minimyway

What Next for Microsoft??

2007-10-23T08:20:00.000-05:00

Last Saturday, the 20th, MSFTextrememakeover posed the question, "What if Microsoft wasn't a screwup?"

The market, it seems, doesn't much care about what might happen if MSFT weren't a screwup. They only care that MSFT is one, and is in total denial about it. As critical as I have been, I have always been optimistic that this company could eventually get back on track. That optimism is fading. Turns out the market was right five years ago when they ignored Ballmer's rosy outlook and disconnected MSFT from the broader averages. Flash forward to today, and again the market is sending a negative message while Ballmer waxes poetic. Only now, the market is the sole one with any credibility.

On Sunday, the 21st, Silicon Valley Blog posed the question, "Is Microsoft Irrevocably Broken?"

Additionally, in order to be taken seriously as a stock or as a company, investors have to believe in the management and its direction. Bill Gates has lessened his influence on the company, working more on non-profits. And Steve Ballmer doesn't have the credibility and the ability to inspire employees and customers the way Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and Larry Page have. It could be time for a change there, as Microsoft looks more and more like yesterday's IBM than tomorrow's Google. The question is, is the company broken, and can it be saved.

On Monday, the 22nd, The Wall Street Journal reported, "Microsoft Bows to EU Regulators On 2004 Antitrust Measures."

The case touched only two corners of the sprawling Microsoft software empire-- operating systems for a single class of computer servers, and software that plays audio and video files. The EU had told Microsoft to unbundle the Media Player software it sells with its ubiquitous Windows operating system, and to give competitors the data they need to make their software work effectively with Windows

Is the company broken?? -- NO, not yet.

Can it be saved?? -- YES, depending...
...on its handling of the Antitrust Matter!!!

We need a small change in attitude on the part of all affected participants -- no matter our personal prejudices, we each have a stake in the success of Microsoft.

The crux of the antitrust matter is the bundling of applications with the operating system. Under the bundling problem lies a technological controversy about the scientific merit of computer programming. Whether Vista represents a technological advance or not, is irrelevant right now. We need to recognize that meeting the requirements of the EU will be very difficult with the present technology -- requiring much negotiation.

I have a better idea!!!

Create a new product line by unbundling at the Windows 2000 level. Market an operating system plus a Windows middleware, each with the necessary support applications

Acquire my product line and introduce a ScrapBook middleware with the necessary support applications.

Revise and introduce necessary Development Kits, compilers, linkers, along with MSDN documentation.

Obviously, there are a lot of details to be discussed -- and THAT is the crux of my proposal -- ALL OF THE DETAILS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN OPEN DISCUSSION -- NO MORE HIDDEN AGENDAS. (That small change in attitude I mentioned above)

Product Information - http://pdmsb.com

Off-line discussion forums - http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

Contact - Doug Skoglund skoglund@pdmsb.comPlease put a [MYWAY] in your subject line if you wish to contact me.

Microsoft is Dead??

2007-04-08T14:14:00.000-05:00

Monday, April 9, 2007

Microsoft is Dead??

The top posting on Techmeme, yesterday, was a posting by Paul Graham, entitled, "Microsoft is Dead", followed by a whole pile of postings on the subject -- naturally.

Now, there is a lot of wisdom in all of those postings -- in fact, an individual could extract enough wisdom from a small number of those postings to support most any argument, a feat that I am about to demonstrate.

Paul states:

"I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized that he didn't understand."

"Microsoft cast a shadow over the software world for almost 20 years starting in the late 80s. I can remember when it was IBM before them, I ignored this shadow. I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly -- for example, in the spam I got from botnets. And because I wasn't paying attention, I didn't notice when the shadow disappeared."

The fact of the matter is -- that shadow has NOT disappeared. I use quotes from Simeon Bateman and Ryan Stewart from a post entitled, "Why Do People Hate Building Desktop Applications", by Ryan Stewart:

"Simeon: And I think paul is right on with the desktop thing. The only reason I would ever consider building an application for the desktop is because apollo lets me do it easily like a web application. "

"I would never NEVER build a desktop application."

"Ryan: At least Simeon realizes there is some benefit to building desktop applications, he just doesn't see why it's worth it to go through the effort. And he's right, building desktop applications has been hard. It's a pain: you have to create a version for each operating system, and most of them look ugly when you're finished."

Obviously, this is exactly the kind of discussion that Microsoft wants. This is wisdom -- not my kind -- but wisdom, nonetheless. The longer people see the business that way the more dominant that shadow.

As a builder of a desktop application that can make development of additional applications much easier, I am extremely sensitive to the spread of such baloney.

I must add a couple of quotes from, "Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing."

"Paul obviously wrote his headline to grab attention and attract links to his blog."

"Hyperbole is the weapon of the Web 2.0 pontificates, Facts are ignored in favor of Myopic observations."

"The Paul Graham apologists are already coming to his defense saying "he said dead, but what he really meant was that Microsoft is not feared anymore". Sorry to burst your bubble but it was never Microsoft's intent to scare anyone."

Yea, sure -- tell that to Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller, the authors of "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates.", published in 1998.

That's enough -- I must assume that I have made my point.

Whether you agree or not, you will cherry pick all those postings for wisdom to support your preconceived position, just as I have done. That, in it's self, is the way things were meant to be -- we can talk about our individual viewpoints till hell freezes over.

The presence, or non-presence of a cloud will NOT change until we convert our collective viewpoint into some kind of political action.

The blogosphere was started as a reaction to the mainstream media and it's usurped control over the power of the people. The blogosphere is now part of that MSM. Nothing has changed for the majority of the people -- no sense my getting aroused -- I can't participate in the discussion, except by mailing a copy of this post to a number of well known gatekeepers.

I just happen to be dumb enough to still do a little wishful thinking.

Thanks for listening

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

This page posted at http://nationalcomputerassociation.comwhere you can join a discussion aimed at creating a real answer to that cloud.

Social Media

2007-02-23T09:52:00.000-06:00

Brian Solis has posted a lengthy and informative treatise entitled, "What's Wrong With Social Media?", in which he brings together a number of positive and negative viewpoints on the use of the term "Social Media".

IMHO, the only thing wrong with "Social Media" is the questionable motivations of those that find it necessary to give it a name. Let's back up a bit and take another look at what has been happening.

Back when the Constitution of the United States was written, our forefathers wrote about freedom of the press, meaning newspapers. Sometime between then and now, technology gave us magazines, radio, television and the term "media" to cover everything. By and large, the media was run by journalists as delivery of news was of paramount importance.

Now, it has been downhill for the media ever since, what with the growth of advertising along with our normal competitive desires and need to control the activities of our fellow man. Newspapers, radio and television stations used to be locally owned and dedicated to the prosperity of the local community, a situation that has changed over the years.

To make matters worse, technology introduces the microprocessor, and a bunch of geeks see it as an opportunity to take over the world. (Prior to this time the geeks were quite happy serving as tool makers for the world).

So, what do the geeks do?? They turn the whole world upside-down, rename everything, throw out the baby AND the bath water. Of course, they have an advantage -- they are the only ones that understand this new technology.

Someone coined the phrase, "Revenge of the geeks/nerds." Maybe so -- one would have to admit that the geeks have done a very poor job of providing the whole of society with a safe, workable, economical "Personal Computer".

We need to understand that the first users of any technology will be suspect while they plow new ground -- but, even more so because of the extremely high financial rewards some have reaped at the expense of society as a whole.

The net effect of all of this is a system that is highly competitive. The blogosphere creates problems for the mainstream media causing them to join the competition. This, at a time when we should be lowering the competitive levels, not increasing them.

So, when Brian Solis writes:

"The key point is that Social Media has yet to reveal its true impact among those around the world who have yet to embrace it and participate."

"The way we react and share information will only continue to change until it completely transforms from one-to-many to many-to-many."

I must counter by noting that the transformation would be very simple -- switch from blogs, a one-to-many format, to forums, a many-to-many format.

You might be interested in my Off-Line Forum samples, a true many-to-many approach:

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

Peer Review...

2007-02-13T12:48:00.000-06:00

When I went to school there was a horrendous gulf between the social sciences and the real sciences, you know, math, physics, chemistry and biology.

In the real sciences we have the Scientific Method where we collect data, formulate an hypothesis, test our hypothesis, all subject to the careful scrutiny of other scientists.

In the social sciences they have Theories, Causal Variables, critical analysis and peer review. Frankly, I don't see any difference. Theory, hypothesis, either one is of no value without peer review. And that seems like the fundamental premise supporting the ultimate definition of Democracy.

Let's look at a specific example:

One of my daily stops is Doc Searls Weblog, not because of what he says, but because he has the best links in the blogosphere. Now that is not a put down of Doc Searls, it is my way of saying that a combination of things makes it very difficult to understand precisely what he is saying. I keep reading little gems of wisdom that I can't consolidate because they are all mixed up in all the other things that interest Doc, to say nothing of the crummy blog format used by Doc.

On yesterday's post, Doc starts with the heading "Losing our heads" and links to Dave Rogers (and some other place) and then posts a quote. He interjects a comment and then continues with a very, very lengthy quote.

Now, I don't intend to provide a bunch of links beside the one to Doc Searls above. You can try and follow the discussion between Dave and Doc the same way I did. OTOH, you can skip the exercise, as most others do.

The point is -- here are two intelligent people discussing a matter of great importance to all of us -- yet there is no possibility of any Peer Review. Oh, at least Doc has the ability for any of us to post a comment; but, just try and make any sense out of that kind of thread.

What we have is the modern day equivalent of an electronic football game with one team in Indianapolis and the other in Chicago, and the audience spread all over the world. First, you tune in the Colts to see their play and then you need to tune in the Bears to see their reaction. and to make matters worse you need to tune in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, etc to get a feel for the crowd reaction. Silly, isn't it??

But, this is what we have in the blogosphere. Doc didn't like this description; however, a blog is a soapbox, one-to-many, one individual shouting a message to the world. Adding comments does not a forum make, it is still a blog with comments.

A forum may begin with the same kind of message as a blog; however it is aimed a smaller group of members involved in the evolution of the group. Now, don't get all excited by my limited comparison -- I accept that there are good blogs and bad forums. The critical point is that the forum can contain, in one place, both sides of a discussion in addition to some reader contribution. Yes, it may put a little more burden on the individual than a personal blog, but it makes it a whole lot easier on the general public.

BTW, I'm not convinced that you guys are really on different sides. Dave, you said that you are opposed to the unchecked expansion of commercial activity at the expense of social and political activities. Doc, you said that you were not going to stop trying to change the balance of power within commerce. What's the difference??

Dave, you don't like the phrase, "Markets are Conversations". I don't either; however, I see the phrase as a misguided attempt to change reality by changing the framing. In other words, while you can frame a discussion in many different ways to facilitate an understanding of reality, it is a mistake to believe that you can change reality by framing the discussion differently. Think about it!!

Doc Searls, Dave Rogers, I make this challenge, Bring your discussion to my web site. Let's set up a forum where others can get involved. Yes, it is necessary to download some software -- to accommodate present and future non-broadband users I am using a slight modification to the standard e-mail system. That same software will allow you to respond to this message, out in the open where everybody can see. (Sorry Dave, requires a PC and Windows 2000 or Windows XP, but, that's another story. I'll bet that you could borrow a laptop, someplace).

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.

Wake Up, America!!

2007-01-29T09:14:00.000-06:00

On Sunday evening, January 28, 2007, 60 Minutes broadcast a segment on the Geek squad, that I wish I had recorded. A Google search this morning yielded a web site on Yahoo that may prove to be more valuable than the original broadcast. Here is a link.

That segment was just the tip of the iceberg, a sign of things to come. Check it out!!!

I want all of America, especially the geeks of America, to realize that, "The Sky is Falling". It is time for each and every individual, geek and non-geek to engage in some introspection.

"Are you part of the problem or part of the solution??"

Your answer to that question will become very important to your future success.

Just think about it -- I can make such a prediction because I have not predicted which side might win, or whether the problem will ever be solved: however, it is still a meaningful question that you should be thinking about.

To furnish some additional data, I want to submit the following from a letter that I wrote to Tom Reilly, Massachusetts attorney General on Saturday, October 4, 2003.

"First, without getting too political, let me state that the two most dangerous men in the world today are George W. Bush and William H. Gates III, Mr. Bush as head of the world's only super power and Mr. Gates as the head of the world's most dominant monopoly. I'm not too worried about Mr. Bush, as we have provisions for resolving any difficulty he may create - it's called an election. Mr. Gates, on the other hand, is a whole different problem."

"Both, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates have failed to recognize that responsibilities change when one succeeds to such a high position. One must be able to serve the broader community; presidents of the United States are elected to serve all the citizens, not just those that elected him. And being the only superpower, we might consider the U.S. to be an international monopoly which means that Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates, both must consider the needs of the entire world. Such is the reward for that kind of success. Failure to perform properly will be handled by the larger community in due time. Since Mr. Bush's term can be terminated next year, I am more concerned about Mr. Gates. The market will take care of him in the long run; however, we need some action quicker than that. Besides, monopolies have always been controlled by the government. Now we sit, waiting for the European Union to take over the responsibilities that the U.S. has shirked."

"Mr. Gates' decision to oppose the government, and then win in the courts is probably more destructive to our way of life than any mistakes that Mr. Bush might make. The government must prevail or we will see a slide into oblivion, far worse than anything previously experienced."

Now, here we sit, some 3-1/4 years later, George Bush's term was not terminated; however, Mr. Bush seems to be in some sort of free fall at this time. He is desperately trying to open a parachute, and while he can't stop the fall he can hope to soften the landing.

Mr. Gates' situation is not as easy to visualize, but Joe Wilcox used an interesting metaphor:

"Windows Vista is now a train near it's destination -- and it's got a lot of momentum. Microsoft won't be stopping that train and asking the passengers to get off."

Joe forgot to mention that the train is on a downward slope, making control much more difficult.

I am not trying the emphasize the "I told you so" aspect, because all kinds of people have been voicing similar opinions since long before I got in the action. What I do want to emphasize is the fact that no matter any individual's previous position, we, the citizens of the United States are responsible for the damage created by Bush and Gates.

The 60 Minutes broadcast was a preliminary notice to all geeks. We have a limited time to get our house in order because the balance of society is getting restless. The 60 Minutes people were just starting the process of problem analysis. And we must remember that our democratic society has a way of solving problems, eventually.

We must be aware that the year 2007 might very well go down in history as the turning point, meaning that each of us will be measured on what we do in the future, not what we have done in the past. No matter our past individual activity, we are all part of the problem. We lost that game and are now in the first quarter of a new game -- think about it!!!

I will be publishing some additional thoughts on problems and solutions in the near future.

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.

Paralyzed by Fear

2006-12-26T12:02:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, Nick Bradbury published a blog with the title, "Desktop Software is Paralyzed by Fear", and I quote:

Despite the power and rich UI that desktop applications offer, it's obvious that the move to Web applications is accelerating. For many people, the ability to access their data through any browser clearly outweighs the benefits of desktop software.

He goes on to claim that many mainstream users that may not care about the Web's benefits are still moving to the Web because of fear, "Downloading and installing software is scary".

After a short explanation of his hypothesis, Nick summarizes with the following:

It's great that Microsoft is concerned about security - given the past few years of spyware-ridden desktops, they have to make security their priority - but I sure wish they could make Windows secure without scaring away customers.

Nick, I am not posting this to take issue with you, since I agree with all that you wrote; however, you have opened the door on a subject that deserves more discussion -- much more discussion.

First, it would be nice if we had some numbers to justify the feeling (yours and mine) that the move to Web applications is accelerating.

Second, since I am not quite certain about your motivations for making your post, I want to state, that as a Windows Desktop Programmer and a participant in the PC market, I believe that it is up to us to do something about that fear.

Third, if we hope to accomplish anything, we need an understanding of our present situation, where we are going and how we want to get there. I am referring to the entire Personal Computer business, which includes Desktops, Laptops -- as well as the Web.

I just happen to believe that we are in the early stages of a very natural process -- the process of maturing a market. Allowing that the PC has been in existence for some 25 to 30 years, we need to recognize that the maturation process has been slowed by the anti-competitive activities of some participants combined with the cooperative activities of others and the apathetic non-participation by the balance of society. The market will mature, no matter our individual contribution; however, we, the participants, can influence the speed of the process as well as the smoothness.

The fact that the move to Web applications seems to be accelerating, means that the total fear level is decreasing and that the fear that plagues the Desktop will be decreasing also, thus allowing more companies to enter that portion of the market, which will decrease the fear that plagues users even further.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the details about future market development -- but, I do know this:

The fear will decrease as the market matures, by definition -- good companies will survive, bad companies will perish -- problems that concern users will be solved. Ultimately we affect the market by our spending; however, we can expedite the process and influence its direction through our participation. And that's what blogs and forums are all about, participation.

Remember, the early entrants will reap the most rewards -- the desktop is NOT the exclusive property of Microsoft. So, come and join the discussion...

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.

Letter to George Soros

2006-10-04T02:39:00.000-05:00

Regarding your book, "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror", I want to take issue with you on a couple of very important points.

But, first, the following caveat:

I would normally buy your book and then try to make some kind of contact with you directly. You see, I am a very strong believer in two-way communication; however, failure of past authors to partake in my idea of a better world causes me to try to make the contact BEFORE spending any money. I am therefore using material from your website to support my thoughts.

Please, let me emphasize that I am not talking about major differences -- I have no argument with your general philosophy -- I am concerned with a few gaps in your logic, gaps that are most critical, as you will see.

In your introduction, you state:

"My biggest frustration is with the fundamental misconceptions that have prevailed in the United States in recent years. Misconceptions play a prominent role in my view of the world. I consider them causal factors in shaping the course of history. And I consider open society a desirable form of social organization exactly because of its ability to correct misconceptions. How is it that the oldest and most successful open society has become the victim of misconceptions?"

"My contention is that America has become a "feel-good" society unwilling to face unpleasant reality. That is why the public could be so grievously misled by the Bush administration. Unless this feel-good attitude can be changed, the United States is doomed to lose its dominant position in the world. There will be serious adverse consequences not only for America but also for the world."

And I agree, except for one thing -- you proceeded in the wrong direction -- exploring the relationship between thinking and reality. And it's not that the question lacks importance. You have not established a causal connection between thinking and your so-called feel-good society. In all fairness, there is a connection; however, there are some links in between that need examining.

America has become a "feel-good" society because that is exactly what the powers want. The last thing the powers want is a thinking society. Thinking people have a tendency to do exactly what I am doing -- writing a letter to one in power to disagree with something he said.

But -- and here is the crux of the problem -- how do I get you to read my thoughts?? You have nothing on your web site for individual contact -- no e-mail or other address -- no location whatever. So, I can post to my web sites in the hope that some reader may know how to get your attention.

Mr. Soros, Doing something about the feel-good society is easy, because there is a lot of activity in process in that area, which means that supporting some of that activity is the easiest way to get preliminary results. I am referring to the activity called blogs and/or forums or chat rooms -- activity designed to build communities, communities designed to facilitate discussion.

I am not trying to denigrate your concern for the connection between thinking and reality -- only to state that it too will need the capabilities that I am talking about. We need to get the people talking to each other, which means that we need to start with the infrastructure -- it's just as easy as that. Another point, from your introduction:

"The root cause of trouble is a false metaphor, the war on terror. It has done terrible damage to our standing in the world and endangered our open society at home; yet it is still generally accepted as the natural response to 9/11. I detail the damage and argue that it is largely self-inflicted by the willful misinterpretation of reality. We cannot start repairing the damage until we repudiate the false metaphor of the war on terror. We must do more than just revert to the policies we pursued prior to 9/11. We must recognize that as the dominant power in the world we have a special responsibility. In addition to protecting our national interests, we must take the leadership in protecting the common interests of humanity. I go to some detail as to what that entails."

While I agree that the false metaphor is a problem, I don't see it as the root cause. There are a number of people making the same points about it's usefulness; however, the key question is:

How do you expect to dispense with a false metaphor when more than half the voting citizens are not involved in the discussion -- and there is no way that they can get involved as long as we fail to provide the infra structure. In short -- how can a society be open without the ability to pursue in-depth discussion other than through sound bites??

You may contact me through my web sites:

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

http://ifihadmyway.com

http://pdmsb.com

or my e-mail: skoglund@pdmsb.com. Please mark your subject with [SOROS]

To all other readers: I would appreciate your help getting my message to Mr. Soros.

Thanks

Doug Skoglund

Y"All Come...

2006-05-19T03:46:00.000-05:00

Subject: Y'All Come...

Well, the politicians in the United States are getting ready for the mid-term election coming up in November. The Republicans have reassigned Carl Rove to head up the election campaign (or something like that) and the Democrats have started their "50-State Canvass: Final Push".

They are both wrong, IMHO. They are looking for your vote, without caring about your participation. They are telling you what they want instead of asking you what you want.

The two political parties plan their activities based on a 50% voter turnout and what is necessary to carry critical states -- for them, the less participation, the better.

Just think of the chaos that would be created, if we can increase that voter turnout, by even 10% or 20%.

Y'All come -- over to:

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

Let's talk about it -- after all, there's a lot of wisdom out there -- and all we have to do is build up a little "collective wisdom". And you don't have to be a voter to participate.

That's Why They Fire Coaches...

2006-03-21T07:25:00.001-06:00

Stop for a minute and think about your favorite NFL team. Was it a winning team last season?? Or, just so-so?? Did the coach get fired or get a raise??

Now, everybody knows what happens at the end of every football season. Dependent upon the owner's expectations, the coach's continued employment is dependent upon the team's performance. And the team's performance is the direct responsibility of the coach. No ifs, ands or buts -- a loosing team and the coach gets fired.

What is interesting about this scenario is that people from all walks of life are evaluating, literally, every thing that happens to the team over the course of the year. It becomes a classic study of group behavior -- what happens to people in a group and how is the behavior of the individual controlled for the benefit of the group. Everybody seems to understand that individual athletic ability is a small part of the total picture, and that the complex interrelationship of the participants has more to do with success or failure of the whole group.

Whether you are interested in football or some other sport, most of us are somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to functioning in a group -- after all, we have all been associated with some kind of group from the very beginning to the very end. And while most people learn their lessons well, how an individual functions in a group depends upon which lessons that individual emphasizes -- if you know what I mean.

Of course, there are exceptions; however, I am not concerned with the exceptions right now because we seem to have a situation developing that is far more dangerous -- IMHO.

I am referring to the apparent lack of understanding of events and responsibilities involved when an individual forms a group -- and how some people seem to believe that they can change the situation by redefinition.

The first thing to understand is that you are forming a group the minute you post a blog. The group members have little consequence while reading your post -- they are simply readers -- until they get to the point where you are inviting comments. Without the comment section, the group would simply fade away -- unless you posted an address, that is. Indicating an address or a comment capability makes you the owner of a group with the responsibility for dealing with the actions of any one that chooses to join your group.

Advice on Handling Comments?

Heather Green, co-proprietor with Stephen Baker of the Business Week blog, known as, "blogspotting".

posted the following:

Steve and I could use some advice on what to do about comments. Or more specifically, comments on a particular post. Last September, Steve wrote about a feature on Friendster that lets members see how many people have been trolling their site.

It clearly freaked out people, who have left around 125 comments so far. They find the post, probably through a search engine, and leave comments like this:

"how do i us this to find out who is viewing my page??"

And that's mostly all they say. Still, very occasionally, someone jumps in and tries to either calm everyone down or give some advice. So, what do you advise? Shut the comments down or keep them open in hopes that someone savvier than us will be able to provide help?

I am not quite certain who got freaked out, but I have to wonder what Heather thought she was getting into, when she signed up for duty running blogspotting -- and I also have to wonder about the management of Business Week. I mean, this is a magazine that has been around for a number of years, definitely part of the mainstream media, MSM. They have been dealing with readers for years.

Whether of not to allow comments should have been decided back when the company was thinking about getting into blogging. Hmm -- maybe I give Business Week more credit than they deserve.

The Doc Searls Weblog : Saturday, February 11, 2006

Doc Searls writes:

I have this idea that the blogosphere is the one place in the world — or perhaps an entirely new world, or a part of a new world, created on the Net — where there is no need for class, for caste, for gates or keepers of anything.

To me this is a world where the only success that fully counts is in helping move good ideas along, in helping make this new world a bigger, better and more open place. And in helping others enjoy the privilege of participating in it.

I see this world as a place built on credits given, taken and passed along. I see this world as a place where it is at least possible to overcome disagreements, and to come to new agreements that would not be possible without the protocol, both technical and civil, we call the hyperlink.

I have taken these words out of context because they illustrate, by themselves, what I mean when I question people that seem to believe that they can change a situation by redefinition. The blogosphere is a created term used to signify a group -- a group of people involved in communicating via weblogs, "blogs". As a group, it must be given characteristics relative to groups. The blogosphere, obviously, is NOT a place.

As to the business of moving "good ideas", how does one know that the idea being moved is good -- or bad?? Besides, the problem with helping others and overcoming disagreements in the blogosphere is that you are working in a competitive environment. That hyperlink becomes a measure of success and thus becomes a payment for acceptable behavior.

Any coach worth her/his salt understands the dynamics of groups and that any group must go through a maturation process. The present blogosphere is still in it's infancy -- and the odds are that the conflict will continue because the basic structure is wrong for the things that Doc would like to see. I have been trying to get Doc to checkout the use of managed, measured discussion forums -- an idea that doc does not rate as good.

To Be Continued...

Dump Roe v. Wade...

2006-01-16T06:20:00.000-06:00

Having just completed the Committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee, Stephen Alito, don't you think that it is about time we dispensed with the number one political problem facing the United States of America??

I, of course, am talking about the phony argument between pro-life and pro-choice. I believe that most everybody is pro-life and that the real concern is about pro-choice, as in abortion. But, there is another way to describe the difference between the sides.

We are really arguing about when life begins, with the pro-life people believing that life begins at conception. Now my experience indicates that this is a religiously derived belief. I say that because I learned through secular means that life began at birth, which seems consistent with society's actions like recording birth dates and celebrating birthdays.

Of course, I see the argument as a group of people that want to shove their religious beliefs on me and others like me. And, while I don't see my viewpoint as being religious, I can accept that others might consider it to be just as religious as pro-life.

If we accept the above, then we have a group of people that believe the life begins zero (0) days after conception and another group the believes that life begins approximately 270 days after conception.

It's my understanding that present abortion restrictions have something to do with viability of the fetus so that limitations are imposed if the fetus could survive outside the mother's womb.

Let's decide, via a periodic vote, the Politically Acceptable Birthdate, PAB and add it to our laws that allow abortion of fetuses younger than PAB.

The law should also provide for update of the PAB (maybe every four years) and should define limits for acceptable campaign behavior between elections.

Doug Skoglund
http://minimyway.blogspot.com
http://ifihadmyway.com
http://rational-politics.org

Please put a [MYWAY] in your subject line if you wish to contact me. (Or use my SAMail application)

The Next Step...

2006-01-13T01:50:00.000-06:00

To: Doc Searls - doc@searls.com

From: Doug Skoglund - skoglund@pdmsb.com

Are you ready to talk, seriously??

Thank you for responding -- I, of course have used the word, "talk" loosely -- so let me continue with this little "talk".

We have had a number of discussions where I have tried to convince you that Microsoft is the problem -- without much success. I hope that the DRM situation will help you realize that Microsoft is the king pin in a conspiracy to restrict competition. While the members may not have conspired, technically, the effect is the same. The existing market is dominated by a few companies that each seem to understand the limits of allowable behavior.

In addition, the technical media, your people, have been extremely cautious about plowing new ground, for obvious reasons. Yet, if we want to find solutions, the tech media will have to lead the way -- or get out of the way -- since they have the keys to the kingdom.

Make no mistake -- I can rant and rave -- till hell freezes over -- and it is all for naught without some kind of blessing from one of you guys/gals with a following.

I just happen to believe that the market is about ready to explode. The concern over DRM is one indicator, and David Berlind's Mashup activity is another. But, that is small potatoes, compared to the potential. We, the programmers, need to cooperate with you, the media, to break this thing open.

Obviously, I want to use my PDMSB application to promote the overthrow -- But, let's not cloud the issue with all kinds of new terms -- all we need to do is move a few blocks around to allow some breathing room for a few programmers. It's just that easy.

BTW, Doc, I realize that you are busy, so please respond at your convenience -- but, please respond so that we can work toward some sort of plan.

Doug Skoglund - http://minimyway.blogspot.com - http://ifihadmyway.com

Please put a [MYWAY] in your subject line if you wish to contact me. (Or use my SAMail application)

Alternative to DRM...

2006-01-12T06:10:00.000-06:00

Thursday, January 12, 2006

To: Doc Searls - doc@searls.com

From: Doug Skoglund - skoglund@pdmsb.com

>>Yes, the next generation of PCs and Macs will have DRM cripplecrap in them. Hey, who needs WIPO, Congress and the U.N. to mandate copyright craziness, when Intel is glad to put the mess right in the hardware.<<

The answer, of course, is support for an alternative -- might I suggest my Personal Digital Multimedia ScrapBook, PDMSB. I do video, audio, photo, etc -- using DirectX 9.0. I DO NOT do Windows Media Files and, given some support, will never do WMF, DRM or any other type of cripplecrap. Intel may put it on the chip; however, nothing is forcing an application to use it, yet.

Doc, You expend an awful lot of energy telling us how you got the net and how you are going to keep it, too. However, it's all just wishful thinking, without a plan.

Are you ready to talk, seriously??

Doug Skoglund - http://minimyway.blogspot.com - http://ifihadmyway.com

Please put a [MYWAY] in your subject line if you wish to contact me. (Or use my SAMail application)

Down the Tubes...

2005-11-18T10:11:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 02:00, Doc Searls, published an essay entitled "Saving the Net; How to keep the Carriers from flushing the Net Down the Tubes".

Doc is so far off base that I don't know where to start with my criticism -- let's try this bit from his third scenario:

>>To start we acknowledge the necessity of the transport metaphor; but also its insufficiency.<<

>>Of course, at its base level the Net is a system of pipes and packets. But it's not only packets, or "content" or anything for that matter. Understanding the Net only in transport terms is like understanding civilization in terms of electrical service or human beings only in terms of atoms and molecules. We miss the larger context.<<

>>That context is best understood as a place. When we speak of the Net as a "place" or a "space" or a "world" or a "commons" or a "market" with "locations" and "addresses" and "sites" that we "build", we are framing the Net as a place.<<

The transport metaphor is the proper one. The Net is a system for transporting packets, or "content", from one computer to another. That's all it is, plain and simple. Doc's comparison fails because civilization IS more than electrical service and human beings ARE more than atoms and molecules, while the Net is nothing more than a transportation system.

Doc can "build" as many "Alice-In-Wonderland" fantasies as he chooses and they will all fail because the fantasy will only appeal to a limited audience. Besides, Congress and the courts can see through fantasies just as well as you or I.

So let's talk about realities -- Each and every transport system that exists is made up of components that have been provided by some entity, and that entity has every right to be compensated reasonably for the use of their components. Obviously, the entity wants to maximize revenue and the user want to minimize costs -- and the balance is supposed to be controlled by the market, and it will be controlled by the market. The difficulty comes when various interests start using political power to manipulate the market.
Now, let me quote another paragraph from Doc Searls:

>>There's nothing wrong with being in the bandwidth business, of course. But some of these big boys want to go further with it. They don't see themselves as a public utility selling a pure base-level service, such as water or electricity (which is what they are, by the way, in respect to the Net). They see themselves as a source of many additional value-adds, inside the pipes. They see opportunities to sell solutions to industries that rely on the Net -- especially their natural partner, the content industry.<<

See -- Doc is objecting to the potential bundling of base-level services with additional value-adds, the selling of "solutions". Now, where have we heard that before?? Microsoft, of course, is the best example of using the technique of bundling to "rip-off" the general public and get away with it because of the lack of opposing political pressure.

Microsoft has set an example for the entire world -- we must expect others to follow suit. And, we must understand that the only workable solution must be political. If we want to change the system, then we must build the political muscle to oppose those that wish to manipulate the markets. Constructing fantasies WILL NOT WORK!!!!!

There are an awful lot of people running around in circles, painting all kinds of pictures and describing various scenarios, all in an attempt to persuade members of the public to get involved. We must understand that the public will only get involved if the cause is worthy, the cost reasonable and the time required is acceptable. Every body is busy these days, with all kinds of demands for their time, which simply means that those with causes must make it easier if they want support. Remember, very few people will respond to that "Tell your Congress person" suggestion because they know that it is a waste of time. The only real solution will turn out to be an organization like the National Rifle Association, NRA, or the American Association of Retired People, AARP -- a National Computer Association, Inc. NCAI, if you will. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF, might be a start in that direction; however, some discussion on the subject is required.

However, selling the public is not the problem -- selling the problem solvers is the problem. Too many people with too many ideas -- all trying to sell each other on their individual ideas, me included.

Doug Skoglund - http://minimyway.blogspot.com - http://ifihadmyway.com

Please put a [MYWAY] in your subject line if you wish to contact me. (Or use my SAMail application)

I Would Love to be a Democrat...

2005-11-07T11:52:00.001-06:00

...if the powers running the party weren't so dumb. Let me illustrate:

Ralph Nader admonished the voters in '04 to vote for him instead of the lesser of evils. Well, they voted for the lesser of evils, including Mr. Nader in the comparison. I don't understand why the Democrats fail to understand this very simple principle -- after all -- John Kerry -- Cripes A' Mighty.

George W. Bush may have won; however, being the lesser of evils did not give him that mandate that he thought he had -- which explains much of his misfortunes since the election. All the Democrats have to do to change the balance of power in the '06 elections and regain the White House in '08 is to reduce their evils.

First, and foremost, stop the idiotic bickering -- the electorate wants more cooperation on important issues. If you don't have the votes to win, state your position and get on with the vote -- no filibusters.

Of, course, you must have a position on each and every issue -- so get on with it.

Also, a very important thing has happened that changes elections for ever more -- it's called the Internet. The Internet will be the vehicle for all grass roots organizing from now on -- which means that organizational activity should start as soon as possible. Blogging is the current favorite, and will continue to be influential; however, I predict that the forum format will be more influential over time.

To facilitate the organizational process, the participants must begin using the standard e-mail system, which means developing the ability to handle Spam and be responsive to legitimate correspondence.

The political party that understands the Internet, it's strengths and weaknesses, and does the best job of organizing the grass roots and listening to what is said, will become the dominant party. The Carvels, Begallas, and Roves are going to be a thing of the past - right??

Doug Skoglund - http://minimyway.blogspot.com/

Technology Run Amuck

2005-10-15T01:55:00.000-05:00

Technology Run Amuck

Brian Lamb, over at C-Span seems to be telling us something. On Friday the 14th he rebroadcast two sessions of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee from July 12, 2005, not once, but twice on C-Span2 and once on C-Span3.

One session was devoted to Digital Television Must-Carry and Multitasking while the other was devoted to Digital Television Household Transition and Spectrum, both fairly technical discussions. Each session was designed to deal with a slightly different aspect of the transition from analog television to digital television.

Brian Lamb was telling us that we've got trouble, my friends, in the good old U.S. of A. He normally doesn't resurrect old broadcasts unless he believes them to be very important. And these were important -- when you take the interests of the broadcast television, the cable companies, the satellite companies and then mix in the Computer and the Internet people, you have a technical jungle that no politician will be able to understand.

I have been pressing for a technology summit, a 9/11 Commission sort of thing, to dig into the Personal Computer and the Internet. After watching the exchange of gobble-de-gook in those sessions, I have come to believe that technical matters can no longer be left to the exclusive control of the participants -- they are just too damn greedy and will play too many technical games with the untrained -- including you and I as consumers.

The Senators seem well intentioned, they want reasonably priced service available to all; however, it won't happen without getting tough with the various interests. For example, I live in an apartment on the northeast corner of the building. I can't see the satellites, so am stuck with cable -- and you can just imagine what they are doing about service and pricing. There is no effective competition. The building used to have a community antenna, but that deteriorated and was removed when they fixed the roof -- not enough usage.

I don't know the answers, but we sure need to talk about it.

Doug Skoglund - skoglund@pdmsb.com

You may use my SAMail to contact me or put a [MYWAY] in the subject line.

Where do we go from here

2005-10-14T16:22:00.000-05:00

Following is posted in reaction to post, Wednesday October 12, 2005, at http://minimsft.blogspot.com

Where do we go from here?

I don't work for Microsoft; however, I am a dedicated Windows programmer, with enough experience to know that you need to address the cause of a problem if you wish to solve it. All the things you list are symptoms, or you might call them lower level causes. You must address the ultimate cause if you want to see changes, because he built the monster and only he can change the monster.

Someway or another, we, you insiders and us outsiders must create a religious experience for Mr. Gates -- the sort of thing that can make him take a hard look at what he is doing, or not doing. He must wake up to the fact that Microsoft is on a long, long, downward spiral, a tail-spin, so to speak -- and as anyone that flies, knows, you don't get out of a tail-spin with continued back pressure on the stick. You must use forward pressure, something that seems un-natural at the time.

Microsoft has lost customer trust -- and trust can not be regained by the PR department -- It can only be earned, by how the company treats it's customers, it's vendors and it's employees. When Mr. Gates starts trusting the world and changes behavior -- only then will the world start trusting him and his company.

Microsoft must negotiate a new settlement with the DOJ and the EU -- Unbundle Windows -- Drop XP activation -- Build a secure O/S -- Replace Windows 2000 -- Fire the PR department -- I think that you get the idea.

BTW, I have some software that I believe would give Mr. Gates that religious experience -- http://pdmsb.com.

Good Luck
Doug Skoglund - skoglund@pdmsb.com

You may use my SAMail to contact me or put a [MYWAY] in the subject line.