I usually hate posting twice in one day but since I'm gone for a week after this I figured "What the heck?" 

Plus, this topic is something that worries me greatly (and not for the reasons you might think).  In an article entitled "RIAA: DRM not dead and likely will make a comeback" CNet's Greg Sandoval writes...

Last January, when Sony BMG became the last major recording company to sell DRM-free tracks at Amazon, plenty of observers considered the technology buried. Since then, a growing number of online stores have begun offering at least some open MP3s, including Walmart.com, Zune's Marketplace, Amazon, as well as iTunes.

Not so fast, said Hughes, who predicted that DRM would reemerge in a big way. "I think there is going to be a shift," he told the audience. "I think there will be a movement towards subscription services, and (that) will eventually mean the return of DRM."

Hughes also said that DRM must change so that the public sees it less as a sort of policeman that locks music a way. He would prefer a mode where consumers don't notice DRM at all. "People just want music when they want it," he said. "It's about access. If they get that then they don't care about DRM."

Here's the thing, DRM stays dead if people actually buy DRM-Free music.  Regardless of what they say Record Companies are looking at one thing right now and that is "do sales go up once DRM is removed from Music?"  If the answer is "Yes" you can pretty much say goodbye to DRM.  If the answer is "No" you can expect it to make a comeback. 

That's the thing, Record Companies don't like DRM either.  But they need proof that their customers will act honestly towards them if they kill it off.  That means music lovers actually paying for music.

If you are someone who still uses p2p networks ask yourself where that road eventually leads.  The idea that everyone in the music industry is eventually going to "give in" and give music away as marketing is a pipe dream.  No industry in the history of the world has ever decided to magnanimously surrender their primary revenue stream.  I guarantee you the recording industry isn't going to be the first. 

Given that fact the p2p road can only lead to one thing: even stricter DRM in the future.  Regardless of what people think there is DRM out there that can't be cracked its just the kind that's more restrictive than anything that's come before.   Think machine serial numbers intertwined into the actual music itself (I've seen the tech that could do it).  No one, not even the recording industry, wants that. 

But to avoid it more people need to start paying for their music to prove that customers will respond favorably when companies give them what they want.  Customers demanded DRM be taken away and the companies have responded by doing just that.  Don't those companies now deserve your business? 

Mads Kristensen posted what can only be described as an impassioned plea to ASP.NET developers to embrace the Semantic Web.  Entitled "Wake up ASP.NET developers!" the post practically begs developers to include Microformats in their current and future products.  Here is a quote...

What puzzles me again and again is that only a fraction of web developers use microformats or any other semantic formats. In the light of how easy and useful it is, it leaves me saddened. It is not a duty to implement semantic mark-up; it is a privilege to help drive the future of the web – and with a minimal effort as an added bonus.

So, if you have a website containing user profiles, calendar events or any other structured data, then please tag them up with the appropriate microformat and XFN tags. If you want to do a little more, then FOAF is a good place to start. Remember, it starts with us, the developers, so wake up! (the lack of the word 'please' is not accidental, although appropriate).

First let me say that I'm a huge supporter of the ideas behind the Semantic Web.  Always have been.  In fact, there are very few things that can make me angry but  I still grit my teeth when I think of the hit job that was done on RSS 1.0 (the Semantic Web geared RDF variant of RSS).

But the Semantic Web, like many of these online initiatives, isn't fully thought out.  The problem here is that people love to focus on the fun stuff like functionality but when it comes to the tedious stuff no one wants to volunteer for the job.  So it remains undone which in turn keeps a good idea from being a viable technology. 

Take security for instance.  Microformats, by definition, are a way to make it easier for computers to read and process data.  So what's to stop a spammer from using your Microformat against you?  In an age where most web sites have to use images to display simple e-mail addresses how can anyone suggest putting an hCard (which is the Microformat for a business card) on their site? 

I've brought this up to every hCard proponent I know and have never managed to get a satisfactory response. 

Security isn't the only issue either.  Another is future compatibility between the two disparate Semantic Web camps.  Despite what many think there is no consensus behind Microformats in the Semantic community.  Tim Berners-Lee (arguably the leader of the Semantic Web movement) endorses both Microformats and RDFa encoding even though they do the same thing.  This makes it hard for a developer to implement one side of the equation without fearing a rewrite.

Truthfully there are tons of issues with Microformats that have gone unaddressed.  Difficulty in validating plain xhtml, lack of a standardized approval process for new Microformats, and the difficulty of extensibility are just a few of the dozens of problems out there.

This all brings me back to my original point which is that no one has bothered to look at anything but the fun part of Microformats.  All the other tedious issues have been ignored and those issues are what keep me from embracing Microformats.  If the Semantic community wants that to change they need to address realistic ways of implementing this technology. 

I've talked about "Twitter News" before and had no real desire to revisit the topic.  But after reading Adam Pasick's Reuters article entitled "Breaking News, Twitter Style" I couldn't help myself.  He starts by saying...

News of a possible explosion rippled through the popular online service Twitter on Tuesday, in a preview of what’s to come in the realm of breaking news and citizen journalism. Twitter is a so-called microblogging site that allows users to send and receive short messages.

At about 1:37 pm, software developer Dave Winer asked the Twitterverse: “Explosion in Falls Church, VA?” (Perhaps not coincidentally, Winer is a well-known blogger and podcasting evangelist). A flurry of posts, or “tweets,” followed, as users reported rumbles as far away as Alexandria.

What was the story behind this "Explosion" in Virginia?

By 2:56 pm — nearly 90 minutes after Winer’s initial alert — WTOP had the official word from the U.S. Geological Survey: A not-exactly-massive 1.8 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter near Annandale, VA.

So basically the article praises Twitter for delivering completely inaccurate news because it did it 90 minutes early.  I mean, the news was COMPLETELY WRONG. 

Not only that, it was misleading.  The conclusions you draw from an explosion are completely different from those drawn from an earthquake.  If I have relatives working/living around Falls Church, VA I'd be terrified to hear there was an explosion.  A reaction that is completely different from the one I'd have after hearing there was a 1.8 magnitude earthquake in which NO ONE WAS HURT. 

What is the point of news if not to deliver important information to people so they can act on it in the appropriate way?  If the news is completely inaccurate and prompts an inappropriate reaction isn't it useless?

Twitter is an adult version of the old Telephone Game.  A game that was designed to teach little kids how inaccurate this type of communication is.

Honestly folks, are we now to the point where we're so enamored with ourselves that we've forgotten lessons learnerd in Kindergarten?  We now celebrate our ability to report inaccuracies?  The wisdom of the crowd is sacrosanct even if the crowd is completely wrong? 

Ridiculous...

It's hard for me to put a lot into this post given the extensive coverage the topic has already gotten.  I, like most, think Microsoft dodged a bullet whether they realize it or not.  Yahoo on the other hand was in a bad place before Microsoft made the offer and has now lost a lot of time, money and valuable employees as a result of the offer.  They're obviously in some trouble.

A lot points to this not being over.  AOL might ride in and try the merger talks again, Google might cut Yahoo a sweet heart deal and Jerry Yang might get fired encouraging Microsoft to take another shot.  For now, no one knows.

But all that has been said to death on just about every other blog so I'll digress.  There are two unique things I think I can add to this.  Two items I haven't seen addressed elsewhere.  Those are...

1. Microsoft needs to target Yahoo now:  I don't think Yahoo was worth much to Microsoft but it does have value.  In particular, its valuable to any company that wants to beat Microsoft over the head with it.  A permanent Ad deal with Google or a merger with AOL could both cut into Microsoft's already miniscule bottom lines in both search and ad sales. 

This is strategy 101: first try to get the weapon.  If you can't get the weapon next try to deprive your enemy of it. 

Microsoft now has $44 billions burning a hole in its pocket and I think they should consider using a lot of it to tear Yahoo apart.  Stealing as many great employees and valuable customers as possible gives Microsoft part of what they wanted at a fraction of the cost. 

2.  Google might not be a Winner here: Many have pegged Google as a winner but I'm not so sure.  We in the United States have one of the most "Open Market" oriented Presidents in recent history right now.  That is a fact that is going to change in a few short months (no matter who wins the next election). 

Google is already skating really close to the anti-trust line and having MicroHoo to refute that accusation might have worked in their advantage when the time comes.  An ad deal with Yahoo on the other hand has the opposite effect.

That's it for me on this.  I'm posting this at 11:15pm so Black Monday is just around the corner.  I suspect things will be a lot clearer once we see how that pans out. 

This has nothing to do with tech but I thought I'd post this to warn anyone who might be going to see Iron Man this weekend.  There's a scene at the end of the credits.  If you leave you'll miss it (and its a pretty neat scene)

I still saw it thanks to some poor quality camera phone footage but I thought I'd do my little part to put the word out so no one else makes the mistake we did. 

Oh, and the movie's great by the way!

Randall Kennedy of ZDNet recently posted on Microsoft's plans to release "Streaming" versions of its Office Applications. "Streaming Apps" are basically apps that download to the local system and then run as a Desktop app would.  These applications download features as needed so you cut download times.

Mr Kennedy is so fond of this idea that he predicts it will kill off Web based office applications.

In response to that Zoho CEO Sridhar Vembu says this...

Let me make a bold prediction of my own: streaming office will fail. Note that I am not talking about MS office per se here - I am suggesting that the streaming incarnation of it will fail. Web suites, including Zoho, will succeed in carving out serious market share. Within that space, our own goal is sustainable, profitable market share, that keeps us vibrant and innovative. With our breadth and depth of applications, we are well on our way.

I'll go further than that.  Web Apps will eventually prevail.  The only question is when.  End of Story. 

Honestly the discussion itself is kind of ridiculous.  I mean no offense to the advocates of Streaming Apps but the technology is nothing more than a stop gap.  Faster connections and more powerful Web Platforms will render it obsolete eventually.  That's inevitable.

This whole debate boils down to one central questions and that is "Will Web Apps ever match the abilities of Desktop/Streaming Apps?"  We all know the answer to that is Yes.  Web Developers are getting very close already and that's working with Javascript.  Technologies such as Flash/Flex and Silverlight will get them even closer and those are in their infancy.  Eventually the Web is going to match the Desktop feature for feature and when that happens Streaming Apps are done.

There are still a lot of unanswerable questions in regards to this sort of thing.  When will Web technology become powerful enough to match the desktop's power?  Will we just continue to use Apps in the browser or will Approaches like Adobe AIR take over?  Will we use one-to-one sync technology like Google Gears or many-to-many technology like Microsoft Mesh?  and so on...

Those questions I can't answer but the question of Web Apps eventual dominance is a no brain-er. 

Joel Spolsky writes a pretty scathing critique of Microsoft's Mesh initiative.  In it he says Mesh is an example of what he calls "architecture astronauts"...

I tried to coin a term for the kind of people who invented Hailstorm: architecture astronauts. "That's one sure tip-off to the fact that you're being assaulted by an Architecture Astronaut: the incredible amount of bombast; the heroic, utopian grandiloquence; the boastfulness; the complete lack of reality. And people buy it! The business press goes wild!"

The hallmark of an architecture astronaut is that they don't solve an actual problem... they solve something that appears to be the template of a lot of problems. Or at least, they try. Since 1988 many prominent architecture astronauts have been convinced that the biggest problem to solve is synchronization.

My biggest disagreement here is with his assertion that being an "Architecture Astronaut" is a bad thing.  What I think Mr. Spolsky misses is that "solve something that appears to be the template of a lot of problems" is another way of saying  "building a platform". 

A platform is a collection of tools that is used to build numerous things which means those tools, by their nature, have to be abstract.  Just as a Hammer wasn't invented just to build houses a software platform can not be tailored to one specific problem. 

Mr. Spolsky seems to be missing the fact that Application Development and Platform Development are two different things.  Application developers need to focus on solving individual problems and I'll agree that not enough do.  Platform developers on the other hand have to be broad in what they create.

In fact, I'd argue that a good platform is one that allows subsequent developers to do things that the original developers never dreamed of. 

One last point I'd like to make on this is that the coming Internet age requires every developer to think a little more like a platform developer.  Web Services allow us to create a global toolbox where the pieces of each vendors platform can be mixed and matched to provide more and more tools. 

What each application developer needs to do is look at abstracting the underlying functions of their program while solving whatever individual problem their software is designed for.  That way others can use those functions to solve completely different problems in the future (making the toolbox that much bigger).

The world is much better served if every application developer has a Minor in "Architecture Astronomics" to compliment their Major in Problem Solving.

Ed Bott of "Ed Bott's Microsoft Report" takes issue with many of the blogger's who reported on this story (I'd assume he includes this blog in his "echo chamber" comment).  Here's a quote

OK, now go read the linked story from the Seattle Times. There’s not a word - not one word - about back doors or encryption. Sadly, the usual suspects in the Techmeme echo chamber are whipping the inaccuracy around the infield at major league speeds. CrunchGear says Microsoft has “developed a thumb drive that helps Johnny Law quickly extract information, encrypted or otherwise, from computers.” And Valleywag talks about “a USB dongle that plugs into a computer, bypasses any Windows passwords or encryption, and quickly downloads sensitive data such as your Web browsing history.”

and

In fact, if this rather unremarkable collection of Microsoft-developed hacker tools actually did contain anything new, I would certainly expect that the highly vocal security community would have said something. If there turned out to be a back door in BitLocker or any other form of encryption, the real experts would be publishing the results. But they haven’t said a thing, because there isn’t a story here.

Let’s see how long it takes for the corrections to begin appearing. I’m not holding my breath.

The problem is this: While Ed Bott rightfully "calls everyone out" for jumping to negative conclusions on limited facts he then takes the same limited facts and jumps to the opposite (positive) conclusion.  He even goes further by assuming Microsoft's COFEE is the equivalent of another tool on the market (again, based on no real evidence)...

For anyone who is ill-informed enough to think that these tools are going to land in the hands of bad guys, I have some bad news. They’re way ahead of you. The community-developed USB Switchblade has been around since at least September 2006. And as security expert Jesper Johansson points out, it has an impressive feature set:

In truth, Microsoft is vague on what exactly is in this device and their claims lead one to think there are "back doors" involved.  When they say that the device can retrieve password protected data off a PC in "as little as 20 minutes" they open themselves up to suspicion.  Especially as the maker of the system doing the password protection. 

As for corrections, I said this (bold added for this post)...

Microsoft's job when making an OS is to make it as secure as possible.  I, as a Microsoft customer, trust that they will do everything they can to make their system secure (as they claim to do).  The fact that they'd even build a device like this seems like a violation of that trust.  Especially since it seems they put hooks into the OS to facilitate its creation.

and I stand by it.  The logical conclusion based on the comments Microsoft had made was that Microsoft used their extensive knowledge of Windows (including the source code) to create this device and make it as effective as it is (for the record, Microsoft has since denied using any "back doors")

Finally, even if it doesn't contain a single piece of inside information I still take offense at Microsoft pointing out ways to crack my OS.  Again, it comes down to me as a customer putting faith in them as a software developer to do everything they can to boost my security (as opposed to circumventing it).  Creating a way to crack that security and giving it away as marketing is still very upsetting.

P.S.  Given how condescending Mr. Bott's post was I think I deserve some kind of karma credit for getting through this entire post without once using the phrase "poor man's Mary Jo Foley"

I'm not one who obsesses over my data privacy.  I mean, as far as my life goes...I like it...but to the outsider I suspect it would be pretty boring.  So if someone wants to snoop on me I really don't care.

But even I found this a tad disturbing...

Microsoft has developed a small plug-in device that investigators can use to quickly extract forensic data from computers that may have been used in crimes.

The COFEE, which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB "thumb drive" that was quietly distributed to a handful of law-enforcement agencies last June. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith described its use to the 350 law-enforcement experts attending a company conference Monday.

The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer.

It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.

For the record, "Forensic Data" translates to "All Your Personal Information"

I honestly don't have an issue with Law Enforcement having access to this sort of thing.  They have the right to obtain the data anyway so this just seems like an easy way for them to get what they need.  If anything, it saves me money as a tax payer.

But I do have a couple issues here...

1.  Though I understand why the Government would want a device like this I think its irresponsible for Microsoft to provide it.  Microsoft's job when making an OS is to make it as secure as possible.  I, as a Microsoft customer, trust that they will do everything they can to make their system secure (as they claim to do).  The fact that they'd even build a device like this seems like a violation of that trust.  Especially since it seems they put hooks into the OS to facilitate its creation. 

2.  My understanding is that this is no bigger than a thumb drive which makes me certain at least one will fall into the wrong hands.  Given that I don't see why they didn't make it bigger and harder to steal.  Particularly since, despite what the original article says, the police have to seize the PC anyway (to maintain a chain of evidence) so portability isn't an issue.

To me, this is the best argument I've seen for Open Source in a while.  If Microsoft is inclined to put hooks into its OS which allow for the quick bypassing of the system's security I'd at least like to know.  The fact that they felt the need to, as the article says, "quietly" distribute this says to me that they knew I'd want to know and specifically took steps to hide it from me. 

That bothers me.

As a Microsoft customer I think their responsibility is to me not to law enforcement.  The fact that they don't see it that way makes a pretty compelling argument for systems with source that is open for everyone to see.

Addendum: Since I’ve already gotten two e-mails on this I wanted to clarify something.  When I said…

“Particularly since, despite what the original article says, the police have to seize the PC anyway”

I was taking that from a friend who is an assistant District Attorney (and who I IMed while writing the post)

This is conceptually pretty simple.  The cops can use this device and get all your files but they aren’t going to go over each file right then and there.  Since there’s no ruling in existence saying this Microsoft device is admissible in place of the computer itself the cops have to take the computer with them.  Otherwise you could erase the files between when the cops used the device and when they came back to actually confiscate the computer.

Part of the problem with the blogosphere, or at least my place in the blogoshpere, is that the response isn't exactly evenly spread.  Most posts won't get a response from other bloggers and then suddenly there are 30 people responding to one specific post and you can't keep up with it all.  That said, I do try to read anyone who responds to a post I make and in doing that I found this post from Bill at The Measurement Standard...

I'm amazed at how many people love Loren Feldman's sock puppet satires of social media guy Shel Israel. And I notice a number of people respond very favorably to Drama 2.0's criticism of Shel and Jeremiah Owyang and Kami Huyse's rollercoaster research.

Is it just me, or is there some kind of backlash against social media? If the sock puppets are just satire, as Tom'sTechBlog claims, why is the satire so well received? Are people responding to the over-hyped world of 2.0 by being just a little too hard on some of its promulgators? --Bill Paarlberg

First let me say that I don't think there's a backlash against Social Media.   The backlash here, it seems to me, is against bad consultants.   

You see, there are two kinds of consultants.

The "Type 1" consultants are the good guys.  They have backgrounds in a serious discipline like statistics or anthropology and they painstakingly go over tons of data so they know what they're talking about.  Those guys are worth paying because they can tell you not just how to use technology but how to get the desired result.

"Type 2" are the guys who act like knowing what technology is and using it yourself makes you qualified to consult on it.  These are the modern day con men whose success is related almost entirely to their charm.  They buddy up to companies that are completely clueless and convince those companies to pay money to be taught how to use technology.  An education that most Jr. High students could probably provide. 

The difference between these two types is simple. 

The Type 1's will be able to give you solid estimates as to what using technology will accomplish while the Type 2's will simply tell say you need to use it.  So while Type 2's say things like "use Twitter because its the way of the future" I've actually met Type 1 consultants that could tell how much your sales would go up if you put a pretty girl in your commercial as opposed to a good looking guy. 

The difference is all in being able to forecast some kind of result.

The Backlash is against the Type 2 Consultants

If you read the post entitled "Drama 2.0's criticism of Shel and Jeremiah Owyang", alluded to above, you'll see one basic sentiment repeated over and over which is "This guy doesn't know any more than I do"

THAT is what people are annoyed with and THAT is what people are lashing out at.  Consultants who don't seem to know anything more than your average Internet user but who go around calling themselves "Social Media Experts".  That is also why Loren Feldman strikes such a chord with his Shel-Puppet.  Because the Shel-Puppet embodies what almost everyone is already thinking. 

I wouldn't call myself an expert in Social Media, I don't think most other people would either.  But on a  basic level I think we know what Social Media is well enough to discredit would be experts.

The Truth about Social Media is that its about People not Technology

Social Media is essentially "marketing + feedback" which means being able to convince people of something and then interact with those people.  In order to do that you need to be an expert at dealing with people which is where Shel Israel went wrong.

In regards to the whole Israel/Feldman incident try taking it off the Internet for a second.  Say you are at a party with Shel Israel and Loren Feldman.  Feldman makes fun of Israel and, rather than laughing it off, Israel storms out of the room and then tells everyone the next day that he's going to sue Feldman for mocking him. 

At that point, even those who agree with him are going to think he's an idiot.  Not knowing that shows some extremely poor people skills on his part and that's why there is a backlash against Mr. Israel.  He discredited himself and by doing so made himself the poster child for bad consulting. 

Which is sort of the point.  If Mr. Israel was actually an expert in Social Media then a backlash against him would equate to a backlash against Social Media.  But he's not which means the backlash is only against him and against the type of consultant he's perceived to be. 

Social Media, at least for the moment, remains in the clear.