Adaptix has emerged, to a surprisingly muted reception, as one of the first "pure play" WiMAX vendors. Adaptix hopes to leverage two bleeding-edge trends in BWIA - Software Radio (formerly called Software Defined Radio - SDR) and Mobility to (theoretically) encompass licensed, license-exempt, and newly-emerging spectrum allocations from 700 MHz to 6 GHz.

Software radios are what will probably finally lay the complex core wireless systems to rest. Mobile will continue to have power issues for a while, but I suspect both the improvement in mobile power supply and efficiency and performance of the chips will mean it won't make any difference, mobile or fixed, in the future. As the differences lessen the mass market grows and a new platform is born. Trying to hold onto a vertically integrated, stove-piped or forward channel integrated model in this rapidly changing sector will introduce shearing forces into the structure than nothing can resist.

ObURL: http://www.corante.com/bwia/archives/005821.html#more

I know I'm probably not making it clear, but it was Voltaire who said The way to become boring is to say everything."

The point I'm trying to make with these network arguments, and the ones I probably haven't made yet with respect to "Code Is Law," and "Law Is Code" and the fact that the platform for Law is so unreliable (compare and contrast) with the platform for Code is so reliable (leeway, did someone mention leeway? Slack?) Is that government is a network, and the first amendment said the network shall make no law abridging the communication of the people.

The democratic experiment was an end to end network, let the edge decide, networking of the people by the people for the people. And we are so close...

To escaping even the potential for tyranny of information…

Two things, I like to move around and see what's happening in different places, and, until they see somebody else do it, some one marginally like them, (remember the other 8yr old who could swim) people won't risk it. I look a fool, to some perhaps, but more often, I'm either relentlessly ignored or, applauded. Being individual means disapproval from some , but you can never be conformant enough to please everyone either. Its another balance thing. So, while I've a terminal device, I feel I should be out there working, looking otherwise, but still, like the professor with his eyes closed in thinking mode, there I am. And like this barmaid asks me when her brother visits can she bring him into the bar to be with her while she works. I search out the alac. org. or some such and its not possible. Not even in the adjunct food serving premises, or am I wrong? And then, there is the show-off in me.

I posted a new photo to Photos.

This is an article that I have posted, via email, to a lot of people, so I thought perhaps it is time I added it here. I was prompted by someone telling me they didn't want the world, just 2% of it, and as the article asserts, if you are new and different, 2% is where you take off from... This comes from Dan Fendel. He has many a project, one of which includes being the Secretary-Treasurer and/or philosopher/prince of the Director's Guild of America. A couple of excerpts before the link:

The problem is this: The number of pairs of eyes/ears available to gain attention span from is not growing as fast as the number of venues where such attention span is being sought, and that means that any one of those venues, even the biggest, cannot possibly get the same "market share" it used to get.

Which is kind of related to "The Cluetain Manifesto" view of the death of mass marketing (not the mass market per se mind you.)

And that COULD mean (Bad News Alert!) a wierd world in which there's MUCH more work but in which they pay MUCH less for it.

But in cultural products, the cost of production is plummeting with the cost of entry and the improvements in tools. Sure, blockbusters, like operas and plays, will still need the production values and tools of the past, but there will be new entertainments that don't. Don't lose sight of the fact that the biggest on line games are still parlor games like bridge and chess... So here's the problem for the new:

When a new "something" comes along, there is a natural resistance to change. Worse, there's a general ignorance of the new thing, good or bad. It just plain takes a while for enough people to even realize what it is and how it works and how it might benefit them before they can start "voting with their feet" and heading for it or against it in any sizeable way, either killing it or setting a new trend.

and the answer:

So what is the point at which the pace of acceptance suddenly shifts into high gear? When does the trickle become the flood because enough people have heard about "it" and decided they want it for others to see and understand "it"--whatever it is--too? What do you think? 30% of the market? Maybe 25%? Hey, we're in a mass-media culture where ideas travel with lightning speed and comprehensive coverage, so maybe its 10%?? Nope. 2%. That's all. 2%. The Critical Mass percentage number holds through almost every business example, every social phenomenon, every major new leap forward of technology or trend. It may take forever to get to 2% or never happen at all, but once it does....whammo!

Well, that's the good news for the new entrant, but for the incumbent:

as the marketplace for Attention Span is totally transformed by the expansion of unlimited choices and as people DO choose and as marketers predict those choices accurately or inaccurately, will they be able to pay US and everyone we know in this business the same price to attract a thousandth of the total available Attention Span that we do now if those thousandth people DON'T buy because somebody guessed wrong?

Dan is writing from the centralised recording and distribution network sector, but I think the warning applies to all centralised, distribution networks,.

ObURL: http://www.stretchingthought.com/stories/storyReader$139