Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
About this Site
Moore’s Law defines the history of technology. It held that the number of circuits etched on a given piece of silicon could double every 18 months as far as its author, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, could see. Moore’s Law has spawned constant revolutions since then, not just in computing but in communications, in science, in a host of areas. Moore’s Law applies to radios, and to optical fiber, but there are some areas where it doesn’t apply. In this blog we’ll take a daily look at new implications of Moore’s Law in real time, as it rolls forward to create our future.
I take it that you are really burned out and that your recent adventures have left you looking for some ego-stroking from the closest whipping-boy around. As a long-time reader and general supporter of yours over the past decade, I hope your in-depth analysis here is the result of your brain taking the weekend off and not indicative of the present state of your much-touted "journalistic standards."
What else could explain your moving the drivil of this entry to the top of your entry list?
A quick look at this entry and one in a few minutes of reflection might give you an idea why we have had to read so many of your begging-for-work entries over the years.
When you reboot I would suggest you either elaborate on your rationale or simply appologize to your readers for another poorly researched entry and move on to something that does more than
stroke your ego.
I have no objection if you want to continue to chip at Microsoft's heels but I think you should elevate the conversation from the school-yard level to that of a blogosphere conversation where all sides are heard and best policy choices can be chosen by the various parties.
Get some rest buddy and recharge those batteries. In the meantime, avoid the keyboard.
Dedalus, I don't see too many comments from you in the discussions of the past few weeks, many of which have been extremely engrossing (to me anyway). Are you really complaining about the content of Dana's postings in general, or am I misunderstanding your comment? You seem to have been stung by the anti-microsoft tone of this particular posting...
A Pun is how I see the title, "The Microsoft Sign-0ff".. the end of each 'presentation'.. and the End.. of MS (both their ending.. & how they will end). Of course, it is doubly humorous in that "Shared Source" (the link content) essentially means "we get to use your code in other (non-shared source) products.. After you pay us for the right to 'share' it. Ohh, can I give (till it hurts) too!
(I notice that in the title, it is a 'zero' spelling 'off'.. as in 'zero''F''F'.. hmmm..)
I am not a regular poster of comments to Dana's blog despite the fact that I read both it and his A-Clue Newsletter consistently. On the other hand, I have stepped into a fray or two when I thought someone was overzealously attacking him.
I generally agree with Dana on many IT and social-political matters. Where we diverge, I usually refrain from comment probably more out of my unwillingness to spend the time to confront him than for any other reason.(I consider that to be one of my own defects.) I took the time today because I time to address the issue and I thought Dana would take my comment in the spirit in which it is given.
Where we diverge the most is probably in the degree of stridancy we put into our respective positions. I use both Open Source and proprietary software including programs from Microsoft. I evangelize for products I am passionate about regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. In contrast, I think Dana often sounds like the Jerry Falwell of Open Source. He isn't satisfied with the great strides that OS has made over the years. He seems to have a genetically -coded need to demonize Microsoft. As I said in my earlier post, Microsoft certainly has provided ample areas for valid complaint. Dana goes beyond that though. He damns them if they do and damns them if they don’t.
In this instance he snipes about the legalese found in their blogs without addressing the issue of corporate blogging policies, legal ramifications of public facing corporate statements, etc. that are being addressed by corporations and the blogosphere rather heavily right now.
We all know that Microsoft is under close scrutiny as both the May 21st Edition of the New York Times and Microsoft Monitor in its “Contract#" post (http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/008376.html) remind us. Dana was in the vanguard of those manning the barricades and advocating that every lawyer in the world not employed by Microsoft sign on to fight it to every turn. To now argue about some silly innocuous legalese in blogs by their employees is either disingenuous and the output of a tired mind. I rightfully or wrongfully guessed that it was the output of a tired mind.
The same is true of his social-political writings. Dana got me hooked on the brilliant thinking of Isaiah Berlin and the world we could have if we put our minds to it rather than waging war at any level. Despite that, I think Dana sometimes likes to claim what he considers the high moral ground on an issue and demonize the opposition. I think that such attacks fail to use Dana’s usually sharp analytical mind. In these circumstances he sounds way too much like a politician he obviously despises.
If Dana truly believes that the language is indicative that the language referred to has some significance let him set out his rationale rather than a sling a puerile slur that reflects worse on the speaker than on the intended target. If he really doesn’t think that or doesn’t want to take the time to do his homework then I think it would have been in his best interests to keep his keypad pristine and his journalistic standards above reproach.
I will continue to read both the blog and the newsletter. I just made my comments to raise an issue that I am not sure that Dana realizes somewhat demeans him in the eyes of at least one faithful reader and friend. I would rather he focus on issues of importance where his skills can best be utilized and the conversation of the blogosphere enhanced. If that means a righteous blast at Microsoft so be it.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Dedalus on May 22, 2005 08:05 AM writes...
Dana:
I take it that you are really burned out and that your recent adventures have left you looking for some ego-stroking from the closest whipping-boy around. As a long-time reader and general supporter of yours over the past decade, I hope your in-depth analysis here is the result of your brain taking the weekend off and not indicative of the present state of your much-touted "journalistic standards."
What else could explain your moving the drivil of this entry to the top of your entry list?
A quick look at this entry and one in a few minutes of reflection might give you an idea why we have had to read so many of your begging-for-work entries over the years.
When you reboot I would suggest you either elaborate on your rationale or simply appologize to your readers for another poorly researched entry and move on to something that does more than
stroke your ego.
I have no objection if you want to continue to chip at Microsoft's heels but I think you should elevate the conversation from the school-yard level to that of a blogosphere conversation where all sides are heard and best policy choices can be chosen by the various parties.
Get some rest buddy and recharge those batteries. In the meantime, avoid the keyboard.
Permalink to Comment2. Nate on May 22, 2005 01:37 PM writes...
Dedalus, I don't see too many comments from you in the discussions of the past few weeks, many of which have been extremely engrossing (to me anyway). Are you really complaining about the content of Dana's postings in general, or am I misunderstanding your comment? You seem to have been stung by the anti-microsoft tone of this particular posting...
Permalink to Comment3. bobby on May 22, 2005 05:17 PM writes...
A Pun is how I see the title, "The Microsoft Sign-0ff".. the end of each 'presentation'.. and the End.. of MS (both their ending.. & how they will end). Of course, it is doubly humorous in that "Shared Source" (the link content) essentially means "we get to use your code in other (non-shared source) products.. After you pay us for the right to 'share' it. Ohh, can I give (till it hurts) too!
(I notice that in the title, it is a 'zero' spelling 'off'.. as in 'zero''F''F'.. hmmm..)
Permalink to Comment4. Dedalus on May 22, 2005 11:13 PM writes...
I am not a regular poster of comments to Dana's blog despite the fact that I read both it and his A-Clue Newsletter consistently. On the other hand, I have stepped into a fray or two when I thought someone was overzealously attacking him.
I generally agree with Dana on many IT and social-political matters. Where we diverge, I usually refrain from comment probably more out of my unwillingness to spend the time to confront him than for any other reason.(I consider that to be one of my own defects.) I took the time today because I time to address the issue and I thought Dana would take my comment in the spirit in which it is given.
Where we diverge the most is probably in the degree of stridancy we put into our respective positions. I use both Open Source and proprietary software including programs from Microsoft. I evangelize for products I am passionate about regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. In contrast, I think Dana often sounds like the Jerry Falwell of Open Source. He isn't satisfied with the great strides that OS has made over the years. He seems to have a genetically -coded need to demonize Microsoft. As I said in my earlier post, Microsoft certainly has provided ample areas for valid complaint. Dana goes beyond that though. He damns them if they do and damns them if they don’t.
In this instance he snipes about the legalese found in their blogs without addressing the issue of corporate blogging policies, legal ramifications of public facing corporate statements, etc. that are being addressed by corporations and the blogosphere rather heavily right now.
We all know that Microsoft is under close scrutiny as both the May 21st Edition of the New York Times and Microsoft Monitor in its “Contract#" post (http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/008376.html) remind us. Dana was in the vanguard of those manning the barricades and advocating that every lawyer in the world not employed by Microsoft sign on to fight it to every turn. To now argue about some silly innocuous legalese in blogs by their employees is either disingenuous and the output of a tired mind. I rightfully or wrongfully guessed that it was the output of a tired mind.
The same is true of his social-political writings. Dana got me hooked on the brilliant thinking of Isaiah Berlin and the world we could have if we put our minds to it rather than waging war at any level. Despite that, I think Dana sometimes likes to claim what he considers the high moral ground on an issue and demonize the opposition. I think that such attacks fail to use Dana’s usually sharp analytical mind. In these circumstances he sounds way too much like a politician he obviously despises.
If Dana truly believes that the language is indicative that the language referred to has some significance let him set out his rationale rather than a sling a puerile slur that reflects worse on the speaker than on the intended target. If he really doesn’t think that or doesn’t want to take the time to do his homework then I think it would have been in his best interests to keep his keypad pristine and his journalistic standards above reproach.
I will continue to read both the blog and the newsletter. I just made my comments to raise an issue that I am not sure that Dana realizes somewhat demeans him in the eyes of at least one faithful reader and friend. I would rather he focus on issues of importance where his skills can best be utilized and the conversation of the blogosphere enhanced. If that means a righteous blast at Microsoft so be it.
Permalink to Comment