Just like the computers or chairs owned by the company, the copyright to the source code is a corporate asset. When the company was liquidated, it should have been listed as an asset as part of the bankruptacy (you didn't mention, did the company go through bankruptacy?).
It is likely that in the bankruptacy judgement, the title to this asset was specifically called out and turned over to the creditors (or it might have been done in general terms as "all other assets").
In any case, the creditors probably own it. That said, you might be one of the creditors, and might be able to get clear title to it. Or you might be able to get clear title with a promise of royalities to be paid to the creditors. Could eb some work, but you could free "your children".
The real question, is when do you reach breakeven. In my case that is a little over 6 1/2 years. Once I reach breakeven, I have paid back my initial investment. Once my initial investment of 12K is paid back, then I have my principle in hand and am getting my power for "free".
If it will help, think of this as a bond that is yielding $150.00 a month in interest. If the bond costs me $12K, then I am making 12.5% in terms of yield. I could be a 6 1/2 year bond or a 30 year bond, it really doesn't matter.
I have found the NoMem line from Lenmar Enterprises, Inc. to be excellent. But as someone noted rechargeable batteries, like batteries in general, are commodities.
One of the biggest issues with the power grid is that the overall system has to be designed to deal with the highest demand placed on it. Usually, this is in the middle of summer on the hottest day of the year when your air conditioner is cranking, the curtains are closed, and you are using your lights inside.
The incremental MWs required at that point are VERY expensive. More expensive than a solar power system. And of course, when things are running at peak demand is when I get peak output out of my system.
Of course, it helps to cut your usage as well. This is why it makes sense for the power company to subsidize CF light, ettc. In my household we have done all of the easy wins. We have Energy Star appliances everywhere, we have put in place CF lights, we are using LCDs, but we are still burning through $100 to $150 of electrcity a month. So, it made sense for us to invest in a system that will conservatively last 30 years and will earn us 12.5% a year over those 30 years.
Looking at our electrical bills over the last year averaging between $100 and $150 a month, I decided to look into putting in solar panels and here is what I found out.
For 7K out of pocket (after tax credits, rebates, etc.), I can get a 2KW solar panel system with grid tie installed. This would give me, conservatively, about 496 KW hours a month in production. This would cut my usage by 2/3s. For 12K out of pocket, I can get a 3KW system which would give me about 720 KW hours a month in production and would completely clear my needs.
With a grid tie system, I run my meter backwards when my production is greater than my demand. This means that any electricity that I generate is credited against my bill at the rate in play (I believe you also get peak pricing withi this setup) at the time I generate it.
Bottom line, is that for a 12K investment, I can clear an average bill of $150 a month. This means that in a little over 6 1/2 years I have paid off the system. Or you can think of this as giving me an annual return of 12.5% on my initial investment. That is pretty damn good!
And what is the difference between the actions of the Israeli's that blew up the King David Hotel (you do remember that piece of Israeli history, the part with the Stern Gang and the future Prime Minister blowing people and things up to drive the British out of Palestine as it was called at the time) and the Palestenian that blows themselves up on a bus?
To be clear, my stance towards the Israeli's and the Palestinians is a pox on both your houses. But I can also understand the frustration of the Palestinians that are seeking a level of autonomy and security. I would love to tell them to join a political party and to seek elective office. But let's not forget that the Israelis have refused to seat legally elected Arab and Palestinian members of the Kenseet. And that many Palestinians don't even have the franchise. There is enough blame to go around on both sides.
But in no case, does this undercut my basic argument. We no live in a world where is someone doesn't accept the "rules of the game", they can step outside the game and wreck incredible havoc.
While watching the Tinammen Square Massacare and then discussing it at MacHack in 1989, we discussed the fesability of not just taking Chinese television of the air, but actually taking control of it and getting the real message of what was happening out to the world.
After a few hours of discussion with some extremely bright folks, we came to the conclusion that 1) it could be done, 2) that it could be done easily, and 3) that we really didn't want the Chinese security services and the US Department of State and the FCC all coming after us.
What is surprising, is that this hasn't yet been done in any large scale way. The reality is that small forces of 2 and 3 people can wreck havoc in our increasingly connected world. I believe that what keeps this in check is the level of concerns that kept us in check. But what happens we you don't have those concerns? When you have nothing to lose? Then you have the cyber-equivalent of the Palestenian sucide bombers.
I submitted this article at 10:00 AM PST, 1:00 PM EST, this morning, but it was rejected. I don't know why that was the case, except I didn't take the standard/. twist to these issues.
I believe this is actually an extremely positive step, for I am in agreement with David Brian and the arguments he makes in The Transparent Society , saying that we should realize that there is no privacy, and that we should focus on building transparency in our society.
When we struggle to preserve annonimity and privacy, we are actually playing into the hands of those that would be despots, by building a system where they don't have to be accountable for their actions. For a small example of this one, think of how many times you have heard a government official state, when speaking of some action that is being challenged, "We can't discuss this matter do to privacy issues." Whose privacy are they protecting? The person that is challenging a wrongful firing or the child that claims they were abused in the local youth facility? No, they are protecting themselves, but they are using (and abusing) our focus on privacy at all costs to protect themselves and their positions.
Bring on the transparent society. Let's work to end this situation!
If I was the folks at Windriver, I would be really worried. Linux or XP embedded is becoming the system of choice in the embedded space.
But you wouldn't know this from their 10K. I was going through it last night and noticed a couple of interesting facts. First, they have had negative cashflow in the last three years, and two, they only give a nod to the threat posed by Linux.
Linux really appeals to the whole range of embedded folks. For those who want something turnkey, they can get it. For those that want to get under the hood and tweak they can find it. And by going with Linux the manufacturers eliminiate a whole host of costs.
I only have one problem with this policy: that it isn't extended to anyone one. Why should law enforcement have this right, but I - an eBay buyer - not have this right?
I don't see that someone who is selling things should have a right to hide their identity, background on transactions, etc., from others. Transparency, and the accountability that it fosters, is key to commerece and trust.
Too many people out in the/. world believe that absolute privacy is a right. Well, it isn't. When you enter into certain situations, you set aside your rights, in order to embrace other rights. One of these situations is the area of commerce. If you have business and I am about to enter into a trans action with you, I have the right to perform a background check on you. To determine if you are a con person or rip-off artist.
Well, if you were DINKs (double-income, no kids), that would be a wonderful way to use its.
But we are SITKs (single-income, three kids), so the opportunities for such a carpe deimi approach to life is few and far between....maybe in another 20 years we will be able to use HMS in this fasion!
In our family, we call it "honey messaging...", as in, "Honey will you pick up a gallon of milk on the way home?" or "Honey, remember that I love you..."
SMS is great for sending short and sweet messages that requires no acknowledgement, and would be intrusive if sent.
It really is instant messaging for cell phones...we love it. And having the ability to have things SMS to me (for example, updates on my flight from United) if fantastic.
Complain and talk about how it isn't sufficient, but this definitely struck a nerve with folks thruoghout the country. As off 8:00 AM PST today - listening to NPR on the way to work - they were getting 100 registrations a second. for myself, I filed my DNC registration at 6:10 AM PST today.
While I can see this requirement as providing fodder for many dark conspiracy theories, I don't see it as a big burden. As someone said, get the throwaway email to register for the list.
I am sure that this was one of the compromises required to get the DMA (Direct Marketing Association) to not put up a fit. They probably didn't want some person going in a start at A in the phone book and entering everyone into the list (would have been fun to automate) and then have everyone in the country off-limits.
So, we have to provide some "proof" that we are who we say we are, and we can register. It is cheap, it is easy, and it is not unduly burdensome. I send kudos to the person at the FCC who thought of this as a way to do it.
Well, I am not a spammer, but I am making an observation on what I have seen in terms of folks behavior.
For example, I have seen people that have signed-up for offers from a company (I saw them do it) turn around and start complaining that they are being spammed.
For most people, spam is any email that they don't want in their mailbox at that moment in time. If it is something I don't want - even if I set up a relationship and asked for it - then it is spam.
I detest Spam. I get tons of it and hate the resources I spend on my mailserver dealing with it. It should be dealt with somehow (I think a scheme with a 1/100 of a cent charge would deal with it effectively). But the reality is that people's definition of Spam really is that email that they don't want to see cluttering their mailbox at that point in time.
All, just remember that the definition of spam is fluid. One person's spam is another's direct marketing.
I don't think Microsoft will eb getting away from direct email marketing to those with whom they have an "established business relationship", but I think they will be working to put in place a process for dealing with UCE - unsolicited commercial email to use the FTC's term. Frankly, if you are using their free email service, I think you should be willing t receive their mailers (TANSTAFL.
Politicians, like all people don't deal well with being publicly challenged or humiliated. While I think he operated at the level of a Gestapo Goon, J. Edgar Hoover understood this to a degree that most people don't. And he didn't confront politicians in public. He always allowed them to save face and protect their hides. And they did what he wanted.
Simply put, going public in a great "Perry Mason"-like moment and hoping that this will change things makes great cinema (I love "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to my core), but it isn't all that effective.
As they say in manager school, "praise in public, correct in private." This falls into the category of correcting. You are telling someone that they are wrong and her is the evidence that you are wrong. Do that in private. And when they do the right thing, praise them and do it in public.
I appreciate the irony in this story. And there is a pat of me that believes that those involved got their "just desserts".
On the other hand, I have to ask was this right. Doesn't this undercut the position that people have privacy rights, and no matter how much we may not want to respect them, we will. I am, in a sense, reminded of Voltaire's statement: "I disagree with your believe, but I will defed to your death the right to hold it."
I also question the effectiveness of this tactic. Pulling and showing confidential information in a private setting or in the context of a public hearing (for example pulling together a detailed dosier, handing it to a legislators, and saying, "Do you think I should have this information? Well, we don't either, that is why we want this law passed.") to specific legislators. Frankly, this is about as helpful and effective as my making the basktball team pee blue in high school.
To me, this once again demonstrates that we geeks in general don't know how to work the system. We disparage thhose that do know how to use it - much as we were diparaged as "geeks" in High School by the jocks - and then wonder why we fail. We could stand to learn a little bit about how to influence the world.
As I stated in response to the original posting on this topic, I don't see this as chilling. In fact, I see this as encouraging and supporting dialog. This is no different from the old FCC rules, no longer with us, that required TV and radio stations to air responses to editorials.
In looking at something like this we have to balance the burden of the requirement against the public benefit of it being in place.
So, what is burden? Well, you would have to have a "letters to the editor" place in your web site, blog, or ezine. From a human factors point of view, you should have an indicator that would call out that a piece has a response to it. In terms of system building and design, this would be trival to add to blogs and web sites.
What is the benefit? Well, when reading a piece, you get to see the "other side of the story" from the person, persons, or organization which are the subject of the piece.
From my point of view the minimal burden coupled with the benefit of getting a more complete picture of a situation only equals goodness.
This brings me to my final point: how, why do people see this as chilling? When has dialog ever been chilling. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is reported to have said, "Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own printing presses." Yes, the cost of entry for publishing the internet has dropped. But in some ways the cost of attention has gone up. If you write something about me, I can go and setup a blog and write a response, but I have no way to insure that your audience has the opportunity to see my response. This proposal would give me the opportunity to get my story out. If you are going to call me out by name, shouldn't I - in the sense of fairness - have the opportunity to let put out my story and for folks to know it is there? To have a chance that they will see it and chose to read it?
I thought one of the lofty, uptopian goals of the internet that we all hold out is that it will create dialog on issues. If someone can say something about me and I have no way to reply in that forum (vs. creating my own reply vehicle), then it is a monologue, not a dialog that is happening.
The requirement that a news organization be forced to take "letters to the editor" in response to their pieces doesn't impose an undo burden on the publisher. There is little, if any marginal cost to bundle up all of the replies to pieces in the last week and put them into the "Letters to the Editor Forum" or section of your ezine.
In terms of authentication, I believe a reasonable requirement to put down here, is that the person reply has to have a digsig verifying that they are who they say they are. Nothing big. Nothing burdensome.
This seems like sound public policy. It forces those that have a web based publication who write about someone to a level of accountability to those who they have written about. What is so bad about that?
While this is a very interesting Neo-Utopian vision, it really falls the reality test. Simply put, there are - and always will be - set, fixed operating costs of keeping a system up and running. Those costs have to be carried by those that use the system.
That said, is it possible that we could get to the point - given the advances in technology - where there is very little, if any, variable costs associated with our telecom infrastructure? Yes, I do! TelCos and ISP are quickly moving to flat-rate pricing for services. You see it with packages of unlimited local and long distance for a flat monthly fee. The same with ISPs. Combine the two, and you have single, flat-rate, Connection subscription.
The reality is that Oracle and Peoplesoft have culturals as different as two companies can possibly be. Oracle is of the chewing them up and spit them out school. If Oracle has a soul, it is a very dark one. On the other hand, Peoplesoft has a soul and it is a soul which - how every imperfectly - trys to care for the employees while still calling forth the best from its employees.
If Oracle were to make this hostile bid come to fruition, the majority of Peoplesoft employees would be heading for the door as quickly as possible. The end result would be a pile of IP in Oracle's hands, but not any of the people that can take that IP and extend it and bring value from it.
Of course, the Larry Ellison isn't going to see it that way. Rather, he is seeing that I can take these two pieces and put them together and they will work the way that I anticipate. Why? Because everyone works the way he expects - or he gets rid of them, the list of folks that have bailed out of Oracle due to Larry is very long - and that is just the way it will work out in his world. He isn't going to think about culturally compatibility. But then again that is true of most CEOs trying to build empires. Why do you think that most mergers end up being failures?
It Interesting and distressing seeing people essentially sitting down and complaining that the "fix is in", "that we already know what will happen" with respect to this opportunity. Yes, that is right. This is a great opportunity. An opportunity to get in front of the FCC and make the case for modifying the rules to create an open commons for spectrum use. To create rules that will allow it to be open to expermentation as long as your experiment doesn't interfere with someone else's experiment (great place to use Justine Brandises' quote, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins", in a brief). To create a business model based on rental fees in relationship to revenues vs. one time licensing fees at auction, in order to create a playing field that will allow small businesses to get into the game as well.
So, how do we change the game? Well, first - to paraphrase Woody Allen - we will have to show up. This means that we will have to write position papers, showing at hearings, present a compelling case and work to get people behind it. We can't just sit back and bitch and moan about how the deck is stacked against us. We will actually have to get engaged in the political and rule making process. We will have to educate politicans and bureaucrats alike. We will have to frame our discussions not just in terms of geek-speak and the coolness of the technology, but also in terms that will make sense to them. We have to show them how they win in terms of their agendas, when they embrace our agendas.
What would be the first step? Well, we need a nationally known spokesperson. Someone of the caliber of Lawrence Lessig to lead the charge. And then we need a technology leader. Someone that people in the rest-of-the-world instantly recognize as a technology leader. Someone like Andy Grove, Bills Gates, or Steve Jobs. Yes, this combination makes for strange bed-fellows. Next, we will need a position paper. A position paper that lays out the economic and technologic case for following our roadmap. And then we need to get airplay for it. We need to get the NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. writing about this, taking this up as a cause. And we need to get it in front of the hearings. We need articulate, well-presented, spokespeople that will get it presented at each and every hearing. And finally, we need thousands of people, with individuals in each and every state and congressional district that will write well put together letters (via snail mail and email) summarizing the case in their own words and sending our position people onto their Senators and Congresspeople.
A lot of work? Yes, it is. But do you expect hacking our society to be any easier than hacking code? Can we build a collaborative development model to hack society to what we believe is the right outcome? I think we can, but it won't be easy. Are you willing to participate. To paraphase the quote, the only thing required for the corporations and monied interests to trimuph is for men and woman of good well to sit around and complain about how the fix is in.
Glad to see that rationality won out here! All we are talking about is having the facility to deactivate a number on one network and forward it to another network. We are talking about being able to perform a database update, had a packet to another system, and perform another database update. This isn't rocket science. Yes, it is work and will be critical to get it right, but the overall investment should be relatively small. That plus that fact we have been paying for it (check your cell phone bill).
The judge was right, the carriers waited way too long to protest. Now they have to do it or face penalities. I am waiting for November and then it is goodbye Cingular and hello T-Mobile for my Treo (can you say GPRS, world-wide coverage that will let me easily and cheaply use my phone in India and Germany?)! I was waiting for this to happen, because I couldn't/wouldn't give up my number. But every month I cursed Cingular under my breath. I will be first in line to move!
Cute. Taking one of my replies from a totally different discussion) and posting it without attribution and as an anonymous post. Very fun. Of course, I am the only person that got the joke....
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the computers or chairs owned by the company, the copyright to the source code is a corporate asset. When the company was liquidated, it should have been listed as an asset as part of the bankruptacy (you didn't mention, did the company go through bankruptacy?).
It is likely that in the bankruptacy judgement, the title to this asset was specifically called out and turned over to the creditors (or it might have been done in general terms as "all other assets").
In any case, the creditors probably own it. That said, you might be one of the creditors, and might be able to get clear title to it. Or you might be able to get clear title with a promise of royalities to be paid to the creditors. Could eb some work, but you could free "your children".
The real question, is when do you reach breakeven. In my case that is a little over 6 1/2 years. Once I reach breakeven, I have paid back my initial investment. Once my initial investment of 12K is paid back, then I have my principle in hand and am getting my power for "free".
If it will help, think of this as a bond that is yielding $150.00 a month in interest. If the bond costs me $12K, then I am making 12.5% in terms of yield. I could be a 6 1/2 year bond or a 30 year bond, it really doesn't matter.
I have found the NoMem line from Lenmar Enterprises, Inc. to be excellent. But as someone noted rechargeable batteries, like batteries in general, are commodities.
One of the biggest issues with the power grid is that the overall system has to be designed to deal with the highest demand placed on it. Usually, this is in the middle of summer on the hottest day of the year when your air conditioner is cranking, the curtains are closed, and you are using your lights inside.
The incremental MWs required at that point are VERY expensive. More expensive than a solar power system. And of course, when things are running at peak demand is when I get peak output out of my system.
Of course, it helps to cut your usage as well. This is why it makes sense for the power company to subsidize CF light, ettc. In my household we have done all of the easy wins. We have Energy Star appliances everywhere, we have put in place CF lights, we are using LCDs, but we are still burning through $100 to $150 of electrcity a month. So, it made sense for us to invest in a system that will conservatively last 30 years and will earn us 12.5% a year over those 30 years.
Looking at our electrical bills over the last year averaging between $100 and $150 a month, I decided to look into putting in solar panels and here is what I found out.
For 7K out of pocket (after tax credits, rebates, etc.), I can get a 2KW solar panel system with grid tie installed. This would give me, conservatively, about 496 KW hours a month in production. This would cut my usage by 2/3s. For 12K out of pocket, I can get a 3KW system which would give me about 720 KW hours a month in production and would completely clear my needs.
With a grid tie system, I run my meter backwards when my production is greater than my demand. This means that any electricity that I generate is credited against my bill at the rate in play (I believe you also get peak pricing withi this setup) at the time I generate it.
Bottom line, is that for a 12K investment, I can clear an average bill of $150 a month. This means that in a little over 6 1/2 years I have paid off the system. Or you can think of this as giving me an annual return of 12.5% on my initial investment. That is pretty damn good!
Really?
And what is the difference between the actions of the Israeli's that blew up the King David Hotel (you do remember that piece of Israeli history, the part with the Stern Gang and the future Prime Minister blowing people and things up to drive the British out of Palestine as it was called at the time) and the Palestenian that blows themselves up on a bus?
To be clear, my stance towards the Israeli's and the Palestinians is a pox on both your houses. But I can also understand the frustration of the Palestinians that are seeking a level of autonomy and security. I would love to tell them to join a political party and to seek elective office. But let's not forget that the Israelis have refused to seat legally elected Arab and Palestinian members of the Kenseet. And that many Palestinians don't even have the franchise. There is enough blame to go around on both sides.
But in no case, does this undercut my basic argument. We no live in a world where is someone doesn't accept the "rules of the game", they can step outside the game and wreck incredible havoc.
While watching the Tinammen Square Massacare and then discussing it at MacHack in 1989, we discussed the fesability of not just taking Chinese television of the air, but actually taking control of it and getting the real message of what was happening out to the world.
After a few hours of discussion with some extremely bright folks, we came to the conclusion that 1) it could be done, 2) that it could be done easily, and 3) that we really didn't want the Chinese security services and the US Department of State and the FCC all coming after us.
What is surprising, is that this hasn't yet been done in any large scale way. The reality is that small forces of 2 and 3 people can wreck havoc in our increasingly connected world. I believe that what keeps this in check is the level of concerns that kept us in check. But what happens we you don't have those concerns? When you have nothing to lose? Then you have the cyber-equivalent of the Palestenian sucide bombers.
I submitted this article at 10:00 AM PST, 1:00 PM EST, this morning, but it was rejected. I don't know why that was the case, except I didn't take the standard /. twist to these issues.
I believe this is actually an extremely positive step, for I am in agreement with David Brian and the arguments he makes in The Transparent Society , saying that we should realize that there is no privacy, and that we should focus on building transparency in our society.
When we struggle to preserve annonimity and privacy, we are actually playing into the hands of those that would be despots, by building a system where they don't have to be accountable for their actions. For a small example of this one, think of how many times you have heard a government official state, when speaking of some action that is being challenged, "We can't discuss this matter do to privacy issues." Whose privacy are they protecting? The person that is challenging a wrongful firing or the child that claims they were abused in the local youth facility? No, they are protecting themselves, but they are using (and abusing) our focus on privacy at all costs to protect themselves and their positions.
Bring on the transparent society. Let's work to end this situation!
If I was the folks at Windriver, I would be really worried. Linux or XP embedded is becoming the system of choice in the embedded space.
But you wouldn't know this from their 10K. I was going through it last night and noticed a couple of interesting facts. First, they have had negative cashflow in the last three years, and two, they only give a nod to the threat posed by Linux.
Linux really appeals to the whole range of embedded folks. For those who want something turnkey, they can get it. For those that want to get under the hood and tweak they can find it. And by going with Linux the manufacturers eliminiate a whole host of costs.
I only have one problem with this policy: that it isn't extended to anyone one. Why should law enforcement have this right, but I - an eBay buyer - not have this right?
/. world believe that absolute privacy is a right. Well, it isn't. When you enter into certain situations, you set aside your rights, in order to embrace other rights. One of these situations is the area of commerce. If you have business and I am about to enter into a trans action with you, I have the right to perform a background check on you. To determine if you are a con person or rip-off artist.
I don't see that someone who is selling things should have a right to hide their identity, background on transactions, etc., from others. Transparency, and the accountability that it fosters, is key to commerece and trust.
Too many people out in the
Well, if you were DINKs (double-income, no kids), that would be a wonderful way to use its.
But we are SITKs (single-income, three kids), so the opportunities for such a carpe deimi approach to life is few and far between....maybe in another 20 years we will be able to use HMS in this fasion!
In our family, we call it "honey messaging...", as in, "Honey will you pick up a gallon of milk on the way home?" or "Honey, remember that I love you..."
SMS is great for sending short and sweet messages that requires no acknowledgement, and would be intrusive if sent.
It really is instant messaging for cell phones...we love it. And having the ability to have things SMS to me (for example, updates on my flight from United) if fantastic.
Complain and talk about how it isn't sufficient, but this definitely struck a nerve with folks thruoghout the country. As off 8:00 AM PST today - listening to NPR on the way to work - they were getting 100 registrations a second. for myself, I filed my DNC registration at 6:10 AM PST today.
While I can see this requirement as providing fodder for many dark conspiracy theories, I don't see it as a big burden. As someone said, get the throwaway email to register for the list.
I am sure that this was one of the compromises required to get the DMA (Direct Marketing Association) to not put up a fit. They probably didn't want some person going in a start at A in the phone book and entering everyone into the list (would have been fun to automate) and then have everyone in the country off-limits.
So, we have to provide some "proof" that we are who we say we are, and we can register. It is cheap, it is easy, and it is not unduly burdensome. I send kudos to the person at the FCC who thought of this as a way to do it.
Well, I am not a spammer, but I am making an observation on what I have seen in terms of folks behavior.
For example, I have seen people that have signed-up for offers from a company (I saw them do it) turn around and start complaining that they are being spammed.
For most people, spam is any email that they don't want in their mailbox at that moment in time. If it is something I don't want - even if I set up a relationship and asked for it - then it is spam.
I detest Spam. I get tons of it and hate the resources I spend on my mailserver dealing with it. It should be dealt with somehow (I think a scheme with a 1/100 of a cent charge would deal with it effectively). But the reality is that people's definition of Spam really is that email that they don't want to see cluttering their mailbox at that point in time.
All, just remember that the definition of spam is fluid. One person's spam is another's direct marketing.
I don't think Microsoft will eb getting away from direct email marketing to those with whom they have an "established business relationship", but I think they will be working to put in place a process for dealing with UCE - unsolicited commercial email to use the FTC's term. Frankly, if you are using their free email service, I think you should be willing t receive their mailers (TANSTAFL.
Politicians, like all people don't deal well with being publicly challenged or humiliated. While I think he operated at the level of a Gestapo Goon, J. Edgar Hoover understood this to a degree that most people don't. And he didn't confront politicians in public. He always allowed them to save face and protect their hides. And they did what he wanted.
Simply put, going public in a great "Perry Mason"-like moment and hoping that this will change things makes great cinema (I love "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to my core), but it isn't all that effective.
As they say in manager school, "praise in public, correct in private." This falls into the category of correcting. You are telling someone that they are wrong and her is the evidence that you are wrong. Do that in private. And when they do the right thing, praise them and do it in public.
I appreciate the irony in this story. And there is a pat of me that believes that those involved got their "just desserts".
On the other hand, I have to ask was this right. Doesn't this undercut the position that people have privacy rights, and no matter how much we may not want to respect them, we will. I am, in a sense, reminded of Voltaire's statement: "I disagree with your believe, but I will defed to your death the right to hold it."
I also question the effectiveness of this tactic. Pulling and showing confidential information in a private setting or in the context of a public hearing (for example pulling together a detailed dosier, handing it to a legislators, and saying, "Do you think I should have this information? Well, we don't either, that is why we want this law passed.") to specific legislators. Frankly, this is about as helpful and effective as my making the basktball team pee blue in high school.
To me, this once again demonstrates that we geeks in general don't know how to work the system. We disparage thhose that do know how to use it - much as we were diparaged as "geeks" in High School by the jocks - and then wonder why we fail. We could stand to learn a little bit about how to influence the world.
As I stated in response to the original posting on this topic, I don't see this as chilling. In fact, I see this as encouraging and supporting dialog. This is no different from the old FCC rules, no longer with us, that required TV and radio stations to air responses to editorials.
In looking at something like this we have to balance the burden of the requirement against the public benefit of it being in place.
So, what is burden? Well, you would have to have a "letters to the editor" place in your web site, blog, or ezine. From a human factors point of view, you should have an indicator that would call out that a piece has a response to it. In terms of system building and design, this would be trival to add to blogs and web sites.
What is the benefit? Well, when reading a piece, you get to see the "other side of the story" from the person, persons, or organization which are the subject of the piece.
From my point of view the minimal burden coupled with the benefit of getting a more complete picture of a situation only equals goodness.
This brings me to my final point: how, why do people see this as chilling? When has dialog ever been chilling. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who is reported to have said, "Freedom of the Press belongs to those that own printing presses." Yes, the cost of entry for publishing the internet has dropped. But in some ways the cost of attention has gone up. If you write something about me, I can go and setup a blog and write a response, but I have no way to insure that your audience has the opportunity to see my response. This proposal would give me the opportunity to get my story out. If you are going to call me out by name, shouldn't I - in the sense of fairness - have the opportunity to let put out my story and for folks to know it is there? To have a chance that they will see it and chose to read it?
I thought one of the lofty, uptopian goals of the internet that we all hold out is that it will create dialog on issues. If someone can say something about me and I have no way to reply in that forum (vs. creating my own reply vehicle), then it is a monologue, not a dialog that is happening.
The requirement that a news organization be forced to take "letters to the editor" in response to their pieces doesn't impose an undo burden on the publisher. There is little, if any marginal cost to bundle up all of the replies to pieces in the last week and put them into the "Letters to the Editor Forum" or section of your ezine.
In terms of authentication, I believe a reasonable requirement to put down here, is that the person reply has to have a digsig verifying that they are who they say they are. Nothing big. Nothing burdensome.
This seems like sound public policy. It forces those that have a web based publication who write about someone to a level of accountability to those who they have written about. What is so bad about that?
While this is a very interesting Neo-Utopian vision, it really falls the reality test. Simply put, there are - and always will be - set, fixed operating costs of keeping a system up and running. Those costs have to be carried by those that use the system.
That said, is it possible that we could get to the point - given the advances in technology - where there is very little, if any, variable costs associated with our telecom infrastructure? Yes, I do! TelCos and ISP are quickly moving to flat-rate pricing for services. You see it with packages of unlimited local and long distance for a flat monthly fee. The same with ISPs. Combine the two, and you have single, flat-rate, Connection subscription.
The reality is that Oracle and Peoplesoft have culturals as different as two companies can possibly be. Oracle is of the chewing them up and spit them out school. If Oracle has a soul, it is a very dark one. On the other hand, Peoplesoft has a soul and it is a soul which - how every imperfectly - trys to care for the employees while still calling forth the best from its employees.
If Oracle were to make this hostile bid come to fruition, the majority of Peoplesoft employees would be heading for the door as quickly as possible. The end result would be a pile of IP in Oracle's hands, but not any of the people that can take that IP and extend it and bring value from it.
Of course, the Larry Ellison isn't going to see it that way. Rather, he is seeing that I can take these two pieces and put them together and they will work the way that I anticipate. Why? Because everyone works the way he expects - or he gets rid of them, the list of folks that have bailed out of Oracle due to Larry is very long - and that is just the way it will work out in his world. He isn't going to think about culturally compatibility. But then again that is true of most CEOs trying to build empires. Why do you think that most mergers end up being failures?
It Interesting and distressing seeing people essentially sitting down and complaining that the "fix is in", "that we already know what will happen" with respect to this opportunity. Yes, that is right. This is a great opportunity. An opportunity to get in front of the FCC and make the case for modifying the rules to create an open commons for spectrum use. To create rules that will allow it to be open to expermentation as long as your experiment doesn't interfere with someone else's experiment (great place to use Justine Brandises' quote, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins", in a brief). To create a business model based on rental fees in relationship to revenues vs. one time licensing fees at auction, in order to create a playing field that will allow small businesses to get into the game as well.
So, how do we change the game? Well, first - to paraphrase Woody Allen - we will have to show up. This means that we will have to write position papers, showing at hearings, present a compelling case and work to get people behind it. We can't just sit back and bitch and moan about how the deck is stacked against us. We will actually have to get engaged in the political and rule making process. We will have to educate politicans and bureaucrats alike. We will have to frame our discussions not just in terms of geek-speak and the coolness of the technology, but also in terms that will make sense to them. We have to show them how they win in terms of their agendas, when they embrace our agendas.
What would be the first step? Well, we need a nationally known spokesperson. Someone of the caliber of Lawrence Lessig to lead the charge. And then we need a technology leader. Someone that people in the rest-of-the-world instantly recognize as a technology leader. Someone like Andy Grove, Bills Gates, or Steve Jobs. Yes, this combination makes for strange bed-fellows. Next, we will need a position paper. A position paper that lays out the economic and technologic case for following our roadmap. And then we need to get airplay for it. We need to get the NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, etc. writing about this, taking this up as a cause. And we need to get it in front of the hearings. We need articulate, well-presented, spokespeople that will get it presented at each and every hearing. And finally, we need thousands of people, with individuals in each and every state and congressional district that will write well put together letters (via snail mail and email) summarizing the case in their own words and sending our position people onto their Senators and Congresspeople.
A lot of work? Yes, it is. But do you expect hacking our society to be any easier than hacking code? Can we build a collaborative development model to hack society to what we believe is the right outcome? I think we can, but it won't be easy. Are you willing to participate. To paraphase the quote, the only thing required for the corporations and monied interests to trimuph is for men and woman of good well to sit around and complain about how the fix is in.
Glad to see that rationality won out here! All we are talking about is having the facility to deactivate a number on one network and forward it to another network. We are talking about being able to perform a database update, had a packet to another system, and perform another database update. This isn't rocket science. Yes, it is work and will be critical to get it right, but the overall investment should be relatively small. That plus that fact we have been paying for it (check your cell phone bill).
The judge was right, the carriers waited way too long to protest. Now they have to do it or face penalities. I am waiting for November and then it is goodbye Cingular and hello T-Mobile for my Treo (can you say GPRS, world-wide coverage that will let me easily and cheaply use my phone in India and Germany?)! I was waiting for this to happen, because I couldn't/wouldn't give up my number. But every month I cursed Cingular under my breath. I will be first in line to move!
Cute. Taking one of my replies from a totally different discussion) and posting it without attribution and as an anonymous post. Very fun. Of course, I am the only person that got the joke....
Did I do something to upset you? Sorry if I did.