The Early History of the Internet

On a cold war kind of day in 1969, work began on ARPAnet, the grandfather to the Internet. Designed as a computer version of the nuclear bomb shelter, ARPAnet protected the flow of information between military installations by creating a network of geographically separated computers that could exchange information via a newly developed technology called NCP or Network Control Protocol. ARPA  stands for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, a branch of the military that developed top secret systems and weapons during the Cold War. But Charles M. Herzfeld, the former director of ARPA, stated that ARPAnet was not created due to military needs and that it â€Å"came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country and that many research investigators who should have access were geographically separated from them.   Originally, there were only four computers connected when ARPAnet was created. They were located in the respective computer research labs of UCLA (Honeywell DDP 516 computer), Stanford Research Institute (SDS-940 computer), University of California, Santa Barbara (IBM 360/75) and the University of Utah (DEC PDP-10). The first data exchange over this new network occurred between computers at UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute. On their first attempt to log into Stanfords computer by typing log win, UCLA researchers crashed their computer when they typed the letter g. As the network expanded, different models of computers were connected, which created compatibility problems. The solution rested in a better set of protocols called TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) that were designed in 1982. The protocol worked by breaking data into IP (Internet Protocol) packets, like individually addressed digital envelopes. TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) then makes sure the packets are delivered from client to server and reassembled in the right order. Under ARPAnet, several major innovations occurred. Some examples are  email  (or electronic mail), a system that allows for simple messages to be sent to another person across the network (1971), telnet, a remote connection service for controlling a computer (1972) and file transfer protocol (FTP), which allows information to be sent from one computer to another in bulk (1973). And as non-military uses for the network increased, more and more people had access and it was no longer safe for military purposes. As a result, MILnet, a military only network, was started in 1983. Internet Protocol software was soon being placed on every type of computer. Universities and research groups also began using in-house networks known as  Local Area Networks  or LANs. These in-house networks then started using Internet Protocol software so one LAN could connect with other LANs. In 1986, one LAN branched out to form a new competing network called NSFnet (National Science Foundation  Network). NSFnet first linked together the five national supercomputer centers, then every major university. Over time, it started to replace the slower ARPAnet, which was finally shutdown in 1990. NSFnet formed the backbone of what we call the Internet today. Here’s a quote from the U.S. Department report The Emerging Digital Economy: The Internets pace of adoption eclipses all other technologies that preceded it. Radio was in existence 38 years before 50 million people tuned in; TV took 13 years to reach that benchmark. Sixteen years after the first PC kit came out, 50 million people were using one. Once it was opened to the general public, the Internet crossed that line in four years.

Unintended Consequences Of The State Prison System

Inadvertent Consequences According to Krisberg and Taylor-Nicholson, state budget cuts, lowering prison over-crowding, and improving corrections are the underlying reasons for the policy shift. Although â€Å"county custody costs (county jail) may be somewhat lower than state prison costs, shifting the custody and supervision costs of selected offender groups to the county will only cut spending in state prisons,† and may fail to lower the overall costs of corrections in California (Owen Mobley, 2012, p. 47). Whereas the state prison system seems to be progressing toward its population-reduction goal, â€Å"this measure is shortsighted and somewhat deceiving† because a â€Å"corresponding rise in county jail populations will continue California’s†¦show more content†¦That bodes ill for keeping ex-inmates from returning to crime,† as Joan Petersilia stated (as cited in Owen Mobley, 2012, p. 47). County jails are not equipped to â€Å"manage the influx of more prisoners, and for longer periods of time, as well as provide ‘evidence-based’ rehabilitative programs,† which has serious implications for confinement conditions and for the overall success or failure of Realignment (Owen Mobley, 2012, p. 47). Even before the Realignment Act, California jails were struggling with â€Å"crowding, court-ordered ordered caps on their populations, antiquated facilities and few programs† (Owen Mobley, 2012, p. 48). Counties are limited in their ability to address these concerns because of county-level budget cuts. AB 109 has other inadvertent consequences for parole and probation. Both probation and parole violators will serve their sentence in a county jail if their probation or parole is revoked. Although the state parole population is declining, county probation caseloads are increasing. The CDCR seriously underestimated how many â€Å"non-non-nons† would go to each county after six months (Owen Mobley, 2012, p. 48). County probation officers are currently supervising AB 109 inmates in significant numbers despite that rehabilitative programs and services are lacking. Incarceration Alternatives Counties will have to utilize alternative strategies to stabilize the increasing jail

Knowledge Audits for Business Knowledge Management

Question: Describe about the Knowledge Audits for Business for Knowledge Management. Answer: Synopsis The course that has focused on various aspects of business analysis gave me a clear understanding of the term knowledge audit. I have learned what knowledge audit is and how it measures the knowledge management of an organization. Therefore, I will now discuss my learning. Critique The knowledge audit is a qualitative evaluation. A proper knowledge audit exposes the strength and weaknesses of an organization. I have understood the ways through which knowledge audit can be done. According to Gourova et al (2012), this process involves answering the following questions. What does an organizations knowledge require? What resources of knowledge the organization have and where are they? What and where is the knowledge gap? How does knowledge flow take place inside the organization? What are the factors that hindering knowledge flow within the organization? The findings of these queries are the monitoring process that a knowledge auditor undertakes. According to Mohapatra et al (2016), both the individual and organizational goals are kept in mind while evaluating. I want to outline the effectiveness of knowledge audit, as opined by Rahman and Shukor (2012), these are as follows: It helps the organization to identify the requirement of knowledge both at individual and organizational level. It judges the knowledge management process based on the evidences. It exposes sets of unexploited knowledge resources. Knowledge audit provides essential information related to the development of knowledge management within the organization It brings out the relation between the organizational objectives and the prescribed or utilized knowledge flow. It creates awareness of knowledge management within the organization We can say that this is how knowledge flow benefits a business organization to gauge the present knowledge management scenario. As soon as the organization realizes what exists and what does not exist, it makes the strategic move. The knowledge landscape map, which is the final result of knowledge audit process, is an essential component for an organization. I have leant about some knowledge audit tools to evaluate the intangible intellectual capitals. As opined by Spong and Kamau (2012), four categories of it are: Scorecard methods Direct intellectual capital Return-on-assets Market Capitalization method However, researchers have proposed various models to measure knowledge management. Reflection I cannot deny that knowledge flow has gained importance with the spread of business globally. The competition has also increased. An organization can only sustain if he has made a proper strategy according to its desired objectives. Knowledge audit as a tool accelerates the process. Reference Gourova, E., Toteva, K. and Todorova, Y., 2012, July. Audit of knowledge flows and critical business processes. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (p. 1). ACM. Mohapatra, S., Agrawal, A. and Satpathy, A., 2016. KM Metrics and KM Audit. In Designing Knowledge Management-Enabled Business Strategies (pp. 89-100). Springer International Publishing. Rahman, A.A. and Shukor, N.S.A., 2012. Knowledge Audit Roles and Contributions towards Continuous Quality Improvement: A Review. In Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Spong, A. and Kamau, C., 2012. Cross-cultural impression management: a cultural knowledge audit model. Journal of International Education in Business, 5(1), pp.22-36.