Operational, structural and accounting separation for the masses
- Stateside Scandal season
- Select differences, as submitted
Stop Digital Rights Managements excesses
We have copyright legislation so why do we need DRM on top that goes beyond — well beyond — what is agreed in law, and which is foisted upon us by vendors? The answer is: we don’t.
Our parliamentarians need to wake up and realise that private interests are usurping their legislative powers.
Want your own Web 2.0 buzz-biz? Start here!
Reinvent citizen-media podcasts! Share rich-client folksonomies! Incentivize authentic mashups! Syndicate viral tagclouds!
Stateside Scandal season
It’s not looking too good for Hewlett-Packard executives at the moment, with five of the top brass being collared by the law for their roles in the “pre-texting” scandal. HP must be relieved that some of the heat is going off it at the moment, courtesy of Republican Congressman Mark Foley being outed as an online pervert.
It’s not the only scandal coming to a head though: Apple’s backdating of share options went bang this week, and claimed the company’s former chief financial officer, Fred Anderson. Not Steve Jobs though, who knew about the scam but claims not to have understood its implications.
Select differences, as submitted
“Last night the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee received the finest submission I have ever seen presented to a select committee. It was iconoclastic.
"Those arguing for the confiscation of property rights need to respond to Howell’s work if they ar [sic] to have any intellectual credibility.” – ACT leader Rodney Hide in his blog, Sept 7
“Mr Jones, Act Party leader Rodney Hide and National Party communications spokesman Maurice Williamson said the 160-page submission was the best that had been made to the committee on any issue.” – The Dominion Post, September 11.
"One analysis that appears to have had impact on the select committee is a 167-page submission by academic Bronwyn Howell of Victoria University. She rebuts claims that New Zealand is seriously lagging in broadband services, that this is harming economic performance, and that unbundling increases broadband uptake. It is a far more cogent analysis than the government has presented, and concludes that the case for further regulation is “not proven”’— Roger Kerr, executive director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, September 22.
"Howell is clearly energetic and passionate about her subject. It may be that these admirable qualities are the root cause of the serious weaknesses in the paper. It is otherwise difficult to understand how she came to
blatantly misrepresent the work of others, make statements that would not pass muster in a first year economics course, suggest that her own exceptionally weak empirical work is evidence of anything meaningful, and
appear ignorant of her logical errors." — Dr John Small, University of Auckland Business and Economy Faculty, as quoted in the joint InternetNZ and TUANZ criticism of Howell’s Select Committee submission, 25 September.
"In response, Howell says her work was intended simply as a critique of the 'many weaknesses' in the Ministry of Economic Development’s original analysis. 'As such, it was never meant to be a detailed academic analysis of the relationship between broadband penetration and unbundling. So, to criticise my work for not being such an analysis completely misses the point.’" — Bronwyn Howell, in Computerworld, October 4
“In summary, we believe that the misunderstanding, misrepresentation and misquotation of Network Strategies’ work found throughout the Howell submission is of an extremely serious nature as these errors are used to form the bases of arguments and conclusions which seek to persuade the Select Committee to follow a particular regulatory course.” — Network Strategies, October 5.
The above quotes speak for themselves but it does raise concerns about the submissions presented to Select Committees, I think.