Monday, September 21, 2009

(empo-tymshft) The dangers of future extrapolation

I can just see the pitchman now.

This product is going to be a winner! As you know the product has already been very successful in one market for over twenty years. We believe that this success in the product's current market can be extended to the new, exciting market that is opening up. And what's more, the new version of the product will benefit from all natural ingredients, unlike the old product which used artificial ingredients!



Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But what if the original product was the Amos 'N Andy radio show, which had been very successful since its debut in 1928, and the new product was the proposed Amos 'N Andy TV show, introduced in 1951 with an all black cast (the radio show's stars were actually white)?

Why did the TV show go off the air after two years? Because of a change in the audience since 1928. The Museum of Broadcast Communications describes what happened in the intervening years:

The program's portrayal of black life and culture was deemed by the black community of the period as an insulting return to the days of blackface and minstrelsy. Eventually, the controversy surrounding the television version of Amos 'n Andy would almost equal that of the popularity of the radio version....

Media historian Donald Bogel notes "Neither CBS nor the programs' creators were prepared for the change in national temperament after the Second World War ... Within black America, a new political consciousness and a new awareness of the importance of image had emerged."...

Post World War II African-Americans looked upon the new medium of television with hopeful excitement. To them, the medium could nullify the decades of offensive caricatures and ethnic stereotyping so prevalent throughout decades of motion picture history. The frequent appearance of black stars on early television variety shows was met with approval from black leadership.


This was the atmosphere into which the Amos 'N Andy television show was introduced.

The NAACP, bolstered by its 1951 summer convention, mandated an official protest of the program. The organization outlined a list of specific items it felt were objectionable, for example, how "every character is either a clown or a crook," "Negro doctors are shown as quacks," and "Negro lawyers are shown as crooks." As the series appeared in June 1951, the NAACP appeared in federal court seeking an injunction against its premiere.

So, in the end, a product that had been very successful on radio in the 1930s was very unsuccessful on television in the 1950s. While the elapsing of time was certainly a factor - America under Truman was different than America under Hoover - another aspect may have been the medium itself. Remember that in radio, the technology allowed white people to play the roles. Perhaps the sight of black people doing these things on television was just too much for many people.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Empoprise-BI News - 20 September 2009

Empoprise-BI News


The news letter for Empoprise-BI - An Empoprises vertical information service for business news.



Welcome to Empoprise-BI News

Behind the Scenes

Despite my misgivings about joining yet another social network, I've joined Foursquare (prompted to action in part by Robert Scoble's post). I've also obtained a Google Voice phone number, but am just ramping up its use and haven't really mastered it yet. Drop me an email at empoprises at gmail dotcom if you have the burning need to hear my voice.

Special Features

I was looking over last week's posts to see if I wanted to dig into them in any more detail, and at this point I've said all that I want to say about them. One topic that I do want to address in the future, however, is how Bloggersbase has affected my blogging. I'll have more to say about this, of course. (Tidbit: my Bloggersbase post will use a Flickr picture related to NTN Buzztime. Synergy FTW!)

Upcoming

In addition to the aforementioned topic, have some empo-tymshft and empo-tuulwey stuff coming up - yes, I'm trying to focus the blog a little bit more - and I also plan to address the topic of nickels and dimes (or is that two topics?).

Testing photoblogging; .@foursquare is working!

If you are reading this, then photoblogging is working from my re-imaged phone. If you're reading it twice, then cross-posting works also.

This is the site of my first Foursquare check-in, by the way.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

UPS TMI?

It's really really wonderful that you can get all sorts of detailed information online - but sometimes the information reveals a little too much about a company's internal processes.

We bought a Kodak ESP 7 printer early in the summer, primarily because of (a) its low toner cost, and (b) its wireless support, allowing easy sharing of the printer between multiple computers. The printed colors started fading recently - in some cases to nothingness - which is when I discovered that Kodak ESP 7 printers have a reputation for needing constant printhead replacements. To Kodak's credit, its online support website immediately registered a request to send a replacement printhead to my home in Ontario, California - via UPS Ground.



Kodak helpfully provided the UPS tracking number so that I could track the progress of my shipment. Tracking data, like blogs, is usually listed in reverse order, with the most recent action appearing at the top.



So the package actually arrived in my home city early today - Saturday, September 19 - at 2:39 in the morning. This actually got me hopeful that I'd be printing by this evening -

- until I remember that Ontario, California is a huge distribution hub for UPS. So I continued to read the fine print in UPS definitions, and I ran across these:

Arrival Scan
The shipment has arrived at a UPS facility.

Departure Scan
The shipment has departed a UPS facility and is on its way to the next UPS facility. The shipment is moving, however, there may be several days between scans if the shipment is going cross-country or moving between countries.


OK, that sounds fine, but then I ran into this:

Destination Scan
The shipment has arrived at the local UPS facility responsible for final delivery.


If you look above, you'll see that as of mid-afternoon on Saturday, there's no "Destination Scan" entry. Which means that, even though my package is in Ontario, it's not REALLY in Ontario - it's in the huge UPS facility south of Ontario International Airport, and only a computer knows where it actually is.

Now at this point I don't have high hopes that there will be a destination scan this afternoon, but even if there is, there's one more step:

Out for Delivery
The shipment has reached the destination UPS facility and is ready to be dispatched for delivery. Except for premium air shipments, deliveries can occur at any time during UPS's hours of operation to residential addresses and by close of business to commercial addresses. UPS cannot schedule a specific delivery time within that window.


And because tomorrow is Sunday, I'm not going to see an "Out for Delivery" status today or tomorrow. This means that the delivery will occur on Monday, September 21.

But it wouldn't do any good to complain to UPS, because from their perspective, everything is fine. They promised a delivery date of Monday, September 21, and they're going to meet their delivery date.

And I'll confess that this is an unusual situation, because most of you don't live near a major UPS hub. But it's just bizarre to note that my package - the one upon which I depend - was able to get from Indiana to Vernon, California in 60 hours - but is going to require 60 hours to travel the three miles from Ontario Airport to my house.

And I'm smart enough to know that UPS has to have procedures, bla bla bla - but the 60 hour delay to travel 3 miles (that's 1/20 miles per hour) - is maddening.

Google Voice and Apple - does it really matter?

It's Saturday, and I'm still continuing to see stories on the he said/he said battle between Google and Apple over whether the Google Voice app was rejected by Apple long ago, or whether Apple is simply planning to continue "pondering" the app until hell freezes over. The latest item that I read came from Jason Kincaid at TechCrunch, who noted:



In its letter to the FCC Apple says that “contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it”. It then goes on to describe its issues with Google Voice....Apple closes out this description with “The following applications also fall into this category”, and then lists the three third party Google Voice apps that were yanked from the App Store.

Presumably the applications in “this category” are all being pondered over too, and have not been rejected, right? But that’s simply not the case. Riverturn Inc, the developer behind the VoiceCentral application that was listed in Apple’s FCC response, has sent us a screenshot of its ‘rejection’ status that is quite clear.


Now when one reads all of the volumes of posts on the topic, the first thing that occurs in one's mind is that if you get an Apple iPhone, you can't use Google Voice.

Technically, not correct. And just to check to make sure my understanding was accurate, I tweeted this:

OK, I have a dumb Google Voice/iPhone related-question. Here it is: http://ff.im/-8aSbY

The ff.im link leads to this FriendFeed discussion that I started as follows:

There was a big brouhaha about Apple rejecting the Google Voice application for the iPhone. My question - why couldn't an iPhone user just surf over to the Google Voice web page and use Google Voice from there? The implication during the brouhaha was that Apple and/or AT&T were preventing iPhone users from using Google Voice. Unless I'm missing something, iPhone users can use Google Voice any time they want via the web.

I mean, let's face it - if I can use Google Voice on my three-year old Motorola Q, certainly people with the ultracool Apple iPhone should be able to surf to the web page just like I can, shouldn't they?

Jeffrey Welch entered the conversation at this point to clarify things:

Not a dumb question. I wondered until I started using it. The web page for google voice can't actually place the call.

Just to clarify for those who don't have Google Voice. Let's say that I want to call my wife, but that I want my Google Voice number (rather than my actual cell phone number) to show up on her phone. I go to my really really old web browser, select the contact whom I want to call, then tell Google Voice where to call ME. I then wait for my phone to ring, and once I answer, Google Voice places the call to my wife.

Jeffrey explained to me that the Google Voice app can actually place the call without going through that intermediate "call me first" step. Let's go back to Jeffrey:

That is part of it's usefulness. It needs to place the call. Now some apps for google voice seem to also be placing the call over a wifi connection eliminating the need to use the cell phone's minutes. Thats why people think its #ATT blocking the app.

So an iPhone user can use Google Voice; it's just a little harder. But, as Google notes, it isn't all that hard on some non-Apple platforms:



[AND I GUESS THAT IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER OF MY FULL DISCLOSURES. A FORMER CO-WORKER OF MINE AT MOTOROLA HAS LEFT THE BIOMETRICS WORLD AND IS NOW PART OF THE MOTOBLUR PRODUCT TEAM, FOCUSING ON ANDROID APPLICATIONS. SHE, IN FACT, IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO INSPIRED ME TO TRY OUT GOOGLE VOICE. BECAUSE I LIKE AND RESPECT THIS PERSON, I HAVE A NATURALLY POSITIVE INCLINATION TOWARD ANDROID APPLICATIONS, AND THEREFORE PROBABLY HAVE A SUBCONSCIOUS BIAS TO PROMOTE SAID ANDROID APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING GOOGLE VOICE, TO EVERYONE EXCEPT BRUINS AND FORMER BRUINS. FOR MY FORMER CO-WORKER, YOU SEE, IS A USC GRADUATE, AND AS SUCH PROBABLY QUESTIONS WHETHER BRUINS HAVE MASTERED THE ART OF PHONE CONVERSATION, OR ANY MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION.]

Of course, if someone invests a lot of time in Google Voice, it's quite possible that Apple's stance, or AT&T's stance, or whoever, might drive business away from Apple & AT&T. In fact, I'm sure that some people, including my former co-worker, are fervently hoping that Apple's refusal to approve Google Voice will dominate the news, causing people to look away from the iPhone and toward other phones. In fact, even on The iPhone Blog, a post about Android 1.6 asked the question, presumably to iPhone users:

[I]t’s great to see Google keeping up with the updates. Anything in there that makes Android more compelling to you?

One commenter responded:

Yes, there is something that is compelling… F*ing Google Voice support.

And that person wasn't the only one to express that opinion. Take a look at this comment:

I’m planning my move away from AT*T, and I’ve been keeping an eye on Android since really before it was available. I’ve been pleased to see that major phone manufacturers are now releasing Android-based phones. I’m looking to Android to get a combination of cell phone and OS that doesn’t really care what carriers want on their network. (I agree that Google Voice is one reason to be looking around.)

Nokia is also pretty close with the N900, but I have until July 2010 to decide, so I’m going to wait and see.




And yes, that's how the cellphone industry is in the United States these days. You get locked into a particular carrier with a particular phone for two years, and some people who are "locked in" feel like they're in a jail. And as they sit in there...cell, they plan what they're going to do once they're set free.

And speaking of jail, there's the whole art of jail-breaking - or getting your iPhone to work with another carrier. Apple and AT&T obviously don't want you to do that, but now there's another incentive for people to do so:

All I really need jail breaking for now is Google voice, if they would give it to me, I could upgrade to 3.1 and be able to use app management, why apple why.

However, my former co-worker would presumably be happy to say that her Android phone doesn't put you in jail. Well, maybe if you're in Westwood...

Friday, September 18, 2009

I liked these Quick Sprout suggestions on attending conferences



Previously I talked about a Quick Sprout list of suggestions, as well as some diverging opinions about said suggestions. Well, I'm now subscribed to Quick Sprout, and Neil Patel recently printed some new suggestions - Beginner's Guide to Attending Conferences. Having attended some conferences over the years, I read them...and like them.

One thing that Patel didn't mention - set goals for the conference. What do you want to get out of it? You'll see that as you go through the items that Patel DID suggest, setting goals beforehand will be of great benefit.

Patel's first suggestion is to have business cards. There are various schools of thought on this, but here's how Patel sums it up:

If you don’t make it easy for people to contact you, no one will.

And if you don't have any business cards, the Ffundercats offer moo.com cards online for your purchasing pleasure.

Patel's second point is that you need to have an elevator pitch. Actually, Patel had three different elevator pitches for the TechCrunch 50 conference that he just attended. Similarly, when I arrive in San Francisco for Oracle OpenWorld 2009, I will have several elevator pitches, depending upon the situation.

Patel's next two points may seem contradictory, but they really aren't. "Knowledge is power" and "Don’t be a networking whore" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Basically, before you attend the conference - and even before you develop your elevator pitch(es) - you need to determine what your goals are at the conference. That not only shapes your elevator pitch, but also shapes the sessions that you attend, and the people that you meet.

I'll give you a personal example. Two years ago, at Oracle OpenWorld 2007, I attended sessions and networked with people regarding Oracle's Business Intelligence products. We subsequently determined that Oracle's BI product (or, for that matter, any BI product) did not meet the specific needs that we were exploring, so while I'll certainly say hello to any of the Oracle BI people that I met, I'm not filling up my Schedule Builder with Oracle BI sessions.

Patel's fifth point, "Don't eat lunch with your friends," ties in to the other points above. Unless your main goal at a conference is to get to know your friends better, seek out new people. You can see your friends, or contact them online, at any time - you don't need to pay $3,000 for the privilege of meeting them. Now, of course, I will gather with my friends in the early evening, but that's actually one of my conference goals.

Point six - "Walk the floor." Oracle OpenWorld will have exhibition halls in Moscone West and Moscone South, and I wouldn't be surprised if an exhibit pops up somewhere else after Larry Ellison's keynote. There are definitely some exhibitors that I need to visit, both for business and for personal reasons, and Schedule Builder does let you place such visits in your schedule (although I guess improvements could be made, but I give it an A for effort).

In my case, points seven and eight ARE mutually exclusive - "Take someone out to dinner" and "Attend the after parties." With a month to go before Oracle OpenWorld begins, my evenings are already pretty much booked.

Which brings up to point nine (does Neil ever sleep?) - "Don't forget to follow up." Yes, yes, and yes.

See all of Neil's points here.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Someone wrote a sponsored post. Will the world end?

Last December, in another blog, I posted my reflections on some sponsored posts that Loren Feldman and Julia Roy wrote. To summarize, I believe that they fully disclosed, and the resulting posts aligned with their interests.

Some people have a different view of sponsored posts. Here's part of what Stowe Boyd wrote in December:

At issue is the core question of blogger ethics: should bloggers be paid to write about some product?

Steven Hodson certainly has his views on this matter, and also has views on the execution of sponsored tweets. He doesn't object to the concept, but to the link provided by the sponsored tweets:

The way I feel about it if this is to work then it must be ad links to the actual companies rather than 3rd party affiliates – at least that way I know it is the company that is trying to make things like Magpie and Sponsored Tweets workd and not affilitiates tryign to do the old mass marketing pump and dump.

Well, perhaps the whole debate is going to erupt again, because Chris Brogan just shared a sponsored post for British Airways. And he definitely performed his disclosure duties at the beginning:

The following is a sponsored post, commissioned by British Airways, by way of Izea, a company upon whose board of advisors I serve. The words and ideas below are mine. This is a paid post.

Amd at the end:

The preceding was a sponsored post for British Airways, by way of Izea

Hmm...he only mentioned three times that this was a sponsored post. I think he should have added another line in the middle, "I am getting compensation for this," just in case people weren't clear on the concept.

So, what is Brogan hawking? A chance to get one of 100 "business opportunity grants" to facilitate face to face meetings, put people in British Airways seats, create some corporate goodwill, end the recession, and cure cancer. Whoops, that last statement wasn't true; #blamedrewscaner for my including it.

And then you need to look at the practices of those who object to sponsored posts. Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins linked to a March 2, 2009 ReadWriteWeb post entitled Forrester is Wrong About Paying Bloggers. Hopkins also linked to a February 21, 2009 ReadWriteWeb post entitled Weekly Wrapup: Mobile World Congress, Yahoo Search, Internet in Cars, And More... that included the following:



And, for the record, three fewer disclosures than Brogan just used. But perhaps there's a significant difference between this sponsorship and other sponsorships. Let's return to the "Forrester is Wrong" article and see what, in Marshall Kirkpatrick's view, that distinction is:

Defenders of the tactic argue that it doesn't differ substantially from traditional advertising, that it's effective for advertisers, that bloggers want to profit from their writing and that with proper disclosure there's no loss of credibility for either party.

We disagree with these arguments....

Admittedly we say this from a position of privilege, as professional bloggers. Shouldn't everyone be able to get a piece of the action? We are sympathetic to this position, but can't help but feel like it's a morally ambiguous argument. Other than marketing bloggers, it seems that much of the "Pay Per Post" crew is made up of "mommy bloggers." Who would tell a mom with a blog that she doesn't deserve to make a buck, too? It's easy to be high minded about writing as an art when you make a comfortable living doing it....

The old paradigm of maintaining a wall between advertising and editorial still has a lot of validity, though. It's easier said than done, especially when it comes to tiny operations like almost all blogs are - but the ideals that paradigm offers can't be forgotten because of convenience.

Here at ReadWriteWeb we've recently begun running "sponsored posts" that are written not by our writers but by our advertisers. The best among these have been several by API management company Mashery ("Mashery: Untold Secrets Behind Managing an API", for example). Those posts are undeniably valuable for our readers (readers have submitted and cast more than 100 votes on Digg for several of them) and they are very, very clearly identified as coming from our advertisers. They are an interlude from our regular programming; we maintain a wall between that and the original content our writers create....

Bloggers are replacing mainstream media and we believe that the community as a whole has the same kind of obligation to inform the public at large about those topics that we're dedicated to covering. Objectivity may be something we're transcending, but that doesn't mean we have to swing so far the other direction that we become cheap tools of corporate interest.


I'm not necessarily persuaded. My simple yardstick is as follows - would video cameras interest Loren Feldman? Would face-to-face meetings interest Chris Brogan? As far as I'm concerned, with proper disclosure, I see no problem with a blogger addressing a topic of interest to his/her readers, even if said blogger might not necessarily write about the particular company that's being discussed.

Thus, if I wanted to, I would have no problem running a sponsored post in my business, music, or one of my other blogs, provided that it was a topic that I would have covered anyway. It probably wouldn't be ethical for me to have a sponsored ragtime music post, but a sponsored post on Serbian pottery would certainly be within bounds.

Yes, I will post about Serbian pottery sellers!

I made an off-hand comment in a recent Empoprise-BI news...an off-hand command that became a challenge.

Guess what? I'll be blogging about Oracle! Imagine that. I'll also blog about RSS, the North American IT Professionals Association, and Serbian pottery sellers. That last sentence was actually "two truths and a lie" - I won't blog about all of those things. But then again, perhaps I can do some research and blog about all three.



And the comment led me to this book:

The 2000 Import and Export Market for Pottery in Serbia & Montenegro (World Trade Report)
by The Pottery Research Group
Published in March 15, 2001, Icon Group International, Inc.


Yes, there's a group for everything, and a group that is fanatically interested in Serbian pottery sellers - fanatic enough to print an entire book on the topic. And Amazon has identified the audience that is fanatic enough to pay $325 to read it:

This report was created for strategic planners, international marketing executives and import/export managers who are concerned with the market for tableware pottery in Serbia & Montenegro. With the globalization of this market, managers can no longer be contented with a local view. Nor can managers be contented with out-of-date statistics which appear several years after the fact. Icon Group has developed a proprietary methodology, based on macroeconomic and trade models, to estimate the market for tableware pottery for those countries serving Serbia & Montenegro via exports, or supplying from Serbia & Montenegro via imports. It does so for the current year based on a variety of key historical indicators and econometric models.

Unfortunately, I was unable to locate any current information on the "Pottery Research Group" or the "Tableware Pottery Research Group." Perhaps the readers weren't fanatical enough (the fact that I couldn't find a Flickr picture of Serbian pottery speaks volumes), or perhaps Serbian pottery just wasn't all that good, or perhaps the entire Pottery Research Group has fled to a ninth floor office in Ottawa.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

OK, what IS ethical project management?

Hot on the heels of my two looks at the North American IT Professionals Association, I've run across another organization which deserves a dose of suspicion.

See what Josh Nankivel said when he first ran across the organization's Twitter account:

Someone set up this account on Twitter today, and within 3 hours they’ve already sent 33 updates out with someone’s Twitter username tagged, as if they were responding to them. You can see many of them are exactly the same.

Well, you know how I feel about mentionspam.

Then Nankivel visited the organization's website:

Just reading the copy on these pages, it looks like someone slapped them together without any real idea of what a professional organization or certification program looks like. There is apparently no requirements or description of what it takes to be certified…you just need some money apparently.

Now the best part about this is the name of the certification that is offered...Certified Ethical Project Manager.

Yes, ETHICAL. I kid you not. And, if nothing else, they really emphasize their message on their @CEPM_CERT Twitter account.



But this isn't a marketing certification; it's a project management certification. And how do they manage their own project? Well, they must be doing well:

We are one of the largest "Ethical Project Management" certification organizations in the world...

And they demonstrate their grasp of project management by using key words such as "standardized." Heck, even I know that. (So I guess I'd better apply.)

Seriously, to become a certified ethical project manager, you have to do more than send in your money. You have to agree with some pretty stiff principles:

Our members have shown that they have the abilities to correctly manage projects according to a standardized body of information known C.E.P.M. Principles (below).

So, what's the first ethical principle?

Management by principled objective. This means that a project is started with the end in mind, on-time, in-scope and within-budget. A project is not system maintenance or technical support. A C.E.P.M will inform stakeholders of these parameters when necessary.

Now if you read that second sentence as written, any project can satisfy the criteria. At the beginning of a project, EVERY project is on-time, in-scope, and within-budget. (And clearly-hyphenated.)

I'm not quite sure why the third sentence was inserted in there. I'm sure there was a good reason.

But the most interesting thing that I found in all of these principles (numbered from 0 to 0, by the way) was this phrase in the second principle:

Buffering schedules and costs breaches an unwritten contract of honesty that can't be regained.

Now the implicit assumption is that an ethical project manager will know the exact schedule and cost at the beginning of the project, and that any upward deviation from those exact figures will earn the project manager the unending wrath of the Joe Wilsons of the world.

Perhaps the head of the C.E.P.M. certification program (who, as is usual with these types of organizations, is not identified) should become familiar with the idea of a risk factor. In fact, you should grant Stephen Toney a free certification for his work Risk Factors in Technology Projects.

Interestingly enough, Toney's model grades the risk of technology projects on a scale of 6-30, with a score of 30 indicating the highest risk. His comment about the low-risk projects, however, is interesting:

Scores under 10 may indicate that the project is so low risk that it may not accomplish anything worthwhile.

But, according to the anonymous C.E.P.M. people, those projects are really really ethical.

Speaking of anonymity, if you type cepmcert.com in the WHOIS form for their registrar, here's what you get:

General Information
Domain: cepmcert.com
Creation Date: 27-Mar-2009
Updated Date: 27-Mar-2009
Expiration Date: 27-Mar-2010
Name Server: ns57.1and1.com 74.208.2.9
ns58.1and1.com 74.208.3.8
Registrant
First name: Oneandone
Last name: Private Registration
Organisation: 1&1 Internet, Inc. - http://1and1.com/contact
Street: 701 Lee Road, Suite 300 ATTN: cepmcert.com
City: 19087 Chesterbrook
Country code: US
Telephone: +1.8772064254
Telefax:
E-Mail: proxy1760419@1and1-private-registration.com
Administrative Contact
First name: Oneandone
Last name: Private Registration
Organisation: 1&1 Internet, Inc. - http://1and1.com/contact
Street: 701 Lee Road, Suite 300 ATTN: cepmcert.com
City: 19087 Chesterbrook
Country code: US
Telephone: +1.8772064254
Telefax:
E-Mail: proxy1760419@1and1-private-registration.com
Technical Contact
First name: Oneandone
Last name: Private Registration
Organisation: 1&1 Internet, Inc. - http://1and1.com/contact
Street: 701 Lee Road, Suite 300 ATTN: cepmcert.com
City: 19087 Chesterbrook
Country code: US
Telephone: +1.8772064254
Telefax:
E-Mail: proxy1760419@1and1-private-registration.com


Frankly, just the fact that the certifying organization doesn't bother to identify anyone associated with the firm should be enough to make anyone doubt the...um...ethics of the certifying organization.

But what do I know? I'm not a C.E.P.M.

By the way, it should be clearly emphasized that cepmcert.com is presumably IN NO WAY connected with cepm.com, the website for the Centre for Excellence in Project Management (CEPM) Pvt. Ltd., an organization with a clear history and identified clients. Although this organization doesn't have "ethical" in its name, it's clearly much more ethical than the other group.

Hope is (literally) in the cards - .@hopeinthecards



While most of the people that I have befriended on FriendFeed, Google Reader, and Twitter are people that I have never met in real life, most of my LinkedIn contacts and many of my Facebook contacts are people that I have known at one time or another. Both services have allowed me to connect with college, high school, and even elementary school friends that I haven't seen in decades.

Well, LinkedIn allowed me to connect with former Reed College classmate Russ Haan, and he asked what I was doing these days. I then investigated to see what HE was doing these days, and he has an interesting story. Among his several activities, one of them is a project called Hope is in the Cards. Here's part of the story behind this effort:

Like many other Americans, I am a small business owner facing tough times. I’ve depleted my savings, retirement plan and credit lines so I can keep my employees. I’ve cut my own wages so they are the lowest of any employee in my company. I’m trying to support family members. And I’m barely keeping my head above water.

One day, I felt especially overwhelmed. The news reports job losses, lay-offs and the bad economy were terrible. It was followed by more news about bailouts, stimulus plans and government rescues, but none of those would help people like me. None of them would help my employees or my business. I felt forgotten, ignored and that all my work for the last 20 years was for nothing.



And then I reflected. I still had a roof over my head. I was not cold. I was not hungry. In fact, I was blessed. Even if I lost everything I had, I was still healthy. I had family I could count on. I could do physical work, somewhere else, doing something. In fact, I was one of the lucky ones.

So instead of feeling sorry for myself, I wondered if there was a way I could lift up someone around me. In fact, maybe not just someone, but everyone. The entire Nation even! And that’s when it seemed to me as if everything I’d ever done, actually led me to this very point in time.

That was the instant HOPE IS IN THE CARDS was born.

The premise is so simple:

What if every American sent just one letter or card of support to another American. What would happen? What would it do to our collective national spirit if the word HOPE was written on the back of every envelope?


Read the rest here, or go here to learn how to participate.

(empo-tymshft) What a difference a millennium makes at Home Depot

In the ideal world, the posts in this "empo-tymshft" series would provide stunning insights from me on the effects of time on various business processes. These stunning insights would be highly original and would result in an Einsteinian change in our way of thinking (without the wild hair on my part). Future generations would then refer to "Bredehoft's Third Principle" and nod knowingly.

But it's a lot of hard work to come up with original insightful thoughts, especially when there are people out there a lot smarter than me.

One such person is B.L. Ochman, who wrote a post that fits into the "empo-tymshft" category - or I guess the "bloch-tymshft" category.

The title of Ochman's post? Home Depot 1999: Forbids Suppliers to Sell Online; 2009: Tweeting For Customer Service.

One of the sources that Ochman uses for her post is an August 11, 1999 edition of the "What's Next Online" newsletter, written by...Ochman herself. Here's part of what she said at the time:



Some web-wise merchants have responded to the Internet's new retail rules retailers by including comparison shopping on their own sites, others put their heads in the sand. Leading the list of slow to get online retailers is Home Depot who, according to the Aug 16 issue of Fortune, recently issued "a Godfather-esque" directive to its suppliers selling goods online. The gist of it was stop selling online or you won't be selling to us.

Ochman then quoted from Home Depot's letter, then added her analysis of why Home Depot was (in 1999) doing this:

What Home Depot really is worried about is its customers going straight to the manufacturer and bypassing Home Depot.

So they put the pressure on Stanley Tools to refrain from selling online.

And certainly, in the short term, such a strategy could work if enforced by a dominant player in the field. But the world is full of innovative companies that emerged as competitors frittered away their competitive advantage. For example, by October 1999, those who wanted to shop online could go to places such as superbuild.com (which may or may not be related to the present website of the same name) and homewarehouse.com (which eventually became part of walmart.com). But not to homedepot.com:

Home Depot, based in Atlanta, said [in September 1999] it will wait until the first half of [2000] to sell its entire catalog on its Web site, Homedepot.com, rather than start sooner with selected products.

Lowe's, of Wilkesboro, North Carolina, plans to sell 6,000 to 8,000 home-improvement products on its Lowes.com site [in 2000]....

For the upstart competition, "this is an extremely good break," said Jack Staff, chief Internet economist at market researcher Zona Research in Redwood City, California.

"First-mover status counts for a lot in this game. For every month [Home Depot and Lowe's] delay, they're losing market share."


Well, it's 2009, and Home Depot hasn't disappeared, so they must have done something right. And since we're back in the present, let me quote from Ochman's most recent post:

Dear Big Companies, I've said it before, and I'm saying it again. We don't care about you. We care about what you can do for us, and that's what we want to talk about.

So, whatever happened to Stanley Tools - the company that Home Depot effectively prevented from opening an online store in 1999? Even in 2009, they do not have their own online store. Instead, their website points to online retailers who sell Stanley Tools products. Home Depot is among them.

When competing company factions render solutions meaningless - a failure in the Oracle OpenWorld Schedule Builder

If you're not familiar with Oracle OpenWorld, you may not know that the conference has tons upon tons of sessions. To make sense out of all of this, Oracle has contracted to provide a "Schedule Builder" that lets you select sessions that you want to attend.



But there are two types of sessions that Oracle selects for you - the keynote presentations, during which no other sessions are scheduled, and the "Executive Solution Sessions," which are sessions that Oracle sponsors hope that you will attend. You can remove the Executive Solution Sessions from your schedule, but you can't remove the keynotes, because you'd obviously want to attend all of them.

The Oracle Schedule Builder also has another facility, "Add Personal Meeting." This allows you to add unconference sessions to your schedule, and also to add networking opportunities. Much of the power of Oracle OpenWorld - or, for that matter, any conference - is the networking opportunities that can occur with people from Oracle, media people, vendors, and people using Oracle. (What, did you think the sole purpose of the blogger meetups was to drink beer? Don't answer that.)



I haven't transferred my session information to my work calendar or any of my personal calendars yet, because the Oracle OpenWorld schedule is often in flux and it would be easier to transfer it all later. So at the moment, everything is in Schedule Builder. This is probably a bonus from Oracle's perspective, since any information service wants you to go to their site to get information. While Oracle provides the opportunity to export Schedule Builder data to a non-Oracle application, they would prefer that you keep your information with them. (Sound familiar?)

So anyways, I have a networking opportunity with various Oracle people during Oracle OpenWorld, and I wanted to make sure that I remembered it. Since my schedule information is still in Schedule Builder, I figured I'd use the "Add Personal Meeting" feature.



Yes, I do already have an event scheduled for that time - one of the keynote presentations. Which I can't delete. In essence, this means that I CANNOT use the Oracle solution to store my schedule, and that I MUST use a third-party solution that gives me greater flexibility.

Now this is obviously a trivial example, but we can learn from it. In this case, there are two competing factions at Oracle with different objectives:
  • There's the one competing faction at Oracle that wants to provide this particular networking opportunity, and (I'm guessing here) probably chose this time for the networking opportunity because only one other event was going on at the time. In their minds, the networking opportunity is paramount.

  • There's the other competing faction at Oracle that wants to make sure that all Oracle OpenWorld attendees are at the important sessions, and therefore wants to make sure that nothing else is going on during these sessions. In their minds, the keynotes are paramount.
Guess which faction at Oracle was able to influence the specs of Schedule Builder?

These types of things are going to occur at all times. Even if you get 100% of a company's employees to sign an "I love the company's vision statement" manifesto, there are always times when there are disagreements on the details. I'd bet that each of the competing Oracle factions believe that they are guardians of Oracle's vision, and that it's the other side that has deviated. And obviously it's not just Oracle, and it's not even just big companies - if you have a two-person company, the two people could obviously disagree on tactics, even if they agree on strategy.

I'd ask my readers how you can prevent these conflicts, but why bother? You can't. You just need to deal with them and move forward.

And for the keynoter whose session I'm skipping, I trust that your company will provide details about the keynote later.

I'm not the only one with suspicions about the North American IT Professionals Association

You may recall that back in August, I wrote a post entitled "NAITPA - a professional association?" It recounted my experience in receiving a letter for a so-called membership renewal for something that I had never joined in the first place, and also noted that the North American IT Professionals Association somehow failed to identify any of its leaders by name.

It turns out that I'm not the only one who is suspicious of the so-called association. Take Erika, who commennted on my post:

I recieved one of these too, in my snail mail. If you look at their website, it's been around less time than my supposed membership. I also backtracked the address and it came back to a healthcare facility in CA.

And around the same time that I was writing my post, another post was being written by Eric. His post begins as follows:

I just received a letter from NAITPA sending me my membership card, and thanking me for my support. I have a membership number, a receipt number and a due date on this nice letter. They also include a handy payment stub for my $231.00 annual payment along with my membership card.

What’s interesting is that until now, I’d never heard of them. The mailing sure looks like a statement, and it doesn’t include any marketing materials to help educate me about their site / organization, so I guess I’m supposed to assume that I just pay them and “continue” my membership.


Now Eric was a little more diligent in reading the fine print than I was, and he found this little gem:

“By accepting this offer, you agree not to hold NAITPA liable for any part thereof. Note: THIS IS NOT A BILL. This is solicitation. You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated unless you accept this offer. The information in this letter contains confidential and/or legally privileged information from the notification processing department of the NAITPA…”

And Eric, like Erica, noted the registration date of the website:

Finally, while [their] web site says “After another successful year…”, checking on the Internet shows that their domain was registered on February 11, 2009.

And why would a professional organization register its website via Domains by Proxy?

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NAITPA.COM
Created on: 11-Feb-09
Expires on: 11-Feb-10
Last Updated on: 17-Jul-09

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration NAITPA.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration NAITPA.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598


I'm not sure what address Erica found, but the publicly listed addresses for the organization are as follows:

Canadian Headquarters
275 Slater Street
Suite 900
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H9
Telephone: 1-888-245-8561...

US Operations
23515 North East Novelty Hill Road
Suite # B221
Redmond, Washington 98053

Telephone: 1-888-245-8561


Well, I became curious to see who else can be found at 275 Slater Street, Suite 900. I found:

Able Translations Ltd

Sibername, a domain provider

Solitek Systems, a firm with network expertise

Owner-Operator's Business Association of Canada, another membership association

Astra Tourist Shipping Line, a company which elicted the question of whether or not they truly exist - also see this link

awardgrant.com and awardgrant.org, which came up in scamwarners.com and no longer exist

My guess is that these organizations - some possibly legitimate, some possibly not - have all congregated around the domain name provider Sibername. So what are Sibername's Terms of Service? Here are a few:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: All Payments To Sibername.com (Sibername Internet and Software Technologies, Inc.) Are Non-Refundable unless they fall under the 30 Day Money Back Guarantee!

All the hosting plans are under auto renewal and by signing up a hosting plan and accepting this agreement, you are providing an authorization to Sibername.com to renew the service automatically.


Now who would sign up for something like that?

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Adam Carolla rejoins The Man



So anyways, the guy famous for Mr. Birchum, Loveline, The Man Show, Crank Yankers, and his own radio show got dumped by CBS when it changed formats. So he went right into podcasting - feeling the need to keep on talking, I guess. (Bloggers are like that too.)

But Peter Kafka notes that Adam Carolla landed a new gig:

Carolla is even better on the Web than he is on the air, but I worried that he’d have a hard time turning his talent and Internet audience into money.

Turns out he’s figured out how to do it: By going back to work for CBS.

The broadcaster, which canned Carolla from his radio job earlier in the year, is now going to sponsor his podcast. It will promote the show, handle ad sales and let Carolla program his own Web radio station.


See http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/.

How to motivate your employees - don't cut their pay

When a company runs into financial trouble, one of the common pieces of advice from Wall Street is to "trim the fat" and "get the income statement in order" and bla bla bla. The idea is that if you can improve your revenue statement, things will look better than stockholders will buy your stock and things will be wonderful. Plus, it sounds really prudent to do stuff like that. What could go wrong?

Plenty, if you remember that such cost-cutting moves can have a negative impact on your employees. Perhaps Jane Stockholder will be pleased that net profit was positive for WidgetCorp's most recent quarter, but Jane Stockholder might want to listen to the conversation next door, where a WidgetCorp employee is grousing about the way his company is going to hell, and how he isn't going to do anything extra for WidgetCorp any more, because WidgetCorp certainly isn't doing anything for HIM.

Or perhaps Jane Stockholder's neighbor left WidgetCorp altogether and got a better job with another firm. Of course, it's only the best WidgetCorp employees that will score the good jobs elsewhere, so while WidgetCorp is telling Wall Street about its impressive revenue figures, it's doing so with a less talented staff.

As everyone knows, General Motors has not been in the best of health lately, and they've had to do all sorts of things to keep on running. Now that they're trying to get back to health, they're reversing some of the decisions that they made earlier. Unfortunately, I learned of this via the Associated Press, so I am very limited in the amount of text that I can quote from this article:

...rescinded white-collar pay cuts...

I'm assuming that a hyphenated word counts as a single word, but I could be wrong.

But how many talented employees left GM - perhaps to work for Ford - when the initial pay cuts were announced?

On trust and good corporate responses - the pragmatic response that Steve Kovak gave to Robert Scoble

This is a follow-up to THREE posts that I've previously written - my September 3 post Is "trust" about to jump the shark?, my September 8 post Hackham girls in a stormwater drain - I use the word "trust" myself, and my September 11 post A pragmatic way to respond to negative feedback. The latter post is the most relevant, since it takes Joan Koerber-Walker's suggestions in her post Responding to Feedback in a New Age of Communications to the story (courtesy eSarcasm) about a self-contradicting press release from Pragmatic Marketing - and, more importantly, the superior way that Pragmatic Marketing responded to the online criticism.



Well, Pragmatic Marketing isn't the only organization that knows how to artfully respond to negative criticism. Robert Scoble reported on a similar incident that occurred while he was talking to Ford representative Steve Kovak.

Scoble starts his post by using that word that will soon be overused - trust. After he talked about Chris Brogan's book "Trust Agents," Scoble launched into the main point of his post.

Here we have a new trust agent to study. His name is Steve Kovak and he runs the teams at Ford that build safety features into their cars like radar systems and airbags and the like.

Now Ford, while in many respects the shining star of the traditional group of American car companies, certainly has worldwide competition - a fact that Scoble brought up at the very first opportunity.

Of course, what did I do? I told him quickly I bought a Toyota Prius, a car I really love.

Now there are several ways that Kovak could have responded to that remark. Before I tell you what he said, let's review Joan Koerber-Walker's suggestions one more time. Again we have to bear in mind that Koerber-Walker was talking about service failures, and the Kovak-Scoble example doesn't really fit into that category. But there was one thing that Koerber-Walker said that is relevant here.

And as to putting up your dukes to start swinging in cyberspace – Please don't! Most of us do not want to be subjected to that.

Let me take a detour down another road for a moment. Robert Scoble himself linked to one way to respond to an endorsement of a competing product. Before I tell the story, I should disclose that I worked for Motorola for eight years, so I can clearly picture both sides of this story.

[Microsoft's Steve] Ballmer was making his big entrance -- slapping hands, running around, and generally whooping things up, as is his tradition at these events. That was when he spotted someone at field level, allegedly a member of the Windows group, using an iPhone to take his picture.

Ballmer grabbed the Apple device from the employee and made some funny remarks as everyone booed. Then he put it on the ground and pretended to stomp on it, before walking away.

The scene was visible on the big screen, so even people in the upper deck could see what was happening. Later, during his presentation on stage, Ballmer referred to the episode again, teasing the person and making it clear that he hadn't forgotten what happened.


But what's better is the hidden story about the post-incident fallout. The writer of the story above, Todd Bishop, then said:

Microsoft employees alluded to the incident on Twitter...

Bishop then linked to http://twitter.com/cuddlebottoms/statuses/3897453555. I followed the link, and here's what I got:



Hmm, a "that page doesn't exist" message for a tweet that was prominently linked to in a blog post. Further analysis revealed that @cuddlebottoms now has protected updates. Speculation runs rampant - did some Microsoft executive choose to spank cuddlebottoms for sharing internal information about a funny incident at a Microsoft event? If so, it doesn't look good for Microsoft, which has a history of suppressing information - even if Microsoft was right in what it did (and Michael Hanscom agreed that Microsoft had the right to terminate him for the pictures of Apple computers on a Microsoft loading dock). Still, Ballmer's attitude and Microsoft's action paint a negative picture of a company that apparently doesn't want to acknowledge that competitors are out there, and people like them.

Enough about Microsoft - back to Ford. So anyways, when Robert Scoble began singing the praises of the Toyota Prius, how did Ford's Steve Kovak respond? I'll let Scoble tell the story:

What did he do? He admitted he bought one too. Then he promptly praised it. Then he explained how his product was different. He also made sure to mention his company's advantages (that they've been doing this longer).

So Kovak acknowledged the good points about Scoble's chosen product, then made his case - rather than refusing to acknowledge that a competitor had any good points, or (worse yet) berating Scoble for not buying American.

And guess what? Treating Robert Scoble in a positive way had...a positive impact!

All three got me to trust him. Well, as much as I'd trust anyone pitching a product.

If you take a moment and think about it, there are clear advantages in a positive response (what I'll call the "Pragmatic Kovak" method) vs. a negative response (what I'll call the "Ballmer" method). If I tell Company A representative that I like Company B, and the representative ends up Ballmering me, I immediately end up on the defensive, being told that I'm wrong (or at best uninformed). But if the representative chooses to Pragmatically Kovak me instead, acknowledging that Company B has some strengths and THEN making the case for Company A, I'm going to have a lot more positive attitude.

Not only do you have a happy customer, but you also have a happy company. Using Ford as an example, I can point to one happy Ford employee because of Ford's approach to the competition. Scott Monty commented on Scoble's post, and this is (part of) what he said:

Robert, you've discovered one of the secret ingredients that helped me make the decision to take a job with Ford just over a year ago, when American auto companies weren't viewed so positively: passion. But it's more than that. It's passion that's backed up by really solid leadership, a strong plan, and a product lineup that's better than it's been in a long time.

And how did Ford get there? Certainly not by burying our heads in the sand or putting our hands over our ears and saying "la la la la...I can't hear you." In fact, it's been a constant push to improve our products and our company, and looking at the competition for what they're doing. A great encapsulation of that is when I had Alan Mulally taking questions on Twitter unplanned. Someone asked what kind of car he drove. Instinctively, I hesitated, as I thought it might be a security risk, but Alan was eager to answer. And this is what he said:

"I drive a different car every day. And not just Ford vehicles; cars from every manufacturer."

The CEO of Ford goes out of his way to ensure he experiences other products in order to keep us competitive - or ahead of the competition. ;-).


Scott Monty is jazzed about his job. Steve Kovak is jazzed about his job.

Are the anonymous Microsoft iPhone user and @cuddlebottoms jazzed about their jobs? Or are they even now planning to offer their inquisitive talents to some other employer, having decided that Microsoft doesn't really want them?

Monday, September 14, 2009

A China dumping case that Americans might not support

If I were to tell you that there are dumping allegations swirling around the U.S. and China, there's a certain faction of the country that would probably applaud the allegations. Now this support would not be limited to one ideological faction or another - both the people who hate the danged Commies AND the people who love the labor unions would certainly climb on board for U.S. action against China.

Only one problem - this isn't a U.S. action against China.

China unexpectedly increased pressure Sunday on the United States in a widening trade dispute, taking the first steps toward imposing tariffs on American exports of automotive products and chicken meat....

[T]he United States shipped about $800 million in automotive products and $376 million in chicken meat to China, according to data from Global Trade Information Services in Columbia, S.C....

China’s commerce ministry announced Sunday that it would investigate “certain imported automotive products and certain imported chicken meat products originating from the United States” to determine if they were being subsidized or “dumped” below cost in the Chinese market. A finding of subsidies or dumping would allow China to impose tariffs on these imports.


Now when the New York Times reported this, they noted that it was in response to American actions against Chinese tires. But China neglected to emphasize that little detail - at least formally.

The ministry did not mention the tire dispute in its announcement, portraying the investigations as “based on the laws of our country and on World Trade Organization rules.”

But the timing of the announcement — on a weekend and just after the tire decision in Washington — sent an unmistakable message of retaliation. The official Xinhua news agency Web site prominently linked its reports on the tire dispute and the Chinese investigations.

What do we want? Data! When do we want it? Now!



If "man the barricades" wasn't such a sexist term, I'd be using it right now.

Both Mashable and ReadWriteWeb are reporting on a new movement, the Data Liberation Front. In accordance with any 21st century movement, the Data Liberation Front has a blog which they use to relay their message to the masses.

However, be forewarned - the Data Liberation Front is controlled by THE MAN - or, more accurately, the men.



That having been said, THE MAN is, at least on the surface, acting really cool. Brian Liberation briefly stopped playing his Beatles records - as Devo said, "Some things never change" - enough to pen a manifesto. Here's a portion, so you can listen to what the man said:

We're a small team of Google Chicago engineers (named after a Monty Python skit about the Judean People's Front) that aims to make it easy for our users to transfer their personal data in and out of Google's services by building simple import and export functions. Our goal is to "liberate" data so that consumers and businesses using Google products always have a choice when it comes to the technology they use.

What does product liberation look like? Said simply, a liberated product is one which has built-in features that make it easy (and free) to remove your data from the product in the event that you'd like to take it elsewhere.

At the heart of this lies our strong commitment to an open web run on open standards. We think open is better than closed -- not because closed is inherently bad, but because when it's easy for users to leave your product, there's a sense of urgency to improve and innovate in order to keep your users. When your users are locked in, there's a strong temptation to be complacent and focus less on making your product better.


Basically, the Data Liberation Front realizes something important. If I may quote from a noted musical figure whom I referenced in a Sunday night Empoprise-MU blog post just after the VMAs:

Th-th-that that don't kill me
Can only make me stronger

All about the IP over Avian Carriers (IPoAC) protocol

Back on Thursday September 10, I wrote (in a post entitled (empo-tuulwey) When broadband is not broad - the South African carrier pigeon story). The post, part of my "a tool is not a way of life" series, took the story about carrier pigeons being faster than ADSL in a South African test and extrapolated the lesson that

...we can bandy technical terms about - "broadband," "real-time," whatever - but to really understand whether a technology meets our needs, we have to do a deep dive. Perhaps a technology that will meet my needs in Ontario, California might not meet the needs of someone in Durban, South Africa - and vice versa.

I was obviously not the only person talking about the South African carrier pigeon story, and I thought that everything that could be said on the topic had already been said. But I learned something new (or, more accurately, something old) when reading Stan Schroeder's post in Mashable about the topic.

While interesting, this is not the first attempt at sending digital data via carrier pigeons; in fact, this type of data transfer has been defined (albeit humorously) as IP over Avian Carriers (IPoAC). Here’s a bit of background on the story.

IPoAC was described in RFC 1149 (RFC, or Request for Comments, is a document describing some part of the inner workings of the Internet. In short, it’s a very technical FAQ for the entire Internet) by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF); it was written by D. Waitzman and released on April 1st, 1990. The basic idea behind the “protocol” is strapping some kind of data medium (such as a memory card) on a carrier pigeon’s leg and sending it to a remote destination.


Here are excerpts from RFC 1149 itself:

Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single point-to-point path for each carrier, used with standard carriers, but many carriers can be used without significant interference with each other, outside of early spring. This is because of the 3D ether space available to the carriers, in contrast to the 1D ether used by IEEE802.3. The carriers have an intrinsic collision avoidance system, which increases availability. Unlike some network technologies, such as packet radio, communication is not limited to line-of-sight distance. Connection oriented service is available in some cities, usually based upon a central hub topology....

Multiple types of service can be provided with a prioritized pecking order. An additional property is built-in worm detection and eradication.


In the Mashable post, Schroeder then notes that the protocol is not just a paper gathering dust somewhere. It has actually been implemented:

IPoAC was first “implemented” (meaning: they actually did it) by the Bergen Linux user group; they sent nine pigeons, each carrying a single ping over the destination of about three miles, but they received only four responses; quite a poor result.

Then, in 2004, a group of Israeli enthusiasts sent three homing pigeons to a destination about 100 kilometers away, with each carrying 20-22 memory cards. The total amount of data transfered was 4 GB, and it took the pigeons below 4 hours, on average, to transfer it.


Schroeder then notes that the South African test is yet another implementation of the protocol. Perhaps RFC 1149 is not as widely used as some other protocols, but it does appear to be a proven standard under certain circumstances.

Well, provided that a cat doesn't intervene.




P.S. For my previous comments on standards, see this post.

P.P.S. My LOLcat, above, was based upon Feverblue's original photo.

(empo-tuulwey) For the "RSS is dead" folks

I could write a thousand words about this topic, but I won't. This picture was taken from my @empoprises Twitter page.



Enough said.