|
| Tuesday, December 10, 2002 |
 |
Bigger bang 
| | [Note: this is not reverse-chronological. I'm writing stuff about the conference top-to-bottom. Just easier, is all. Remember, this isn't work... its spirit is like Keroac's, about which Truman Capote said, "That's not writing — that's typing."] |
| | Dan Gillmor is up first, replacing Clay Shirky, whose flight from New York was cancelled. |
| | What we're up to: We Media is the title of the talk. Also Journalism 3.01b3, the latest iteration of Dan's elucidation of what's happening to Journalism. Sourcing Dave, David, Dan, et al. |
| | Pointed case. Story of Joe Nacchio at PC Forum. (Here's my contemporaneous posting.) David Isenberg reminds Dan that "a certain Mercury News journalist" once said nothing important happens in the main room at conferences... that it all happens in the halls, and "Aren't you contradicting yourself?" Dan: "I like to think of it as learning." Kevin (joking): "Before weblogs, nothing happened in the main room." |
| | Examples: Joi Ito's Moblogging. Digital cameras. Email still the best source. RSS. New Media and Trust: what's true? (e.g. KayCee Nicole Hoax, Matt Drudge...) Rumors move at the speed of light; corrections follow slowly. Also: Retreat to quality? |
| | All of one flavor. Concentration of media is a danger: Fewer voices, vanilla journalism, Wall Street's pernicious influence. |
| | Same Old. Big Media will still do vital work: investigative journalism, etc. |
| | Then what? Financial model of old media is in jeopardy as advertising revenue streams are under attack by Wall Street demands. Great uncertainty. There will be a thorough undermining of what's out there now. |
| | Be afraid. Intellectual Property rights... What's going to happen if Hollywood wins? It's bad. Examples. We're screwed if we don't do something. We're facing some rtough times. |
| | Be grateful. What would have happened if Hollywood saw Netscape in '95 the way they later saw Napster? They would have said "This is copyright infringement," and sued them out of existence. |
| | Lots of interplay between Dan and the audience on ethics, disclosure, journalistic rules, what applies, etc. Clearly, we're still working this stuff out. |
| | Shifts. It may well be that in ten years I feel I know as much from what people are saying as from what the editors of the New York Times tell me. |
| | Distinctions. What's news and what's proprietary? Somebody holding up a cell phone camera at a game can be proscecuted. I think the First Amendment protects everybody. |
| | Brent Sleeper is up. He's with Stencil Group. Introducing the From Web Services to Distributed Infrastructure panel: Christian Gheorghe, TIAN; Anne Thomas Manes; Dick Glass, The Mind Electric; Dick Hardt, ActiveState. |
| | Anne: I hate the term "Web Services." It has nothing to do with the web, and everything to do with services and XML. It's app to app communications. It needs XML. |
| | Dick: There's the dream (everything connected), and the manifestation (SOAP, WSDL). Much like the Java dream/reality outcome. We do a lot of work, but there's not a lot of uptake. Google, etc. are cool, nice toys and fun, but it's not like there's a whole groundswell of apps on the Net. |
| | Anne: It's just two years old! Some examples: How do you print an Office file? And you want to select a printer at a specified Kinkos? That's a Web service. Or you work for Siebel and you want to get info from a PDA from Yahoo. Powerful and simple. |
| | Glenn: Example of ISBN.nu, also Technorati. There's no failback. |
| | Dave Sifry: The larger social issue is about web services as a utility. I love Google, but they've become oxygen. I built Technorati on RSS and Weblogs.com and Blo.gs and other single points of failure. |
| | Christain: You're looking at a new social computing class. |
| | [Aside: Mark Stahlman and I came up with the social computing idea at PC Forum in, like, 1988. When I look it up, Google gives me this, which is still pretty far-out for 1995. That one also links to a 1994 DaveNet. Ah... here's Time to Grow Up, from 1992.] |
| | Dave: Web services and weblogs are together. It's all about APIs. It's about choice. About not being locked in. It's incredibly simple. It's not cool to say there aren't any Web services just because you've got a book. |
| | Dick: Most developers aren't programming against Web services. |
| | Dave: You're looking at the wrong developers. Get with the program. It's happening. |
| | Rohit: What one way will Web services not play out as CORBA did? |
| | Christian: It's giving you stuff which in CORBA you had to do for yourself. [My own aside: Apples and oranges. That said, I remember CORBA as yet another monolithic ideal established by big boys for mostly their own reasons, while Web services is an organic pile of de facto APIs, formats and other standards that were created by independent developers in the real world and are native to the Web.] |
| | Anne: One problem is that people see web services as something you buy. It's something you use. You might have to pay for an article from the NY Times, this is the mechanism that gets it for you. |
| | Dave: You found a bug. You need to work with the community of developers that are putting these things to work. (Think I got this right.) |
| | Bunch of disconnected stuff around identity... |
| | Anne: We still need a whole bunch of infrastructure that has yet to be constructed. |
| | Brent: Dave makes the point that unstructured web services are going to race like a fire through organizations... |
| | Anne: The vast majority of Java apps are implemented as lightweight servlets, not EJBs. There is a much easier solution than buying Websphere and soforth. People use the bigger app services because they already have them in place. |
| | [Aside: I really miss my camera. Right now I'm downloading a Zio! USB thingie driver so I can read Peter Kaminski's microdrive, letting me put up (especially in the Linux Journal piece that will summarize all this, hopefully tomorrow) his Canon G2 pictures. Here's Peter's blog, btw.] |
| | [More... wow, Denise is doing a very nice thing.] |
| | Rohit: Decentralization in a political sense is the only real story going on here. |
| | Kevin: How big is this thing, really? Dave is blogging what Kevin's saying while Kevin notes that Dave is blogging... |
| | Dave: Weblogs are the word processors for the Web. It used to be hard. Blogs open up writing for the Web to everybody. Dave did XML-RPC and SOAP so he could connect a centralized resource, a server, to a word processor. The guys who say Web services are about big enterprises, where the W3C is going, are in the same direction, and those are just points of view. There's also humanity, and where it's going, and it's another matter, again. |
| | Nick: Unfinished business. Online media is unfinished business. Very few profitable ones. Weblogs are promising here. Make it possible to produce niche media sites... |
| | Meg: It's also about how XML-RPC and SOAP can be transparent to users. There was all this talk about the writeable Web, and it took a long time before we got these tools together. The next level ... |
| | Kevin: Why the next level? Why will Weblogs move to other platforms, for example. |
| | Meg: Teenagers are doing it now. |
| | Nick: People wanted pictures of the snowstorm in New York, good local coverage, and a good media experience. Which the NY Times did not provide. |
| | Dave: Web pages don't do it. Weblogs do. It's like starting a magazine. There was a lot of trial and error. We didn't have permalinks, comments, reverse chrnonological order... Progress continues...Two years from now it'll be radically different, but you won't be able to name the day it all changed. |
| | Kevin asks a devil's advocate hypothetical... |
| | Nick: Examples, companies doing Cluetrain-style outreach. Example of Gizmodo. A small business that costs $2k month and brings in $5. It's not a VC business, but it's a damn fine business. |
| | Dave: This is like word processors were in the early 80s. Not what the VCs were doing in the 90s. One consensus is that nobody knows what this business looks like any more. |
| | Nick: You can do a weblog as a business opportunity, just not a huge one. |
| | Kevin: Are weblogs like Hypercard? |
| | Dave: No, Apple just stopped supporting it. This is many developers having fun. Different thing. |
| | Meg: Weblogs are not a separate thing. They're part of what's happening wherever news breaks, for example. |
| | Dave: I used to occasionally read what Kevin wrote for Esther's newsletter, but now, thanks to his blog, I know a lot more about him. This is a good thing. |
| | Marc: Now it's not just going to be a few vendors. Today decentralized tools will create decantralized vendors. Many, not just, say, Adobe. There are many untapped markets for which blogs are the tip of the iceberg. Way beyond people with opinions, writing something. |
| | David Weinberger: It's not just about format, or tools. It's also about voice. |
| | Dave: Interesting... In big journalism, the managers want to do the blog, but the reporters don't. |
| | Rohit: Something about blogslaut ('slaught?)... |
| | Glenn: The monolithic myth... when we get to the baroque stage when reporters realize blogs aren't monolithic. Can you even begin to find about blogs that aren't monolithic? And why not more women? |
| | Marc: We're a fad driven society. |
| | Phil Wolfe: (shit, missed it, but it was a good) |
| | Me: Lots of women bloggers at Gnomedex and other shows. Also recalled how Dave has pointed out that Tim Berners-Lee's first effort was a blog. |
| | Nick: Is it becoming like talk radio? Glenn Reynolds, for example. Enormous traffic. |
| | Dave: Everybody knows warblogging is passé (tongue in cheek? not sure). |
| | Nick and Dave: Politics will change uttlerly. |
| | Dave: Amateur journalism covers a lot of what's going on. |
| | Mitch Ratcliffe: More people will be talking in their own voice. Will the Web be a medium be a expression or interaction? Will the edge matter more than the center? |
| | Audience member: Where does it fit in the spectrum of media? |
| | Dave: Weblogs demand respect. You have to listen to the person, and they don't have to respond to you. In an email list, anybody can stop forward motion. But on a blog you can get things done over the objection of people in your community. |
| | Phil Wolfe (to Dave): What else? |
| | Dave: The most exciting stuff isn't the obvious stuff. Outlining may be the next step. Not sure we're even going to be working with browsers in the next few years. |
| | Meg is giving the history of Blogger. Fun stuff. |
| | Cory: What makes blogging interesting is what made VB and other programming tools interesting. Blogging allows people to write who didn't write before. This accounts for the Cambrian explosion going on here, in spite of the demographics of tech conferences. |
| | Anne: I know a lot of big companies that would hate this stuff. |
| | Kevin: Name some features, tools, services that need to be there. |
| | Meg: I want push for blogs. What I want, when I want it, and in a form I can rank when I get it. A whole system of content relating to my context, coming to me... |
| | Dave: Is Google not enough? |
| | Me: Miraculous, but misses a lot. |
| | Marc: Something... sounds good (can't keep up). |
| | Nick: The news front page. The buzziest items. To locate myself within a social network, one two three degrees out... |
| | Cory: An idosyncratic (personal) Google. |
| | Kevin: What is Google? Obviously more than a search engine. |
| | Sergey: It's what we did coming out of Stanford, plus what engineers hacked onto it. Mostly we inspired people. One engineer got excited about Usenet, collected old CDs. Michael Schmidt. One engineer. That's the way a lot of things happen. |
| | Kevin: Do you have a sense of how you got here? You're the central default engine people use. |
| | Sergey: It's always a surprise to me how much people use and rely on Google. Larry and I use search a lot. We developed Google because of the problems we had with what was around at the time. We continue to stay involved because we want great search. The other guys hired CEOs who didn't use the Web, eve3n, and strayed from their calling. |
| | Sergey: We hired an engineer who liked Web services, SOAP... We wanted to make it easier to do stuff and keep track of screen scrapers, etc. |
| | Anne: What's your business model? |
| | Sergey: We don't have one yet for the API. Maybe a model for paying for queries above a certain level. Lots of fun stuff. Plagarism detectors, for example. A spell checker that's a plug-in that runs browsed stuff. |
| | Marc: If we're ever going to have a semantic web, or metadata... An XML struct would have key words associated with media. |
| | Sergey: The way people write is not the way computers read. I'd rather have the machines adapt, rather than the reverse. |
| | Dave: This conference is about decentralization, and Google is centralized. Will it always be? |
| | Sergey: There are the Google (something) which costs money. |
| | Looking for input. Really good input coming from the audience to Sergey, who's very inviting and receptive. |
| | I just asked a pagerank question. Got a good answer. It's a bit of a mystery to Sergey too. Should they make changes that improve search for 10% and make it worse for 5%? Usually they do. |
| | David Isenberg: How is Eric Schmidt doing? Are you happy with him? |
| | Sergey: Larry and I searched for over a year, and managed to alienate 50 of the top executives in Silicon Valley. Eric was experienced and the only one who went to Burning Man. Which we thought was an important criterion. He's a great cultural fit. We hang out together. We discuss and decide on stuff together. More companies should look at cultural fit. |
| | David Weinberger: People use google to get past DNS limitations. Are you looking for ways of making it all more convenient? |
| | Sergey: There's I'm feeling lucky. But there are difficult questions out there that baffle search engines that are evaluated over easy ones. |
| | Question from back: Video? |
| | Sergey: If there's an engineer who's excited about it... There isn't that much content out there. It's kind of a hassle to deal with, still. If I'm lucky about 20% of the time I can see a video clip. Need to clear legal hurdles. |
| | Bob Frankston: Question about link rot. |
| | Sergey: If it's not in the cache, you're SOL. |
| | Cory: Does it concern you that the world is rearranging itself around Google? |
| | Sergey: I'm always surprised. It's a responsibility and we have to be open. |
| | ... missed the beginning, sorry. |
| | Distance is dead, except where it's still held up by regulation. |
| | Guy in Japan giving away a 12Mbps broadband modem. They've given away millions of these. Yahoo! Japan BB. They're selling 12Mbits down, .5 up, US$15. |
| | The not-evenly-distributed future... Global IP Sound had an app running on a vanilla iPaq, over WiFi and the cloud, a shrikwrap telephony app, and it sounded better than the PSTN (public switched telephone net). Astoundingly better. No telephone company. No paying not to be listed, no 911, no anything you're used to. |
| | When the above works better than the phone guys, the whole business goes away. |
| | What HTTP did for documents, SIP is going to do for communications. |
| | The best network is a stupid network. It supplies simple connections,k but no "services." Instead, "services" are created, by smart, network enabled products designed for any networked application. Any device you like |
| | Driving factors. Moore's Law. Gilder's Law. Depreciation. The benefits come right through to our devices. But right now they're being held back by the phone companies. |
| | We need to ride the things that scale. |
| | The end-to-end principle. It's the same thing as the stupid network, but David Reed, et. al. conceived of it many years ago. You preserve your options if you put the functionality out of the middle, so you don't have to do forklift upgrades later. Internetworking shifts control from the network owner to the end user. |
| | The Internet's job is to ignore network-specific differences. It doesn't want to know what you're doing with it. Because it's stupid. |
| | The internet makes telephony into yet another application. |
| | The phone companies can't sell connectivity. They can only sell the service. But we had all these activities that came along and had nothing to do with the stupid netowrk. |
| | Jonathan Rosenberg, creator of SIP, says "Most of the important future communications apps haven't been discovered yet." |
| | Old vs New Business Model: Telcos chage by the month for services. |
| | Stupid network model: Premium service, product income. The Network layer is the commons: nobody owns it, everybody can use it and anybody can improve it. This creates opportunities in the third respect. |
| | The phone company can't make a transition from the vertical to the horizontal model. |
| | The cable company can't give up the old video entertainment model. |
| | Municipalities? Utilities? New kinds of companies? And what about customers? |
| | Politis of End to End: freedom of speech, participatory democracy, competitive markets, freedom to succeed or fail... (slide going too fast) |
| | Takeaway: Goliath lost. It takes smart people to build a stupid network. |
| | Kevin: Why is there any hope for any of you? Why do you have a business given the ferocious competition going on. |
| | Mike: Change makes opportunity. We need to sieze what comes downstream. AT&T has a $9 billion profit. It's declining 20% per year, but it's also a potential venture fund. |
| | Andrew: Cable has twice the modems as DSL. Cox Business Comms will do $250 million per year offering services to business. Sophisticated backbones mostly based on Cisco gear. These are real. Cable companies never went through the kind of bubble/hell that the CLECs and ILECs. They want to make money and do new things. |
| | Michael: Agreed with both other guys. |
| | Kevin: What light is at the end of the tunnel? |
| | Michael: We thought the competitive LECs would win, but it's the baby Bells that show the most interest. |
| | Marc to Michael: What's your bandwidth? |
| | Michael: 12MB, with qualifications. |
| | Andrew: If you have to think about it, you don't have broadband. That said, Korea is the leading country. In the U.S. where the industries are more mature, the decision cycles are longer. We're shipping (some amount) to Korea. We build a fully switched 100MB ethernet pipe with (lots of goodies). People can get all they can eat, they can. The upstream won't get choked off. What you need for this audience, which is stuck on a narrowband model, even with blogging, there's no way to see what you can get with a SIP-enabled network. There will be intelligence, because there's a need to know the kinds of traffic that's going on, just technically — not services. The distinction between what's a user and a server will go away. |
| | Michael: For most end users, having certain kinds of software on their devices is hard to manage. That's why we're seeing firewalls and content filters into the Network. |
| | Mike: TiVo too. It's too hard to install. |
| | Andrew: Eventually, the marginal costs of going into residential will be quite low. VoD won't scale. The challenges are daunting. The complexity of a TiVo glued to a server won't scale. You need a JVM type environment at the end point. You put only the centralized resource functions where they're required. And they just keep track of data. The network is stupid — just intelligent enough to know what services are running through it. Give up on best efforts networks. If you have a fully capable QoS netowrk that can distinquish services... fully switched networks can function. It doesn't mnneed to own, manage or market the service... just able to deliver it. |
| | Mike: Why should every problem caused by centralization be solved by decentralized situations. What we have is centralization where it makes sense and decentralization where it makes sense. |
| | Andrew: Talking about the ability for the net to be aware of service classes. The quesstion is who will own and operate the service. Time Warner cable wants to do disaster recovery services in New York. If they want to partner with IBM, or anybody, it can be done. You want people to be able to make money. Nobody invests where they'll lose money. We don't sell to humans. Just to small and medium businesses. |
| | I asked a question about the lack of symmetricality in Cox Business service delivered over cable. Andrew said the problem is 20-year-old cable modem tech, which is an ethernet thing. When they deploy Narad's solution, he said, it'll be symmetrical. |
| | Andrew: We'll see much more video, like we expected in 1964. |
| | Michael: Try to set up a content filter for a 13 year old. He'll hack around it. Much more happening in voice data integration. |
| | Andrew: Very important to come back to David Isenberg's theme: tools for users and developers to make use of the peer to peer network. Everyone will have their own services and servers, and everything will take off. Trust it. |
| | Kevin: Why won't the carriers fight back tooth and nail? |
| | Michael: They will, and they'll fail. |
| | Andrew: Look at satellite. It's beating the pants off the cable guys, because it's more efficient than coax. The old mentality will lose. |
| | Mike: We'll see open standards making stuff happen in telecom. Tellme studio (not this, which is how I heard Mike say the first time he spoke ... instead this, Meg points out by private email) lets anybody do XML based voice applications, in a matter of minutes, including bloglike apps... Excited about how SMS integrates with voice messaging... Voice mail hasn't changed in 20 years... |
| | Michael: Competition will drive the old incumbents to act. Eventually. It will come from small greenfield deployments that catch on, or large guys who gets motivated because they have no choice. The model is robust infrastructure up through Layer 3 that will support infinite variety at Layer 7. (Layers explained here.) |
| | Andrew: The cable companpies are moving in the direction of deploying ethernet IP-based technologies, and they'll use open techs like LInux and XML. The idea is to build an economic model where they get paid to do that. I live in a reality distortion field that presumes infinite bandwidth. Just like you assume mips don't matter in those laptops you're tappingn on. Now assume a network... that's like a freight forwarding system, and cares about the nature of the classes of freight. Also, Politicians are always 20 years behind the time. |
| | Glenn: Martin, you have an extremely disruptive technology. |
| | Martin: We overlay all existing stakeholders, sharing the channel in garbage spectrum, add tech, high megabits... this is UWB. |
| | Duncan: Spectrum is expensive, you don't get the whole country... the 3G and wifi family are th two contenders. Need to make it carrier grade. (Missing a lot here.) |
| | David: Wifi has spread like wildfire, following the adoption curve, like Linux and in much the same way. Question: how do I deal with the fact that anybody can create these nets anwhere anytime? For an IT manager this becomes a hair--pulling experience. Companies are banning them. Sputnik looks at all these points in the network as a single system to which intelligence can be added. When a new access point comes on line it can be managed. You can actually use the ones under management to ferret out the rogues if you like. You can set it up so you have more control. Triangulate based on RF, and know that somebody is sitting in a certain space in the parking lot. These radios are intelligent parts of the edge network, not individual devices. |
| | Dave Hagan: There will be a fragmented market. There is not way any one carrier in an unlicensed market with a low barrier to entry will dominate. Many players, many footprints. Boingo partners with infrastructure builders, providing a seamless experience that sniffs out signals and follows you around. |
| | Glenn: UWB may be the table cloth pulled out from under the placesetting of wifi. |
| | From the floor: Are open networks terrorism? |
| | David Sifry: No. More concerned about backlash about nonsecurity events. Content-based denial of service can happen when somebody can drive up to your parking lot and start spamming off your T3. The SRI report we read about in wired is overblown. |
| | Duncan: We get asked if you can build a mesh network organically or through managed growth with an operator? There's more demand for operators. |
| | David Sifry: (Forget how this went, but... something about wifi in the crapper, using me as an example, ending with "it's incredibly sticky.") |
| | Duncan: Staffers at the FCC are trying to make licensed spectrum available, but there are Sprint, etc. They believe that the "third pipe" might come out of unlicensed spectrum. They're great people, but they're pushing on a piece of spaghetti. We might be able to come up with a solution that bypasses the big guys and the regulators. Maybe. |
| | Glenn: We've got a room full of people using wifi.. what are you finding in your experience. There was all sorts of congestion at Comdex. 802.11 planet was engineered to a degeee that it wasn't a problem. It's all manageable. Forecast well and manage it well and it works. The problem was with the backbone. We managed up to about 2 T1s and were promised aDS3 available. |
| | David Sifry: What should the FCC's attitude and role be in relation to spectrum? It comes down to having polite radios. What the FCC should be thinking about is how to encourage radios that minimize interference and waste. |
| | DeWayne Hendricks: We have a command and control regime that doesn't work. The market says "Mother May I." We have a commons and need a property model. Such as an easement that allows a smart radio to use licensed spectrum in a polite way. Spectrum underlay. Get the best of the property and the commons world. The first rulemaking on this starts tomorrow. They're requesting comments from the public now. Read it. (While I'm looking, here's something by Kevin covering some of the same subjects.) |
| | Glenn: Dynamic channel management, power control... |
| | Duncan: Talking about unibands. Radar. Differences between countries in frequency bands, use of spectrum. Interesting: at certain distances between hops, all the bandwidth is tied up with relay. There are ways to get wifi to go farter, though. You want more traffic to be unique. There's not enough fiber out where you need it. Bridge that with wireless. The wired and celllular industries don't want wireless backhaul. Cheaper to buy a T3 wireless than a wired one. |
| | David Sifry: Power management matters. Powering radios is a big drain. You need to power down when you're not on the air. |
| | Martin: You can get enormous benefits (he runs them down) with UWB. In extreme spectrum we've put it in silicon. We've made UWB enabling development available to consumer electonics companies. We're the first company to make the transition from science project to real tech company. |
| | Rohit: Is there a market for anything other than Layer 3 replacements? |
| | Duncan: You're looking for carrier grade. Narad has very interesting tech. You need to meet or match those capabilities. Get it down to layer 2. You can't do it at higher layers. That's our goal, anyway. |
| | David Sifry: There has been interesting work around emergency networks. What if a hurricane knocks out phone and cell service? But you can still send an SMS message from phone to phone, perhaps. Nothing implemented by carriers, though. |
| | Glenn: UWB is transformatory... |
| | Martin: Radically different physical layer tech. Our silicon guarantees 100MB of payload at 10 meters with full QoS. We brand and market our solution as that, we are meeting the requirements of our customers. That's consumer electronics audio video distro. |
| | Missed a lot toward the end of this one. Just wearing out around the fingers... |
| | What haven't we learned? Government, digital identity. |
| | Marc: mechanisms for interaction, for connecting and cooperating between disparate entities. Need an XML-RPC equivalent for other apps. |
| | Mike: What you centralize... pivot points for decentalization/centralization. |
| | Rohit: Economic issues. Heard lots about politics. Not much about. |
| | Me: Categorize "infrastructure" Difference between commons infrastructure and commercial infrastructure. |
| | Dave Sifry: organizational and legal models |
| | Somebody: SIP, IM, superdirectories |
| | Somebody: Inside the firewall? Decentralization inside corps is bad. It's the enemy. |
| | Somebody: Consumer electronics and non-PC devices |
| | Phil Wolfe: The next one in D.C. with gov't and policy... should be a common theme. (Like, it doesn't go away.) |
| | Kevin: Quoting Karl Marx. Philosophers explain the world and now it's our job to change it. Kevin reverses that. |
| | And that's it. Now we're off to the EFF party in San Francisco. |
Shop hard
Everwhat
| | On the other hand, Allan Karl says some nice things. |
And he's ALREADY skinny
| | Along with the geeky erudition, there's another topic of conversation at Kevin Werbach's Supernova event: the Atkins diet. Doc Searls is looking slim. Cory Doctorow carries a bag of exotic Italian sausages, in case he gets a protein craving. When asked whether he's exercising too, he's outraged. |
Be there then
| | We're holding a conference on March 1 at Stanford about spectrum policy. If that sounds boring, then you really need to pay a bit more attention to the next extraordinarily important policy issue affecting innovation and growth. There is about to be a very significant shift in how spectrum is managed. One school says it should be propertized; another says it should be treated as a commons. Read: auctions vs. WiFi; or more auctions vs. mesh networks. The question for the conference is which model makes most sense. The day will end with a "moot court" which will be judged by FCC Chairman Powell, Judge Alex Kozinski, economist Harold Demsetsz, and possibly Senator Barbara Boxer. Go here to learn more. |
Peace out
| | Fairhaven: Warbloggers used to take joy in exposing the lies and errors of propagandizing leftist media. Now they have become their enemy and are just another crowd of propagandists. |
| | That's from October. Still, proof that I'll link back to folks eventually. Sometimes. |
Like I oversaid
Discuss (3 responses)
Copyright 2016 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
