Friday, March 14, 2008
Bracket madness
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Random business related news
Got cold-emailed today by a Sandhill road VC firm (that's a wiki link explaining the significance, not a link to the actual firm) asking for a phone call. It's a bit before I was planning on traveling that circuit, but it never hurts to talk and it's cool that they sought me out as typically it's the company that contacts the VC.
I view this as the result of a) doing an insanely good job of establishing a web presence (free ice cream = links = top of google search results; FYI the company blog gets more real traffic than polyscifi did when we were blogging regularly), b) being a *very* early market entrant in the field that will dominate wireless R&D for the forseeable future (i.e., until the Singularity).
|
I view this as the result of a) doing an insanely good job of establishing a web presence (free ice cream = links = top of google search results; FYI the company blog gets more real traffic than polyscifi did when we were blogging regularly), b) being a *very* early market entrant in the field that will dominate wireless R&D for the forseeable future (i.e., until the Singularity).
|
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Perhaps a *very* useful stick for Obama to use
If the following is true: "[Hillary] did not have a security clearance," then Obama (and the press) should beat her with it until she cries uncle. Without a clearance, there is no legal way she could've participated in the kinds of things she implies in the 3 AM phone call ad (national security deliberations, briefings).
If true and she persists in claiming to have greater experience than Obama by virtue of being a former First Lady, then by virtue of holding herself out as a potential Commander-in-Chief, she should have to disclose who illegally disclosed classified information to her so those people can a) be fired and b) have their clearances revoked, at the least.
In my mind, the only way this shouldn't end the Hillary campaign (which viz a viz Obama rests on a claim of greater national security experience) is if the claim that she had no clearance turns out to be false.
|
If true and she persists in claiming to have greater experience than Obama by virtue of being a former First Lady, then by virtue of holding herself out as a potential Commander-in-Chief, she should have to disclose who illegally disclosed classified information to her so those people can a) be fired and b) have their clearances revoked, at the least.
In my mind, the only way this shouldn't end the Hillary campaign (which viz a viz Obama rests on a claim of greater national security experience) is if the claim that she had no clearance turns out to be false.
|
Friday, March 07, 2008
In which I agree with George McGovern
In fact, every single word of this editorial.
It's basic theme is that protecting people from themselves is generally a bad idea for the feds because one-size-fits-all is inherently less efficient than what results when you let people choose for themselves and also be personally responsible for the outcomes that come from those choices.
|
It's basic theme is that protecting people from themselves is generally a bad idea for the feds because one-size-fits-all is inherently less efficient than what results when you let people choose for themselves and also be personally responsible for the outcomes that come from those choices.
|
