Walmart updated its DRM policies in response to user outcry. Good call, although not sustainable indefinitely.

Here is the letter that came via email last night:

NOTE: This is a follow-up to our email titled "Important Information
About Your Digital Music Purchases" from 9/26/08.

Based on feedback from our customers, we have decided to maintain our
digital rights management (DRM) servers for the present time.  What this
means to you is that our existing service continues and there is no
action required on your part.  Our customer service team will continue
to assist with DRM issues for protected windows media audio (WMA) files
purchased from Walmart.com.

While our customer support team is available to assist you with any
issues, we continue to recommend that you back up your songs by burning
them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you insure
access to them from any personal computer at any time in the future.

We appreciate your support and patience as we work to provide the best
service possible to you.  As we move forward with our 100% MP3 store,
we’ll continue to update you with key decisions regarding our service
and your account via email.

Thank you for using Walmart MP3 Music Downloads.

The Walmart Digital Music Team

The day after I posted my original entry on Walmart’s DRM decision , I was contacted by a lawyer who wanted me to sue Walmart. Obviously, he hadn’t closely read my post because I was merely arguing was that DRM isn’t a platform that can survive in the long term.

This attorney was out to make himself a quick buck at Walmart’s expense. I really detest this type of lawyering. Actually, he should probably be reported to the California Bar because contacting me directly because he wanted me to sue Walmart is likely unethical .

Here is the email chain:

(more…)

I watched the presidential debate tonight between Brock Obama and John McCain. Yes I was bored. I had heard all of the same sayings from each of the candidates, and I am sure that if I went to one of the fact check websites I would find that both told half of the truth most of the time.

The problem with the current debate format is they allow each candidate to play Monday-morning-quarterback on every issue. "If I had been in charge, X wouldn’t have happened. Blah blah blah. I therefore have such great judgment. Blah blah blah. Although I have no idea what will really happen with the [economy, war, country] if my policies are enacted, here is what will happen. Blah blah blah."

What do we really learn about the candidates from these debates? Hardly anything.

So I propose a new debate format.
1. Go back to policy style debates. In other words, one narrow topic only per night. Each candidate selects a topic to present a plan on. Iraq, sub-prime loan crisis, etc., selected from a large pool of sufficiently narrow topics. The candidate who selects the topic is the negative side. Affirmative gets 20 minutes to lay out their position. 5 minutes cross examination period to cross examine the affirmative position. 20 minute alternate position proposed. 5 minute cross examination period to cross examine the alternate position. Then the opponents alternate between 4 rounds of rebuttal periods of 5 minutes each with the affirmative having the last say.

This means no moderator. No silly questions that cannot be answered in 90 seconds. When a candidate is out of time, their mike is automatically shut off with no extensions. One topic gets thoroughly explored and the candidates must give details about "their plans."

2. One debate is a completely fictitious fact pattern scenario. Each candidate is given the scenario some predetermined amount of time prior to the debate. Then each candidate sets forth a plan for dealing with the situation in a way that that other candidate is not apprised of the other candidate’s plan until after giving their plan. Then the candidates interact rebutting the other candidate’s plans. A coin toss determines who is gets the last say.

These two debate suggestions, while not perfect, require candidates to demonstrate their judgment. Ultimately, what a debate is about is deciding who has the best judgment, which translates into plans. We know what their parties are, and we generally know their platforms. I get sick of hearing the candidates become demagogues, promising what they and the rest of the world know they can never deliver in vague statements that have no practical meaning.

Let’s hear them think on their feet and argue the pros and cons of their positions. Let’s see what they will do in a fictitious situation that calls for immediate decisions (e.g., Turkey gets attacked by Israel — Turkey being a NATO ally requires us to consider the attack an attack against us by one of our non-Nato strongest allies… what would you do??)

Completely random thought…

I was thinking the other morning while I showered (I do a lot of that at 5:30 AM when I wake up because I can’t handle TV that early, nor would it be a good move to wake up the wife and children), what is the one modern technology that would make it really hard for me to live 100 years ago?

My answer: hot water on demand. I could do without a car, without TV, without the internet. But my life would be pretty miserable without hot water. And it isn’t even about cleanliness as much as it is about relaxing in a hot shower or hot bath.

OK that was random.