Disqus - Latest Comments for mmasnick

Re: Speaking My Mind

fredwilson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:06:02 -0000

And that's why the community on techdirt is so strong.

Re: Speaking My Mind

fredwilson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:05:05 -0000

And that's why the community on techdirt is so strong.

Re: Speaking My Mind

mmasnick — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:30:11 -0000

Amen. I go through the same thing all the time on Techdirt. I really can't understand why so many people think that they can tell me what not to write about. The most interesting discussions are the ones that come about *because* I'm less familiar with an area. The whole reason I post on such topics is because I want to hear what others think on it. I give my opinion as a starting point, and then learn.

Re: Consumer Centric Health Care

fredwilson — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:42:05 -0000

Yet another thing to send to my kindle! Thanks mike

Re: Consumer Centric Health Care

EthanBauley — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:47:51 -0000

That note makes me wonder why articles like this don't provide an extensive bibliography.

Also seems like a revenue model: pay for the annotated bibliography? Or: a related book club, led by the author?

Re: Consumer Centric Health Care

mmasnick — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:36:21 -0000

Hi Fred,

Three years ago, economist Arnold Kling wrote a great book arguing (in great detail, with well backed up data) exactly what this article suggests. If you're interested in this, it's a compelling and educational (and pretty quick) read:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-6Yuj5wrXIoC&p...

Re: Obama’s CTO Aneesh Chopra: Yes, White House tech is pretty backwards

mmasnick — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:07:43 -0000

Good article, though looks like you have a small typo. His name is Aneesh Chopra, not Aneesh Kundra as you have in paragraph 1. Vivek Kundra is the CIO, but is a different person...

Re: Book Review: Digital Barbarism by Mark Helprin

mmasnick — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:42:19 -0000

It's also worth pointing out that he took many of the quotes he used to trash people out of context: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090521/03134...

A bunch were chosen selectively out of the comments on Techdirt, where he simply chose the worst of the worst to make his point, but seemed to totally miss satire humor.

Oh yeah, also there's the whole problem that Mozart and Raphael's works were both produced without copyright protection (oops), and Einstein's works had nothing to do with copyright.

It seemed to me like Helprin made every single mistake (and worse) that he singled others out for.

Re: Quote 5 Words From the Associated Press? That’ll Be $12.50

mmasnick — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:30:52 -0000

This absolutely is ridiculous, but it's worth pointing out that this is not new and not a deal that was signed in April. We wrote about this well over a year ago: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/07405...

Re: Shop TechDirt

mmasnick — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:39:50 -0000

I know, tell me about it... :) Surprised they haven't called yet! Oh well, perhaps they wait for their blogs to get printed out by their assistants and put on their desks the next day. Sure we'll hear from them tomorrow. ;)

Re: There Is No Harmony In A Patent Thicket

mmasnick — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:18:04 -0000

Great paper. Wondering if it could be turned into an interesting "series" of posts on Techdirt... :)

Re: Temporary Incentives

mmasnick — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:43:13 -0000

I know New York State had for a long time (don't know if they still do) a "sales tax free" weekend for clothing purchases. It's usually right before school starts again, and lots of folks wait and buy all their back to school clothes that weekend. It's a big, big deal. Though... of course... the state doesn't get any sales tax revenue, but it's a big boost for the retailers.

Re: Should We Wish for Information Monopoly?

kdonovan11 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:56:37 -0000

Haha. Thought I'd get you to respond to this one : )

Re: Should We Wish for Information Monopoly?

mmasnick — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:58:45 -0000

No. :)

Or, more specifically, hell no.

I've yet to see a less efficient market produce more of something. Give it time. There are plenty of models that will make sense for investigative journalism... and they'll end up being better at it than the current inefficient models.

TPMmuckraker is a start. There will be more.

Re: Suggestion: Talk To The Source

fredwilson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:43:17 -0000

This turned into a conversation as well and a good one.

Re: Suggestion: Talk To The Source

mmasnick — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:17:04 -0000

Fred, this seems to contradict what you said just last week about the blog being a conversation:

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/from-blog-to-fo...

In fact, I wrote something about your earlier post here, where I talk about why I don't necessarily want to check with the source first. I'd rather that be a part of the public conversation. That way everyone benefits:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090218/030646381...

I recognize the different viewpoints... but it does seem like the two concepts contradict slightly.

Re: A Blanket License for Music Soon To Arrive?

bszoka — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:58:38 -0000

Glad to hear that this isn't a sure thing yet, Mike! I sympathize with your concerns about this idea.

Re: A Blanket License for Music Soon To Arrive?

mmasnick — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:54:21 -0000

I keep seeing this reported, and I don't get it. I was in attendance when Ron Berry announced this plan, and it's nothing more than a trial balloon, begging the recording industry to use IOM as a "test bed." There is no agreement with any record label, so this is hardly worth focusing on yet...

And, I'm also confused about the desire to rush out and create such a license by some. There are business models that are working just fine without any such license. All a license does is create a big bureaucracy setting the price of music, where the market is doing just fine on its own.

Re: Personal note: A job change for yours truly

mathewi — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:25:36 -0000

Thanks, Michael -- that means a lot.

Re: Personal note: A job change for yours truly

mmasnick — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:49:02 -0000

Adding to the loooong list of well-deserved congrats. Can't think of a better person for the job, and can't wait to see what you enable...

Re: Mythbusters Takes on the FAA

mmasnick — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:36:17 -0000

Actually, the FCC and the FAA both admitted long ago that there was no real risk to airplanes. There were problems with what phones in-flight did to on-ground wireless stations, but that can be fixed with picocells.

Right now, both the FCC and the FAA have said the reason they're not allowing in-air mobile phone use is due to complaints from people who fear sitting next to someone yakking away for a whole flight.

So, while I agree that it's silly, no one's claiming that interference is an issue any more.

Re: Entrepreneurs 1 - Patent Trolls 0

fredwilson — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:32:14 -0000

That sucks

Re: Entrepreneurs 1 - Patent Trolls 0

mmasnick — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:38:48 -0000

Hi Fred: I have an updated post as well, based on my conversations with a bunch of patent lawyers. I'm worried that there's something of a big loophole here, and the ruling isn't as good as I initially assumed: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081030/16475... What seems certain is that the ruling isn't as clear as it needs to be, so we're going to see more lawsuits before this is settled. Oy.

Re: Nick Carr: Still wrong on Google, Part 2

mathewi — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:00:46 -0000

You're right, Mike -- and I realize that what I'm describing doesn't really fit the definition. But as I said to Brad in my reply above, I think Google is inextricably linked with the network effect created by the Web. And I don't see how Nick can say that the network effect had absolutely nothing to do with Google's success. That just doesn't make any sense.

Re: Nick Carr: Still wrong on Google, Part 2

mmasnick — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:01:20 -0000

Now, I'm one who tends to believe that Nick Carr is almost always wrong, because time and time again he has been shown to have been wrong, but on this one, I think he's making a good point (and trust me, I'm surprised that I'm saying this). Google's success with users is not due to a network effect among *users* -- which is the point that Tim was making. There are different network effects that you're talking about and that Nick are talking about. You're talking about the network effects that Google leveraged to make its service useful, but that isn't impacted by how many people use it, and those same network effects can be replicated without getting users.

The network effects that Nick is talking about are ones where it's the user-generated-network effects that matter. And, for the most part, Google isn't built off of that.