H.R. 7779: DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act
H.R. 8295: Labor, Health and Human Services, Education & Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Despite the name given to this ISO technical committee blockchain and distributed ledger technology are related concepts but they are not exactly the same thing.
• A distributed ledger is a database that is spread across a network of computers or nodes, where each node has a copy of the same database. When a new transaction is made on the network, it is verified by multiple nodes and added to the ledger, which creates a permanent and tamper-evident record of the transaction.
• Blockchain is a type of distributed ledger that uses blocks of transactions that are linked together in a chain. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, which creates an unbreakable link between the blocks. This creates a tamper-evident and secure ledger that is resistant to modification.
While blockchain is a specific type of distributed ledger, not all distributed ledgers use blockchain technology. Other types of distributed ledgers include directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), Hashgraph, Holochain and Cordo.
The key difference between blockchain and distributed ledger technology is that blockchain is a specific type of distributed ledger that uses blocks of transactions that are linked together in a chain, whereas distributed ledger technology refers to any database that is spread across a network of computers or nodes.
Blockchain technology is changing the financial underpinnings of all economic sectors including the education industry in every nation. Accordingly, the International Standardization Organization has set up a relatively new technical committee — ISO/TC 307, blockchain and distributed ledger technologies — to meet the need for standardization in this area by providing internationally agreed ways of working with blockchain and distributed ledger technology to improve security, privacy and facilitate worldwide use of the technology through the highest possible level of interoperability.
The consensus products emerging TC 307 will be relevant not only to not only education industry trade associations who claim an educational/accreditation mission but to college and university marketing departments that can, and should be interested in the ISO 307 products if for no other reason than to secure their claim to mastery of (in the argot of the moment) the most “woke” technologies for students and parents. The executive summary and global participation map is linked below:
STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN ISO/TC 307
In our 20+ year engagement with ANSI accredited standards-setting organizations; and nearly 20-year involvement in international standards promulgated by the ISO, IEC and ITU, we find early drafts of international standards are fairly dilutive; owing to the need to find agreed-upon definitions and the need to assemble an informed, durable and funded group of subject matter experts that can withstand the long-haul. A few of the focus areas we recommend for leaders of the US #WiseCampus zietgeist are listed below:
The public working area identifies committee activity during October-November; characteristic of early-stage ISO product development. US stakeholders — which should include education communities — should communicate directly with INCTIS.
Standards Australia is the Global Secretariat. Our US colleagues are encouraged to communicate directly with ANSI’s ISO Team and/or the Chair of the US Technical Advisory Group InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) 1101 K Street NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-5737. This standard is on the standing agenda of each of our Blockchain, Global, Infotech and Finance colloquia. See our CALENDAR.
Issue: [17-351]
Category: Finance & Management, International
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Christine Fischer, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben
LEARN MORE:
“Long Island Sound”
As it is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty
I see it as it looked one afternoon
In August,—by a fresh soft breeze o’erblown.
The swiftness of the tide, the light thereon,
A far-off sail, white as a crescent moon.
The shining waters with pale currents strewn,
The quiet fishing smacks, the Eastern cove,
The semicircle of its dark, green grove.
The luminous grasses, and the merry sun
In the grave sky; the sparkle far and wide,
Laughter of unseen children, cheerful chirp
Of crickets, and low lisp of rippling tide,
Light summer clouds fantastical as sleep
Changing unnoted while I gazed thereon.
All these fair sounds and sights I made my own.
More
How Harvard is Scamming Indian Students
Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard
Harvard EdCast: Education and Corruption
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send [email protected] a request for subscription details.
The Google employee who was fired for writing an explanation about why more women are not working in technology careers was James Damore. In August 2017, Damore wrote a memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” that criticized the company’s diversity policies and argued that innate biological differences between men and women may explain why more men than women work in tech and leadership positions.
The memo sparked a heated debate within and outside of Google, with some defending Damore’s right to express his views and others criticizing the memo as perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biases. In response, Google CEO Sundar Pichai denounced the memo, stating that it violated the company’s code of conduct and perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes.
Damore was subsequently fired from his position at Google, and he later filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming that he had been discriminated against for his conservative views. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2018, but it sparked ongoing discussions about the role of free speech and diversity in the tech industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber“, commonly referred to as the Google memo, is an internal memo, dated July 2017, by US-based Google engineer James Damore (/dəˈmɔːr/) about Google’s culture and diversity policies.[1] The memo and Google’s subsequent dismissal of Damore in August 2017 became a subject of interest for the media. Damore’s arguments received both praise and criticism from media outlets, scientists, academics and others.
In August 2017, he wrote a memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” which criticized Google’s diversity initiatives and suggested that biological differences between men and women might explain the gender gap in tech careers. The memo became highly controversial and led to his termination by Google. His firing sparked extensive debates and discussions about diversity, inclusion, and free speech in the tech industry.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send [email protected] a request for subscription details.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send [email protected] a request for subscription details.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwB pic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
— USPTO (@uspto) July 13, 2023
Standards Michigan Group, LLC
2723 South State Street | Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
888-746-3670