How PLATO Sparked The Social Network Revolution… 50 Years Ago! (video)

June 2, 2010

Perhaps the greatest untold story in the history of computing is the development of the PLATO system at the University of Illinois and later also at Control Data Corporation.

Largely unknown today to the general public, PLATO’s list of innovations and seminal influences is considerable.

For the first time ever, the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif. assembled many of the key people involved with the creation of the PLATO phenomenon for its PLATO@50 event.

Below is Brian Dear overview of the PLATO history. Dear is the author of the upcoming book The Friendly Orange Glow, scheduled for release in late 2010; the first book ever to tell the story of the PLATO system, its creators and users, and its seminal online community that emerged in the early 1970s.

The book is the result of more than 20 years of research, including conducting over 400 interviews and amassing a large archive of clippings, reports, books, articles, recordings, and other documents. In addition to the book, Dear runs a website about PLATO at http://platohistory.org. The serial entrepreneur became a user of the PLATO system in 1979 at the University of Delaware, through which he also met his wife!

Brian Dear PLATO overview, part I

Brian Dear PLATO overview, part II


Automation Is The New Key To Green IT

June 2, 2010

The most effective way to turn information technology green might be as simple as automating it.

That way IT administrators are more likely to use it and organizations more likely to benefit when computers idle down and unnecessary gear is powered off.

Green technologies for IT managers needs to be seamless, says Systems Administrator Nishae Brooks.

“The new trend we’re going to see is to automate,” asserts Nishae Brooks, an award-winning systems administrator at Lone Star College Systems in Texas. “A lot of the focus has to make (green technology) fairly seamless.”

Green features have long been the focus of technology development. But adoption has been constrained by a lack of awareness and resources as busy IT department race from one job to the next. Easing access to the technology could begin to change this.

Automation has been the defining feature of several recent Lone Star purchases, Brooks says. Included on the shopping list are motion sensors to turn off projectors and duplex printers set to print by default on two sides of a sheet of paper.

The college similarly installed motion sensors on classroom lights and is looking at imposing sleep state policies on its PCs to send them into hibernation when a classroom is vacant – perhaps its greatest departure from past practices.

If the technology is built in, users don’t have to turn it off when they finish or remember to print on two sides, says Brooks. In fact, they have to adjust the printer or computer to do otherwise.

Perhaps the biggest step for the college is its implementation of computer sleep states. The technology is now under study.

Lone Star is researching sleep state technology for its PCs. Expectations are for significant energy savings.

Lone Star presently makes use of Intel’s vPro technology in about 55 percent of its 12,000 PCs as well as Symantec’s Endpoint and Altiris management software. Together, they are expected to save $440,000 in energy costs over three years as PCs are remotely turned off at night when they are not in use.

Adopting sleep state policies could enhance this significantly by idling machines during the day, says Brooks. This could be particularly useful with faculty machines, not yet covered by the vPro and Symantec remote shutdown policies. No one wants to switch off the president’s laptop when he is in the middle of a PowerPoint presentation, Brooks said on a conference call discussing her school’s green projects.

She says the technology under consideration could power down PCs three hours or so a day when they are not being use. This will be more valuable in years to come as the school is rapidly expanding its 13 campuses to ease a classroom shortage. Rooms will see less use in the future.

But it also is a technology IT staff had access to in the past. What triggered its adoption is Microsoft’s Windows 7, which made it easier to implement through automation.

“It’s about awareness,” says Brooks. “I’m sure we had the ability to do some of these things before Windows 7, but we weren’t aware of it.”

When green technologies are built into computer hardware and software, administrators come to understand their benefits quicker, says Clyde Hedrick, product marketing manager at Intel. Then “it becomes ingrained in their thinking.”


Will Unprofitable Zipcar Be Another Webvan?

June 1, 2010

Zipcar’s IPO is likely to be an interesting test for clean-tech investing.

The company doesn’t make lithium batteries or solar cells. But it capitalizes on the same green product trends slowly taking shape in the United States and around the world.

Zipcar made a name for itself by convincing people to drive less and rely on car sharing networks when they do. And while it has racked up impressive sales, it is spilling red ink like an underwater oil well and forecasts more losses this year and possibly in the next several to come. So will it be a clean-tech Webvan or eventually a money gusher?

Zipcar had revenue of $131.2 million in 2009, but losses of $4.6 million. More red ink is on the way.

Wall Street may find out later this year as Zipcar said Tuesday it will sell about $75 million of stock to the public.

Some observers suggest the reception could be good despite the losses. Zipcar has built a brand and its cars are increasingly visible in the Bay Area, says Silicon Valley consultant Louis Gray. More importantly, losses at the company have been cut by more than half in the past year while revenue growth is about 30 percent a year.

Some companies “choose growth and seize opportunity” instead of hold down costs to generate profits, Gray says.

But professional investors are cautious. The company doesn’t have a new technology that differentiates it from its rivals – which are low-margin rental companies, such as Avis or Hertz, said one who asked to remain anonymous. It needs to show it can make money from invested capital – perhaps by selecting a typical market, such as San Francisco, and demonstrating  it can turn a profit. Then the task would be to translate that success into a formula it can apply to other markets.

“You don’t want to be another Webvan” and sacrifice profits for unrestrained growth, he said. The online grocer went bankrupt during the 2001 dot-com crash when it found it couldn’t turn a profit.

The venture capital-backed company claims its opportunities for expansion are stunning. Zipcar already operates what it claims is the world’s largest car sharing network, with operations in 13 metropolitan areas and on 150 university campuses in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom. It rents cars to a self-service clientele of 400,000 members, who pick them up in reserved parking spots and pay by the hour, or day.

Zipcar claims in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission it has identified 100 metropolitan areas across the globe ripe for expansion. “Given our estimate that ten million driving age residents, business commuters and university community residents live or work within a short walk of a Zipcar, we believe the adoption in our current cities represents only a small fraction of the existing market opportunity,” the filing states.

According to a Frost & Sullivan estimate contained in the document, the car-sharing market could amount to $3.3 billion by 2016.

However, building a profitable business is anything by assured. Revenue was $131.2 million in 2009 before the April acquisition of U.K.’s Streetcar. (Streetcar had revenue of $23.1 million.) Yet the company lost $4.6 million, an improvement from $14.5 million in 2008.

“We expect to incur net losses in 2010 (and) we do not know if our business operations will become profitable or if we will continue to incur net losses in 2011 and beyond. We expect to incur significant future expenses as we develop and expand our business,” according to the SEC filing.

The losses come on top of an accumulated deficit of $56.4 million, with $26.9 million in long-term debt. (Zipcar hopes to pay down this debt with the money from the IPO.)

Still, the company has no trouble calculating a positive value for its stock. That value was $3.49 in July 31, 2009 and $4.37 at the end of December.

With improving financial markets and lower risks in the company’s business the value rose to $5.27 by March 2010, Zipcar says in its filing. It will be interesting to see how accurate the estimate is as losses continue to pile up and investor faith is tested.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers