This feed does not validate.
In addition, interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendation.
line 4, column 0: (16 occurrences) [help]
<feed version="0.3" xml:lang="en-US" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#">
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?> <feed version="0.3" xml:lang="en-US" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277" rel="service.post" title="The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog" type="application/atom+xml"/><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277" rel="service.feed" title="The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog" type="application/atom+xml"/><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog</title><tagline mode="escaped" type="text/html">The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. Its mission is to educate policymakers, opinion leaders and the public about issues associated with technological change, based on a philosophy of limited government, free markets and individual sovereignty. </tagline><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" rel="alternate" title="The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277</id><modified>2005-01-14T05:31:42Z</modified><generator url="http://www.blogger.com/" version="5.15">Blogger</generator><info mode="xml" type="text/html"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This is an Atom formatted XML site feed. It is intended to be viewed in a Newsreader or syndicated to another site. Please visit the <a href="http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=697">Blogger Help</a> for more info.</div></info><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110568053953758167" rel="service.edit" title="Your FCC at Work" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name/></author><issued>2005-01-14T01:25:42-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-14T05:31:42Z</modified><created>2005-01-14T05:28:59Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110568053953758167" rel="alternate" title="Your FCC at Work" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110568053953758167</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Your FCC at Work</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The man's reputation is in tatters, his career in ruins, he is the headline act on "Contrition Tour 2005," and <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050113/D87JBUQG0.html">your FCC member wants to do something about it.</a> Because if the FCC isn't watching out for these infractions, who will? Thanks, FCC. Maybe <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/kidszone/room_items.html">Broadband</a> can lead the investigation.</div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110567903315025932" rel="service.edit" title="Reprise on the Baseball "Ownership" Scandal" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-13T22:36:34-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-14T05:24:34Z</modified><created>2005-01-14T05:03:53Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110567903315025932" rel="alternate" title="Reprise on the Baseball "Ownership" Scandal" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110567903315025932</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Reprise on the Baseball "Ownership" Scandal</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">My post <a href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110533045936644175">below</a> outlined the possible default rule and property rights issues involving Red Sox 1B Doug Mientkiewicz' decision to keep the ball from the final out of the World Series, rather than turning it over to the Red Sox.<br/><br/>Over at the <a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_01_07.shtml#1105124724">Volokh Conspiracy blog</a>, this comment by Todd Kincannon to Volokh's argument that the employer-employee relationship should govern the matter fleshes out an interesting distinction in the "custom rules" argument, which I had thought should prevail in favor of Mientkiewicz:<br/><br/><em>There is an extremely well established custom in Major League Baseball that players get to keep significant baseballs unless they end up in the stands. Umpires will stop games so that a player can retrieve a significant ball, such as the one he just got his 3000th hit with, or his very first hit, or was the ball he just made an unassisted triple play with, etc...</em><br/><br/><em>One potentially important distinction here is that this ball is not particularly symbolic of a personal achievement by Mientkiewicz (he gets a put-out on the play; not a huge statistical deal), but instead is symbolic of a Red Sox team victory.</em><br/><br/>Taking this argument to the next level, my friend Andrew "Hog" Warden has proposed a legal test that should be applied in the absence of an ex ante contractual clause. Although his sports acumen is sometimes clouded by his unwavering allegiance to anything Indianapolis-related, I am convinced this analysis hits the mark:<br/><br/><em>If I were a judge, I'd adopt the "significance of the ball test." First, you have to look at the significance of the ball and determine why that ball holds value. Here, the Red Sox won the Series, and not because of anything Mientkiewicz did. Second, you have to look at the claimant and determine his relationship to the ball's significance vis a vis other claimants. Here, no way Mientkiewicz prevails over the interests of the Red Sox. I suppose this test could fail at the margins in cases where multiple pitchers combine to throw a perfect game, but we'll save that analysis for another day.</em><br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110563673210831483" rel="service.edit" title="Municipal Broadband, Public Goods and Public Choice" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name/></author><issued>2005-01-13T11:30:11-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-13T20:53:11Z</modified><created>2005-01-13T17:18:52Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110563673210831483" rel="alternate" title="Municipal Broadband, Public Goods and Public Choice" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110563673210831483</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Municipal Broadband, Public Goods and Public Choice</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">There is much ongoing discussion of municipally-owned broadband projects, usually portrayed in <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-10-broadband-bellsouth-our_x.htm">this manner</a>, as a battle between public-minded, well-intentioned politicians and <a href="http://www.tricitybroadband.com/">greedy private firms</a> who want to keep the forces of light from fulfilling the city's broadband dreams. Nevermind that good intentions are rarely sufficient basis for public expenditure. Despite <a href="http://www.utopianet.org/business_case/need.htm">utopian promises of economic development</a> premised on building a a broadband network, this does not account for why private firms aren't doing it if this is the case. (See <a href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110504864857121183">Laissez le Fiber Roulez</a>)<br/><br/>"This is just like the government building sidewalks or roads," is one supporting analogy that is often used by municipal broadband proponents. The USA Today editorial approvingly quotes the City Parish Manager in Lafayette: "Installing fiber-optic cable, he credibly argues, is no different from laying down sidewalks or sewer lines." Unwittingly or not, the Manager is making what is called a "public goods" argument -- that a city or municipality needs to build this because it is a public goods. <br/><br/>Economist Tyler Cowen explains public goods <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoodsandExternalities.html">here</a>, and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan wrote an <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv5Contents.html">entire book</a> on the subject, which is delightfully available online. <br/><br/>The arguments get more than a little involved, but the chief characteristics of a public good are non-rivalrous consumption and non-excludability. Thus a sidewalk is a good example of a public good -- one person can use it (for the most part) without interfering with others' use and you can't exclude others from its use. Because it's a public good, private markets will not supply it because there is an externality and a free-rider problem; that is, I will be able to use the sidewalk without paying for it. [<span style="font-style:italic;">But see</span>, The Lighthouse in Economics, (discussed <a href="http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=757">here</a>) Ronald Coase's debunking of a classic public goods example that shows private markets come up with ingenious ways to solve public goods problems.] [Another interesting sidelight is that as consumption of roads becomes more rivalrous (in terms of congestion), that is becomes more acceptable to talk about private toll roads as a means to alleviate congestion. This also indicates, as Buchanan discusses, that nothing is a completely private or public good.]<br/><br/>What is striking about municipal broadband networks is that they have few, if any, characteristics of a public good. Broadband connections involve both rivalrous consumption and excludability (indeed, excludability is a rather important consumer demand in the guise of privacy concerns). Therefore, they are only public goods under the common parlance that some people might think they'd be good for the public. What these networks are, from an economic perspective, is a private good. And with private goods, we rely for the most part on private markets, absent market failure. <br/><br/>In other words, this is a meandering way of saying, the proponents will need to come up with a better analogy because the sidewalk and roads one doesn't work.<br/><br/>Finally, there is a curious confluence between the rhetoric of municipal broadband proponents (faster, cheaper, now!) and the defenders of the universal service status quo: these services are necessary, must be provided universally to all, and at a low rate. Watch then for the deal to be cut: In exchange for no more municipal broadband systems, roll universal service subsidies to broadband networks, impose service territory buildout requirements, underprice the service to achieve greater penetration, and, voila!, full blown public utility regulation for broadband. Maybe I am a pessimist...</div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110548301972468235" rel="service.edit" title="There's Something Rotten Near Detroit" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-11T17:19:14-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-11T23:21:14Z</modified><created>2005-01-11T22:36:59Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110548301972468235" rel="alternate" title="There's Something Rotten Near Detroit" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110548301972468235</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">There's Something Rotten Near Detroit</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">In October 2004, SBC sought to deregulate business and residential rates in Detroit, Grand Rapids and Lansing. Section 208(2) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act states that, subject to an exception for a TSLRIC price floor, "if a regulated service is classified as competitive, the rate for the service shall be deregulated and not subject to review under this act." The statute seems clear enough on its face - i.e., dear regulators, once you declare a market to be competitive, your work here is done (other than a providing a check against predation).<br/><br/>The Michigan PSC has elected to hold a hearing on the deregulation of residential rates and business rates in "Access Area B" later this year. But let's see how the PSC handled the requested deregulation of business rates, in the most competitive markets of the state, in its <a href="http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/orders/comm/2005/u-14323etal_01-06-2005.pdf">initial order</a>:<br/><br/><em>"[T]he Commission finds that SBC has made a sufficient showing as required [by section 208] to allow the Commission to take immediate action to declare basic local exchange service . . ."</em><br/><br/>Yes? Yeesssss???<br/><br/><em>"provisionally competitive throughout SBC's Access Area A provided that some safeguards are put into effect and remain in place."</em><br/><br/>Huh? But I thought the statute says...<br/><br/><em>"Specifically, the Commission is persuaded that it should declare business basic local exchange service in SBC's Access Area A competitive for the purposes of a one-year trial period." </em><br/><br/>Ugh. You just can't let go, can you.<br/><br/>A rough analogy can be drawn between the PSC's underlying rationale here and an unfortunate, though oft-repeated ritual everywhere. UNE-P was a great tool for regulators to show that they were facilitating competitive entry in its heyday - and indeed, with some of the lowest UNE rates in the country, Michigan experienced some of the highest UNE penetration rates. That's called 'getting drunk.' Now, a primary reason for the PSC to impose this one-year trial period is to <em>"assess the effects of the FCC's phase out of UNE-P."</em> That's called 'trying to figure out what the hell I did last night.' And then, of course, the PSC states that <em>"[f]acilities-based alternatives are more likely to be durable and would thus be more effective as a means of stimulating 'actual' competition</em>," which is called 'having a moment of clarity.'<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110547436437724352" rel="service.edit" title="Cliff Clavin, Telephone Man" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-11T14:58:44-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-11T20:12:44Z</modified><created>2005-01-11T20:12:44Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110547436437724352" rel="alternate" title="Cliff Clavin, Telephone Man" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110547436437724352</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Cliff Clavin, Telephone Man</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The Royal Post Office is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4159823.stm">re-entering the telecom market </a>in Britain, offering a pence per minute rate that will supposedly undercut the pence per minute rate offered by British Telecom. I admit ignorance of UK telecom policy at the outset, but it would seem that phone competition there is something like UNE-P on steroids.<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110547298161413754" rel="service.edit" title="Capitol Power Play" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Patrick Ross</name></author><issued>2005-01-11T14:48:41-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-11T19:49:41Z</modified><created>2005-01-11T19:49:41Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110547298161413754" rel="alternate" title="Capitol Power Play" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110547298161413754</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Capitol Power Play</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Congress has yet to do anything productive so far this year (still more junkets to squeeze in before the Inauguration and the State of the Union), but already mischief is afoot on Capitol Hill. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) was forced to step down as Commerce Committee chairman because of party term limits, but he has consoled himself with the fact that he could bump aside Conrad Burns (R-Montana) and head up the Communications Subcommittee. That would allow him to stay plugged in to the telecom and mass media issues he finds so compelling. However, according to <a href="http://www.warren-news.com">Communications Daily</a> (subscription required), new Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) wants to keep telecom close to his vest, and is considering folding the Communications Subcommittee. To do so, he'll have to get a majority of the committee to agree; here's betting McCain's a 'no' vote. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110547201356860595" rel="service.edit" title="9, 8, 2...Can You Find the Pattern?" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Kent</name></author><issued>2005-01-11T14:30:04-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-12T19:35:04Z</modified><created>2005-01-11T19:33:33Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110547201356860595" rel="alternate" title="9, 8, 2...Can You Find the Pattern?" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110547201356860595</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">9, 8, 2...Can You Find the Pattern?</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The New York Public Service Commission will seek to overturn the FCC Vonage Order with an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The California PUC was first with an appeal in the Ninth Circuit and then Minnesota <a href="http://www.puc.state.mn.us/docs/pucpetition.pdf">appealed </a>in the Eighth Circuit.<br/><br/>Minnesota's petition asks for the order to be set aside due to overreach by the FCC. The petitions from California and New York are not linked yet but presumably are based on the same grounds. Two of the biggest states and one of the most regulatory states just cannot let go...<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110539120097407397" rel="service.edit" title="State of the Net" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Patrick Ross</name></author><issued>2005-01-10T16:01:40-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T21:06:40Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T21:06:40Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110539120097407397" rel="alternate" title="State of the Net" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110539120097407397</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">State of the Net</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The Congressional Internet Caucus is hosting a <a href="http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/">conference</a> February 9 on the State of the Net, featuring newly named Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). The topics at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill event include 1) trust, privacy and security; 2) intellectual property protection and innovation; and 3) media convergence and the Telecom Act rewrite. Caucus events are always informative and well-crafted, and I urge anyone with an interest in these issues to attend.<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110533278946015801" rel="service.edit" title="Does "Finders Keepers" Help the Catchers?" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name/></author><issued>2005-01-09T23:47:01-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T04:56:01Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T04:53:09Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110533278946015801" rel="alternate" title="Does "Finders Keepers" Help the Catchers?" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110533278946015801</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Does "Finders Keepers" Help the Catchers?</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Adam's <a href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110533045936644175">post below</a> discussed the apparent "finders keepers" rule for baseball ownership -- both on the field for players and off the field for fans. For fans, this could be explained as a promotional effort of the team -- a sort of lottery that increases the attractiveness of attending the game.<br/><br/>For players, one would expect on the margin that this property regime would benefit the catching position. This is because the catcher has a greater chance to catching the final out, assuming that closers tend to be strike out pitchers. Therefore, this property rights regime is a subtle way of adding to the attractiveness of catching -- a position that needs all the help it can get. </div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110533045936644175" rel="service.edit" title="MLB's "Open Platform" for Balls Causes Uproar" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-09T23:35:31-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T06:10:31Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T04:14:19Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110533045936644175" rel="alternate" title="MLB's "Open Platform" for Balls Causes Uproar" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110533045936644175</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">MLB's "Open Platform" for Balls Causes Uproar</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Last week, Red Sox 1B Doug Mientiewicz <a href="http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/37963.htm">said </a>that he would keep the baseball from the final out of the Red Sox World Series victory. Like many other highly paid professional athletes, he's got mouths to feed, dammit. So he might auction it off one day, and he might not. The Red Sox want it back. There's an uproar in Red Sox nation. Note - there is some kind of arbitrary sliding scale at work here. Derrick Lowe has kept the ball from the final out of the Red Sox ALCS victory over the Yankees, but apparently he is off the hook in the media because that ball isn't as valuable as the World Series ball. Biggest comeback in sports history, over your arch rival? It's clearly worth a whole lot more than my kidneys are. But it is a nice property rights question for the water cooler nevertheless.<br/><br/>MLB has stated that Mientiewicz is the rightful owner, so there is a waiver. The Cardinals could have a claim to the ball since they were the home team. The Sox could argue that they own the baseball since Mientkiewicz is their employee, but wouldn't they, like MLB, be estopped from making this argument, unless all balls kept by all players are similarly returned to the team? Does custom prescribe the right result here - i.e., once the game is over, it is the player's property and he may only bequest ownership by gift or sale? Perhaps a cross-sports analogy can answer the question - whatever happened to the football that Adam Vinatieri kicked through the uprights to win the Super Bowl for the Patriots? Or, is Keith Foulke the owner, because he was simply "loaning" the ball to Mientiewicz when he threw it to first base for the final out? It would be a entertaining case to litigate, at least.<br/><br/>I think custom prevails and, barring good sportsmanship, Mientiewicz reaps the windfall from his good fortune. Perhaps teams may just need to contract around this silliness in the future. In the meantime, enjoy watching Red Sox nation squabble over it.<br/><br/>UPDATE - this <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/01/10/who_has_the_ball/">letter </a>in the Boston Globe asserts that, under MLB rules, the home team provides and therefore owns the ball. That said, I'm still not sure whether this trumps the convention on the field. But being a devastated Cardinals fan, we might finally have some leverage over the Red Sox after losing Edgar Renterria to them via free agency.<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110533181148044305" rel="service.edit" title="Lucky Jack Aubrey and an ecumenism aboard ship" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name/></author><issued>2005-01-09T23:02:54-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T04:43:54Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T04:36:51Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110533181148044305" rel="alternate" title="Lucky Jack Aubrey and an ecumenism aboard ship" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110533181148044305</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Lucky Jack Aubrey and an ecumenism aboard ship</title><content mode="escaped" type="text/html" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve">We interrupt this tech-blog for a dose of Patrick O'Brian from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393312445/qid=1105330944/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-6301567-5707069?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">The Wine Dark Sea</a>. By way of context, Captain Jack Aubrey must decide who will crew a prize he has taken, and is inclined to appoint one junior officer, Vidal, a Knipperdolling, to command a crew of Sethians: <br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">For although Shelmerston was well known for bold enterprising expert seamen ... it was even better known for its bewildering variety of religious sects, some, like the Sethians, with origins in the hazy remote past, some like the Knipperdollings, quite recent but a little apt to be quarrelsome by land if some point of doctrine were raised; and at the love-feast in Botany Bay a disagreement on the filioque clause had ended in many a black eye, many a bloody nose and broken head. </span> <br /> <br />Now, it is probably just me (and <a href="http://weblog.ipcentral.info">Jim DeLong</a>) who delights that a sea novel takes up the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm">filioque controversy</a> with different sects of seamen on the ship -- great comedy, but perhaps you have to be there, or at least be a devotee of O'Brian's literary skill.</content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110533434776825905" rel="service.edit" title="Newspapers in Foxholes" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-09T20:15:09-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T05:50:09Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T05:19:07Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110533434776825905" rel="alternate" title="Newspapers in Foxholes" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110533434776825905</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Newspapers in Foxholes</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">CNet has <a href="http://news.com.com/The+Nets+future+It+depends+on+whom+you+ask/2100-1028_3-5518621.html?tag=nefd.top">reproduced a NYT Times piece</a> which describes the results of a recent Pew survey on the future of the 'Net. One generally supported prognostication from the article - <em>"the Internet and the rise of the blogger are expected to drive greater change in the news media and publishing industries than in any other sector of society."</em><br/><br/>It is an issue that the Times is already grappling with, according to the current <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_03/b3916001_mz001.htm">cover story</a> in Business Week. While the Times gets 90% of its revenue from its print business, the majority of its readers view it's free online addition, which is the paper's fastest-growing source of revenue due to advertising. (That said, the growing popularity of community websites such as Craigslist are mounting a <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/28/technology/craigslist/?cnn=yes">significant assault</a> on this business model.)<br/><br/>Thus, the Times is considering going to a paid subscription service akin to the Wall Street Journal. Business Week quotes NY Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger as saying the issue boils down to "how comfortable are we training a generation of readers to get quality information for free," which is "troubling."<br/><br/>BTW, for another take on the future of the 'Net, be sure to attend our <a href="http://www.pff.org/news/news/2005/010605kahntwo.html">luncheon</a> with Internet co-founder Bob Kahn this Wednesday, where he will discuss <a href="http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/doa.html">digital object architecture.</a><br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110532752116385774" rel="service.edit" title="Putting on a Happy Face" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-09T20:01:12-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T05:24:12Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T03:25:21Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110532752116385774" rel="alternate" title="Putting on a Happy Face" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110532752116385774</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Putting on a Happy Face</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Over the weekend, I received a mailing happily stating that the end of late fees is the biggest announcement in Blockbuster history. TV spots show giddy consumers celebrating the end of late fees. Good for consumers, sure. But with heavy competition from VOD/Netflix/Walmart et al, bad for Blockbuster.<br/><br/>In test markets, the company <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/12/14/blockbuster-121404.html">claims</a> that the loss of revenues has been offset by the generation of additional rentals. At the same time, however, it projects that this year's operating income will be reduced by $250 million to $300 million, meaning zero growth over 2004.<br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110532596370113395" rel="service.edit" title="Vertical Integration and Next Gen Gaming" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Adam</name></author><issued>2005-01-09T18:52:17-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-10T03:01:17Z</modified><created>2005-01-10T02:59:23Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110532596370113395" rel="alternate" title="Vertical Integration and Next Gen Gaming" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110532596370113395</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">Vertical Integration and Next Gen Gaming</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Xbox Live already provides a nice VoIP option for access avoidance. Just imagine the possibilities in reading this passage from a <a href="http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+seat+in+your+den/2008-1041_3-5514121.html?tag=nefd.ac">CNET interview</a> with Bill Gates:<br/><br/><em>Xbox Live is really talking to your friends, doing things with your friends. And as we bring in new game titles that are more approachable, appeal to different demographics, the boundary between what's game playing, what's socialization and what's communication-you will have really broken down the barriers there.</em><br/><em><br/>We can make these hot, super great graphics games something that are easy for people to use. That's a big initiative we have as we move to the next generation of Xbox. Likewise, the connection between the Xbox Live and our Messenger will be really simple so people can say, "Hey, come and play," "Oh, okay, I'm finishing my homework, I'm almost done, I'll get on and play with you." And so even as they're connected up to each other, they don't think of, "Oh no, now I'm gaming, now I'm communicating."</em><br/></div></content></entry><entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"><link href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/5672277/110514062351691350" rel="service.edit" title="55 Years" type="application/atom+xml"/><author><name>Kent</name></author><issued>2005-01-07T18:25:10-05:00</issued><modified>2005-01-07T23:33:10Z</modified><created>2005-01-07T23:30:23Z</created><link href="http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html#110514062351691350" rel="alternate" title="55 Years" type="text/html"/><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672277.post-110514062351691350</id><title mode="escaped" type="text/html">55 Years</title><content type="application/xhtml+xml" xml:base="http://www.pff.org/weblog/index.html" xml:space="preserve"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Tomorrow I don't plan to touch a computer...unless it is to move it out of the way so that I don't spill paint on it. Therefore, it is with sadness that I ask you now to pause for a moment and to solemnly reflect on the passing of Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Born February 8, 1883 (same year as Keynes) and died January 8, 1950. As you look on his photo, ask yourself the following question: What living economist would have the audacity to repeatedly suggest that his aim in life was to be 'the greatest lover of beautiful women in Vienna, the greatest horseman in Europe, and perhaps, the greatest economist in the world'? We miss you Schump.<br/><br/><img src="http://www.pff.org/weblog/Schump.jpg"/><br/></div></content></entry></feed> 
