Please join me in a conversation with Joe Trippi about his book, "The
Revolution Will not be Televised." We will stream it live at Of, By,
and For, this Friday the 24th at 2:00pm Pacific time. As you might
know, Trippi built the Dean for America campaign and started
rewriting...
itconversations.com/transcript.php?id=80 track this
site | 3 links
Joe Trippi
Joe Trippi02/10/2004 02:51 AM Former Dean Campaign Manager Joe Trippi at Etech: The press that
didn't understand what the campaign was, now sees itself qualified to
judge if its a success or not. Broadcast politics has failed us
miserably. No debate about the Patriot...
Trippi Didn't Say What Reuters Said He Said
Trippi Didn't Say What Reuters Said He Said02/14/2004 02:21 AM "How Web Support Failed Dean in Crunch: Ex-Manager" by Eric Auchard
ran on Reuters the day of Joe Trippi's speech to E-Tech in San Diego.
What exactly did Auchard get wrong?
The Trippi Story02/10/2004 02:35 AM GQ: Joe Trippi?s Wild Ride An amazing story. Everything you saw on The
West Wing was true ? and more?.
[pdf] Ron Wyden and Joe Trippi
[pdf] Ron Wyden and Joe Trippi05/24/2004 02:07 PM Little known fact: I elected Senator Wyden. Perhaps an overstatement,
but aroune 1979, my wife and I lived in Portland OR for a year. Wyden
was running for Congress for the first time. My wife called his office
with a question about one of his stands, and dang if Wyden himself
didn't call back and talk with my wife for 20 minutes. So, she and I
went door to door for him, and have been Wyden fans ever since. Joe
Trippi says that we shouldn't be calling it the "information age."
It's really the age of transparency and empowerment....
Joe Trippi on E-Politics
Joe Trippi on E-Politics02/10/2004 02:40 AM I'll be filing my impressions of Joe Trippi's spe
ech here today at the Emerging Technology conference. I prefer to
listen at the moment.
Rapid recontextualisations make my head hurt. Nonetheless today I'm
not in Los Angeles having fun with friends in drag. Today instead I'm
watching Joe Trippi talking about American politics and the
consequences and effects of the Dean's internet-enabled online
fund-raising and campaigning tools. The basic conclusions of his talk
are quite simple:
Broadcast media was supposed to give people greater access to
democracy, but instead it's failed us completely;
All it meant was that to persuade people in the country,
candidates had to go to the people with the real money in order
to buy screen-time;
Let no one believe that campaigning isn't about the money - it
is;
We have to give the ownership of politics back to the people;
The only medium that can restore that ownership back to the people
- both in terms of getting funds raised from the grass-roots and
getting home-grown organisation happening among the people - is the
internet;
If the people are paying for the campaign then special interests
have less impact;
The tools weren't there a couple of years ago, but they are
now;
The press are describing the Dean campaign's online strategies as
a failure - as a 'dot-com crash';
But how can it be? They raised an enormous amount of money from
the grass-roots, and a year ago Dean was absolutely nowhere.
That now we have to find new tools in order to help this kind of
people-owned democracy happen in the future.
The weirdest part of the session was the pretty-much standing
ovation at the end of the event that revealed the whole thing to be
(as suspected) pretty much more of a political rallying speech towards
the web community than a descriptive or didactic piece. Nonetheless,
some interesting insights in amongst the passion.
One thing that did occur to me, though, was whether or not - given
the importance of money to politics - the BBC could possibly think
about adding a fund-raising tool into iCan. I can imagine the outrage
that could surround that, but it would be tremendously interesting and
useful to have an independent arbiter displaying nothing but
statistical information about candidates and political parties and
then helping to actually engage the general public by allowing people
to donate money directly to a campaign.
Another thing was how useful UpMyStreet Conversations could
be in terms of poltical campaigning (or at least political
organisation). I think I might have to introduce the concept into the
proceedings at some point. It's not a system that would necessarily
work terribly well in the US - given that their ZIP code system is so
radically different from UK Postal Codes - but in principle I think it
could be a tremendously useful mechanism for getting campaigners in
contact with one another, for advertising and promoting events and for
having local discussions about policy. [Although I guess if it was
possible, someone might have done it already, given the fact that
apparently Clay Shirky introduced
Al Gore to the site a year or so ago].
Addendum: Please forgive me for the obvious and rampant
discontinuity of posting styles - drag-act nurse babes (hey Sean) and
American Politics / technology may not be obvious bedfellows. Although
come to think of it, I'm sure there are associations and relationships
that could be drawn between the two...
Trippi: Net Politics Here to Stay02/10/2004 07:19 AM Howard Dean's presidential bid may have flopped, but don't blame the
Internet, says former campaign manager Joe Trippi. He sees the 2004
campaign as the beginning of an online revolution in politics. Noah
Shachtman reports from San Diego, California.
Trippi Dumps Dean02/10/2004 02:35 AM Joe Trippi, the man who brought Howard Dean from a relatively-unknown
Governor to the frontrunner in the Democratic Presidential primary,?
Joe Trippi and Dean's Money
Joe Trippi and Dean's Money02/10/2004 02:40 AM Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for Howard Dean, has taken a lot
of hits lately, but one of the harshest was this
story in the Los Angeles Times. This story is an example of poor
journalism.
Joe Trippi - A Revolution in American politics?02/10/2004 02:56 AM I had a great day at the Digital Democracy Teach-in, in spite of
losing several hours of sleep to the hotel bed, which has the firmness
of jello that's been sitting outside all afternoon at a picnic. I'm
too tired to do justice to the day, but I thought I'd post a few
notes. First up was Joe Trippi, until a few weeks ago Dean's campaign
manager, who gave a great speech. It is amazing how different the blog
reports of the speechblog reports of the speech are from the media
reports of the same speech. The blog reports suffer from lack of
analysis or context -- in some cases they are no more than inaccurate
transcripts. The media reports suffer from their need to have a hook
in the first sentence, the space constraints, and the focus on the
game of politics. But I digress. About a third of Trippi's speech was
red meat stump speech, a third a defense of his management of the Dean
campaign, and about a third a disquisition on the changing nature of
American politics. Trippi is very charismatic, and gave a rousing
speech that was full of hope about politics, although a little
apocalyptic at the same time. It is easy to see how he commanded the
loyalty of so many volunteers. I don't entirely buy his hypothesis
that the Dean campaign represented a sea change in American politics,
but I don't discount it either. It bears thinking on. The fact that
Dean raised so much money, in such a short time, from so many small
volunteers, is amazing. The openness of the campaign to bottoms-up
ideas, the fact that the campaign appears to have recruited lots of
people into the political process, and the number of voters they
turned out (many of whom in the end didn't vote for Dean) are all very
impressive. At the very least, Dean deserves credit for changing the
terms of the debate, and getting the Democrats to take on the
Cheney/Rove administration, instead of running "me too but softer"
campaigns. Best quotes: Broadcast democracy is not working. There were
no real debates in political sphere or in the mass media on starting
the war on Iraq or on the Patriot act. The only real debates happened
on the net. American politics is now a race to raise money to buy TV
time. Politics today - it's...
Joe Trippi Launches 'Change for America' Blog
Joe Trippi Launches 'Change for America' Blog02/12/2004 12:52 PM It's here. Quote:"I
have said this before and I will say it again -- Governor Dean
inspired me to enter the day to day fray of a Presidential campaign
after 15 years of sitting on the sidelines. It was not money, but the
very real opportunity to help change our country that drove me to move
to Burlington, VT about 13 months ago."
How not to end an IM conversation10/29/2003 01:17 AM Why is it that in IM conversations some people stick to you like flies
to the proverbial crap? New to...
End the Conversation
End the Conversation03/13/2003 10:26 AM Allen (12:06:43 AM): damn one day, i'll teach you to throw axes Allen
signed off at 12:06:48 AM. That's certainly...
I spent some time on the phone with the folks at GoDaddy today and
they have a few ideas on what is going on with the server and are
going to try a few things on the box we will keep our fingers
crossed.
Continuing the MT conversation05/16/2004 07:12 PM Continuing the discussion about MT licenses, Movable Type clarified
and changed some of their terms. Having looked at some of...
I've been at a conference for
the last couple of days, and have spent a significant portion of that
time eavesdropping on conversations. Aside from the obvious
observations (that most people don't listen, and that men do most of
the talking and interrupting in mixed company conversations) what most astonished me
was the unintended lack of politeness and courtesy that seems to
characterize most conversations.
It's not that the participants are rude -- it's just that they seem to
lack mutually-understood and mutually-respected protocols to govern
conversation in a civilized manner. This, in a world in which we are
beleaguered by rules in almost everything else we do, seems remarkable
to me.
So I did a bit of research to see whether I could find some protocols,
some rules of behaviour, that work effectively regardless of the
number, gender or conversational style of the participants. The
longest-established protocol is also, it seems, the most
misunderstood.
This is the protocol of the Talking
Stick,
which has its roots in aboriginal American culture and in that of some
third-world cultures as well. The basic rules of the Talking Stick
protocol, from what I can ascertain, are as follows:
The person holding the Talking Stick is the only one who
can speak.Others must listen and not interrupt, even to ask clarifying
questions. The onus is on the speaker to be clear, brief, and
respectful.
Generally the person most respected by the group
(the
tribal elder, or the person selected by the elder to present the issue
to the group) talks first.
The Talking Stick is then passed
clockwise as each person
finishes, and makes one complete circle of the participants.
Participants with nothing to add simply pass the Stick along.
The person who spoke first asks then whether
additional
discussion is warranted, and if anyone thinks so, the Stick is again
passed around the circle.
There have been a number of 'improvements' suggested to this process,
such as allowing clarifying questions, allowing people to reach for
the
stick in any order, first-come, first-served, and summarization or
'voting' processes, but none of these enhancements has a distinguished
history and none in my opinion represents a significant improvement to
the basic protocol. Allowing the group to engage in two-person
iterative Q&A, or sidebar conversations, would seem to me to
abrogate the three duties of clarity, brevity and respectfulness, or
at
least render them less necessary. In some Talking Stick circles, if
you
take the stick you must begin your speech by briefly reiterating what
the previous speaker said, and only when that synopsis receives a nod
from the previous speaker can you begin saying your piece. In some
cases this might work brilliantly, but in others it could make the
conversation interminably long and repetitive.
It is not clear to what extent the Law of Two
Feet
applies in Talking Stick circles -- where if you find the discussion
valueless or frustrating you have the option to leave, without
repercussions, and perhaps start another conversation on the same or
another subject with those similarly inclined. The alternative would
be
to assume that if you chose to accept the invitation to join the
conversation in the first place, you owe the rest of the group the
courtesy of giving them your attention until it is finished. My
personal view is that this judgement (whether leaving a conversation
you find tedious is discourteous or not) is best left up to the
individual.
I have witnessed many 'moderated' conversations, where one person
decides who will speak next, or where people raise their hands to be
next to speak and a first-come, first-served honour system applies,
and
found them mostly frustrating. But anarchy, where the loudest voice
always prevails, seems to me even more so, and also unfair. Where the
participants are part of a hierarchy, and rank clearly determines
speaking priority, the result is too often not really conversation at
all, but rather an information reporting and instruction exercise.
I have witnessed, too, meetings that allow the listeners to use tacit
signals to prompt the speaker without interrupting them: Holding up a
green card means "I like what you're saying", a red card the opposite,
and a yellow card signals "I don't understand what you're saying".
They
tend not to work, I think, because the green encourages unnecessary
loquaciousness, the red is rarely used because it would be perceived
as
rude, and the yellow is rarely used because it might make the listener
appear stupid. Electronic equivalents (IMs that the speaker can read
on-screen while talking) present the same discouragements, and also
are
more of a distractions than most speakers can handle on the fly.
One of my favourite conversational formats is the interview/Q&A,
where one (or more) persons pose questions and the other(s) restrict
themselves to answering them. There is a certain inherent democracy in
such conversations -- each side gives up certain speaking rights in
return for receiving others. Unrehearsed, they require considerable
skill and agility to pull off eloquently. Rehearsed, they can be
extremely effective at transferring knowledge but they become less
conversations than performances.
So my sense, based more on observations of what doesn't work than what
does, would be that the use of a Talking Stick or similar icon might
be
very helpful, even in two-person conversations (to reduce propensity
to
interrupt). I'm ambivalent about whether passing the Stick clockwise
or
allowing anyone to grab it next providing they satisfactorily
summarize
the last speaker's message first, would work better -- and I suspect
it
would depend on the subject and the conversational style of the
participants. I do like the idea of using a subtle timer
to reinforce the importance of clarity and brevity, which seem so
absent in most modern conversations that the resulting incoherence is
often unintentionally hilarious to the eavesdropper. Beyond that, I'm
not partial to any 'improvements' to the basic four-rule Talking Stick
process described above.
What's worked for you? Have you tried using such techniques, and when
are they effective (and not)? Are there other techniques, newer or
older, that work better, and when are they appropriate? And what of
telephone and Skype conversations, or those anarchic multi-party IM
sessions? Could a 'virtual Talking Stick' be introduced to organize
such conversations? It should be easy enough for the technology to
handle, but has anyone actually tried imposing this kind of discipline
on non-face-to-face conversations? And perhaps most important, does
practice using these techniques tend to make more polite, respectful
and articulate conversations second nature? Or is there some reason
I'm
missing why interruption and 'louder voices prevail' protocols are so
prevalent in our conversations, seemingly by default?
The long conversation
The long conversation05/27/2004 06:26 PM Guardian,UK-16 hours ago ... Google is perhaps the most obvious
clue-holder, with its corporate maxim "Don't be evil", its brand
new corporate weblog and its all-round fluffy, friendly ...
For about three years now - I'm been hemming and hawing and giving
people a hard time and (apparently) acting belligerent - about Open
Identities.
About the notion of open DNS-like indices of people. And what we
could do with them. You see I spent much of teh 90's desinging
systems that relied uypon a theoretical notion - that noadasys is
called social software and social networking. And at the core of that
- is digital identity.
So as the world has caught up with my ideas, it's becoming more and
more important that we DO IT RIGHT!
Now Tribe is calling that the
PeopleWeb, Microsoft has a [can't talk about it but will soon]
platform and Dick Hardt and his Sxip
Networks is rolling out.
Democracy is a conversation03/19/2003 10:24 PM From William Du Bois, from a mailing list I'm on: Bush's Utopian Plan
for Peace and mine differ at the core. Hal Pepinsky, one of the
founders of peacemaking criminology, talks about the dynamics of
democracy and violence. He defines democracy as responsiveness —
we take each other into account. We may not change our agenda but we
take what the Other has to say into account. Violence is the opposite
of democracy. It is asserting your own will and refusing to take the
other into account......
kjartanmannes: so whats next for Mr Johnson? fuzzygroup: in what
context ? kjartanmannes: well, you've been slashdotted so what is
your new goal in life?
My sincere thanks to all the messages of encouragement, nice
feedback and other comments.
Yes, I know I liked John
Gray's book,
found it liberating in fact, but I still believe people are good at
heart, and their instincts are right if they can re-learn to listen to
them. And remember Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it
is the
only thing that ever has."
So
your argument is that we're going to save the world either by some
massive act of collective altruism, even though such a thing is
unprecedented, or by some subversive act by some clever noble clique
of
do-gooders. You know, some people would say that Bush's neocon
born-again cabal fit Margaret Mead's 'small group of world-changers'
definition perfectly. If that's what she was referring to, small
groups
of nazis and megalomaniac idealists, we're in trouble. Or is your
'small group' going to put birth control in the water supply and
sabotage civilization until we have anarchy and chaos? -- which is
actually the neocons' dream situation, since if that were to happen
they'd just take over and feel self-justified in doing so, as they
would see you as terrorists.
We
overcame slavery, we gave women the vote, we invented written language
and a lot of other amazing things, including birth control
technologies, we've made democracy, an improbable way of running the
world, work, and we've found ways to strike a balance in the economy
between complete totalitarianism and complete laissez-faire. We're
learning what doesn't work,
we have unprecedented peer-to-peer grassroots communication and
organization, and we have more knowledge available to a larger
percentage of the population than ever before. And instead of just
writing dystopias, many people are actually proposing practical ways
to
bring about massive change.
The
last century featured more murders, more imprisonment, more torture,
more war deaths, and greater extremes in distribution of wealth and
power than any in our history. Every technology we've invented has a
dark side that has been more effectively exploited than its positive
applications. And as for communication, the digital divide is wider
than ever. You shouldn't judge the state of the world by the view from
your rosy little corner of it.
Stories
are all we are. When we have learned new stories, we have become very
different creatures very quickly, in a generation or two. It's our
ingenuity, our ability to change and respond to new and intuitively
better, healthier, happier ways to live, and learn from each other
peer-to-peer that makes me optimistic and hopeful, not new
technologies, which I admit are a double-edged sword.
Stories
also allow fanatics and maniacs to raise huge and bloodthirsty armies,
and allow cults, including most modern religions and political
parties,
to brainwash people to act against both their personal and collective
interest. Myths and other stories allow people to tolerate and live in
denial of atrocities going on all around them. Religious stories have
prompted most of history's most brutal and protracted wars. And we're
so adaptable that we learn to live a life of never-ending oppression,
subjugation and deprivation, and we delude ourselves that our pathetic
lives are good, healthy, deserved, getting better and the only way to
live.
But we
are also capable of forgetting, forgiving and moving on quickly, when
a
better story, a better way of living, is told to us. And in the last
decade a significant minority of the population is on a roll -- better
informed, more inventive, more attuned to and knowledgeable about
that's needed, what's happening and what's possible than ever before.
They're able to use networking technology to make creative, synthetic,
analogical and metaphorical leaps, collaboratively,
in ways that would have been almost unimaginable even a generation
ago.
We have already witnessed, in the 1960s, a huge shift in mainstream
thinking and worldviews occurring in an astonishingly short period of
time, and if we could do something like that again now we have much
more powerful tools and much greater knowledge to do it with, so it
might actually endure this time.
Pure
romanticism. The 1960s weren't nearly as rosy and liberated as you
remember them. Many guys jumped on the bandwagon in complete ignorance
and indifference to the peace and liberation movements -- they were
merely attracted by the promise of cheap dope and easy sex. Your faith
(and it's nothing more than faith, since there's no solid reasoning
behind it) that we could start a similar movement in this century and
this time it would endure and bring about ubiquitous change, is simply
the left-wing version of the right-wingers' Rapture. People don't
change, cultures don't change, and there's an unprecedented level of
investment in maintaining the status quo working against any little
movement that might threaten that. We are programmed by our DNA to
spend almost all of our time and energy living moment to moment and
distracted by the minutiae of constant and trivial decisions. And even
if this were not so, as Gray argues so articulately we have no 'free
will' or collective consciousness. Even as 'individual' creatures we
are merely collections of cells, molecules and organs, each doing what
they do, largely for mutual benefit, and almost entirely (99.9999%)
subconscious. So belief that we can somehow get our personal
act together, let alone one at the level of some higher social order,
and transform ourselves into what we are not, seems to me the height
of
folly, a form of leftist religious fanaticism.
There
you
go, relying on science again, that collection of unreliable and creaky
models of reality, to make your argument. The whole, at every level of
aggregation, is always greater than the sum of the parts. Gaia is much
more than just all individual life on Earth. We as individual and
wondrous creatures are more than a mere collection of our cells,
molecules and organs. And I'm not being spiritual here. Forget about
'consciousness' and these other academic and utterly meaningless
concepts. We as individuals, and our planet as an organism of a
different order, are mostly what happens between our composite parts.
We are sensation, reaction, communication, learning, understanding,
and
the stories that recall them. Most of what we are at both the creature
level and at the Gaia level are what is happening in the
intersections,
margins and edges around the component parts. That is where our true
sense of self and meaning resides, that is where our instincts draw
their wisdom, that is what our DNA remembers and tells us to do. Your
myopic science, looking at individual organisms in isolation, is no
more able to understand the great truths of life, and the nature of
our
existence, than a collector dissecting dead monarch butterflies is
able
to comprehend the astonishing transformation of that creature's life,
or how it could have 'learned' where and how to migrate when three
generations have transpired since the last generation, or how sun and
flowers and smells make a butterfly happy and inform its understanding
of the purpose of its life.
Let's
look at this argument. You're saying, I think, that almost all of what
we are is subconscious, and that an important part of what we are is
our relationships with 'others' outside ourselves. Yes? OK. So then
you're saying that what can/will save us is something in our collective unconsciousness or subconsciousness?
That deep down 'we' intuitively know what needs to be done, what is
happening, and what is possible, and will use that knowledge to
collectively do what is in our collective interest. Well, at least
that's better than relying on gods. But if we had this great
collective
unconsciouness or subconsciousness, wouldn't we have been able to
figure out, even before Einstein did, that almost all human
inventions,
notably in the media (since the invention of writing and the printing
press), in transportation (since the invention of the lever, the
inclined plane, the sledge and the wheel) and in the tapping of stored
energy (since the invention of controlled fire) would have more
negative consequences for our planet than positive ones, and hence
prevent them from emerging? No, don't give me that nonsense that the
global population is leveling off because we somehow 'know' it must,
since people have repeatedly told researchers the only reason they don't have one or
two more
kids each is that they can't financially afford it (for now). If we
('we' being either all humanity or all creatures on the planet) are
our
own collective guiding hand, that guiding hand has done a pretty lousy
job over the last 30,000 years. Just because we've lost touch with
nature and Gaia, you say? I think it's more likely that we're just an
exceptionally fierce and adaptable species which emerged by random
accident from the primeval soup and, like all fierce and adaptable
species in Earth's history, plagued (in the literal sense of the word,
not the moral one) the planet until a meteor came along, or a climate
change or new species evolved that preyed on excessive numbers of the
plague species, and restored equilibrium and the selected preference
of
known life for biodiversity. Disequilibrium is neither new or
unnatural
in the universe. And that, more than the crown of creation, more even
than the sum of our 'stories', is what we humans really are.
I think the MP3 blogs (which
are essentially annotated playlists) might well be taking the middle
ground in the P2P vs music industry wars - I hope that the record
industry will begin to see the value in what these grassroots
enthusiasts are doing to promote their music. On the other hand, a
large part of making these playlists under current laws involves
turning your back on the major labels and concentrating on the music
libre, the 'free music', the stuff that wants to be shared. Those
artists that make their tracks freely available online are the ones
that will benefit most from the collaborative filtering and
recommendation networks that are being set up. [Hublog]
Let's extend that remark: Any professional whose work is visible on
the Net will become part of the conversation that establishes
reputation and creates opportunity. The blog is an active
résumé that enables you to participate -- by proxy
-- in that conversation....
Here's the bottom line. What Alf calls "collaborative filtering and
recommendation networks" will rival -- and my guess is, largely
supplant -- conventional marketing and promotion. But if those
networks can't find you, they won't be able to help you." [Jon's
Radio]
Interesting when thought of in the context of libraries. It's
exactly why our services - especially our online catalogs - need to be
open and exposed. Exhibit A: LibraryLookup.
Previously on
this blog, I've called for a separation of hosting from
aggregation. I want to be able to maintain authoritative data on one
site and have other sites use it for their aggregation.
When I read Ted Leung's entry Microcontent
personality disorder and Steve Mallett's comments on it, my
immediate thought was that they could both have what they want if we
could separate where we host our data with where it is aggregated and
made "social".
Marc Canter (whose work around Digital Lifestyle Aggregators is
definitely worth following) resp
onds to Steve Mallett. Marc is spot on that people have their
information all over the place. But I still believe that if systems
are built to support a separation between hosting and aggregation,
they'll support both the distribution of primary data and the kind of
"self-hosting" that a certain segment like Steve and myself want.
Bottom line is all combinations of centralized/decentralized
hosting/aggregation should be possible.
It's not that hard to do. Sites that aggregate just need to provide
a mechanism where users can point to their data hosted somewhere else
rather than have to re-enter their data in multiple aggregators.
Aggregators then keep customers based on the value of their
aggregation, not the lock-in of being the hosts of people's valuable
data. People who want hosting for their pictures, blogs, etc can use
hosting services to do it. But their choice of hosting service should
not impact their participating in aggregation and the social aspects
of micro-content that follow.
A Conversation with Wayne Rosing10/28/2003 11:07 PM An iterview with one of my bosses, Google's VP of engineering. An
incredibly smart and experienced guy. (I'm not sucking up; he doesn't
read my blog. ;) Interesting if you want to learn more about Google's
engineering culture. One great quote:
I think the sum total of what I hope for the first decade of this
century is some variant on the memex. We're going to have the vast
majority of high-quality, permanent, high-value, human knowledge
available to everyone, from many places, in multiple forms.
And that's fundamentally going to change humanity in as big a way as
the printed word did—when it became inexpensive to replicate the
printed word.
Say 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and End the Conversation
Say 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and End the Conversation01/07/2004 03:16 PM Putting Hitler into Net conversations tends to kill them. Now there's
a mock award for the stupidest comparison of Hitler to some modern
event.
Meta conversation on metadata
Meta conversation on metadata11/01/2003 08:35 AM Jay "Misspells His Own Last Name" Fienberg has trenchant comments on
my article about metadata. A big part of our difference may have to do
with the loose (= wrong) way I define metadata. Part of it may have to
do with where we're looking at metadata issues. E.g., Jay thinks
there's no essential difference between arguments over FOAF and over
the format by which we express date data; I'm instead thinking about
the argument over what categories of info we need to exchange
information about our friends. The argument over how to express that
info is, I agree, important... Grok Description matches for Conversation with Joe Trippi GrokA matches for Conversation with Joe Trippi
Wave Forward Networks, LLC Announces partnership with Cisco Systems, Inc.
Wave Forward Networks, LLC Announces partnership with Cisco Systems, Inc.07/16/2004 03:11 AM Wave Forward Networks, LLC has completed the requirement to become a
Cisco Channel Partner. The partnership will allow Wave Forward to
include high performance networking capablities to its wireless
network designs. [PRWEB Jul 16, 2004]
Wave Systems Describes Trusted Computing Solutions in Department of Defense Identity Protection and Management
News: Archway Systems ships VersaCAD 2005 for Mac03/30/2005 08:29 PM Design software developer Archway Systems Inc. on Wednesday shipped
VersaCAD 2005 for Macintosh. A company representative confirmed with
MacCentral that this version of the software offers the same features
as VersaCAD 2001 for Macintosh -- the major changes are native support
for Mac OS X and the print-to-PDF feature found in most applications
published for the operating system. The representative also noted
that, because the previous version only ran in Classic mode in OS X,
adding printers is much easier now.
Concrete Washout Systems, Inc. to Exhibit at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2005 in Las Vegas
Concrete Washout Systems, Inc. to Exhibit at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2005 in Las Vegas03/14/2005 04:10 PM Concrete Washout Systems, Inc. (CWS), the World’s premier concrete
washout services provider, announced today that it will it will be
exhibiting at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2005 trade show in Las Vegas, NV from
March 15-19, 2005. [PRWEB Mar 8, 2005]
Kiwi Systems Leads the Pack on VoIP Competition at CES 2005
Kiwi Systems Leads the Pack on VoIP Competition at CES 200512/24/2004 12:18 PM VoIP Integration to Cellular at CES. Plans for Q1 of 2005 products
roll-out whick are the new USB, Broadband and phone adaptor 2000
series, a Wi-Fi phone, a soft phone, and a Multi Media Gateway. [PRWEB
Dec 24, 2004]
Scott Security Systems Ltd. Expects Growth for 2005 with Launch of New Website
Scott Security Systems Ltd. Expects Growth for 2005 with Launch of New Website12/19/2004 03:29 PM Peace of mind is one of the biggest benefits customers cite after
having a security system installed, and not just any company can earn
the opportunity to protect people and their home or business. - Scott
Security Systems Ltd. has been doing it since 1978 in Greater
Vancouver and the Lower Fraser Valley. With 25 years of experience,
the company has learned that establishing credibility and trust with
customers is crucial to building relationships. Before deciding on
the type of security system they want, it is important that clients
know what services and equipment are available to keep them and their
property secure from risk. The question is, how can they find out?
[PRWEB Dec 17, 2004]
Siebel Systems to Participate at the Gartner Wireless and Mobile Summit 2005
Intelligent Production Machines and Systems Conference 2005 will take place July 4 to 15
Intelligent Production Machines and Systems Conference 2005 will take place July 4 to 1506/24/2005 07:01 PM IPROMS 2005 is an online web-based conference organized by the
EU-funded FP6 IPROMS Network of Excellence. IPROMS 2005 allows people
across the world to register as guest delegates and view paper
abstracts and presentations and take part in online discussions.
[PRWEB Jun 24, 2005]
CTIA Wireless 2005: Cardo Systems Announces New Bluetooth Headset for Motorcyclists
Wave 1 Coming In, Wave 2 ETA 5 Minutes11/10/2003 11:14 PM Did you know toys are release in ?waves?? Star Wars action figures
come to use in boxes labeled like the following: Release 3 Wave 4....
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. Invites You to Join Its 2005 Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call Webcast
