My Own Pirate Radio

Jerry King just posted a polemic essay disguised as a blog comment setting out his thoughts on Toronto’s most recent DemoCamp. Snippet:

Here are two propositions. The first is that Tuesday evening’s presenters at BarCamp reflect a breadth of fresh air, the ushering in of a more democratic and a more cost effective way (e.g. Open Source) to explore their pet projects. And in exploring their pet projects, the presenters self-actualize and that’s good enough for society at large.

The second proposition is that the presenters were symptomatic of something more troubling–a Canadian tertiary educational system which, with the noticeable exception of the U. of Waterloo, continues to pump “technologists” into the workforce.

Yow! His post is unstintingly provocative and deserves further discussion, which is why I’m calling attention to it here.

As a gross simplification I’d say Jerry likes DemoCamp as a “place to start”, but he wants the local tech community to get much more hardcore about grooming our future entrepreneurs. Give it a read and add your own comments to the original post — this one needs more angles.And Jerry, get your blog set up already!

I attended TorCampDemoCamp 4.0 last night. Nice crowd… well over 100 people in the room, lots of energy, fun demos and some smart constructive questions asked. I enjoyed reconnecting with a few familiar faces and meeting new people. Thanks David Crow and the demoers for putting together a valuable evening.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mark Evans writes in “Web 2.0: Post-Newsweek Thoughts”,

Me: “So what’s Kijiji’s business model? How does it make money?”
Them: “We don’t have a business model. Everything on the site is free.”
Me: “Oh, then I guess Kijiji is a real Web 2.0 company.”
For months, I’ve been ranting about how the lack of viable business models within all these cool Web 2.0 services/applications is a huge and troubling problem. How can you create a business if the service is given away free?

It is odd, but it makes more sense when you look at the company ownership. eBay owns 25% of Craigslist, and wholly owns Kijiji. eBay is not in the same class as the so-called Web 2.0 companies. Very different motivations and much deeper pockets. Read the rest of this entry »

These days I am online an awful lot. Too much, arguably. If you’re reading this you’re probably a Web addict too. Or misguided. Or bored. Either way, you shouldn’t be reading this blog post. Do yourself a favor and close the browser window right now.

…

Still here? OK, since you’re clearly beyond recovery, I thought it might be useful to share with you the tools and process I use while browsing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday I wrote a short paranoid whinge about excessive government regulation of services, especially telecom. Well, maybe there is hope after all. Mark Evans says Canada’s Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, which has been reviewing the government’s role in telecommunications, is sending encouraging signals:

After an extensive 11-month exercise, the three-person panel has made it clear the CRTC shouldn’t be actively involved in shaping the competitive landscape. …
Rather than letting the CRTC regulate specific markets until it is proven there is sufficient competition, the TPR suggests markets be regarded as competitive unless proven otherwise.

What a novel approach! It makes so much sense; you wonder why it took so long for somebody to articulate it.

See his full piece in the National Post.

May 15th & 16th, 2006. http://www.meshconference.com/

Michael Crichton has a funny NYT editorial piece “This Essay Breaks the Law“. In it he talks about the absurd things patents are being granted for these days.

The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development, whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a new test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that’s your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that causes the disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease. The distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur it.

He’s on target.

It’s equally bad in the software space: the big companies patent everything they can just to amass up a defensive portfolio; the little companies try to patent so they can look better to investors and potential acquirers, but patent filing costs too much to do it aggressively; and patent trolls try to shake down everyone with a bank account. Yuck.

Alternatives, please.