#this time it's about the paris library network which offers new book suggestions every month

[hedgehog-moss]

me sending yet another email to a French public service to ask them why they use so many gratuitous English words in a service that's supposed to be non-discriminatory and accessible to everyone in the country

[ucflibrary]

Women’s History Month began as a week-long celebration in Sonoma, California in 1978 which was centered around International Women’s Day on March 8. A year later during a women’s history conference at Sarah Lawrence College, participants learned how successful the week was and decided to initiate similar in their own areas. President Carter issued the first proclamation for a national Women’s History Week in 1980. In 1987, Congress (after being petitioned by the National Women’s History Project) passed Pub. L. 100-9 designating March as Women’s History Month. U.S. Presidents have issued proclamations on Women’s History Month since 1988.

 The University of Central Florida community joins together to celebrate Women’s History Month across multiple campuses with a wide variety of activities including the Women in STEM @ UCF panel discussion, a special screening of the student-produced film, Filthy Dreamers, and WomanFest 2020. You can also view the Women First at UCF Project on the display wall at the John C. Hitt Library. The project was a collaboration between UCF Libraries Special Collections and University Archives, Dr. M.C. Santana from the Women’s and Gender Studies Program, and Dr. Robert Cassanello from the Department of History. Full details about the project, exhibit reception information and the UCF Celebrates the Arts Panel can be found on the Libraries blog.

 Here at the UCF Libraries, we have created a list of books about women, both history and fiction, suggested by staff. Please click on the read more link below to see the full book list with descriptions and catalog links. And don’t forget to stop by the John C. Hitt Library to browse the featured bookshelf on the 2nd (main) floor near the bank of two elevators for additional Women’s History Month books and DVDs.

 Backwards and in Heels: the past, present and future of women working in film by Alicia Malone Women have been instrumental in the success of American cinema since its very beginning. One of the first people to ever pick up a motion picture camera was a woman. As was the first screenwriter to win two Academy Awards, the inventor of the boom microphone and the first person to be credited with the title Film Editor. Throughout the entire history of Hollywood women have been revolutionizing, innovating, and shaping how we make movies. Yet their stories are rarely shared. Film reporter Alicia Malone tells the history of women in film in a different way, with stories about incredible ladies who made their mark throughout each era of Hollywood. From the first women directors, to the iconic movie stars, and present-day activists. Each of these stories are inspiring in the accomplishments of women, and they also highlight the specific obstacles women have had to face. Suggested by Richard Harrison, Research & Information Services

 Burn it Down: women writing about anger edited by Lilly Dancyger A rich, nuanced exploration of women's anger from a diverse group of writers. Women are furious, and we're not keeping it to ourselves any longer. We're expected to be composed and compliant, but in a world that would strip us of our rights, disparage our contributions, and deny us a seat at the table of authority, we're no longer willing to quietly seethe behind tight smiles. We're ready to burn it all down. Suggested by Megan Haught, Student Learning & Engagement/Research & Information Services

 Dreaming in French: the Paris years of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, Susan Sontag, and Angela Davis by Alice Kaplan A year in Paris . . . since World War II, countless American students have been lured by that vision—and been transformed by their sojourn in the City of Light.  Dreaming in French tells three stories of that experience, and how it changed the lives of three extraordinary American women. Suggested by Richard Harrison, Research & Information Services

 Fair Labor Lawyer: the remarkable life of New Deal attorney and Supreme Court Advocate Bessie Margolin by Marlene Trestman Through a life that spanned every decade of the twentieth century, Supreme Court advocate Bessie Margolin shaped modern American labor policy while creating a place for female lawyers in the nation's highest courts. Despite her beginnings in an orphanage and her rare position as a southern, Jewish woman pursuing a legal profession, Margolin became an important and influential Supreme Court advocate. Suggested by Richard Harrison, Research & Information Services

 Hill Women: finding family and a way forward in the Appalachian Mountains by Cassie Chambers Appalachian women face issues that are all too common: domestic violence, the opioid crisis, a world that seems more divided by the day. But they are also community leaders, keeping their towns together in the face of a system that continually fails them. With nuance and heart, Chambers uses these women’s stories paired with her own journey to break down the myth of the hillbilly and illuminate a region whose poor communities, especially women, can lead it into the future. Suggested by Anna Dvorecky, Cataloging

 Invisible: the forgotten story of the black woman lawyer who took down America's most powerful mobster by Stephen L. Carter Eunice Hunton Carter, Stephen Carter’s grandmother, was raised in a world of stultifying expectations about race and gender, yet by the 1940s, her professional and political successes had made her one of the most famous black women in America. But her triumphs were shadowed by prejudice and tragedy. Greatly complicating her rise was her difficult relationship with her younger brother, Alphaeus, an avowed Communist who—together with his friend Dashiell Hammett—would go to prison during the McCarthy era. Yet she remained unbowed. Suggested by Katy Miller, Student Learning & Engagement

 Lactivism: how feminists and fundamentalists, hippies and yuppies, and physicians and politicians made breastfeeding big business and bad policy by Courtney Jung Political scientist Courtney Jung offers the most deeply researched and far-reaching critique of breastfeeding advocacy to date. Drawing on her own experience as a devoted mother who breastfed her two children and her expertise as a social scientist, Jung investigates the benefits of breastfeeding and asks why so many people across the political spectrum are passionately invested in promoting it, even as its health benefits have been persuasively challenged. What emerges is an eye-opening story about class and race in America, the big business of breastfeeding, and the fraught politics of contemporary motherhood. Suggested by Sandy Avila, Research & Information Services

 My Antonia by Willa Cather Set in rural Nebraska, Willa Cather’s book is both the story of an enduring friendship and a brilliant portrayal of the lives of rural pioneers in the late-nineteenth century. Suggested by Larry Cooperman, Research & Information Services

 My Own Words by Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Mary Hartnett and Wendy W. Williams In this collection, Justice Ginsburg discusses gender equality, the workings of the Supreme Court, being Jewish, law and lawyers in opera, and the value of looking beyond US shores when interpreting the US Constitution. This book’s sampling is selected by Justice Ginsburg and her authorized biographers Mary Hartnett and Wendy W. Williams, who introduce each chapter and provide biographical context and quotes gleaned from hundreds of interviews they have conducted. Suggested by Sandy Avila, Research & Information Services

 Text Me When You Get Home: the evolution and triumph of modern female friendship by Kayleen Schaefer journalist Kayleen Schaefer interviews more than one hundred women about their BFFs, soulmates, girl gangs, and queens while tracing this cultural shift through the lens of pop culture. Our love for each other is reflected in Abbi and Ilana, Issa and Molly, #squadgoals, the acclaim of Girls Trip and Big Little Lies, and Galentine’s Day.

Suggested by Megan Haught, Student Learning & Engagement/Research & Information Services

 The Alice Network by Kate Quinn In an enthralling new historical novel from national bestselling author Kate Quinn, two women—a female spy recruited to the real-life Alice Network in France during World War I and an unconventional American socialite searching for her cousin in 1947—are brought together in a mesmerizing story of courage and redemption. Suggested by Kelly Young, Administration

 The Future is Feminist: radical, funny, and inspiring writing by women edited by Mallory Farrugia A star-studded roster of iconic women write powerfully about what it means to be a feminist yesterday, today, and tomorrow. These poets, essayists, activists, actors, and professors address topics ranging from workplace harassment to resting bitch face. The results are by turns refreshing, provocative, moving, and hilarious. A diverse chorus of intersectional voices and a forward-looking stance set this book apart. It's the smart, covetable anthology that women of all ages will turn to for support and inspiration in the ongoing fight for gender equality. Suggested by Jada Reyes, Research & Information Services

 The Making of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by Daisy Hay Frankenstein was inspired by the extraordinary people surrounding the eighteen-year-old author and by the places and historical dramas that formed the backdrop of her youth. Featuring manuscripts, portraits, illustrations, and artifacts, this work explores the novel’s time and place, the people who inspired its characters, the relics of its long afterlife, and the notebooks in which it was created. Hay strips Frankenstein back to its constituent parts to reveal an uneven novel written by a young woman deeply engaged in the process of working out what she thought about the pressing issues of her time: from science, politics, religion, and slavery to maternity, the imagination, creativity, and community. Suggested by Jada Reyes, Research & Information Services

 The Other Einstein by Marie Benedict In the tradition of The Paris Wife and Mrs. Poe, this book offers us a window into a brilliant, fascinating woman whose light was lost in Einstein's enormous shadow. It is the story of Einstein's wife, a brilliant physicist in her own right, whose contribution to the special theory of relativity is hotly debated and may have been inspired by her own profound and very personal insight. Suggested by Kelly Young, Administration

 The Women Who Flew for Hitler: a true story of soaring ambition and searing rivalry by Clare Mulley Hanna Reitsch and Melitta von Stauffenberg were talented, courageous, and strikingly attractive women who fought convention to make their names in the male-dominated field of flight in 1930s Germany. With the war, both became pioneering test pilots and were awarded the Iron Cross for service to the Third Reich. But they could not have been more different and neither woman had a good word to say for the other. Suggested by Kelly Young, Administration

 Womanish: a grown black woman speaks on love and life by Kim McLarin Searing in its emotional honesty, this essay collection explores what it means to be a black woman in today’s turbulent times. Writing with candor, wit and vulnerability on topics including dating after divorce, depression, parenting older children, the Obama’s, and the often fraught relations between white and black women, McLarin unveils herself at the crossroads of being black, female and middle-aged, and, ultimately, American. Powerful and timely, it draws upon a lifetime of experiences to paint a portrait of a black woman trying to come to terms with the world around her, and of a society trying to come to terms with black women. Suggested by Megan Haught, Student Learning & Engagement/Research & Information Services

[teiraymondmccoy78]

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

Denis Pitcher, The Fintech Column

Published Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 am (Updated Jan 4, 2019 at 7:35 am)

Denis Pitcher

The year was 1995. Then computing expert and 20-year internet user Clifford Stoll published an article in Newsweek magazine outlining why the internet would not live up to the growing sense of hype.

It was titled The internet? Bah! — Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and never will be, nirvana”.

It’s easy to look back and laugh in hindsight at how astonishingly wrong some of his predictions were, although it is also curious how stunningly accurate some less obvious predictions were. It goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future and that no one really knows how things will actually turn out.

Mr Stoll summarised the hype by suggesting: “Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities.

“Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.”

Mr Stoll called this out as being inaccurate and unrealistic. “No online database will replace your daily newspaper,” he proclaimed.

He poked fun at the idea that a clunky computer could replace a pleasant book. “Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the internet. Uh, sure.”

He continued by lambasting the idea of online shopping as unrealistic. “We’re promised instant catalogue shopping — just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.

“So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire internet handles in a month?”

In time, Mr Stoll has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong on those points.

“Enough so that for a 20-year recap in 2015 with The Los Angeles Times that he told the reporter he hasn’t read the piece since it was originally published.

That is unfortunate, as hidden within his predictions are some gems of accuracy.

He lamented that the internet made it so that “every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly” and warned that it can be overwhelming and predicted much of what we experience today with social media.

“The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.”

He also accurately predicted some of the modern-day challenges of identifying facts versus fiction.

“Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

He was right, as much as we have progressed, it has still brought new challenges.

Predicting the future is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of hype and it can be difficult to sift through it all.

If you had read Mr Stoll’s piece shortly after the e-commerce bubble burst most of his predictions would have been very prescient.

Given more time, it has become more muddied. Some of his predictions have been startlingly inaccurate and yet others were the opposite.

In time, more of his predictions may prove false and others may prove to be more true than we had realised. How long that could take is unknown.

What is clear is that “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” weren’t magic that fixed all human woes; they were a complex representation of a future we had yet to really understand.

They were confusing enough that we simply don’t use these terms any more because they were a catch-all for everything to the point where they became meaningless.

This brings us back to the predictions of today around cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

In the same way it was difficult to predict the future of the internet and to understand how it would change our lives 20-plus years in the future, the same could be said of blockchain.

We simply don’t know what the future has to hold.

A leading figure in local industry recently told me he wasn’t convinced that cryptocurrencies or digital assets had any merit for Bermuda’s future.

“I understand blockchain”, he told me, assuring me that he saw a future in blockchain, but not digital assets.

The example he gave was curious. He had read that Hilton was pioneering work with blockchain and stood out as a real example of the application of the technology. I was curious and a bit sceptical.

What multiparty trust problem does Hilton have that it is aiming to solve? He wasn’t able to provide specifics, but was convinced that blockchains are good, digital assets and crypto are bad, and that Hilton was proof.

The trouble is that the only case of Hilton working with blockchain I could find was a company looking to create a property revenue management system powered by a loyalty token that announced a partnership with Hilton a month before it was to do an initial coin offering.

Rick Hilton, Paris Hilton’s father and a cryptocurrency buff, was also announced prominently as an adviser in its white paper.

Interestingly, its ICO was supposed to be two weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with two other ICO issuers, and since then there has been zero communications from the company and the ICO does not seem to have happened.

I couldn’t find any other blockchain projects being performed by Hilton, so it leaves me curious.

Did this individual simply read about this project and assume that because Hilton is behind it that it must confirm his views that blockchain has value, but cryptocurrencies do not?

This, purely because of his apparent admiration for the Hilton brand? Perhaps, perhaps not, although it is a common theme in this space. People seem to jump to believing what they want to, rather than digging into the details.

Months ago, The Economist proclaimed: “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless — for blockchains, the jury is still out.”

The challenge, however, is that there is no clear agreement on what “blockchain” actually means.

There are some who would argue a blockchain without a cryptocurrency is really a distributed ledger, not a blockchain. There is a tremendous amount of confusion and oversimplification that leaves the term rather meaningless.

The challenge is like that of Mr Stoll, who was well versed in the technology, saw mostly what it was then rather than the change that it could bring.

It is really hard to predict and understand because it is changing at such a rapid pace.

I have studied blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for years and wouldn’t come close to claiming that I “understand” it.

The more I learn, the more I realise I simply don’t know.

I recognise that this technology is far more than a “glorified Excel spreadsheet”, as leading sceptics such as Nouriel Roubini claim.

As a result, I have evolved my views on the industry countless times as I continue to gain knowledge and, most importantly, try to keep an open mind to any possible outcome.

Understanding this technology requires a fundamental understanding of the building blocks of distributed systems, cryptography, politics and economics.

These fields are complex and broad, which makes understanding blockchain no easy feat.

Made worse is when the word itself is reduced to a meaningless catch-all phrase. It has become a massively overhyped buzzword in the same way “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” were in the days of Stoll’s article.

There is certainly a lot of hype that in the short term could be proven wrong, but in the long term could be proven right as the technology evolves. The challenge is that it is really hard to predict the future.

You can’t simply look at it as it is today and assume it won’t continue to evolve. Thus, it is hard to truly understand the implications of how these new technologies will affect the world over the long term.

Even worse, purported experts completely have the potential to be proven wrong over the long term, this writer included.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and misconceptions. Eventually, we’ll see how it all pans out and how the world really is changed by this new technology and the concepts being built around it.

In the meantime, I’m particularly glad that Mr Stoll was wrong about the opportunity to telecommute; the reason being that I’ve been thankful to work on and submit this edition of my column while travelling over the holidays and know that many who read it will do so over the World Wide Web of cyberspace.

Even if we don’t use any of those overhyped buzzwords to describe it any more.

• Denis Pitcher is a software and technology solutions consultant with an interest in exploring the potential of blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies. He is also tech co-founder and chief architect of resQwest.com, a global tourism technology solutions provider. He can be reached at mail@denispitcher.com

Source link http://bit.ly/2saY7oB

[courtneyvbrooks87]

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

Denis Pitcher, The Fintech Column

Published Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 am (Updated Jan 4, 2019 at 7:35 am)

Denis Pitcher

The year was 1995. Then computing expert and 20-year internet user Clifford Stoll published an article in Newsweek magazine outlining why the internet would not live up to the growing sense of hype.

It was titled The internet? Bah! — Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and never will be, nirvana”.

It’s easy to look back and laugh in hindsight at how astonishingly wrong some of his predictions were, although it is also curious how stunningly accurate some less obvious predictions were. It goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future and that no one really knows how things will actually turn out.

Mr Stoll summarised the hype by suggesting: “Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities.

“Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.”

Mr Stoll called this out as being inaccurate and unrealistic. “No online database will replace your daily newspaper,” he proclaimed.

He poked fun at the idea that a clunky computer could replace a pleasant book. “Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the internet. Uh, sure.”

He continued by lambasting the idea of online shopping as unrealistic. “We’re promised instant catalogue shopping — just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.

“So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire internet handles in a month?”

In time, Mr Stoll has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong on those points.

“Enough so that for a 20-year recap in 2015 with The Los Angeles Times that he told the reporter he hasn’t read the piece since it was originally published.

That is unfortunate, as hidden within his predictions are some gems of accuracy.

He lamented that the internet made it so that “every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly” and warned that it can be overwhelming and predicted much of what we experience today with social media.

“The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.”

He also accurately predicted some of the modern-day challenges of identifying facts versus fiction.

“Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

He was right, as much as we have progressed, it has still brought new challenges.

Predicting the future is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of hype and it can be difficult to sift through it all.

If you had read Mr Stoll’s piece shortly after the e-commerce bubble burst most of his predictions would have been very prescient.

Given more time, it has become more muddied. Some of his predictions have been startlingly inaccurate and yet others were the opposite.

In time, more of his predictions may prove false and others may prove to be more true than we had realised. How long that could take is unknown.

What is clear is that “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” weren’t magic that fixed all human woes; they were a complex representation of a future we had yet to really understand.

They were confusing enough that we simply don’t use these terms any more because they were a catch-all for everything to the point where they became meaningless.

This brings us back to the predictions of today around cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

In the same way it was difficult to predict the future of the internet and to understand how it would change our lives 20-plus years in the future, the same could be said of blockchain.

We simply don’t know what the future has to hold.

A leading figure in local industry recently told me he wasn’t convinced that cryptocurrencies or digital assets had any merit for Bermuda’s future.

“I understand blockchain”, he told me, assuring me that he saw a future in blockchain, but not digital assets.

The example he gave was curious. He had read that Hilton was pioneering work with blockchain and stood out as a real example of the application of the technology. I was curious and a bit sceptical.

What multiparty trust problem does Hilton have that it is aiming to solve? He wasn’t able to provide specifics, but was convinced that blockchains are good, digital assets and crypto are bad, and that Hilton was proof.

The trouble is that the only case of Hilton working with blockchain I could find was a company looking to create a property revenue management system powered by a loyalty token that announced a partnership with Hilton a month before it was to do an initial coin offering.

Rick Hilton, Paris Hilton’s father and a cryptocurrency buff, was also announced prominently as an adviser in its white paper.

Interestingly, its ICO was supposed to be two weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with two other ICO issuers, and since then there has been zero communications from the company and the ICO does not seem to have happened.

I couldn’t find any other blockchain projects being performed by Hilton, so it leaves me curious.

Did this individual simply read about this project and assume that because Hilton is behind it that it must confirm his views that blockchain has value, but cryptocurrencies do not?

This, purely because of his apparent admiration for the Hilton brand? Perhaps, perhaps not, although it is a common theme in this space. People seem to jump to believing what they want to, rather than digging into the details.

Months ago, The Economist proclaimed: “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless — for blockchains, the jury is still out.”

The challenge, however, is that there is no clear agreement on what “blockchain” actually means.

There are some who would argue a blockchain without a cryptocurrency is really a distributed ledger, not a blockchain. There is a tremendous amount of confusion and oversimplification that leaves the term rather meaningless.

The challenge is like that of Mr Stoll, who was well versed in the technology, saw mostly what it was then rather than the change that it could bring.

It is really hard to predict and understand because it is changing at such a rapid pace.

I have studied blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for years and wouldn’t come close to claiming that I “understand” it.

The more I learn, the more I realise I simply don’t know.

I recognise that this technology is far more than a “glorified Excel spreadsheet”, as leading sceptics such as Nouriel Roubini claim.

As a result, I have evolved my views on the industry countless times as I continue to gain knowledge and, most importantly, try to keep an open mind to any possible outcome.

Understanding this technology requires a fundamental understanding of the building blocks of distributed systems, cryptography, politics and economics.

These fields are complex and broad, which makes understanding blockchain no easy feat.

Made worse is when the word itself is reduced to a meaningless catch-all phrase. It has become a massively overhyped buzzword in the same way “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” were in the days of Stoll’s article.

There is certainly a lot of hype that in the short term could be proven wrong, but in the long term could be proven right as the technology evolves. The challenge is that it is really hard to predict the future.

You can’t simply look at it as it is today and assume it won’t continue to evolve. Thus, it is hard to truly understand the implications of how these new technologies will affect the world over the long term.

Even worse, purported experts completely have the potential to be proven wrong over the long term, this writer included.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and misconceptions. Eventually, we’ll see how it all pans out and how the world really is changed by this new technology and the concepts being built around it.

In the meantime, I’m particularly glad that Mr Stoll was wrong about the opportunity to telecommute; the reason being that I’ve been thankful to work on and submit this edition of my column while travelling over the holidays and know that many who read it will do so over the World Wide Web of cyberspace.

Even if we don’t use any of those overhyped buzzwords to describe it any more.

• Denis Pitcher is a software and technology solutions consultant with an interest in exploring the potential of blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies. He is also tech co-founder and chief architect of resQwest.com, a global tourism technology solutions provider. He can be reached at mail@denispitcher.com

Source link http://bit.ly/2saY7oB

[bobbynolanios88]

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

Denis Pitcher, The Fintech Column

Published Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 am (Updated Jan 4, 2019 at 7:35 am)

Denis Pitcher

The year was 1995. Then computing expert and 20-year internet user Clifford Stoll published an article in Newsweek magazine outlining why the internet would not live up to the growing sense of hype.

It was titled The internet? Bah! — Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and never will be, nirvana”.

It’s easy to look back and laugh in hindsight at how astonishingly wrong some of his predictions were, although it is also curious how stunningly accurate some less obvious predictions were. It goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future and that no one really knows how things will actually turn out.

Mr Stoll summarised the hype by suggesting: “Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities.

“Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.”

Mr Stoll called this out as being inaccurate and unrealistic. “No online database will replace your daily newspaper,” he proclaimed.

He poked fun at the idea that a clunky computer could replace a pleasant book. “Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the internet. Uh, sure.”

He continued by lambasting the idea of online shopping as unrealistic. “We’re promised instant catalogue shopping — just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.

“So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire internet handles in a month?”

In time, Mr Stoll has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong on those points.

“Enough so that for a 20-year recap in 2015 with The Los Angeles Times that he told the reporter he hasn’t read the piece since it was originally published.

That is unfortunate, as hidden within his predictions are some gems of accuracy.

He lamented that the internet made it so that “every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly” and warned that it can be overwhelming and predicted much of what we experience today with social media.

“The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.”

He also accurately predicted some of the modern-day challenges of identifying facts versus fiction.

“Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

He was right, as much as we have progressed, it has still brought new challenges.

Predicting the future is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of hype and it can be difficult to sift through it all.

If you had read Mr Stoll’s piece shortly after the e-commerce bubble burst most of his predictions would have been very prescient.

Given more time, it has become more muddied. Some of his predictions have been startlingly inaccurate and yet others were the opposite.

In time, more of his predictions may prove false and others may prove to be more true than we had realised. How long that could take is unknown.

What is clear is that “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” weren’t magic that fixed all human woes; they were a complex representation of a future we had yet to really understand.

They were confusing enough that we simply don’t use these terms any more because they were a catch-all for everything to the point where they became meaningless.

This brings us back to the predictions of today around cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

In the same way it was difficult to predict the future of the internet and to understand how it would change our lives 20-plus years in the future, the same could be said of blockchain.

We simply don’t know what the future has to hold.

A leading figure in local industry recently told me he wasn’t convinced that cryptocurrencies or digital assets had any merit for Bermuda’s future.

“I understand blockchain”, he told me, assuring me that he saw a future in blockchain, but not digital assets.

The example he gave was curious. He had read that Hilton was pioneering work with blockchain and stood out as a real example of the application of the technology. I was curious and a bit sceptical.

What multiparty trust problem does Hilton have that it is aiming to solve? He wasn’t able to provide specifics, but was convinced that blockchains are good, digital assets and crypto are bad, and that Hilton was proof.

The trouble is that the only case of Hilton working with blockchain I could find was a company looking to create a property revenue management system powered by a loyalty token that announced a partnership with Hilton a month before it was to do an initial coin offering.

Rick Hilton, Paris Hilton’s father and a cryptocurrency buff, was also announced prominently as an adviser in its white paper.

Interestingly, its ICO was supposed to be two weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with two other ICO issuers, and since then there has been zero communications from the company and the ICO does not seem to have happened.

I couldn’t find any other blockchain projects being performed by Hilton, so it leaves me curious.

Did this individual simply read about this project and assume that because Hilton is behind it that it must confirm his views that blockchain has value, but cryptocurrencies do not?

This, purely because of his apparent admiration for the Hilton brand? Perhaps, perhaps not, although it is a common theme in this space. People seem to jump to believing what they want to, rather than digging into the details.

Months ago, The Economist proclaimed: “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless — for blockchains, the jury is still out.”

The challenge, however, is that there is no clear agreement on what “blockchain” actually means.

There are some who would argue a blockchain without a cryptocurrency is really a distributed ledger, not a blockchain. There is a tremendous amount of confusion and oversimplification that leaves the term rather meaningless.

The challenge is like that of Mr Stoll, who was well versed in the technology, saw mostly what it was then rather than the change that it could bring.

It is really hard to predict and understand because it is changing at such a rapid pace.

I have studied blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for years and wouldn’t come close to claiming that I “understand” it.

The more I learn, the more I realise I simply don’t know.

I recognise that this technology is far more than a “glorified Excel spreadsheet”, as leading sceptics such as Nouriel Roubini claim.

As a result, I have evolved my views on the industry countless times as I continue to gain knowledge and, most importantly, try to keep an open mind to any possible outcome.

Understanding this technology requires a fundamental understanding of the building blocks of distributed systems, cryptography, politics and economics.

These fields are complex and broad, which makes understanding blockchain no easy feat.

Made worse is when the word itself is reduced to a meaningless catch-all phrase. It has become a massively overhyped buzzword in the same way “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” were in the days of Stoll’s article.

There is certainly a lot of hype that in the short term could be proven wrong, but in the long term could be proven right as the technology evolves. The challenge is that it is really hard to predict the future.

You can’t simply look at it as it is today and assume it won’t continue to evolve. Thus, it is hard to truly understand the implications of how these new technologies will affect the world over the long term.

Even worse, purported experts completely have the potential to be proven wrong over the long term, this writer included.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and misconceptions. Eventually, we’ll see how it all pans out and how the world really is changed by this new technology and the concepts being built around it.

In the meantime, I’m particularly glad that Mr Stoll was wrong about the opportunity to telecommute; the reason being that I’ve been thankful to work on and submit this edition of my column while travelling over the holidays and know that many who read it will do so over the World Wide Web of cyberspace.

Even if we don’t use any of those overhyped buzzwords to describe it any more.

• Denis Pitcher is a software and technology solutions consultant with an interest in exploring the potential of blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies. He is also tech co-founder and chief architect of resQwest.com, a global tourism technology solutions provider. He can be reached at mail@denispitcher.com

Source link http://bit.ly/2saY7oB

[mccartneynathxzw83]

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

Denis Pitcher, The Fintech Column

Published Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 am (Updated Jan 4, 2019 at 7:35 am)

Denis Pitcher

The year was 1995. Then computing expert and 20-year internet user Clifford Stoll published an article in Newsweek magazine outlining why the internet would not live up to the growing sense of hype.

It was titled The internet? Bah! — Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and never will be, nirvana”.

It’s easy to look back and laugh in hindsight at how astonishingly wrong some of his predictions were, although it is also curious how stunningly accurate some less obvious predictions were. It goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future and that no one really knows how things will actually turn out.

Mr Stoll summarised the hype by suggesting: “Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities.

“Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.”

Mr Stoll called this out as being inaccurate and unrealistic. “No online database will replace your daily newspaper,” he proclaimed.

He poked fun at the idea that a clunky computer could replace a pleasant book. “Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the internet. Uh, sure.”

He continued by lambasting the idea of online shopping as unrealistic. “We’re promised instant catalogue shopping — just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.

“So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire internet handles in a month?”

In time, Mr Stoll has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong on those points.

“Enough so that for a 20-year recap in 2015 with The Los Angeles Times that he told the reporter he hasn’t read the piece since it was originally published.

That is unfortunate, as hidden within his predictions are some gems of accuracy.

He lamented that the internet made it so that “every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly” and warned that it can be overwhelming and predicted much of what we experience today with social media.

“The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.”

He also accurately predicted some of the modern-day challenges of identifying facts versus fiction.

“Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

He was right, as much as we have progressed, it has still brought new challenges.

Predicting the future is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of hype and it can be difficult to sift through it all.

If you had read Mr Stoll’s piece shortly after the e-commerce bubble burst most of his predictions would have been very prescient.

Given more time, it has become more muddied. Some of his predictions have been startlingly inaccurate and yet others were the opposite.

In time, more of his predictions may prove false and others may prove to be more true than we had realised. How long that could take is unknown.

What is clear is that “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” weren’t magic that fixed all human woes; they were a complex representation of a future we had yet to really understand.

They were confusing enough that we simply don’t use these terms any more because they were a catch-all for everything to the point where they became meaningless.

This brings us back to the predictions of today around cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

In the same way it was difficult to predict the future of the internet and to understand how it would change our lives 20-plus years in the future, the same could be said of blockchain.

We simply don’t know what the future has to hold.

A leading figure in local industry recently told me he wasn’t convinced that cryptocurrencies or digital assets had any merit for Bermuda’s future.

“I understand blockchain”, he told me, assuring me that he saw a future in blockchain, but not digital assets.

The example he gave was curious. He had read that Hilton was pioneering work with blockchain and stood out as a real example of the application of the technology. I was curious and a bit sceptical.

What multiparty trust problem does Hilton have that it is aiming to solve? He wasn’t able to provide specifics, but was convinced that blockchains are good, digital assets and crypto are bad, and that Hilton was proof.

The trouble is that the only case of Hilton working with blockchain I could find was a company looking to create a property revenue management system powered by a loyalty token that announced a partnership with Hilton a month before it was to do an initial coin offering.

Rick Hilton, Paris Hilton’s father and a cryptocurrency buff, was also announced prominently as an adviser in its white paper.

Interestingly, its ICO was supposed to be two weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with two other ICO issuers, and since then there has been zero communications from the company and the ICO does not seem to have happened.

I couldn’t find any other blockchain projects being performed by Hilton, so it leaves me curious.

Did this individual simply read about this project and assume that because Hilton is behind it that it must confirm his views that blockchain has value, but cryptocurrencies do not?

This, purely because of his apparent admiration for the Hilton brand? Perhaps, perhaps not, although it is a common theme in this space. People seem to jump to believing what they want to, rather than digging into the details.

Months ago, The Economist proclaimed: “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless — for blockchains, the jury is still out.”

The challenge, however, is that there is no clear agreement on what “blockchain” actually means.

There are some who would argue a blockchain without a cryptocurrency is really a distributed ledger, not a blockchain. There is a tremendous amount of confusion and oversimplification that leaves the term rather meaningless.

The challenge is like that of Mr Stoll, who was well versed in the technology, saw mostly what it was then rather than the change that it could bring.

It is really hard to predict and understand because it is changing at such a rapid pace.

I have studied blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for years and wouldn’t come close to claiming that I “understand” it.

The more I learn, the more I realise I simply don’t know.

I recognise that this technology is far more than a “glorified Excel spreadsheet”, as leading sceptics such as Nouriel Roubini claim.

As a result, I have evolved my views on the industry countless times as I continue to gain knowledge and, most importantly, try to keep an open mind to any possible outcome.

Understanding this technology requires a fundamental understanding of the building blocks of distributed systems, cryptography, politics and economics.

These fields are complex and broad, which makes understanding blockchain no easy feat.

Made worse is when the word itself is reduced to a meaningless catch-all phrase. It has become a massively overhyped buzzword in the same way “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” were in the days of Stoll’s article.

There is certainly a lot of hype that in the short term could be proven wrong, but in the long term could be proven right as the technology evolves. The challenge is that it is really hard to predict the future.

You can’t simply look at it as it is today and assume it won’t continue to evolve. Thus, it is hard to truly understand the implications of how these new technologies will affect the world over the long term.

Even worse, purported experts completely have the potential to be proven wrong over the long term, this writer included.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and misconceptions. Eventually, we’ll see how it all pans out and how the world really is changed by this new technology and the concepts being built around it.

In the meantime, I’m particularly glad that Mr Stoll was wrong about the opportunity to telecommute; the reason being that I’ve been thankful to work on and submit this edition of my column while travelling over the holidays and know that many who read it will do so over the World Wide Web of cyberspace.

Even if we don’t use any of those overhyped buzzwords to describe it any more.

• Denis Pitcher is a software and technology solutions consultant with an interest in exploring the potential of blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies. He is also tech co-founder and chief architect of resQwest.com, a global tourism technology solutions provider. He can be reached at mail@denispitcher.com

Source link http://bit.ly/2saY7oB

[adrianjenkins952wblr]

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

Denis Pitcher, The Fintech Column

Published Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 am (Updated Jan 4, 2019 at 7:35 am)

Denis Pitcher

The year was 1995. Then computing expert and 20-year internet user Clifford Stoll published an article in Newsweek magazine outlining why the internet would not live up to the growing sense of hype.

It was titled The internet? Bah! — Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and never will be, nirvana”.

It’s easy to look back and laugh in hindsight at how astonishingly wrong some of his predictions were, although it is also curious how stunningly accurate some less obvious predictions were. It goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future and that no one really knows how things will actually turn out.

Mr Stoll summarised the hype by suggesting: “Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities.

“Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.”

Mr Stoll called this out as being inaccurate and unrealistic. “No online database will replace your daily newspaper,” he proclaimed.

He poked fun at the idea that a clunky computer could replace a pleasant book. “Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the internet. Uh, sure.”

He continued by lambasting the idea of online shopping as unrealistic. “We’re promised instant catalogue shopping — just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.

“So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire internet handles in a month?”

In time, Mr Stoll has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong on those points.

“Enough so that for a 20-year recap in 2015 with The Los Angeles Times that he told the reporter he hasn’t read the piece since it was originally published.

That is unfortunate, as hidden within his predictions are some gems of accuracy.

He lamented that the internet made it so that “every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly” and warned that it can be overwhelming and predicted much of what we experience today with social media.

“The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.”

He also accurately predicted some of the modern-day challenges of identifying facts versus fiction.

“Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

He was right, as much as we have progressed, it has still brought new challenges.

Predicting the future is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of hype and it can be difficult to sift through it all.

If you had read Mr Stoll’s piece shortly after the e-commerce bubble burst most of his predictions would have been very prescient.

Given more time, it has become more muddied. Some of his predictions have been startlingly inaccurate and yet others were the opposite.

In time, more of his predictions may prove false and others may prove to be more true than we had realised. How long that could take is unknown.

What is clear is that “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” weren’t magic that fixed all human woes; they were a complex representation of a future we had yet to really understand.

They were confusing enough that we simply don’t use these terms any more because they were a catch-all for everything to the point where they became meaningless.

This brings us back to the predictions of today around cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

In the same way it was difficult to predict the future of the internet and to understand how it would change our lives 20-plus years in the future, the same could be said of blockchain.

We simply don’t know what the future has to hold.

A leading figure in local industry recently told me he wasn’t convinced that cryptocurrencies or digital assets had any merit for Bermuda’s future.

“I understand blockchain”, he told me, assuring me that he saw a future in blockchain, but not digital assets.

The example he gave was curious. He had read that Hilton was pioneering work with blockchain and stood out as a real example of the application of the technology. I was curious and a bit sceptical.

What multiparty trust problem does Hilton have that it is aiming to solve? He wasn’t able to provide specifics, but was convinced that blockchains are good, digital assets and crypto are bad, and that Hilton was proof.

The trouble is that the only case of Hilton working with blockchain I could find was a company looking to create a property revenue management system powered by a loyalty token that announced a partnership with Hilton a month before it was to do an initial coin offering.

Rick Hilton, Paris Hilton’s father and a cryptocurrency buff, was also announced prominently as an adviser in its white paper.

Interestingly, its ICO was supposed to be two weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with two other ICO issuers, and since then there has been zero communications from the company and the ICO does not seem to have happened.

I couldn’t find any other blockchain projects being performed by Hilton, so it leaves me curious.

Did this individual simply read about this project and assume that because Hilton is behind it that it must confirm his views that blockchain has value, but cryptocurrencies do not?

This, purely because of his apparent admiration for the Hilton brand? Perhaps, perhaps not, although it is a common theme in this space. People seem to jump to believing what they want to, rather than digging into the details.

Months ago, The Economist proclaimed: “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless — for blockchains, the jury is still out.”

The challenge, however, is that there is no clear agreement on what “blockchain” actually means.

There are some who would argue a blockchain without a cryptocurrency is really a distributed ledger, not a blockchain. There is a tremendous amount of confusion and oversimplification that leaves the term rather meaningless.

The challenge is like that of Mr Stoll, who was well versed in the technology, saw mostly what it was then rather than the change that it could bring.

It is really hard to predict and understand because it is changing at such a rapid pace.

I have studied blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for years and wouldn’t come close to claiming that I “understand” it.

The more I learn, the more I realise I simply don’t know.

I recognise that this technology is far more than a “glorified Excel spreadsheet”, as leading sceptics such as Nouriel Roubini claim.

As a result, I have evolved my views on the industry countless times as I continue to gain knowledge and, most importantly, try to keep an open mind to any possible outcome.

Understanding this technology requires a fundamental understanding of the building blocks of distributed systems, cryptography, politics and economics.

These fields are complex and broad, which makes understanding blockchain no easy feat.

Made worse is when the word itself is reduced to a meaningless catch-all phrase. It has become a massively overhyped buzzword in the same way “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” were in the days of Stoll’s article.

There is certainly a lot of hype that in the short term could be proven wrong, but in the long term could be proven right as the technology evolves. The challenge is that it is really hard to predict the future.

You can’t simply look at it as it is today and assume it won’t continue to evolve. Thus, it is hard to truly understand the implications of how these new technologies will affect the world over the long term.

Even worse, purported experts completely have the potential to be proven wrong over the long term, this writer included.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and misconceptions. Eventually, we’ll see how it all pans out and how the world really is changed by this new technology and the concepts being built around it.

In the meantime, I’m particularly glad that Mr Stoll was wrong about the opportunity to telecommute; the reason being that I’ve been thankful to work on and submit this edition of my column while travelling over the holidays and know that many who read it will do so over the World Wide Web of cyberspace.

Even if we don’t use any of those overhyped buzzwords to describe it any more.

• Denis Pitcher is a software and technology solutions consultant with an interest in exploring the potential of blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies. He is also tech co-founder and chief architect of resQwest.com, a global tourism technology solutions provider. He can be reached at mail@denispitcher.com

Source link http://bit.ly/2saY7oB

[vanessawestwcrtr5]

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

The danger of blockchain as a catch-all phrase

Denis Pitcher, The Fintech Column

Published Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 am (Updated Jan 4, 2019 at 7:35 am)

Denis Pitcher

The year was 1995. Then computing expert and 20-year internet user Clifford Stoll published an article in Newsweek magazine outlining why the internet would not live up to the growing sense of hype.

It was titled The internet? Bah! — Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and never will be, nirvana”.

It’s easy to look back and laugh in hindsight at how astonishingly wrong some of his predictions were, although it is also curious how stunningly accurate some less obvious predictions were. It goes to show how difficult it is to predict the future and that no one really knows how things will actually turn out.

Mr Stoll summarised the hype by suggesting: “Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities.

“Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.”

Mr Stoll called this out as being inaccurate and unrealistic. “No online database will replace your daily newspaper,” he proclaimed.

He poked fun at the idea that a clunky computer could replace a pleasant book. “Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the internet. Uh, sure.”

He continued by lambasting the idea of online shopping as unrealistic. “We’re promised instant catalogue shopping — just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obsolete.

“So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire internet handles in a month?”

In time, Mr Stoll has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong on those points.

“Enough so that for a 20-year recap in 2015 with The Los Angeles Times that he told the reporter he hasn’t read the piece since it was originally published.

That is unfortunate, as hidden within his predictions are some gems of accuracy.

He lamented that the internet made it so that “every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly” and warned that it can be overwhelming and predicted much of what we experience today with social media.

“The cacophony more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harassment and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen.”

He also accurately predicted some of the modern-day challenges of identifying facts versus fiction.

“Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

He was right, as much as we have progressed, it has still brought new challenges.

Predicting the future is incredibly difficult. There is a lot of hype and it can be difficult to sift through it all.

If you had read Mr Stoll’s piece shortly after the e-commerce bubble burst most of his predictions would have been very prescient.

Given more time, it has become more muddied. Some of his predictions have been startlingly inaccurate and yet others were the opposite.

In time, more of his predictions may prove false and others may prove to be more true than we had realised. How long that could take is unknown.

What is clear is that “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” weren’t magic that fixed all human woes; they were a complex representation of a future we had yet to really understand.

They were confusing enough that we simply don’t use these terms any more because they were a catch-all for everything to the point where they became meaningless.

This brings us back to the predictions of today around cryptocurrencies and blockchain.

In the same way it was difficult to predict the future of the internet and to understand how it would change our lives 20-plus years in the future, the same could be said of blockchain.

We simply don’t know what the future has to hold.

A leading figure in local industry recently told me he wasn’t convinced that cryptocurrencies or digital assets had any merit for Bermuda’s future.

“I understand blockchain”, he told me, assuring me that he saw a future in blockchain, but not digital assets.

The example he gave was curious. He had read that Hilton was pioneering work with blockchain and stood out as a real example of the application of the technology. I was curious and a bit sceptical.

What multiparty trust problem does Hilton have that it is aiming to solve? He wasn’t able to provide specifics, but was convinced that blockchains are good, digital assets and crypto are bad, and that Hilton was proof.

The trouble is that the only case of Hilton working with blockchain I could find was a company looking to create a property revenue management system powered by a loyalty token that announced a partnership with Hilton a month before it was to do an initial coin offering.

Rick Hilton, Paris Hilton’s father and a cryptocurrency buff, was also announced prominently as an adviser in its white paper.

Interestingly, its ICO was supposed to be two weeks after the Securities and Exchange Commission settled with two other ICO issuers, and since then there has been zero communications from the company and the ICO does not seem to have happened.

I couldn’t find any other blockchain projects being performed by Hilton, so it leaves me curious.

Did this individual simply read about this project and assume that because Hilton is behind it that it must confirm his views that blockchain has value, but cryptocurrencies do not?

This, purely because of his apparent admiration for the Hilton brand? Perhaps, perhaps not, although it is a common theme in this space. People seem to jump to believing what they want to, rather than digging into the details.

Months ago, The Economist proclaimed: “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless — for blockchains, the jury is still out.”

The challenge, however, is that there is no clear agreement on what “blockchain” actually means.

There are some who would argue a blockchain without a cryptocurrency is really a distributed ledger, not a blockchain. There is a tremendous amount of confusion and oversimplification that leaves the term rather meaningless.

The challenge is like that of Mr Stoll, who was well versed in the technology, saw mostly what it was then rather than the change that it could bring.

It is really hard to predict and understand because it is changing at such a rapid pace.

I have studied blockchain and distributed ledger technologies for years and wouldn’t come close to claiming that I “understand” it.

The more I learn, the more I realise I simply don’t know.

I recognise that this technology is far more than a “glorified Excel spreadsheet”, as leading sceptics such as Nouriel Roubini claim.

As a result, I have evolved my views on the industry countless times as I continue to gain knowledge and, most importantly, try to keep an open mind to any possible outcome.

Understanding this technology requires a fundamental understanding of the building blocks of distributed systems, cryptography, politics and economics.

These fields are complex and broad, which makes understanding blockchain no easy feat.

Made worse is when the word itself is reduced to a meaningless catch-all phrase. It has become a massively overhyped buzzword in the same way “cyberspace” and the “World Wide Web” were in the days of Stoll’s article.

There is certainly a lot of hype that in the short term could be proven wrong, but in the long term could be proven right as the technology evolves. The challenge is that it is really hard to predict the future.

You can’t simply look at it as it is today and assume it won’t continue to evolve. Thus, it is hard to truly understand the implications of how these new technologies will affect the world over the long term.

Even worse, purported experts completely have the potential to be proven wrong over the long term, this writer included.

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype and misconceptions. Eventually, we’ll see how it all pans out and how the world really is changed by this new technology and the concepts being built around it.

In the meantime, I’m particularly glad that Mr Stoll was wrong about the opportunity to telecommute; the reason being that I’ve been thankful to work on and submit this edition of my column while travelling over the holidays and know that many who read it will do so over the World Wide Web of cyberspace.

Even if we don’t use any of those overhyped buzzwords to describe it any more.

• Denis Pitcher is a software and technology solutions consultant with an interest in exploring the potential of blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies. He is also tech co-founder and chief architect of resQwest.com, a global tourism technology solutions provider. He can be reached at mail@denispitcher.com

Source link http://bit.ly/2saY7oB