine like Google, Yahoo or MSN. Typing a query and hitting "Enter" immediately brings up a page of results from a designated search engine.
That slice of on-screen real estate has the potential to be enormously valuable, and Microsoft is the landlord. Internet Explorer 7 is the first Microsoft browser to have a built-in search box, while other browsers like Firefox, Opera and Safari have had them for some time. Google estimates that the boxes, when available, are the starting point for 30 to 50 percent of a user's searches, making them a crucial gateway to the lucrative and fast-growing market for advertisements that appear next to search results.
Microsoft has lost some ground in the browser market in the last year, mainly to Firefox, which is a Google ally. But Microsoft still holds more than 80 percent of the market. And Internet Explorer 7 is expected to be extremely popular because it is an improvement over Microsoft's previous browser, and because Microsoft will promote downloads of it and include it in Windows Vista.
That gives Microsoft the potential to use the browser to steer substantial traffic, and business, to MSN and away from rivals. MSN handled 11 percent of searches in the United States in March, down slightly from a year earlier, according to Nielsen/Net Ratings, a market research firm. That put it well behind Google, which had a 49 percent share, and Yahoo, with 22 percent.
Microsoft insists it has no intention of deploying its browser as a weapon in the search wars. But Google suspects otherwise.
In meetings beginning last year, Google told Microsoft of its objections to the company's plans to set MSN as the default search engine in Internet Explorer 7, according to Ms. Mayer of Google. Yahoo raised similar objections in a meeting with Microsoft last year, according to a Yahoo employee who was briefed on the conversation. Yahoo declined to comment last week beyond a statement: "We would be concerned about any company's attempts to limit user choice or change user preferences without their knowledge, and believe others would share that concern."
With its objections unresolved, Google took the matter to antitrust authorities in Europe and the United States during the last month. It is not clear what, if anything, will come of the talks or how far Google is willing to push the issue.
In Europe, where Microsoft is challenging an antitrust decision against the company for its past behavior, the European Commission has already made inquiries about Microsoft's plans for Vista. Though it is now distributing Internet Explorer 7 separately, Microsoft has long maintained that its browser is part of its Windows operating system.
Google has informed the European antitrust authorities of its worry that "Microsoft's approach to setting search defaults in Internet Explorer 7 benefits Microsoft while taking away choice from users," said Steve Langdon, a spokesman for Google.
Google would not say specifically what it has discussed with American antitrust officials. "We have spoken to the Justice Department generally about our business and the importance of preserving competition in the search market," Mr. Langdon said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
The best way to handle the search box, Google asserts, would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7. It says that could be done by asking the user to either type in the name of their favorite search engine or choose from a handful of the most popular services, using a simple drop-down menu next to the search box.
The Firefox and Opera browsers come with Google set as the default, but Ms. Mayer said Google would support unfettered choice on those as well.
Microsoft replies that giving users an open-ended choice could add complexity and confusion to the browser set-up process, while offering a few options would be arbitrarily limiting.
Instead, those wanting to pick a new search-box option in the new browser need to click through a menu with options like "Get Search Providers," which links to a Web page with six search engines including Google and 16 "topic search" sites, from Amazon to MTV to Wal-Mart.
Mr. Hachamovitch, who led Microsoft's browser team, said MSN was not always the default search in Internet Explorer 7. When downloaded, the new browser inherits the settings from the old Microsoft browser, version 6. But the search default in that program was based on a feature called AutoSearch that Google says was not widely used.
Mr. Hachamovitch said Microsoft's user research and early reviews indicate that it is easy to change the default setting. "People seem to be O.K. with what we're doing," he said.
Google counters that claim with a study it sponsored that was conducted by Tec-Ed, a research firm. It found that only a third of users could master the four-click process to change the default.
Whether Microsoft's treatment of the search box will have an impact on the search market is uncertain. From an antitrust perspective, harm to competition is the litmus test, not just swinging a sharp elbow or two. There are many ways people get to search engines other than through a search box — for example, by typing google.com in the browser or making it their home page.
"Assume that everything Google says is true; the question then is whether Microsoft's conduct is really going to have a serious effect on Google," said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. "Obviously, Google thinks that it will."
Google is now a rich, powerful company in its own right, far larger than the browser pioneer Netscape Communications was when Microsoft set out to dominate the market it had created in the 1990's. In 2001, after a lengthy trial, a federal appeals court held that Microsoft had repeatedly violated antitrust laws as it tried to stifle the challenge from Netscape. Later, Microsoft reached a settlement with the Justice Department that freed personal computer makers from some restrictions Microsoft had placed on their use of software and services that compete with its own products.
When Internet Explorer 7 begins to be loaded on new machines next year, computer makers like Dell and Hewlett-Packard will be free to determine what search engines and other sites they feature in the browser's Web guide and search box.
That promises to be valuable screen real estate indeed, especially the coveted spot as the preferred search engine, which the computer makers are likely to sell to the highest bidder. Google and Yahoo have deep pockets, but no one can match Microsoft's spending power. "People will be bidding aggressively to get in that space," said Mr. Hachamovitch of Microsoft. "And that's a good thing."
John Markoff contributed reporting for this article.

New Microsoft Browser Raises Google's Hackles

6:01 PM | by One4All | No comments

Microsoft and Google Arms Race

6:01 PM | by One4All | No comments

Three Languages For Java Programmers

11:36 PM | by One4All | No comments

THURSDAY APRIL 27, 2006
Three Languages For Java Programmers
Dave Thomas, among others, has been saying for years that you can become a better Java programmer by getting out there and learning some other programming languages. The idea is that by knowing something about what the other guys are thinking you can think a little clearer yourself. I'd like to suggest three languages that I think every Java programmer should spend some time thinking about. Just to make it interesting, I'm going to describe each language first, before I tell you what it is. Here goes.
Behind Door Number One
Language number one is one of those dynamically typed, semicolon-less languages that have been all the rage lately. Programs written in this fully object oriented language tend to be much shorter than the equivalent Java. And you don't compile programs in this language, you just run the things. Like a lot of these dynamic languages, this one supports first class methods: You can pass a method, still bound to its original object, around as an object itself.
Language one also boasts some of those little features that are missing from Java. Operator overloading. A hash map object that is built right into the language. Default values for arguments.
My first language also has excellent XML support, a GUI that runs on all major platforms, as well as complete support for web services. It has all of these things because it is fully integrated into the Java VM. Anything Java can call, Jython, the language behind door number one, can call. Jython is so useful for building tests, for pulling quick Swing GUIs together, for trying out new Java API's interactively, that I am clueless as to why so few people use it or even know about it.
Behind Door Number Two
My second language is another one of those very high level things. Compared to language two, Jython is sort of a mainstream language. You can build objected oriented code with this language, but with a twist. Language two has a prototype based object model, which means you don't define a class, you define a prototype for your objects, a sort of master object to which all others of that 'class' link back to.
If anything, language two is more of a functional programming language than Jython. With the first class functions available in this language you can write whole programs that consist of nothing but functions which take functions as arguments and generate new functions as return values.
On the more pedestrian side, language two has a good regular expression library, networking support and is the subject of any number of easily available books. Give up? It's JavaScript. JavaScript is a real language! Yes there are umpteen million versions of it in the different browsers. Yes, it is easy to find layer upon layer of hacked up JavaScript out there. But it is a real language, and with the popularity of AJAX, we should probably spend some time figuring out what it is all about.
Behind Door Number Three
Behind our last door is a language what is emphatically not very high level. It is statically typed, object oriented, and very low level. There are objects and the objects have methods, but the methods are bizarre. Methods in this language lack both parameters and local variables in the usual sense. Instead, each method has a single, fixed sized array of values. When the method gets called, the parameter values are pushed into the first few slots of the array. The method can use the remaining slots to store local variables.
Along with the fixed size array, there is a stack. To do any kind of calculation on a parameter or a local variable, you need to push the value from the array onto the stack, operate on it, and pop it back onto the array.
Now here is the punch line: language number three is also totally integrated into the Java platform. In fact, it is the Java platform. Behind the third door we have Java bytecodes, the assembly language of the JVM. Back in the days of C and C++ there always seemed to be someone on every development team who knew the assembly language for the target machine. This person usually stood out as the engineer who had a unique perspective on the system. Well the JVM is our platform now and Java bytecodes are our assembly language. But most Java development teams have approximately zero developers who understand bytecodes. Perhaps you could be that person on your team.
Dave Thomas is right, we should go out and learn other programming languages. But we also need to have a better understanding of our own technical ecosystem, of languages like Jython which can extend the reach of Java, of JavaScript which, like it or not, we use all the time, and of Java bytecodes, the basis of every Java program.
Russ Olsen
Posted by rolsen ( Apr 27 2006, 07:38:31 AM EDT ) Permalink Comments [12]

Source: http://www.jroller.com/page/rolsen?entry=three_languages_for_java_programmers"

Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

9:29 PM | by One4All | No comments

Capability Maturity Model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.This article has been tagged since January 2006.
Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a collection of instructions an organization can follow with the purpose to gain better control over its Software development process.
The CMM ranks software development organizations in a hierarchy of five levels, each with a progressively greater capability of producing quality software. Each level is described as a level of maturity. Those 5 levels are equipped with different number of instructions to follow. If an organization is on level 1 (currently an estimated 75% of software development organizations exist at this level, which can be best described as chaotic [source as of May 10, 1998]), it only follows few of the instructions in CMM, if on level 5 it follows everything from CMM.
The CMM was developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. It has been used extensively for avionics software and for government projects since it was created in the mid-1980s.

hide

1 Maturity model

2 History

2.1 Context

2.2 Origins

2.3 Current state

2.4 Future direction

3 Levels of the CMM

3.1 Level 1 - Initial

3.2 Level 2 - Repeatable

3.3 Level 3 - Defined

3.4 Level 4 - Managed

3.5 Level 5 - Optimizing

3.6 Extensions

4 Process areas

5 Controversial aspects

5.1 Praise

5.2 Criticism

6 The most beneficial elements of CMM Level 2 and 3

7 See also

8 References

9 External links

(image placeholder)[edit]
Maturity model
A maturity model is a structured collection of elements that describe characteristics of effective processes. A maturity model provides:

a place to start

the benefit of a community’s prior experiences

a common language and a shared vision

a framework for prioritizing actions

a way to define what improvement means for your organization

A maturity model can be used as a benchmark for assessing different organizations for equivalent comparison.
The SEI has subsequently released a revised version known as the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI).
[edit]
History
Like best practices, the Capability Maturity Model was initially funded by military research, but its method of process improvement could not be more different. Where the best practices approach is "bottom up" and quite informal, the Capability Maturity Model is rigid, "top down", and prescriptive.
The United States Air Force funded a study at the Carnegie-Mellon Software Engineering Institute to create a model for the military to use as an objective evaluation of software subcontractors. The result was the Capability Maturity Model, published as Managing the Software Process in 1989. The CMM has since been revised and updated; version 1.1 is now in print and the entire text is available on-line at the SEI's Web site.
[edit]
Context
The term software originates from the idea that software is easy to change ("soft") in comparison to hardware, which was more difficult to change ("hard"). Another theory: software is soft in the sense that it is not tangible, unlike hardware, which we can replace and touch. In the 1970s, the field of software development saw significant growth as more organizations began to move to computerized information systems. With this significant growth, two events began unfolding.
The first event was that computerized information systems became commonplace and improved computer hardware allowed for more ambitious information system projects. Along with the improved computer hardware, new technologies and manufacturing processes resulted in cheaper, more reliable, and more flexible computer platforms and peripherials which in turn encouraged the use of information systems in more diverse applications.
The second event was the need for many more people to develop the software needed for the computers created by the explosion in the number of computer information systems due to the increased application of computers to organizational problems. This in turn meant that people with little experience in the art of developing computer software moved into that area of work. Not only was there increased demand for people to design and write computer software, there was also increased demand for people to manage these projects.
Many software projects failed due to inadequate processes and project management. This was primarily due to two causes. The first was software development, both the design and writing of computer software as well as the management of software development projects, did not have a large body of published work discussing software development and what work existed was not used by industry to any great extent.
The second cause was that as information systems became more commonplace and people became more ambitious in the application of computer systems to organizational problems. Projects attempted moved from well known areas such as accounting systems or inventory systems which involved primarily numbers and the embedding of an abstract model into a computing platform with software to applications which involved the movement of physical objects in the real world. In addition, software development teams ran into the problem of attempting to model complex systems, such as the complete information flows of an enterprise, within information systems. The sheer complexity of the problem led to project failure.
During the 1970s there were a number of proponents for a more scientific and professional practice. People such as Edward Yourdon, Larry Constantine, Gerald Weinberg, Tom DeMarco, and David Parnas published articles and books with research results in an attempt to professionalize the software development community.
Watts Humphrey's Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was described in the book Managing the Software Process (1989). The CMM as conceived by Watts Humphrey was based on the earlier work of Phil Crosby. Active development of the model by the SEI (US Dept. of Defence Software Engineering Institute) began in 1986.
The CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a contracted software project. Though it comes from the area of software development, it can be, has been and continues to be widely applied as a general model of the maturity of processes (e.g., ITIL service management processes) in IS/IT (and other) organisations.
The model identifies five levels of process maturity for an organisation: 1. Initial (chaotic, ad hoc, heroic) the starting point for use of a new process. 2. Repeatable (project management, process discipline) the process is used repeatedly. 3. Defined (institutionalised) the process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process. 4. Managed (quantified) process management and measurement takes place. 5. Optimising (process improvement) process management includes deliberate process optimisation/improvement.
Within each of these maturity levels are KPAs (Key Process Areas) which characterise that level, and for each KPA there are five definitions identified: 1. Goals 2. Commitment 3. Ability 4. Measurement 5. Verification
The KPAs are not necessarily unique to CMM, representing - as they do - the stages that organisations must go through on the way to becoming mature.
The SEI has defined a rigorous process assessment method to appraise how well a software development organisation meets the criteria for each level.
The assessment is supposed to be led by an authorised lead assessor. One way in which companies are supposed to use the model is first to assess their maturity level and then form a specific plan to get to the next level. Skipping levels is not allowed.
NB: The CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a contracted software project. It may be suited for that purpose. When it became a general model for software process improvement, there were many critics.
Shrinkwrap companies, which have also been called commercial offtheshelf firms or software package firms, included Borland, Claris, Apple, Symantec, Microsoft, and Lotus, amongst others. Many such companies rarely if ever managed their requirements documents as formally as the CMM described. This is a requirement to achieve level 2, and so all of these companies would probably fall into level 1 of the model.
[edit]
Origins
The United States Air Force funded a study at the SEI to create a model for the military to use as an objective evaluation of software subcontractors. In 1989, the Capability Maturity Model was published as Managing the Software Process.
Timeline

1987: SEI-87-TR-24 (SW-CMM questionnaire), released.

1989: Managing the Software Process, published.

1991: SW-CMM v1.0, released.

1993: SW-CMM v1.1, released.

1997: SW-CMM revisions halted in support for CMMI.

2000: CMMI v1.02, released.

2002: CMMI v1.1, released .

[edit]
Current state
Although these models have proved useful to many organizations, the use of multiple models has been problematic. Further, applying multiple models that are not integrated within and across an organization is costly in terms of training, appraisals, and improvement activities. The CMM Integration project was formed to sort out the problem of using multiple CMMs. The CMMI Product Team's mission was to combine three source models:

The Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) v2.0 draft C

The Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM)

The Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM) v0.98

Supplier sourcing

CMMI is the designated successor of the three source models. The SEI has released a policy to sunset the Software CMM. The same can be said for the SECM and the IPD-CMM. These models are expected to be succeeded by CMMI.
[edit]
Future direction
Suggestions for improving CMMI are welcomed by the SEI. For information on how to provide feedback, see the CMMI Web site.
[edit]
Levels of the CMM
(See chapter 2 of (March 2002 edition of CMMISM from SEI), page 11.)
There are five levels of the CMM. According to the SEI,
"Predictability, effectiveness, and control of an organization's software processes are believed to improve as the organization moves up these five levels. While not rigorous, the empirical evidence to date supports this belief."
[edit]
Level 1 - Initial
At maturity level 1, processes are usually ad hoc and the organization usually does not provide a stable environment. Success in these organizations depends on the competence and heroics of the people in the organization and not on the use of proven processes. In spite of this ad hoc, chaotic environment, maturity level 1 organizations often produce products and services that work; however, they frequently exceed the budget and schedule of their projects.
Maturity level 1 organizations are characterized by a tendency to over commit, abandon processes in the time of crisis, and not be able to repeat their past successes again.
[edit]
Level 2 - Repeatable
At maturity level 2, software development successes are repeatable. The organization may use some basic project management to track cost and schedule.
Process discipline helps ensure that existing practices are retained during times of stress. When these practices are in place, projects are performed and managed according to their documented plans.
Project status and the delivery of services are visible to management at defined points (for example, at major milestones and at the completion of major tasks).
Basic project management processes are established to track cost, schedule, and functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes on projects with similar applications.
[edit]
Level 3 - Defined
At maturity level 3, processes are well characterized and understood, and are described in standards, procedures, tools, and methods.
The organization’s set of standard processes, which is the basis for level 3, is established and improved over time. These standard processes are used to establish consistency across the organization. Projects establish their defined processes by the organization’s set of standard processes according to tailoring guidelines.
The organization’s management establishes process objectives based on the organization’s set of standard processes and ensures that these objectives are appropriately addressed.
A critical distinction between level 2 and level 3 is the scope of standards, process descriptions, and procedures. At level 2, the standards, process descriptions, and procedures may be quite different in each specific instance of the process (for example, on a particular project). At level 3, the standards, process descriptions, and procedures for a project are tailored from the organization’s set of standard processes to suit a particular project or organizational unit.
[edit]
Level 4 - Managed
Using precise measurements, management can effectively control the software development effort. In particular, management can identify ways to adjust and adapt the process to particular projects without measurable losses of quality or deviations from specifications.
Subprocesses are selected that significantly contribute to overall process performance. These selected subprocesses are controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques.
A critical distinction between maturity level 3 and maturity level 4 is the predictability of process performance. At maturity level 4, the performance of processes is controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques, and is quantitatively predictable. At maturity level 3, processes are only qualitatively predictable.
[edit]
Level 5 - Optimizing
Maturity level 5 focuses on continually improving process performance through both incremental and innovative technological improvements. Quantitative process-improvement objectives for the organization are established, continually revised to reflect changing business objectives, and used as criteria in managing process improvement. The effects of deployed process improvements are measured and evaluated against the quantitative process-improvement objectives. Both the defined processes and the organization’s set of standard processes are targets of measurable improvement activities.
Process improvements to address common causes of process variation and measurably improve the organization’s processes are identified, evaluated, and deployed.
Optimizing processes that are nimble, adaptable and innovative depends on the participation of an empowered workforce aligned with the business values and objectives of the organization. The organization’s ability to rapidly respond to changes and opportunities is enhanced by finding ways to accelerate and share learning.
A critical distinction between maturity level 4 and maturity level 5 is the type of process variation addressed. At maturity level 4, processes are concerned with addressing special causes of process variation and providing statistical predictability of the results. Though processes may produce predictable results, the results may be insufficient to achieve the established objectives. At maturity level 5, processes are concerned with addressing common causes of process variation and changing the process (that is, shifting the mean of the process performance) to improve process performance (while maintaining statistical probability) to achieve the established quantitative process-improvement objectives.
[edit]
Extensions
Recent versions of CMMI from SEI indicate a "level 0", characterized as "Incomplete". Many observers leave this level out as redundant or unimportant, but Pressman and others make note of it. See page 18 of the August 2002 edition of CMMI from SEI (Note: PDF file).
Anthony Finkelstein[1] extrapolated that negative levels are necessary to represent environments that are not only indifferent, but actively counterproductive, and this was refined by Tom Schorsch[2] as the Capability Immaturity Model:
[edit]
Process areas
For more details on this topic, see Process area (CMMI).
The CMMI contains several key process areas indicating the aspects of product development that are to be covered by company processes.

[edit]
Controversial aspects
The software industry is diverse and volatile. All methodologies for creating software have supporters and critics, and the CMM is no exception.
[edit]
Praise

The CMM was developed to give Defense organizations a yardstick to assess and describe the capability of software contractors to provide software on time, within budget, and to acceptable standards. It has arguably been successful in this role, even reputedly causing some software sales people to clamour for their organizations' software engineers/developers to "implement CMM."

The CMM is intended to enable an assessment of an organization's maturity for software development. It is an important tool for outsourcing and exporting software development work. Economic development agencies in India, Ireland, Egypt, and elsewhere have praised the CMM for enabling them to be able to compete for US outsourcing contracts on an even footing.

The CMM provides a good framework for organizational improvement. It allows companies to prioritize their process improvement initiatives.

[edit]
Criticism

CMM has failed to take over the world. It's hard to tell exactly how wide spread it is as the SEI only publishes the names and achieved levels of compliance of companies that have requested this information to be listed[3]. The most current Maturity Profile for CMMI is available online[4].

CMM is well suited for bureaucratic organizations such as government agencies, large corporations and regulated monopolies. If the organizations deploying CMM are large enough, they may employ a team of CMM auditors reporting their results directly to the executive level. (A practice encouraged by SEI.) The use of auditors and executive reports may influence the entire IT organization to focus on perfectly completed forms rather than application development, client needs or the marketplace. If the project is driven by a due date, CMMs intensive reliance on process and forms may become a hindrance to meeting the due date in cases where time to market with some kind of product is more important than achieving high quality and functionality of the product.

Suggestions of scientifically managing the software process with metrics only occur beyond the Fourth level. There is little validation of the processes cost savings to business other than a vague reference to empirical evidence. It is expected that a large body of evidence would show that adding all the business overhead demanded by CMM somehow reduces IT headcount, business cost, and time to market without sacrificing client needs.

No external body actually certifies a software development center as being CMM compliant. It is supposed to be an honest self-assessment ([5] and [6]).

The CMM does not describe how to create an effective software development organization. The CMM contains behaviors or best practices that successful projects have demonstrated. Being CMM compliant is not a guarantee that a project will be successful, however being compliant can increase a project's chances of being successful.

The CMM can seem to be overly bureaucratic, promoting process over substance. For example, for emphasizing predictability over service provided to end users. More commercially successful methodologies (for example, the Rational Unified Process) have focused not on the capability of the organization to produce software to satisfy some other organization or a collectively-produced specification, but on the capability of organizations to satisfy specific end user "use cases" as per the Object Management Group's UML (Unified Modeling Language) approach[7].

[edit]
The most beneficial elements of CMM Level 2 and 3

Creation of Software Specifications, stating what it is that is going to be developed, combined with formal sign off, an executive sponsor and approval mechanism. This is NOT a living document, but additions are placed in a deferred or out of scope section for later incorporation into the next cycle of software development.

A Technical Specification, stating how precisely the thing specified in the Software Specifications is to be developed will be used. This is a living document.

Peer Review of Code (Code Review) with metrics that allow developers to walk through an implementation, and to suggest improvements or changes. Note - This is problematic because the code has already been developed and a bad design can not be fixed by "tweaking", the Code Review gives complete code a formal approval mechanism.

Version Control - a very large number of organizations have no formal revision control mechanism or release mechanism in place.

The idea that there is a "right way" to build software, that it is a scientific process involving engineering design and that groups of developers are not there to simply work on the problem du jour.

[edit]
See also

Personal Software Process (PSP) and Team Software Process (TSP), two other process models also developed by the Software Engineering Institute to address individual and team software development respectively

[edit]
References