I will be speaking to the Carslon School of Management Entrepreneurship Club tomorrow over the lunch hour. Preview: I wont be talking about business plans and taking a bunch of venture capital. I will be talking about my experiences these last two and half years at Refactr and what has worked and not.
It has been nearly two months now since me and the rest of Refactr LLC have been out on our own and participating in the great experiment that is virtual officing. We have been using spaces such as coffee shops and libraries to meet and conduct our business. We have tried many locations and it works well when we have meetings in one part of the cities or another to just move around like nomads. It is very nice to have low overhead costs and use the three things we need: Internet access, electricity, and a table - all for the cost of a few lattes and maybe a bran muffin.
We find that it is great to get out of the house and work together, and have not missed a day of meeting, usually at 8am once we went out on our own.
However, like many things in life, the little jagged parts - issues that at first seemed pretty minor, begin to rub you the wrong way (or the same way but in the same spot repeatedly) until finally you can't take it any more. In actuality, coffee shops are not free as each of the three of us has consistently spent between $25 and $50 per week on coffee, tea, and snacks. That adds up ($300-$600/month). Then we have to always cart all of our stuff in and out each day. We can't bring too many books in our our good headphones. Bringing outside food is also, either awkward (rude to the establishment) or impractical (no refrigerator or microwave) so there are additional costs for lunch (both monetary and time-wise).
No wonder, so many start-ups or freelancers look to get together in a more permanent space using ideas described and put into in the form of things like CoWorking and Bucketworks.
These endeavors haven't been easy as the headlines show - Saint Paul's "Ren Box" in need of rescuing. I think that a primary problem is a lack of a person who devotes most of his/her time to it. I believe it really takes a lot of administration to do something like this, and people don't get into this to be administrators.
Garrick wrote a summary of this topic a while back as well.
Now my friend Justin Grammens at Atomic Objects, is restarting the discussion for the Twin Cities. I am excited to see what comes of it.
This article provides a nice roundup of a bit of information that, somehow eluded me for nearly a month. Namely, that New Line and Peter Jackson are not playing nice and that one or more future movies set in Middle-earth will not involve Jackson as director. Here is the open letter from Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh about there rift with Newline over the accounting on the Lord of the Rings films and how it has basically led to New Line telling Peter Jackson to fuck off, in regards to any future projects.
I for one really want the Hobbit to be made, but I would rather have it not made than done poorly. Sorry but I just don't see Sam Raimi doing this and god forbid, Lucas should get to ruin yet another fantasy saga. Some have speculated that they may cut this story into two parts and then add an additional prequel to make for a second trilogy - a path I would love to see taken, if Jackson were at the helm. My desire would be for Jackson and Newline (and MGM) to understand that there is more than $1 billion to be made, resolve their differences, and get going on these projects while Sir Ian McKellan can still hold up his, ahem, staff.
Over 56,000 people have signed this petition to the parties involved to get their act together and get Peter Jackson on board. You can too.
This graphicical representation of where U.S. tax monies go is rendered in Flash and available in poster-sized prints. It is very nice and represents a lot of work. The larger the circle on the image, the larger the percentage of the budget is spent on that thing. My only complaint would be that some of the iconography seems to clutter it up and make it difficult to quickly see what you are looking at.
To that end, I really like the simplified view that he has created that addresses this very problem to some extent.
I have often said that people who play the lottery are paying a voluntary tax on stupidity, but without much conviction. Today, after passing my second Powerball billboard I realized that playing the lottery is very stupid. Here is my undeniable proof:
Given the chance I believe that 99.9% of people would take $20k over a 1 in 146,107,962 chance at a big jackpot of, say, $100 million.
Given the historical return of the stock market of 10.3%, a $2 a week investment in an index fund for 30 years becomes $19,974.
Tonight was the 2nd meeting of what some* are terming the Twin Cities Social Capital Collective (SCC) and I want to give props to Jake Saba for getting this ball rolling. Between minnebar, SCC, and minnedemo, in September my little web and business communities in Minneapolis and Saint Paul are alive and brimming with excitement.
*Ok I was brainstorming ideas, and this was one of the ideas that came out of my brain but it was one of many :)
I have a feeling many good things are going to be coming out of these events and opportunities and am glad to see them growing. If you are interested in any of these events let me know in the comments and I will post more and/or write privately.
A couple housekeeping notes to clear up: 1) I temporarily launched a new version of Alt Text but then rolled it back when there was some bad mojo with IE. Stupid IE! 2) Some colleagues and I have put up refactr.com - a site devoted to the discussion and encouragement of the Agile method. That's a good little Agile method. Yes you are! I hope to start actively promoting the site soon, as soon, that is, as we fux some broke ass shit that's still there.
3) We have our fence up now at the house and are looking to get a 2nd dog any day now. Just trying to find the right pup on PetFinder.com. My preference would be a dog that is mid-to-large sized, scruffy and doesn't shed much.
Signing Statement: As producer of this weblog, I reserve the right to make shit up, ignore your requests for features and reports of bugs, treat you like children, make an ass of myself, and basically do any damn thing I please. I also reserve the right to drink while posting up in this bitch.
Create a carbon tax -- basically a tax on energy calculated based on its carbon content -- and use the new revenue to provide offsetting cuts in the income tax, the payroll tax, or both.
The whole package should be revenue neutral, meaning that it will not increase or decrease the total amount of revenue the government collects. The money will simply come from different sources.
The idea is a great one and constitutes a progressive tax that also happens to be completely "fair".
The tax burden will go up for those who use more than the average amount of carbon-based energy and down for those who use less.
In the grand scheme of global injustice (e.g., being born in a malarial village in rural Africa), that just does not strike me as terribly unfair. If you contribute more than your fair share to global warming, traffic congestion, air pollution, and propping up a repressive regime in Saudi Arabia, then you should pay more.
And if you bicycle to work from your modest, solar-powered home, then society should cut you some slack.
The only drawbacks I see are that the tax base could erode as more people reduce their carbon usage and the cost of reducing carbon usage could cause some inflation in consumer goods. I like the idea of axing the income tax altogether and instead using just a carbon tax and a sales tax (with some modifications for luxury and near-luxury items to make it less regressive). Something like this tax is the only way to get people to seriously consider reducing their use of fossil fuels. Smugness can only get us so far.
Word has it that Newline is planning an August 29th release for yet another edition of the Lord of the Rings films. This new set is to have more than 300 minutes of never before seen documentary footage as well as both versions of the film (theatrical and extended) all on only 2 discs per film. Some are saying that this will be possible due to what is being called "branching" - where you can decide which version to watch at certain points in the film. These people have disparaged this technique, and I would agree, if I did not think that they are misunderstanding it.
If I were to buy these DVD, they would have to allow the viewing of the theatrical edition, or the extended edition, without any prompts or cues to switch to see the other version. I would bet they can do this too - there could be a menu at the beginning as to what version you would want and it would just play through. Maybe there would be an optional "comparative" mashup of the two versions as well.
Even though I am a huge fan of the films I never bought any of the DVD's thinking something bigger and better might be coming. I am not sure if this is it, but it will sure give me more options.
I am doing a bit of housekeeping around here so you may notice some posts that may be a little dated but which I still feel are valuable and so I am publishing them as I forage through nearly 100 draft posts over the past few months. This is one such post...
Mr. Bush proposed an array of savings in domestic programs, including big reductions or cuts in 141 programs. Critics asserted those reductions would do little to ease the deficit even as they imposed real hardship on some people, constituting pain for little gain. Gene B. Sperling, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, compared it to a man who leases three fully loaded Hummers, finds it stretches his family's budget to the breaking point, and decides his family has to start buying cheaper peanut butter."They're trying to create a framework where it seems the government can't do anything dramatic on child poverty or helping people between jobs because there's too much discretionary spending," Mr. Sperling said. "And their own numbers show that's flat out wrong."
This idea has been discussed before, bleeding the bleeding heart, and it basically stated, is that you starve the social programs that liberals care about so that they have to put forth their own private efforts and resources to work in place of public funds and resources.
SOURCES: NY Times article, Washington Post article
A pair of new tv spots are now airing across the country extolling the virtues of, what else, carbon dioxide. Yes, the Competetive Enterprise Institute is back at the task of trying to confuse Americans about environmental issues, but focusing on the stuff we breathe out. How can something that people and animals, and the ocean, create be bad? (stupid ocean) And who would suffer if those mean scientists make us cut back on CO2 production? Our kids, our food, and especially our use of neon signage would, of course.
Maybe, just maybe, the CEI has other things in mind than making sure we can breathe without consequence. From their website:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government.
Translation: We believe corporations and profits are more important than individuals and health and safety.
But I am sure that isn't true, I mean their donor list surely should support the idea that the CEI is actually looking out for us right? (incidentally, if you are interested in a list of the most evil corporations this will also apply:
ExxonMobil, Amoco Foundation, Inc, Coca-Cola Company, CSX Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Precision Valve Corporation, Texaco, Inc., American Petroleum Institute, Burlington Northern Railroad Co., Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, General Motors Corporation, IBM.
Some stories are coming out that point to Microsoft attempting to purchase large amounts of Yahoo! stock. The spin on this is that Microsoft wants to compete head to head with Google more effectively. This logic strikes me as a bit, well illogical. I can see Yahoo! wanting to secure the financial wherewithal to compete with Google on a larger scale but Microsoft has always had the option of doing as much or more than Google but has seemed content (until recently?) to not really get into Google's core businesses of, information, search and advertising.
Some ideas have Microsoft spending nearly $2 billion in the coming fiscal year toward building an ad-supported online service business, or selling its MSN network to Yahoo! for a minority stake in Yahoo!
This type of a merger makes a lot of sense, though I don’t think I would like to see it be more than an infusion of cash into Yahoo! or an elimination of MSN (in favor of Yahoo).
This graph shows that when the price of oil goes up, Bush's approval ratings go down following almost the exact patterns. [Robot Wisdom]
The President is looking for ways to lower gas prices.
Is there any question that these two stories are related?
Daniel M. Harrison at blogcritics has been all over the potential sale of Sun to Google and what it might mean. He, along with some others, have proposed a Google move into the financial services and healthcare industries.
"Google is going into Financial Services and Healthcare!" he exclaimed over the lengthy conversation. "This is the last stage of the Java project!"
This could also be the true start to the "G-drive platform" or GO-OS (Google OS) and could also mean the open sourcing of Java? This last part is intriguing especially as other platforms and languages gain ground* on the reigning king of the enterprise application.
This claim is, however speculative and not proven true by poor indicators such as book sales and various internet pundits.
Casey had a package delivered, which he signed for with UPS. A quick check of the tracking info on UPS's site shows that actually ASSCLOWN signed for it. Nice.
Perhaps President Bush was teased when he was young about his surname and so is inflicted with an unnatural hatred for all things green and leafy. Whatever the case, it is certain that the disregard Bush shows national parks and forests, not to mention, clean air and water takes a seat far behind corporate and industry interests.
Unfortunately, this disregard has been rampant in politics for many years, with the Clinton years, in some respects being just as bad as the current and previous Bush's. The misdeeds and blatant flaunting of corporate power and influence are outlined in bleak fashion, page after page, in the book Been Brown so Long, It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature by Jeffrey St. Clair. Been Brown So Long... is hard to read for a number of reasons - none of which relates to the writing. Its just that it is hard to keep a train of thought going when every couple of minutes you have to stare at the pages in disbelief and its especially hard to turn pages with clenched fists.
Why does our government bow down to industry and commerce so frequently? Is it really all about money? Can people really be that shallow? News flash: Our economy would function just as well without all the corporate welfare - tax breaks, kickbacks and special privileges - businesses will figure it out. And if capitalism needs those crutches to thrive then it really isn't that great efficient system it is purported to be. Let it evolve, economies aren't explained by intelligent design.
I do not think that corporations should have the same rights as actual human citizens. Further, I think we should revisit the pacts that corporations function under when granted such status from the states in which the incorporate. I am not proposing that the privilege of incorporation be granted solely to enable activities that benefit the public, such as construction of roads or canals, as was the case when corporations were first established. But wouldn't it be nice it they were at least neutral to the public's interests?
You'd think that things like disasters, or the purity of childhood, or even milk, let alone water or air, would be sacred. But no. Corporations have no built-in limits on what, who, or how much they can exploit for profit. [The Corporation]
The states used to impose certain conditions on those corporations that were granted (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
Through lobbying and paying off politicians over the years, corporations have rendered all of these laws (and more) obsolete and have effectively put themselves above the law - even those laws that apply to you and me. If you throw a McDonald's wrapper out the window of your car (I recommend neither eating McDonald's nor littering) you could get a fine of up to $700 but America's industry throws the equivalent of millions of wrappers into our air, water and land each day without consequence. And while we all (well most of us) pay income taxes like suckers, our "corporate citizens" often pay little or no income tax1.
The main problem is that corporations are treated as real persons according to some laws but not others. Furthermore, corporations do not have the same moral obligations that people do. The only lawful obligation a corporation has is to generate profit for its shareholders. If making money way your only motivation, how would your actions change? Even the most unscrupulous of people in business have at least a few other motivations. Most corporations corporate persons, do not share this with us.
Corporate personhood is the doctrine that corporations are considered to be individual persons in the eyes of the law. Corporate personhood is the most critical social and political issue of our time. It lies at the heart of campaign finance reform, labor abuse, deterioration of communities, destruction of the environment, and more. [PersonsInc]
Some corporations are beginning to see how their corporate actions are affecting the earth (it's people, societies, and environment) and are taking steps to ensure that our kids' kids will be able to enjoy a life such as ours. Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, Inc, the world's largest carpet manufacturer (and maker of the very cool interface flor tiles) has identified the following "7 Fronts" on which to wage a war of change:
Interface has even set up an entire website at interfacesustainability.com to outline its sustainability practices.
Since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring began to expose the abuses of the modern industrial system, there has been a growing awareness that profit at the expense of Earth--of individuals, society, and the environment--is unsustainable. - Ray Anderson, CEO, Interface, Inc.
There is far more that I could post now than I should post now, so I will end this post with a few links to some groups — actually a suprisingly large number of groups — taking up this, and related, issues. Here are a few:
1 - Even in the "over-taxed" state of Minnesota, there are plenty of large companies (3M, U.S. Bank, Target, General Mills to name a few) that legally pay less than a 5% effective tax rate by utilizing methods of tax reduction not available to "average citizens". See the story.
Here's a few bits of news and links I have been collecting the past few weeks, relating to my home state of Minnesota. Don't ever say I don't represent!
I must admit that the new design of Alt Text is a bit limiting to me, especially, when considering the way I want to post. I am trying to figure out some ways to get around it, but right now Alt Text just isn't set up for the type of linking to interesting things that I have been doing lately. Of course, I knew this while I was designing and implementing the new design but I thought that I would just expand on a link here and there and turn them into real (single) posts (rather than in bunches). Then a strange thing happened. I wanted to post more often than once per day, introducing yet another drawback of this design...it is harder to browse backwards through entries, as well. I am going to make it easier on the archive pages and so on, but I need to figure out a more global solution, and soon.
Here are some posts I have been holding back on because I wanted to have at least 3-5 for aesthetics:
By now the flap over Nike's ill-advised use of album art from Dischord Records and Minor Threat has died down a bit. Nike has offered an explaination and an appology.
Some have (mis)characterized this illegal use of artwork as an homage. Nike's statement that the poster was made, not by Nike employees or creative advertising types but of actual skateboarders lends some credence to this notion. However, this is trickier than that. Regardless of who created Nike's promotional material, the facts of the matter remain unchanged - had this been Dischord Records using the Nike swoosh in homage to classic tennis shoes there would have been a team of Nike lawyers dispatched to Dischord's offices within minutes. Nike (rightly) must protect the investment it has made in building one of the most recognized marks in the world - and, although smaller and less recognizable (especially to those of us who aren't cool enough to be in the know) Minor Threat's album art represents their investment in branding themselves. To have that brand co-opted by a skatepunk on his website, for example, would be one thing, but to have a huge multinational corporation do it, brings about an entirely new set of issues.
Recognizing the absurdity of the homage spin some folks have created a little "contest" where you can submit other corporate messages that "pay homage" to famous album covers. My contribution is shown above.
Wouldn t it be great if you had a great domain such as coke.com, or newyorkyankees.com? Think of the traffic, think of the exposure, think of the money! Think again. Because Coke and the Yankees are thinking of those things as well, and now so are the US District Courts.
Here s a Wired Article about this.
More later, hopefully.
HOME | CONTACT | XHTML | CSS
All content by Ben Edwards, except where noted. Licensed under this Creative Commons License.
