Recently in Idiots Category

Right now, across the river from me in Virginia, there is a conference on the future of Internet 2 taking place.

I'm not there. I'm not covering it, and I don't plan to. Why?

It's all academic. Seriously. There is no serious use of Internet2 technology going on that affects the general public, aka those who don't have tenured professorships or use scientific applications, in any meaningful way.

Internet2 has been languishing for years as a backwater of pocket-protector academia with all the problems and strings attached that kept the general Internet out of the public eye until the 1990s, but the difference is the stakeholders seem to like it that way. They enjoy their high-speed videoconferencing and authentication and feeling of superiority that they get from being on the "academic research" Internet2 "next generaiton" network when the real next generation is IPv6, and that the physical reach of Internet2 is only to a few college campuses. I can't get Internet2 to my home, and neither can you.

They're spending 4 days talking about something only they care about, thinking it will benefit the public when in reality it's just a huge financial sinkhole.

Even smart people get obsessed over stupid things that don't matter.

Here's a public policy question: why does DARPA still fund something that hasn't even gotten a single real use for real people or the defense of the nation? Who cares that people can have high-speed videoconferencing because there aren't P2P applications on Internet2?

That's because THERE ARE NO REAL PEOPLE ON IT. ONLY GREYBEARD ACADEMICS DREAMING OF A NEXT GENERATION THAT PASSED THEM BY.

Internet2 is DOA. Instead we've got DOCSIS 3.0, FIOS, 700mHz as a 3rd pipe and 3G, and sooner or later IPv6 will take off.

Give up and put that Internet2 government waste towards rural broadband, where people who need it could use it.
Posted to All | Idiots | Internet
NYT reports that Facebook is settling with Cameron and Tyler WInklevoss, the two sons of a Wharton school professor and Olympic rowing hopefuls who claimed to have come up with the idea for Facebook.

I'm not going to rehash all of what I have previously written on how stupid this lawsuit was. However, I believe that Facebook should have fought this in open court.

Just a side note to this, while their father was paying for lawyers to negotiate, Cameron and Tyler raced in USRowing's first National Selection Regatta for this year's Olympic qualification.

While Tyler's boat finished 6th in the final, 25 seconds off the winning pair (which contained Micah Boyd, a Wisconsin alum and former teammate of mine - Go Badgers!) Cameron did not even show up to race his placement final.

Oh, another thing. In my previous article I noted that Howard WInklevoss started a business to import cheap Chinese-made rowing shells for the U.S. market. Well, his sons don't even compete in their dad's company's own boats. I guess when it comes to business, like father, like sons.

Bad business all around. This was extortion, and I have a feeling the VC's behind Facebook would rather settle and go for the IPO than clear Mr. Zuckerberg's name. 

Too bad.
Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Facebook | Idiots

Anyone remember Betamax, Sony's VCR format that was technically better than, but cheaper than VHS? Anyone else remember that Sony lost that war to the lower quality but cheaper to license, produce, and sell VHS player? A small snipped that I overlooked in last Wednesday's NYT suggests that Sony might be dooming themselves to repeat history:

 

Mr. Glasgow expressed hope that price levels wouldn't collapse the way they did for DVD players. To protect against this, he said the Blu-ray Association, the group that controls the Blu-ray standard, has not licensed it to any manufacturers in China. (Cheap players from China were a large part of the collapse of the DVD player market.)

"Will there be Chinese players? Yes," he said. "We don't need to drive that and hand the technology over" any time soon, he said.

 

Let me get this straight. You (the Blu-ray Association) are pushing an expensive (albeit high-quality product) that can only survive with widespread adoption, yet you aren't going to allow it to be licensed to manufacturers that can get your product in the hands of millions of customers to keep the price up?

Two things come to mind: most Americans are happy with DVD. We like it more than VHS. It lets us do everything Blu-ray does. Even if we bought HD-DVD players, they still upconvert our regular DVDs to look better. DVD is a nice, open format. We can even make our own movies on DVD. So, for us to want to switch, we really need a clear incentive, and artificially driving the price up does not help.

Second. The Blu-ray association is a group of companies. A "trust" that controls the licensing of patents related to Blu-ray disc technology. Now, for them to refuse to license a technology to a manufacturer that can make a cheaper Blu-ray player, well, that would "fix" the price at a certain level. Come to think of it, isn't "price-fixing" a key component in "anti-trust" law?

I've heard that somewhere before...that whole thing about "price-fixing..." Where was that?

Oh yes, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Let's take a look, shall we?

15 U.S.C. §1: Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

15 USC §3

Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

 

Uh oh. If you're going to refuse to license a product to keep the price artificially high, shouldn't you refrain from announcing it in the pages of the Grey Lady?

 

Just a thought.

Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Economics | Idiots | Technology
Why does Salon which I regularly read, print this crap? A typewriter enthusiast is convinced we're destroying our kids by letting them use computers:


March 14, 2008 | The other week was only the latest takedown of what has become a fashionable segment of the population to bash: the American teenager. A phone (land line!) survey of 1,200 17-year-olds, conducted by the research organization Common Core and released Feb. 26, found our young people to be living in "stunning ignorance" of history and literature.

This furthered the report that the National Endowment for the Arts came out with at the end of 2007, lamenting "the diminished role of voluntary reading in American life," particularly among 13-to-17-year-olds, and Doris Lessing's condemnation, in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in literature, of "a fragmenting culture" in which "young men and women ... have read nothing, knowing only some specialty or other, for instance, computers."

Kids today -- we're telling you! -- don't read, don't write, don't care about anything farther in front of them than their iPods. The Internet, according to 88-year-old Lessing (whose specialty is sturdy typewriters, or perhaps pens), has "seduced a whole generation into its inanities."


Um, wait a minute. You can't touch a computer without reading. I tell you what, I probably write more than you do in most days, and I use a computer. More people read me every day, link to me, discuss what I have to say, and I discuss what they have to say. I have real-life friends and colleagues that I've met through online communities. 

Listen, I don't just know computers. I know politics. I know policymaking. I know elections. I know polls. I know technology. I know how they all mesh together. You see them as distraction, to me they are integration. I invite you to spend an hour on WikiPediaand not get sucked into the click-click-click breadth of knowledge that has become available online. It's as good as any encyclopedia. Science says so!

I'll tell you what I read. I read two daily newspapers, at minimum. I read over 25 blogs, even in passing, I check headlines, twitter feeds, blackberry messages, my inbox at work, update my site, the FCC daily digest, and occasionally, I'll read a real book, too. My last one was about the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I write, too. Isn't that what I'm doing? Heck, I can even go self-correct. 

I can practice journalism I had more photos of Mark Zuckerberg's keynote at SXSW than any pro photojourno last week, and then I had even more of the Developers' Garage the next day. I covered panels no  one else did, and I still have things to write up.

Don't tell me what I don't know based on your ignorance. Get past the screen, read the words.

Have a nice day.
Posted to Capitol Valley Media | Idiots | Internet

I wrote last night about the guys who are suing Facebook, and this morning did some more digging before I left for work. Gary Stewart pretty much hits what I was trying to say spot on with a few choice quotes:

 

Likewise, if the Winklevoss brothers had paid Zuckerberg for his work -- if he had been their employee -- they would have some claim to it. But given the lack of compensation and/or employee status, Zuckerberg's work all belongs to him.

...

I know that most start-ups think that lawyers are a waste of money, and money is often tight, but as the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In other words, it's better to pay a lawyer a few dollars today, than end up like the Winklevoss brothers, watching a former collaborator make billions of dollars off of your idea.

To paraphrase the judge assigned to the case, "dorm room chit-chat" does not a contract make.

Also, there is serious need for patent reform in this country. The USPTO has a well-documented shortage of qualified examiners, and reported here before, has the very case which many of their questionable "software" or "process patents" are based upon being review by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For those of you with short memories, NTP, a Virginia company half owned by a dead man which manufactured nothing but applied for a patent on a system for sending email to wireless devices, successfully sued Research In Motion, maker of the ubiquitous BlackBerry device, and won a gigantic judgment from a jury.

Despite the fact that on review, USPTO found the patents to be invalid and obvious, various courts upheld the jury verdict, leading to a massive settlement for NTP, a company which has no products, no employees, no assets except a few pieces of paper in a desk drawer, waiting for someone to come up with a similar idea and do it.

What do the WInklevosses and NTP have in common? They're not do-ers. Mark Zuckerberg and the RIM folks were successful in creating products because they put the time and effort into doing so. The Winklevosses and NTP had ideas, but never put their full force behind them for one reason another, either because it was more important to win rowing races (for the Winklevosses) or because they had other priorities (NTP).

Meanwhile, the U.S. patent system is clogged with inane patent applications for software processes, and things which any idiot could think of in a million different ways. If you invent something new, something real, you patent it. The idea behind patents is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by increasing the depth of human knowledge, since if you patent something, it has to be publicly available and other people can build on your design (after paying a fee, of course).

The worst offenders, though, are pharmaceutical companies. For instance, one medication I get prescribed went down in price from $30 (with insurance) to $10 per month, because the patent expired and companies could make "generic" versions. Keep in mind, the manufacturing process may be different, but the chemical formula at the end is the same. I still do not understand how you can patent a chemical. Perhaps a unique method of producing it, but not the final product. What if you owned the patent for a device that traps and kills mice, and I built a better one using a different idea? You could possibly sue me for patent infringement if any part of my idea was similar to your idea, despite the fact that we both do the same thing but reach the goal by different means. So what if we both use a widget?

People should take a look at the patent reform bill currently bottled up in Congress. It would change many of the ways that damages for patent lawsuits are awarded, and not in a good way.

It's Monday. Wake up.

Posted to Idiots | Internet | Patents | Technology
I noticed the other day that the ConnectU v. Facebook lawsuit is going still going forward. While on one hand I've spent considerable time in this space criticizing Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's record of privacy idiocy, this lawsuit makes all that look like novice mistakes by a coder who doesn't know much about law or politics (probably true).

For those of you not in the know, ConnectU was started by three other Harvard students, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra. They originally hired a programmer named Victor Gao to work on their site, then known as Harvard Connection. When work wasn't going well, they tried to hire Mark Zuckerberg. According to court filings, Gao met with Zuckerberg and explained the idea for the site, the not-ready-for-launch backend, and the three founders' plans for the future. 

Around Silicon Valley and even Washington, Non-Disclosure Agreements and Non-Compete clauses are pretty standard when you bring anyone into a start-up project. Seeing as Messrs. Winklevoss are the sons of Howard Winklevoss,  who taught at the Wharton School of Business for 12 years, they should have known better than to tell someone about their idea and ask him to be involved without some kind of documentation. Instead, what they got is a furtive conversation in a dining hall. As recounted by Cameron Winklevoss in a sworn statement in this court filing:

6. On November 25, 2003, Tyler and I met with Zuckerberg in Harvard's Kirkland dining hall during an off-peak hour.  The dining hall was almost entirely empty, and we sat in a private corner out of audible range. During that meeting, we discussed the harvardconnection.com website andour plans for it - further elaborating on what we had asked  Victor to discuss with Mark - including our plan to make the site an advertising platform and a revenue generator and to expand the site to colleges and universities beyond Harvard. 


It is noteworthy that neither of the Winklevoss brothers or Mr. Narendra had any computer experience. Cameron admits this, and says that they pretty much asked Zuckerberg to code the entire site, and they would take care of "promoting" it.  Keep in mind that at this point, not a word of this is in writing. Let's summarize: Three people had an idea, asked someone to do all the work in implementing the idea, and then left him alone with a timeline, and no documentation of any agreement, ownership stake, contract, or any way to prove he would be compensated for his time. Cameron Winklevoss even admits this in the same declaration:

8. We asked Zuckerberg, as one of the four Harvard Connection team members, to (1) complete all coding and technical aspects of the Harvard Connection website for an immediate December 2003 launch; (2) participate in the management and control of the project; (3) suggest features for the web site; (4) help launch the site; (5) handle the technical requirements of the site; and (6) operate the site withus.  Zuckerberg enthusiasticallyagreed to do these things.  We agreed that Tyler, Divya and myself would handle all promotion, marketing, advertising sales, press and media relations, and business strategy for the site.  Zuckerberg said that he would handle the technical side of the project, and that he expected to be able to make good progress towards completion of the site over the Thanksgiving break. 

So, Zuckerberg, according to Winklevoss, would build the entire website, manage the website, suggest features (which he would have to implement), help the site go live, and then maintain and keep the site operational. In return, the other three would get to be the public face of the project, receive the media attention, and control pretty much everything except the down-and-dirty coding. 

Somehow I doubt anyone would want to do pretty much all the work required for building a web site from scratch, and then let the three other people involved, who had done no work other than think of the concept take all the public credit and attention.  Now, Mr. Zuckerberg may be tone-deaf politically, but I don't think he (nor I, nor anyone I know) would "enthusiastically agree" to be essentially a silent partner who got to do most of the work on something. 

Also, keep in mind that Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss were members of Harvard's Varsity Rowing team. Having spent 10 years in the sport, (including a few at Wisconsin, which competes against Harvard) I know how much time these guys were putting into their oars. Rowing is a life-consuming pursuit. Even today, Messrs. Winklevoss are training for spots on the U.S. Olympic team, while using their father's money to finance their lawsuit. They train nearly full time in Princeton, New Jersey, where the U.S. team has its training center. Mr. Narendra is a hedge fund manager in New York. 

Do you think these guys had the wherewithal or time to get a project like Facebook off the ground or grow it the way that Zuckerberg has? I mean, he dropped out of Harvard to run the site full-time once it got big enough. The other three finished school and got their degrees. One is a New York high-roller and the other two live off their father's wealth (Howard Winklevoss has enough money that he even started an importer of Chinese made low-cost rowing shells and bought a boathouse, Saugatuck Rowing Club) and spend their days working out.

Back to Cameron Winklevoss' sworn declaration. He says that Zuckerberg never told him, his brother or Mr. Narendra that he had stopped working for them and started his own version of the project, or complained that he was essentially a silent partner, despite Cameron's offer to somehow "raise his public profile" with an article in the Harvard Crimson, the campus paper:



...During this meeting, I also suggested and offered to 
make him the focal point of an article in the Harvard Crimsonabout the website's launch, in an effort to improve his public image after the Facemash debacle in early November, for which he had received much negative coverage in the Harvard Crimson, and was called in front of the Harvard Administrative Board amid student outcry.   I stressed how this could be very positive 
for his reputation, and make him a hero on campus. Zuckerberg suggested contacting his friends who worked at the Harvard Crimsonto help obtain coverage for the site.  He never indicated that he would no longer participate in the managementand control of the project, or stop coding the website.   Because exam period was beginning, we agreed to touch base in early February to continue work on the website. 

15.Zuckerberg never told the Founders that he stopped working on the Harvard 
Connection website before he launched thefacebook.com website. 

He never told these clowns anything because legally, he didn't have to. He was not under contract, had no agreements signed, no NDA, no Non-Compete, no anything. Zuckerberg was already known around campus as a programming whiz, since he had previously created a "Hot or Not" type site using the Harvard directory, which caused a bit of controversy on campus.

So, what happened was a few kids with an idea told a smart programmer about it, and then left him alone to do all the work, never paid him, and gave him no assistance except the offer of "equity" in something that didn't yet exist. There was nothing for them to give up front except wither a) cash money or b) and wink and a smile. No money, or shares changed hands at any time because there was no money and there were no shares. That's right. Harvard Connection, or ConnectU did not even exist on paper at the time. The "founders" were too busy rowing or doing whatever future hedge fund kiddies do to actually go through the proper steps to start a business, hire employees, etc. In fact, the company didn't even exist until the plaintiff's father, Howard Winklevoss, started ConnectU and hired programmers with his money. Here's  an excerpt from his sworn declaration: 

2. In early 2004, after Mark Zuckerberg stole the founders' ideas and code and started thefacebook.com, I helped to finance and start the company which is today known as ConnectU, Inc. ("ConnectU"). ConnectU hired a company called iMarc to write code for the site connectu.com...

While this was going on, Zuckerberg improved upon the concept, started an actual company behind it, wrote the code and expanded it himself. He dropped out of school. He moved to California. He did stuff.

On the other hand, the Winklevoss twins went on to win a few rowing races, and their "partner" now plays with other people's money in New York. Their lawsuit is based on a few conversations in a cafeteria and some dorm room chatter.

Note to people with ideas: if you want things done, do one of two things: get out of the boat and do it yourself, or find someone you can and get the specifics on paper. Considering their father, Howard Winklevoss, has started a few businesses and is a graduate of Penn's Wharton School of Business, even a call home to dad would have gotten them the advice needed to make sure their idea got off the ground, or at least stayed their idea. Instead, they were too busy working out to do anything except order someone around who happened to be much more dedicated to their concept than they were...at least until it got big.

Now they are suing. So far, the case has not made it past pretrial motions, and as it stands the deadline for the Winklevoss brothers and their friend to respond to Facebook's motion for Summary Judgement is March 10th. After that, the judge may throw the suit out entirely and find for Facebook, since there seems to be no real evidence that a) ConnectU existed before Facebook launched, b) anyone hired Zuckerberg to do anything, or c) this is anything but a case of sour grapes.

I'll also note that while the other three guys promised to "handle all promotion, marketing, advertising sales, press and media relations, and business strategy for the site," I cannot imagine how two people rowing for Harvard coach Harry Parker, who himself is a legend in the sport, as well as being full time students, could find time to put the effort that Zuckerberg has put into the site. I'll repeat it: Zuckerberg dropped out of school to work on Facebook full time. The other two didn't. Running a successful business takes hard work. Does anyone think that it would have been successful had it not been for Mr. Zuckerberg's persistence and time commitment? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that had he not gone "whole hog" (to rip off a phrase from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)), we'd still be thinking of Facebook as those paper directories we get in college. Despite his many missteps since then (and there have been and will be many), it is Mr. Zuckerberg and his team who deserve credit for such a successful project, not a few spoiled rich kids who spent more time in a behind an oar than a screen or a desk working on the business.


Maybe the Winklevosses need to stay in the boat and out of the courtroom. They competed for the U.S. in last year's Pan American games, winning a gold medal. They seem to have much more success in that arena, and probably should keep it that way until they can do things right.

Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Idiots | Rants | Web 2.0
He would have more credibility than he does now. I've been doing my background on this guy, one of the people behind WashingtonVC. 

Here's a quote from a Business Week article about his "charitable" organization, Grassroots.org:

Talk about your involvement in charity work. I've always been on a path to complete charity projects. When I was younger, I volunteered in Southeast D.C. I took kids to Rock Creek Park. Eventually, I owned an Internet company focused on charities. The idea was to meld charity work with Internet work. I started acquiring a lot of charity domain names. These names are all part of Grassroots.org, which has 1,000 members. I want to ramp it up to 10,000 members. I also set up a charitable fund, Make Change Trust, with 5 to 6 million dollars in it. It gives away money to small charities.

Like I guess last night, this guy has bought a bunch of "charity" related domain names, around his Grassroots.org website. Domain branding is just about all he knows. So, what does he have to do with Washington?

The firm is called WashingtonVC, but it is really more of a private equity firm. Why the name WashingtonVC? We compete with VCs [venture capitalists]. There's not much of a difference, frankly. We're more operators. They're more investors. It's a private equity firm in Washington, D.C. It sounded cute to name it WashingtonVC.

He's a private equity investor based in Washington. He buys obvious sounding domain names and makes businesses "work" through the natural traffic they get. 

Like I said, this is so 1998. I'll give him credit: he has more money than I do. On the other hand, he made it buying and selling domains during the first bubble. Talk about fighting the last war. Maybe that's something else he has in common with Washington. 

I'll be magnanimous here and extend an open invitation to Mr. Mann or any of his associates to contact me. Heck, your offices are probably a short bike ride or walk from my home office. I've sent one or two of you email, and my contact information is readily available. 

I'll also be at Politics Online this week, and SXSW the next. Want to set the record straight? Let's talk.
Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Idiots | Internet | Rants
Alex is usually the one who goes on about bad customer service, but this was just shocking enough to get me angry. Consumerist has a story on a gamer who sent his signed XBox 360 in for repairs along with a letter describing the signatures on it and specifically asking that the art be left alone, only to have the letter ignored and the XBox returned with the case scrubbed clean.

Unfortunately, someone at Microsoft took it upon himself/herself to scrub the exterior of the box until the signatures were completely removed. This just seems spiteful. Trying to picture the person who thought that giving someone's signed XBOX a bath was an awesome idea makes our brain hurt.

This was no accident. If we believe the owner, he spent time on the phone with Microsoft making sure he could sent the box in with the case marked and not have a problem. He was indeed assured he could.

Despite the fact that Nathaniel called beforehand and got assurances that everything would be ok, despite the fact that he included a very detailed and clear letter with his console, despite the fact that it was no fault of his own that his console broke in the first place, 

Posted to Bad Support | Idiots | Microsoft
So, there is a "technology incubator" based in Rockville, Maryland called WashingtonVC. They call themselves "the catalyst for convergence." Really, what they are is an owner of domain names (phone.com, software.com, happybirthday.com) looking to cross-sell, self-promote and generate advertising revenue. Here is what they say about themselves:

WashingtonVC's investments cover a breadth of interoperable technologies. These include a telecommunications company, a software download site, a web software development company, a search optimization software company, and a search optimization consultancy. Also included are a full service web development firm, an online television production company, a graphic design firm, an RFID asset management business, a biometrics company, a gaming and technical support enterprise, a holiday ecommerce site, a rock and roll video and download site and several other innovative assets.

We also own and promote the best possible brand names for each of our companies and control the rightful domains therein, like Phone.com, Software.com, SEO.com and HappyBirthday.com. WashingtonVC has a well-known specialty in naming companies and creating slogans, which is leveraged with each new company asset.

WashingtonVC intends to become the most innovative and profitable catalyst for convergent Internet and technology companies, for the ultimate benefit of society.


In fact, most of their websites appear to be very nicely designed Movable Type themes. These people may, in fact, be very good at design. One of them worked at NeXT in college and looks to have made some money when his company went public in 1998. The other, Michael Mann, calls himself an "Entrepreneur and Philanthrophist" who has made his living buying and selling domain names, and who "founded" BuyDomains.com. The latter, now called "NameMedia," has filed with the SEC for an IPO worth up to $172 million.

Take a close look at the Red Herring article. 

The company, formerly known as buydomains.com, plans to use proceeds of the IPO to repay a $105 million loan and for working capital, including possible acquisitions.

Let me get this straight. $105 million in loans for speculating on domain names and you want to go public?

Oh, and Mr. Mann is a "philanthropist." Did you know that? I tend to think of Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie when I hear that word, but apparently Mann founded (as opposed to registered) Grassroots.org, which I'm not going to link to because it's really just another front-end for their advertising content. From their about page:

The mission of Grassroots.org is to serve as a catalyst for positive social change by leveraging modern technologies and business best practices.

That sounds really familiar. Where did I see that before? Ah! The WashingtonVC website!

WashingtonVC strives to better the world by developing cutting-edge technologies, sharing ever-evolving best practices with other businesses and charities, building market leading companies, and financing innovative works for profit and charity. We are currently invested in more than a dozen high-quality technology companies, which include several of the world's most identifiable Internet brands.

They even have a National Rollout Strategy. Go ahead and laugh.

WVC intends to establish itself and promote its parts in 6 major US cities, DC, NY, BOS, SEA, SF, LA, and eventually expand accordingly.

Within each of those cities, we will partner with local business leaders to permanently infect their communities with our charitable works and business offerings. At minimum, we will offer the service suites of MilitantMarketing, Phone.com, SEO.com, Graphics.net, Dial-a-Geek, Information Architects, and maybe networked X3O gaming centers and services. Plus, we may offer services from BrowserMedia, StrongTech, Podcast.com, Software.com, Yield Software, or other emerging assets if it suits our mutual strategies at the time.


I have never seen anyone play buzzword bingo like these guys. What does this have to do with Washington, anyway? Is that just another clever domain branding strategy?

Parasites like these people are a reason that government and technology don't get along. For every real innovator there are 20 charlatans and snake oil salesmen looking to talk their way past the door into "sponsoring" things or getting website traffic, and somehow looking to turn a profit. Entrepreneur? Maybe ten years ago.

For the record, in this election cycle, where online grassroots organizing has become the norm for any successful candidate, I've never even heard of Grassroots.org. Maybe it's a clever domain name buy you use to promote your other domain names? That seems to be your business plan, to keep repeating yourself until you're a "brand." Please. 

The only thing that WashingtonVC and Washington seem to have in common is that they're all talk and nothing real. 


Posted to Bad Business Ideas | Idiots | Internet | Rants | Vaporware

Plagiarism at the White House

| | Comments (75) | TrackBacks (0)

Plagiarism is pretty darned low.  At the risk of getting admonished by Andrew for lack of a proper introduction, here's the scoop from CNN.com

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A senior White House official admitted Friday that he copied large sections of another writer's work for an essay appearing in a Fort Wayne, Indiana, newspaper.

In an e-mail to The News-Sentinel, Tim Goeglein, special assistant to the president and deputy director of public liaison, apologizes, saying, "It is true. I am entirely at fault. It was wrong of me. There are no excuses."

Goeglein goes on to say he has reached out to the author, Jeffery Hart, whose 1998 writings in the Dartmouth Review he copied nearly verbatim.

"I have written to Jeff to apologize, and do so categorically and without exception," he said.

The White House press office provided the e-mail to CNN. Spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said the White House was made aware of Goeglein's column and actions Friday morning.

"It's not acceptable," Lawrimore said. "And we're disappointed in Tim's actions."

Lawrimore would not speculate on whether the plagiarism would affect Goeglein's job at the White House, adding "we will certainly keep you updated as we learn more."

 

 

There is a world of difference between what I just did there (and what we do often) and plagiarism.  What I put in here from CNN is clearly attributed, with a verbal acknowledgement, a link back to the original content, and even a change in format to indicate that the material is from a different source.

 

In an age where information changes hands with incomprehensible speed and people react to reactions to reaction to the original content, it is more vital than ever that we give credit to the creator(s) of said content and make it clear what is original and what isn't.  Every instance of plagiarism calls into question the credibility of an entire industry.


Posted to All | DC | Idiots

Days to DTV transition

Change Congress


Archives

Subscribe in a reader