For years I've admired Tom Friedman, the NYT columnist who writes about globalization. He's especially good at telling the Bush administration, or the Arab world, or Israel, or Times readers (myself included), when they don't "get" globalization or geopolitics.
Lately he's gone over the top selling his new book The World Is Flat. Any author appreciates an opportunity to hawk their new book -- it'll help put his daughter through Harvard someday. But Friedman has lost his compass.
Friedman's most recent column in The Times was essentially an advertisement for his book. He begins by, um, casually mentioning he's currently on book tour, then twice alludes to his "world is flat" metaphor. Watch him carefully as he tours the talk circuit: he'll mention his book title as often as he can remind Oprah or Wolf Blitzer or Gwen Ifill or Dr. Phil that "the world is flat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06friedman.html
Tom Friedman is no longer a serious and respectable columnist; he's a multimedia huckster. Hmm... he's now the Mitch Albom of The New York Times.
Several years ago I encountered Friedman at the Burger King at Detroit Metropolitan Airport -- no doubt he was en route to Asia. I nearly told him how much I admired his writing, but I chose to give the man some space. Now he'd probably say "This hamburger is flat -- and the world is flat -- did you know that? I wrote a book about the flat world. You can buy The World is Flat in the bookstore near gate A45."
Times columnists often publish books that attract a wide audience; more power to them. But does The Times explicitly offer their columnists free column inches for their book ads?
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
A very different college of cardinals -- this one poops on your car
Months ago my brother Herb told me that one or more cardinals were attacking his car. One male cardinal, or perhaps more than one, saw themselves in the outside rear view mirrors, thought they saw a rival bird, then pecked at and pooped all over the mirrors, the doors, and the windshield.
Frankly, I thought Herb was losing his faculties. I've never heard of such a thing.
Then, last week, Herb had a heart attack. I'm in town to be with him. (Thankfully his best friend Julian and others are giving Herb much needed care and attention.)
The last two nights I've stayed at the house I grew up in, which Herb now owns. And I now know that in fact the cardinals rule the roost. I came out to my rental car yesterday -- and it had been pecked and pooped upon exactly as had Herb's car.
Here's the fake owl that Herb bought, which doesn't scare the cardinals away:
Here's what the cardinal(s) do to Herb's car:
Here's the license plate for Herb's car, if you care to track the cardinal sins:
And here's the Mercury Grand Marquis grandpamobile I rented for this visit:
And here is the corresponding bird poop that the cardinals adorned the rental car with:
I do not have photos of me screaming at the two male cardinals I saw in the back yard, but they know that a crazy guy did just that. Next trip we'll see if the college of cardinals are as keen on adorning GM or Chrysler products....
Frankly, I thought Herb was losing his faculties. I've never heard of such a thing.
Then, last week, Herb had a heart attack. I'm in town to be with him. (Thankfully his best friend Julian and others are giving Herb much needed care and attention.)
The last two nights I've stayed at the house I grew up in, which Herb now owns. And I now know that in fact the cardinals rule the roost. I came out to my rental car yesterday -- and it had been pecked and pooped upon exactly as had Herb's car.
Here's the fake owl that Herb bought, which doesn't scare the cardinals away:
Here's what the cardinal(s) do to Herb's car:
Here's the license plate for Herb's car, if you care to track the cardinal sins:
And here's the Mercury Grand Marquis grandpamobile I rented for this visit:
And here is the corresponding bird poop that the cardinals adorned the rental car with:
I do not have photos of me screaming at the two male cardinals I saw in the back yard, but they know that a crazy guy did just that. Next trip we'll see if the college of cardinals are as keen on adorning GM or Chrysler products....
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The incredibly unbelievable things that "information must be free" types believe about music file sharing
Dave Farber often posts things to his "Interesting People" list about the evils of the record and movie industries. While I typically agree with Dave politically and ideologically, he seems to accept the most ridiculous defenses of file sharing as benign. Here's my response to a recent thread, which Dave chose not to post:
Dave,
The zeitgeist on IP seems to be that file sharing hasn't hurt record (CD) sales. You see this claimed over and over again on your list. I say, baloney, and those who so claim who to know better just won't admit reality. Pleae offer some credible evidence, or stop making the claim.
I work at a major midwestern university and I know from talking to students both formally and informally that music and movie file sharing is rampant. One student proudly bragged that he made a living as a party DJ and had not bought a song in years for his party collection.
Ask 50 current undergrads if they share music on the net, and 48 hands go up.
Who is kidding whom here? Let him who has not file shared cast the first stone.
I believe that both sides are disingenuous here. I've pressed students about intellectual property rights: How would you feel if you had a collection of poetry, or short stories, or even recipes -- and a major publisher lifted the collection off the net, published a book, and made millions in profits with you not seeing a nickel? Pressed to the wall, students admit that would not sit well.
I think the record industry also is disingenuous. They now face two groups: those who know how to file share, and those who don't. They sue those who know how, and they charge even more rapacious prices to those who do not.
To claim that file sharing hasn't affected music sales, to me, is like claiming the sun doesn't set. It is ridiculous on its face. I've met students who make professional CD art to go with their pirated collections. I've talked to young people who've never bought a CD. I saw the checkout clerk at the local boutique grocery store practically weep when the original Napster was shut down. We had a thriving Tower Music in East Lansing until file sharing came along. The manager told me the demise was due to file sharing. Will someone propose a credible alternative theory? (And please, don't tell me there wasn't enough new music. I know lots of young people who know 70s pop music better than I do.)
Why do people persist in denying the obvious? When millions of people have broadband connections and thousands of music download sources and readily available tools to download music for free, they will do so. Why don't we just admit this??
Without being puritanical about it, can we please admit simple truths?
Could we please have a bibliography of "every independent study" that proves that file sharing of commercial music doesn't impact sales -- and the studies' methodologies?
The "album" paradigm has been busted up. There has got to be a sweet spot price, somehere between the iTunes cost of 99 cents per song, and the file sharing cost of zero cents, where we can strike a fair and happy balance cost for downloading music without violating copyright.
One side won't admit their rampant piracy -- theft, as far as I'm concerned -- is hurting the industry, and the other side won't admit they need to change their business model.
Dave,
The zeitgeist on IP seems to be that file sharing hasn't hurt record (CD) sales. You see this claimed over and over again on your list. I say, baloney, and those who so claim who to know better just won't admit reality. Pleae offer some credible evidence, or stop making the claim.
I work at a major midwestern university and I know from talking to students both formally and informally that music and movie file sharing is rampant. One student proudly bragged that he made a living as a party DJ and had not bought a song in years for his party collection.
Ask 50 current undergrads if they share music on the net, and 48 hands go up.
Who is kidding whom here? Let him who has not file shared cast the first stone.
I believe that both sides are disingenuous here. I've pressed students about intellectual property rights: How would you feel if you had a collection of poetry, or short stories, or even recipes -- and a major publisher lifted the collection off the net, published a book, and made millions in profits with you not seeing a nickel? Pressed to the wall, students admit that would not sit well.
I think the record industry also is disingenuous. They now face two groups: those who know how to file share, and those who don't. They sue those who know how, and they charge even more rapacious prices to those who do not.
To claim that file sharing hasn't affected music sales, to me, is like claiming the sun doesn't set. It is ridiculous on its face. I've met students who make professional CD art to go with their pirated collections. I've talked to young people who've never bought a CD. I saw the checkout clerk at the local boutique grocery store practically weep when the original Napster was shut down. We had a thriving Tower Music in East Lansing until file sharing came along. The manager told me the demise was due to file sharing. Will someone propose a credible alternative theory? (And please, don't tell me there wasn't enough new music. I know lots of young people who know 70s pop music better than I do.)
Why do people persist in denying the obvious? When millions of people have broadband connections and thousands of music download sources and readily available tools to download music for free, they will do so. Why don't we just admit this??
Without being puritanical about it, can we please admit simple truths?
Could we please have a bibliography of "every independent study" that proves that file sharing of commercial music doesn't impact sales -- and the studies' methodologies?
The "album" paradigm has been busted up. There has got to be a sweet spot price, somehere between the iTunes cost of 99 cents per song, and the file sharing cost of zero cents, where we can strike a fair and happy balance cost for downloading music without violating copyright.
One side won't admit their rampant piracy -- theft, as far as I'm concerned -- is hurting the industry, and the other side won't admit they need to change their business model.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
T-Mobile opens the kimono on coverage maps
For years cellular phone carriers have misled people about their coverage maps. Radio Shack used to feature Sprint PCS in their stores, and I had a lot of fun telling young enthusiastic sales clerks that the claimed coverage was a pack of lies.
Carriers like to publish "approximate" coverage maps. T-Mobile has broken the mold: they've published detailed street-level maps showing exactly what coverage you get.
This is a bold move. T-Mobile uses superior technology -- GSM, the standard used across Europe and much of the world -- but their coverage in the U.S. is poor compared to, say, Verizon. (By the way, T-Mobile is not Catherine Zeta-Jones; it's Deutsche Telekom.) It will be interesting to see if competing carriers have the guts to pony up the truth about their coverage.
Carriers like to publish "approximate" coverage maps. T-Mobile has broken the mold: they've published detailed street-level maps showing exactly what coverage you get.
This is a bold move. T-Mobile uses superior technology -- GSM, the standard used across Europe and much of the world -- but their coverage in the U.S. is poor compared to, say, Verizon. (By the way, T-Mobile is not Catherine Zeta-Jones; it's Deutsche Telekom.) It will be interesting to see if competing carriers have the guts to pony up the truth about their coverage.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Congress legislates the sunrise -- and the livestock are upset
Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan is pushing an amendment to the energy bill that would extend the period of Daylight Saving Time. The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Upton said extending daylight time ''makes sense especially with skyrocketing energy costs'' even though farmers for years have not been happy about daylight time as it now exists. They complain the later daylight in the morning adversely affects livestock.
Um, I'm not sure I get it. Do the cows have wristwatches?
I remember as a boy arguing with an old uncle about the merits of the idea. My uncle kept saying it was wrong to change what "by the sun" should be the correct time. To me, time of day was an abstract concept, decreed by someone in Greenwich or at the US Naval Observatory or somewhere. To my uncle, high noon was high noon.
Benjamin Franklin proposed daylight saving in a remarkable essay in 1784. (Good grief, what didn't he think of? Note his sleeping habits as detailed in the essay.) Here's a 1907 essay by William Willett expounding on the virtues of the concept.
Upton said extending daylight time ''makes sense especially with skyrocketing energy costs'' even though farmers for years have not been happy about daylight time as it now exists. They complain the later daylight in the morning adversely affects livestock.
Um, I'm not sure I get it. Do the cows have wristwatches?
I remember as a boy arguing with an old uncle about the merits of the idea. My uncle kept saying it was wrong to change what "by the sun" should be the correct time. To me, time of day was an abstract concept, decreed by someone in Greenwich or at the US Naval Observatory or somewhere. To my uncle, high noon was high noon.
Benjamin Franklin proposed daylight saving in a remarkable essay in 1784. (Good grief, what didn't he think of? Note his sleeping habits as detailed in the essay.) Here's a 1907 essay by William Willett expounding on the virtues of the concept.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
My first venture into podcasting
Last night was my first experience participating in a podcast. Bill Castanier, a PR professional in Lansing, invited me to join Spartan Podcast, which features a panel of communications industry experts who have an affiliation with Michigan State University.
It was a fun conversation. We used old technology to carry on the discussion: land line telephone calls into a phone conference bridge. Scott Westerman did a bit of audio editing and poof it was available for download.
Here's the permalink:
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
WKAR radio interview on open source software
Scott Pohl and I discussed open source software during a recent WKAR interview.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
RIAA claims they sued 405 students -- but how do they know?
The recording industry's latest lawsuit advertising campaign targeted Internet2 file sharing. The Detroit News quoted me on this development.
People think the RIAA sues people. Wrong. They sue IP addresses. When the RIAA launches one of its batches of suits against alleged file sharers, they give each relevant ISP a list of IP addresses that allegedly shared files, and, under the DMCA, the ISP must cough up any log links to personal identities.
But the press dutifully reports what the RIAA says in the press release. Many media outlets claimed that 405 students were sued. But that's not necessarily the case. But Heather Newman in the Detroit Free Press quoted the RIAA carefully:
The RIAA said it targeted 20 Michigan State University students, who were not identified by name in the legal papers filed Wednesday. The lawsuits cite the Internet Protocol addresses used by the students while they were downloading -- combinations of numbers that uniquely identify every connection to the Web. Once the lawsuits are filed, the RIAA can subpoena the names of the students using those addresses at the time the downloads were made, RIAA spokeswoman Jenni Engebretsen said.
See http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman14e_20050414.htm
Here's my question: how does the RIAA know that the IP addresses they claimed that engaged in file sharing belonged to students? If all you have is an IP address, how can an external entity know if an address belongs to a student?
IP addresses do not equate to individuals. An IP address might be static, assigned to one person or purpose -- but most often these days, an IP address is dynamic, reassigned frequently. If the address is dynamic, you have to examine logs to see if you can connect the IP address to an individual. Sometimes, you can't; logs can be voluminous, and must be rotated.
A university would hope that faculty and staff, above all, would not engage in illegal file sharing, but it's possible. A guest might engage in file sharing. Or an intruder might engage in file sharing -- someone breaks into a computer on campus, knowing it has enormous bandwidth, and sets up Grokster or equivalent.
The RIAA claimed they sued 405 students at 18 institutions. The truth is they identified 405 computers by IP address. In theory, one person -- not necessarily a student -- at each institution could've generated all the traffic the RIAA assumed was file sharing. FYI, the RIAA says they found i2hub activity at an additional 140 universities.
For the RIAA to assert that the offenders are students, when they do not yet know the identity of the alleged offenders, is reckless. It might be true, but it's not known. For the media to take RIAA claims at face value, without questioning, is sloppy. Heck, the New York Post assumed that the offenders were not only students, but specifically female students.
At least Heather Newman got it right: the RIAA named computers, not individuals, and although it's likely the alleged offenders were students, it's not known until investigation.
People think the RIAA sues people. Wrong. They sue IP addresses. When the RIAA launches one of its batches of suits against alleged file sharers, they give each relevant ISP a list of IP addresses that allegedly shared files, and, under the DMCA, the ISP must cough up any log links to personal identities.
But the press dutifully reports what the RIAA says in the press release. Many media outlets claimed that 405 students were sued. But that's not necessarily the case. But Heather Newman in the Detroit Free Press quoted the RIAA carefully:
The RIAA said it targeted 20 Michigan State University students, who were not identified by name in the legal papers filed Wednesday. The lawsuits cite the Internet Protocol addresses used by the students while they were downloading -- combinations of numbers that uniquely identify every connection to the Web. Once the lawsuits are filed, the RIAA can subpoena the names of the students using those addresses at the time the downloads were made, RIAA spokeswoman Jenni Engebretsen said.
See http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman14e_20050414.htm
Here's my question: how does the RIAA know that the IP addresses they claimed that engaged in file sharing belonged to students? If all you have is an IP address, how can an external entity know if an address belongs to a student?
IP addresses do not equate to individuals. An IP address might be static, assigned to one person or purpose -- but most often these days, an IP address is dynamic, reassigned frequently. If the address is dynamic, you have to examine logs to see if you can connect the IP address to an individual. Sometimes, you can't; logs can be voluminous, and must be rotated.
A university would hope that faculty and staff, above all, would not engage in illegal file sharing, but it's possible. A guest might engage in file sharing. Or an intruder might engage in file sharing -- someone breaks into a computer on campus, knowing it has enormous bandwidth, and sets up Grokster or equivalent.
The RIAA claimed they sued 405 students at 18 institutions. The truth is they identified 405 computers by IP address. In theory, one person -- not necessarily a student -- at each institution could've generated all the traffic the RIAA assumed was file sharing. FYI, the RIAA says they found i2hub activity at an additional 140 universities.
For the RIAA to assert that the offenders are students, when they do not yet know the identity of the alleged offenders, is reckless. It might be true, but it's not known. For the media to take RIAA claims at face value, without questioning, is sloppy. Heck, the New York Post assumed that the offenders were not only students, but specifically female students.
At least Heather Newman got it right: the RIAA named computers, not individuals, and although it's likely the alleged offenders were students, it's not known until investigation.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
MusicMatch pitches soothing tax time music -- a little late
Folks who know me won't be surprised to find that on the evening of April 15 I was still begging TurboTax to do the right thing. But I received a surprise: an e-mail from MusicMatch suggesting that I download some soothing New Age music to listen to as I prepared my taxes in order to calm my, er, overtaxed soul.
What surprised me is that MusicMatch sent this pitch on the morning of April 16. Hey, MusicMatch, do you need a Form 4868 -- Application for Extension?
What surprised me is that MusicMatch sent this pitch on the morning of April 16. Hey, MusicMatch, do you need a Form 4868 -- Application for Extension?
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
405 COEDS ON RIAA'S HIT LIST
Leave it to a Rupert Murdoch paper to take a routine story about RIAA lawsuits and apply the word "coed" to the headline. For the record, the RIAA announced it would legally pursue the identity behind folks using 405 IP addresses at 18 universities connected to Internet2.
We don't know whether those people are even students, though it is conceivable that some of the people behind those IP addresses may in fact be students who are, gasp, female. Maybe Fox could partner with CBS on a special movie "Sharks Attack Coed Downloaders"?
Does anyone actually use the word "coed" in 2005?
Links to coverage quoting me on this story:
File-swapping case hits MSU
20 at MSU sued for illegal file sharing
We don't know whether those people are even students, though it is conceivable that some of the people behind those IP addresses may in fact be students who are, gasp, female. Maybe Fox could partner with CBS on a special movie "Sharks Attack Coed Downloaders"?
Does anyone actually use the word "coed" in 2005?
Links to coverage quoting me on this story:
File-swapping case hits MSU
20 at MSU sued for illegal file sharing
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Monday, April 04, 2005
Gmail news leaks out slowly with Friday April Fool announcement
No one believed Google on April 1, 2004, when they announced 1 gigabyte mailboxes. In 2005, Google announced they would double the quota -- but the announcement came out on a Friday, and once again, an April Fool's Day.
They say that the White House long since learned to put out press releases for bad news stories on Friday afternoon. I don't know when Google put out its 2 gig Gmail press release Friday, but the international media is still catching up to the story Monday morning.
The mystery of the new quota continues as well. Google says a fraction of their Gmail users bumped against the 1 gig limit; I was 2/3 there. Here's my current quota usage:
You are currently using 697 MB (34%) of your 2056 MB.
They say that the White House long since learned to put out press releases for bad news stories on Friday afternoon. I don't know when Google put out its 2 gig Gmail press release Friday, but the international media is still catching up to the story Monday morning.
The mystery of the new quota continues as well. Google says a fraction of their Gmail users bumped against the 1 gig limit; I was 2/3 there. Here's my current quota usage:
You are currently using 697 MB (34%) of your 2056 MB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)