Clever, Constructive Conversation (About Technology)

Come join us in an open-ended forum about technology.  This is modeled after Phil Windley's CTO Breakfast.  You can see the results of previous discussion here with my event reports.

The difference is the location: we'll do this at venues in Salt Lake City.  Fri Jan 17 2013 is at the Gateway above Jason's Deli, 2nd floor.  (Past incarnations: Max at about 70th S and 13th E; Newmont U at downtown SLC.)

You can count on bagels. (At least, you can at this location; someday we may do it in a cafeteria or restaurant, so be sure to watch the location and confirm whether food is provided or available for purchase.)

As for dates, here is the calendar and here is the iCal info. (For you real-time watchers, follow me on Twitter.)  Afterward, you can see any notes I took in this feed.

If you're interested, you're invited. Cheers!

---

Motivation: amazing things happen when you get together with smart people who speak their minds freely! I've had a great time at Phil's CTO Breakfast events, where many intelligent and well-networked people sit and talk in an open forum about current events and interesting projects and even crazy ideas. In the same vein, the Kynetx conferences have been eye-opening (and mind-blowing), partly because smart people come but mostly because they encourage conversations; they even had 2 "unconference" sessions where the topics and conversations were run by attendees, chosen dynamically (15 minutes before they happened). The experience is always memorable.

I disagree that IP rights are essential.

I disagree that IP rights are essential to growth, at least if they mean strong IP laws like in the US, since those are more often simply used by large companies with lawyers to bully newcomers rather than really building value. Technology nowadays is allowing us to focus on services and reputation, making distribution cheap; to continue to control the ownership of ideas and their delivery is to undermine the foundation of sharing, which is the foundation of the industry addressed in this article.

As an example, technology is enabling artists to spread their art around the world and make money from performances and other more personal approaches. The RIAA fights this with lawyers, which is their right for existing contracts; however, they have yet to show that it affects their business, and the system has also hamstrung many legitimate, innovative uses due to the heavy-handed approaches supported by government force.

Microsoft spread NOT because of IPR but rather due to effective pricing. And today’s service-oriented networks need freedom of open access, not artificially restrictive “property” rights.

There may be a way to create a rational IP system, but needs to be much more narrow and focused than any system in use today.

Why is mandated health a bad thing?

A friend was telling me how they like this health care bill because the insurance companies "can no longer deny anyone with preexisting conditions insurance, something myself and multiple friends have had to deal with. In my eyes, it's completely unfair."

I'm confused... why is that unfair? It's saying we all have the right to force someone else to insure us no matter what our condition. Living is risky and it can be expensive. Government can pass a law for anything, but it doesn't automatically mean there's suddenly enough resources to cover everyone... unless it tries to simply print money, which has it's own set of consequences.

Let's imagine a politician suddenly says, "Everyone has a right to look good," and then passing a bill requiring everyone to go to salons, and requiring every salon to provide a basic cut to everyone who asks. By ignoring the actual needs of consumers and salons, we get imbalance in the stylist economy. Some clients will be happy that they get subsidized cuts; some clients will be overjoyed because a salon is forced to work with them; and some salons will even be happy because they'll give basic cuts at an effective price.

But we can see how the majority of clients as well as most salons will lose out in the long run. We get things like fewer great stylists because there are so many basic cuts required; less salon business innovation for the same reason; and customers who don't even want cuts must still spend time and money for something they don't want. Will we enjoy that society if we're the ones forced to cut people's hair and we cannot control our own business (how much to charge, who to accept as clients, etc)?

The economics of this (ie. forcing all companies to cover everyone or forcing people to buy insurance) skew the reality of supply and demand; in the end they create bigger booms and busts. So we'll be like a friend from New Zealand explained: everyone has basic insurance, but it takes a year to see a doctor... except for the super rich (and politicians) who can afford to pay extra (or get them into elite circles).

Actually, I believe many people would appreciate that kind of society.

I don't buy the "Buy American" motto.

I just got a note from a relative with a long article about buying American-made products first, and finishing with: "buy as many articles as possible that are made right here in the USA!"

I disagree.

I do agree with buying things locally first... and not just because of the money. When your community works together and trades together, not only do you support your local resources, you increase the bonds of trust and cooperation, both of which can help you in the future.

However, once you get outside your "community" (maybe 5-20 miles?), you might as well be dealing with another country. Unless they're someone you plan to do business with again, you're just dealing with another anonymous supplier, so you're not building any meaningful relationship. Any why not support workers in other countries? I love how Americans have helped build up communities and infrastructures in other countries just because they need the help... and the very best way to get aid to our brothers and sisters worldwide is to buy their goods, rewarding their work. (Now, many of these products actually help corrupt governments instead of communities, so you've got to be smart about buying internationally as well. Dunno how. It's all hard.)

So, no, I don't buy the "Buy American" motto.

PS: Note that when you're a business you do create long-term relationships with people located further away, so a business "community" may be much broader. But it's still about the relationships.

Let's stop Monsanto.

I am alarmed by the spread of genetically modified (GM) foods, especially by the Monsanto company.

For the record, I am all for freedom of choice, and I look forward to the creation of more "effective" and less expensive foods.

However, anyone involved with GM foods must accept the responsibility for its spread. Monsanto aggressively protects its patents and pursues anyone who might be growing it's product, which is fine unless they and their growers are allowing it to get out into other areas they don't control. Of course it's very difficult to protect other areas, especially with large borders on the edge of your crop, but that should be one of the costs of doing business with this type of product. It is unacceptable for growers to allow this patent-protected food to bleed into other farms which a company can then pursue and charge that someone is illegally using their patent. The rest of us should be allowed to be free from that threat of contamination.

It's not just a patent issue, either: we've seen how the spread of non-native plants and animals can devastate local ecosystems. If there aren't yet any civil lawsuits regarding this, I would help to establish this kind of law.

Monsanto and its leaders are not acting ethically. They have pursued a seed cleaner named Maurice Parr, charging that it's his responsibility to make sure all his clients respect Monsanto's rules. They say in their page about seed saving, "Mr. Parr can honor the patent by informing customers it is illegal to save Roundup Ready seed and requiring his customers certify their seed is not from a patented product and providing samples for testing." It is certainly not fair or right that they can require others to enforce some company's licensing rules; even if supported by law (which should be changed, starting with patent law), Monsanto is showing that they are not a good social citizen. It sure seems that they deserve to be dead last in the ethical rankings of 581 multinational corporations.

If you care, here are a couple of ways to learn more and take action:

• Send your comments directly to the federal regulators on the recent issue. (The docket ID is APHIS-2007-0044.)
  
• Add to this other petition site.
  
• Write Monsanto. See the link on the bottom of this page. I'll be interested in their answer if they reply.
  

Doc Searls' talk about "The Intention Economy" at Kynetx 2009

We're trapped into thinking that a "free market" means "your choice of captivity (vendor)".

Even with social media, each site is a silo. So how do we get to personal, and "prove that a free customer is more valuable than a captive one?"

VRM (vendor relationship management) is one approach for us consumers, the reciprocal of and complimentary to CRM.

• manage our own health care data, eg. PHR (personal health records)
• "personal RFP" for my personal needs
• assert our own terms of service
• "Have governance of and by - and not just for - the people"

Take a look at Public Radio Player, where the VRM "CD" logo gives their VRM compliance level.

See projectvrm.org

Need a "4th-party": someone who helps the buyer relate to the sellers (and their 3rd-parties).

Quote of the day: "We're all climbing up the volcano of Google and allowing their free software to wash over us." There is currently an advertising bubble, because it's all guesswork; we need this infrastructure to empower customers, and Google will take a hit when it crashes.

(Doc recommends the online comic "Gaping Point.")

(BTW, Doc never answered the question: "How do we prove that a free customer is more valuable than a captive one?")

Following Your Passion is Better than Doing Good

"Do good."

"Make a difference."

"Make the world a better place."

You can't go long in today's America without receiving a plea to do good or hearing a claim that some group is making the world a better place. I love to hear that. As a matter of fact, my next career step will be something that more directly impacts people's lives for the better. I expect to spend my full time doing something even more directly constructive (in my mind) than what I'm doing.

However, I feel that "doing good" is not the best end-goal. Nope. Sorry.

Sure, whatever we do should have a productive purpose. But, for example, being good isn't always enough to motivate us; in fact, I've found (after years of looking) that there are actually very few philanthropic projects that inspire me. In addition , I feel that it's important to preach what I practice, and it is not practical advice (nor good for society) to tell everyone to spend full time in charity.

So I say: follow your passion!

It may not align with what you've done before. Who cares?

It may not meet the approval of others. Who cares?

It may not make much money. Is that really more important to you?

It may be something destructive. OK, you got me. Find a different passion.

It may not be possible right now due to current commitments. Don't give up your dream: you'll be rewarded as you work toward your passion...

When I was finishing my bachelor's degree, I'd done some job interviews and had been offered a position with IBM. That was fine, but what I really wanted was to go to graduate school and go as far as I could with computer science and maybe even teach it. It seemed almost a fantasy, and part of me thought I should be practical and go with the job. I went with graduate school, stayed poor a while longer, and I've never been happier. I think even Lynnette would agree that it turned out to be a good decision. I believe it's turned out so well because that was my passion at the time.

My desires have changed, and I'm currently considering my next step in my "career" (meaning the way I spend my working hours). I have some ideas and I've done some small things that match my new-found passions. I'm not yet able to spend my full time on it, and I suspect most people are in the same boat. But I'm getting to know myself better and I'm finding things that may make it all possible.

So it's already been worth the effort. And I'm not giving up.

As great as it is to do charitable work, I believe the world will be better served if we all focus first on our greatest passions, because those passions are the things that bring the most joy to our lives. Some might say that the world would be a terrible place if we all did that; I would say that they are misconstruing the idea of true passion. If we're all brutally honest with ourselves and those around us, we'll find that by pursuing our greatest passions (while keeping the long-term point-of-view) we will arrive at the best possible world.

Good luck to us all!

---

Lately, I've been seeing some messages emerge from other sources that emphasize passion over "doing good".

The Boys And Girls Clubs of America put up a billboard that had the word "Passion" on it. It pointed here: http://begreatamerica.org/sheen (Click on Martin Sheen to see more details.)

The Utah Dairy Council has put the following phrase on billboards, next to a picture of farmers and their farms:

Our earth
Our product
My passion

Of course, there are many who have written about following their passion. Two specific writings have stood out to me recently. One is by Fred Brooks, a computer scientist quoted frequently when it comes to project management:

"To only a fraction of the human race does God give the privilege of earning one’s bread doing what one would have gladly pursued free, for passion. I am very thankful." - The Mythical Man Month, p. 291

Finally, I've been following the progress of Phil Windley, my PhD advisor, as he's been starting a new company. I thought there was one post where he explained his reasons for being involved in another startup, but I couldn't find one and I'm starting to think that I've gathered his enthusiasm from multiple posts over time. For example, in 2007 he says how you can impress people when you "express the level of your commitment"; in 2008 he says that this is what he's "passionate" about.