Votifi

xBox One = gamechanger

jostapine — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:42:49 -0400

Xbox One will change the face of home computing. As the home entertainment ecosystem grows simultaneously more simple and more complicated, Microsoft is about to release a product that solves lots of the problems that exist in the disaggregated and fragmented world of home entertainment. Apple has it’s work cut out for it at WWDC in June to announce suitable responses to Google’s swathe of new products revealed at IO and the just revealed Xbox One. Will Apple TV and iRadio be enough?

Via Cult Of Mac:

Microsoft Unveils New Xbox One Console

This morning Microsoft unveiled its newest console, the Xbox One. Unlike previous Xbox models though, Xbox One isn’t just about games, it’s about becoming the one system your living room needs, and it probably means trouble for the Apple TV.

Not only can Microsoft’s latest box play video games with the best of them, but Microsoft has added features to make it the only box your TV really needs by recognizing who you are, what you movies and shows you like, and allowing you to control it all with just your voice.

The Xbox One features a new design that makes it look more like a boring cable set top box, except there’s a optical disc slot in the front that can handle both DVDs and Blu-Ray.

With its new Snap Mode feature, Xbox One can run other apps, movies, or TV on the side of screen while you’re still playing a game. Rather than selling the Kinect sensor separately, Microsoft says Kinect will come with each Xbox One unit sold.

Taking a queue from Siri, Microsoft has added voice controls to the Xbox One as well. Now when you want to pause a movie you can just say “Xbox, pause” rather than fumble around with your controller. Oh yeah, and the controller’s been redesigned too to get rid of the battery bump in the back and better controls.

One of the most exciting features that Microsoft showed off this morning though was the ability to integrate your cable set-top box with the Xbox One. Thanks to HDMI throughput, the Xbox One can display all of your cable channels, and with the new voice commands you can effortlessly switch to your favorite channel straight from a video game. All you have to do is say “Xbox, ESPN” and the console will switch the screen for you.

Microsoft also touted features like NFL Fantasy Football integration, Skype, Smart Glass, and the Kinect’s ability to detect your heart rate. Game discs will only have to be used for one-off installation, but unfortunately the Xbox One won’t be backwards compatible with Xbox 360 games.

It was clear at Microsoft’s keynote that the company doesn’t want consumers to think of Xbox as just a video game console anymore, but just incase anyone doubts the Xbox’s gaming powers they crammed 8GB RAM, an 8-core CPU, 500GB of storage space, USB 3.0, a 1080p camera on the Kinect, and HDMI in and out into the Xbox One. Pricing wasn’t announced at the event, but it’s expected to launch later this year.

With the sheer amount of features that Microsoft has crammed into the Xbox One it’s pretty clear that Microsoft is the company to beat in the living room right now. While Apple TV is a simple and cheap enough solution for many TV lovers, the advanced features in Xbox One make it appeal to both gamers and video content lovers alike.

Hopefully Apple’s got something up its sleeve for Apple TV at WWDC, otherwise it’s going to be impossible for Cupertino to compete in the living room now that Redmond is targeting hardcore gamers as well as average TV addicts.
Read more at

Why Silicon Valley Is Taking On Immigration Reform

leschmick — Fri, 03 May 2013 10:01:06 -0400

By Nick Davis

Since Mitt Romney’s defeat in the presidential election last November, immigration reform has come to the relative forefront of American politics. The overwhelming majority of Latinos who voted for Barack Obama has left little doubt among many Republicans that some sort of reform needs to be enacted. The GOP has been looking for ways to reach out to Latinos in an effort to reverse a growing trend that sees Republicans having almost no chance to win elections without this important voting bloc in the future.

Democrats have always been a champion of minorities and the middle class where a large part of Latinos reside. They finally see a chance to address a failing immigration system and follow through on campaign promises made by President Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Now that time has ripened in favor of immigration reform, an unlikely player has emerged. Enter the CEOs of some the biggest tech companies in Silicon Valley. The leaders of Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, Microsoft, Intel, and others have joined together to form a new bipartisan coalition to overhaul the current immigration system.

Silicon Valley’s involvement spurs from a lack of a highly educated and skilled labor pool from which to fill a burgeoning technology sector. Much of the debate revolves around the small number of H1-B visas, the “brain drain” that occurs once foreign students graduate from American universities and are forced to go back home, and a system that currently places too high of barriers on entrepreneurial immigrants who wish to create startups here.

An H1-B visa is a non-immigrant temporary foreign worker program that was created to attract the best talent in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Once these visas are acquired, workers are able to apply for permanent residency. As the law currently stands, the US government has capped these visas at 85,000 per year. The problem is that American companies applied for 124,000 of those visas in the first week alone.

Because these visas are so difficult to come by, Silicon Valley and its allies contend that we are essentially educating the best and brightest foreign students only to have them take their skills to compete against us abroad. The entrepreneurial spirit that embodies what Silicon Valley is has lost its mojo. In 2007, immigrants made up 52% of startup founders while that number is just 44% today. Additionally, for immigrants to create their own startup today, it takes over a half million dollars and a sponsor.

Mark Zuckerberg, who is spearheading the operation, announced two weeks ago in an op-ed in the Washington Post the formation of his new lobbying group, FWD.us. Pronounced Forward US, the group has a two-pronged approach to solve their labor problems. It initially intends to lobby for immigration reform as a solution for their lack of skilled labor. In the future, it plans to lobby for greater investments in education, specifically science and technology in order to fill their demand for high skilled labor.

It plans to partner with liberal and conservative lobbyists in order to push for a bipartisan solution. Today, it is running ads in eight swing states. They feature Marco Rubio pushing his legislation in the Senate in order to grow popular support amongst the American public. However, Zuckerberg and his campaign have come under fire recently from progressives. In giving political cover for vulnerable Democrats and to gain the support of Republican senators, FWD.Us has found an enemy in environmental progressives. By supporting these politicians, they claim that Silicon Valley is bankrolling the reelection of big oil instead of green energy.

Like so many things in life, money is a key driver in decision-making. While politicians may be approaching immigration reform from a demographic and voting bloc perspective, Zuckerberg and his partners are looking at reform as a means to boost business and the overall economy. When visas are distributed today, only 7% are given based on the needs of the economy.

As debate continues on the Senate floor, it remains to see how effective FWD.us will be. What is certain is that Silicon Valley isn’t going anywhere. The American economy is based on innovation and ideas, and that’s exactly what Silicon Valley hopes to deliver.

Five Things I Learned During My Senior Year Of College

leschmick — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:01:29 -0400

By Nick Davis

I am three weeks away from graduating college and I could not be more excited. These last few weeks have been a complete struggle. Senioritis has hit me like a brick wall. The good news is that I have my immediate future figured out after graduation. Over the course of these past nine months, I’ve learned a few things about myself as well as about the working world.

Get To Know Yourself And Get Specific

I mean really get to know you. You’re probably reading this and thinking, “But Nick, who knows me better than me?” Hopefully, no one. The fact remains that many college graduates still have no real idea of what they want to do. Every political science major out there has some sort of interest in politics. What do you want to do with that? Do you want to work on a campaign? How about for a think tank? Maybe a nonprofit? Within those, is your best fit in policy analysis or in press and communications? The more specific you can get, the better your prospects will be. Truly knowing what you want to do and having a demonstrable passion for it will take you further than merely knowing a little bit about a lot of things.

Most People Have A Jaded View Of A College Education

I would argue that a college education is basically a necessity these days and that it’s slowly becoming the new high school diploma. Some people probably disagree with that statement, but that can be debated another time. With an increasingly volatile and competitive labor market, prospective and current students need to change the way they approach a college education. The norm that I’ve observed is that most people choose a path of study that reflects their interests.

That line of thinking needs to be transformed. Students need to find out what industry fits their interests. Getting to know the industry will help you figure out what type of educational path is best for getting there. By choosing the industry first, you’re killing multiple birds with one stone. You’ve found out what kind of jobs and industry you want to pursue. You’ve hopefully researched the best course of study to take and if you’re early enough in the process, you can pick a school that is excelling in that degree study.

GPA Is Way Overrated

Unless you have scholarship standards to uphold or are pursuing a postgraduate program, your GPA doesn’t mean a whole lot. After five years of college and dozens of interviews for internships and now fulltime jobs, I have yet to be asked what my GPA is. Something that does matter a lot is work experience. Employers want to hire a proven commodity. There’s no better indicator of potential than work experience and references, which brings me to…

Get Really Good At Networking

I’ll spare everyone the very true, but overused networking clichés. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that 70% of jobs are filled through networking. That’s a lot of jobs that you don’t have a chance at if you’re relying on your resume alone. That number is almost assuredly greater when it comes to politics and Washington, D.C.

There’s probably a reason why people are ‘appointed’ to positions and not ‘hired.’ Start seeking out professionals now that you can foster relationships with. Contact family friends. Start a conversation with members of common groups on LinkedIn. Tweet at leaders in your field. Think of questions that you would like to be answered and go from there. Make sure to keep in touch every month or so. Avoid being shallow by directly asking for jobs. If you’re successful at networking, jobs will come to you.

Take The Bull By The Horns

This past spring break, I drove over 1000 miles to Washington, D.C. to interview for positions on Capitol Hill. And guess what; I got the job. That never would have happened had I not contacted the recruiter and literally told her that I was willing to drive out there if she thought I was worth interviewing. My dad was right. The worst people can say is ‘no.’ You haven’t lost anything and any sense of fear or embarrassment will go away knowing that you’ll probably never talk to that person again. Sometimes, you’ve got to make things happen for yourself instead of waiting for someone to open the door for you.

Bitcoin and The Future Of Money

raehaas — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:53:00 -0400

By Ian Rosoff

There has been a deluge of posts about the recent Bitcoin currency crash/bubble, but I’ll add on because it’s important to look at the potential future of money from a political prospective. Here at Votifi, we are interested in the mobile (dare I say it) revolution. Our phones will become our new wallets, we don’t see or hold money in the same way we did even a decade ago. The complexity of financial networks in the Internet age is moving rapidly and at the same time the government is gridlocked and regulation can’t keep up. Which brings us to digital currency and Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is online money - an Internet currency of virtual tokens that can be exchanged for goods and services. Unlike euros or dollars bitcoins don’t have serial numbers and are almost untraceable. Bitcoin has no middleman; payments via Bitcoin are person to person. A process called Bitcoin mining is how users generate new currency and the total number of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million.

The idea of a virtual currency that is both decentralized and vulnerable to hackers is exciting, but last week Bitcoin hit a new high of $260 and then crashed down below $130 the very next day. The discovery of pervasive DDOS attacks were revealed after a user named Bitcoinbillionaire gave away thousands of dollars worth of Bitcoin on the semi-anonymous social media site Reddit. The user commented that he wanted the price to crash. That proved to be more prophetic than anyone would have believed.

The price has settled in at around $100, and many still have faith in Bitcoin. The pros of Bitcoin currency are that is hard to counterfeit, easily stored, and hard to steal. The cons are that it has a finite supply. Without getting into a diatribe on liquidity traps, Bitcoin has a good chance of failure because of this fact. The idea may be the future, and it’s a threat to state backed fiat money.

The consequences that could arise from the erosion of the fiat money system would reverberate across all aspects of the economy. That disintegration is not likely imminent, but the possibilities and questions are fun to contemplate. How much of the government’s power is derived from control of the currency? Ron Paul has long called for a return to the gold standard to usher back an era of fiscal responsibility. Bitcoin also challenges governmental spending habits, just in the opposite way. The privatization of currency and taking money’s value out of the hands of central bankers in particular is probably enticing in Europe these days.

Another question that arises out of Bitcoin is the level of education our politicians have on issues like this. Last year with SOPA and PIPA we learned that many of our leaders fundamentally don’t understand the Internet and other facets of technology. While I don’t demand that my representatives be well informed on absolutely every issue, I do hope they show intellectual curiosity and become informed on issues for which they are crafting legislation. Will digital currency regulation come before our Congress? Probably at some point, and my confidence level with our leaders to figure these issues out is low.

Bitcoin is a harbinger of change in the currency game. If Bitcoin or some future iteration will be how people pay for things in a decade remains to be seen, but the recent events surrounding digital currency are just another reminder that bubbles are looming everywhere in this economy and our politicians are unprepared to help prevent or protect against them.

In Trying To Appease Both Sides, Obama’s Budget Satisfies Neither

raehaas — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:01:00 -0400

By Nick Davis

President Obama released his 2014 budget a few days before Tax Day, albeit about two months late from his required deadline. In an interesting role reversal, Democrats seem to be tearing into the budget more than their GOP counterparts.

Much of the commotion centers on Obama’s proposal to reduce the rate of growth of Social Security payments. He has suggested that payments be calculated using chained CPI, something Republicans have campaigned for in previous budget and fiscal cliff discussions. Chained CPI is a more accurate formula for calculating cost of living expenses and would initially reduce payments by about $2 a month for each person.

Another major point of contention in the President’s budget revolves around $400 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years. These cuts would come from pharmaceutical and hospital payments as well as trimming benefits and increasing out-of-pocket expenses for upper income seniors.

Republicans have mixed reactions to Obama’s modest entitlement reforms. Speaker John Boehner praised the reforms. “He does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget.” Others were less enthusiastic about the budget. As can be expected, Grover Norquist shot down the bill due to more than a trillion dollars in tax increases while Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon called it a “shocking attack on seniors.”

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the President’s budget is the sheer disgust shown by his own party. Democrats have long been the champion of social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid so any reforms to reign in their impact will be unwelcome by the left. Arshad Hasan, the executive director of the liberal group Democracy For America, seemed to sum up Democratic sentiment best. “You cannot be a good Democrat and cut Social Security.”

Some have expressed concern that if this legislation were to pass, it would leave Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 midterms elections. Representative Bill Pascrell of New York was one of many Democrats to demonstrate those concerns. “Seniors vote in even heavier numbers, proportionately, in off-year elections,” he said. “So just looking at a political standpoint … I would think that this would be a damning blow to our chances of taking back the House next year.”

I disagree. I don’t think Pascrell’s concerns are rooted in any sort of fact or logic. If the people are upset about cuts to entitlement programs, what makes them think that Republicans would be any different on the issue? In fact, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the GOP would cut them even more. At this point, unless the budget actually gets passed without any major overhauls, which seems unlikely, any dissatisfaction with the budget lands on the shoulders of Obama, not his base. Progressive congressman Keith Ellison expressed this same sentiment. “They cannot lay that dead cat at our door,” Ellison said Friday. “I don’t know how it’s going to affect the president’s brand, but it would be completely unfair to affect the House Democratic Caucus brand, because we had nothing to do with it and most of us are affirmatively and explicitly against it.”

Could we be witnessing a shifting strategy from the President towards negotiations with Republicans? Or, has he been liberated to legislate as he pleases since he can’t be reelected? No matter what his motivations are, one has to wonder what Obama hoped to accomplish by releasing this budget. The President released his two months late and the House and Senate already released their budgets. Depending on how much of Obama’s budget is enacted, the only real thing he has accomplished is alienating his base, something that could and should be avoided as the Republicans are looking to unify themselves for 2016.

Saudi Arabian Threat To Ban VoIP Services Highlights Deeper Security Issues Within Skype

leschmick — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:01:23 -0400

By Nick Davis

Skype has yet another security issue to handle. This time, it’s not a demand for more security, but less. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has threatened to ban the service and other Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications, similar to the Blackberry Messenger (BBM) ban of 2010. Saudi Arabia hasn’t explicitly stated the reasoning behind it, but many Saudis and expatriates have insinuated that the Monarchy wishes to have more control to monitor communications between its citizens and their cohorts.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. While Saudi Arabia has typically been an ally to the United States and a respectful government to its people, they have a long track record of quashing civil liberties. What is surprising is that Skype software allows third parties to find and control your IP address through a simple username search no matter what your privacy settings are, and Skype has known about this problem since 2010.

Despite Microsoft overhauling Skype’s online security network from peer-to-peer machines to Linux boxes that are hardened to resist the most common type of attacks, Skype has yet to resolve the ‘digital identity stealing’ that has developed over the last few years. Essentially, according to a Skype programmer, the problem revolves around a catch-22 of speed and security. “One challenge is that the maximum Round Trip Time (RTT) that VoIP users can tolerate is around 300 milliseconds (ms) whereas the propagation delay in a fiber optical cable spanning the circumference of the planet is approximately 200ms. It means that when a user in Germany calls another one in Australia, the proxy service must incur less than 100ms additional RTT.”

Additionally, an Israeli security researcher recently found another bug with Skype and Dropbox. The issue centered around the services’ lack of URL validation which then allowed any private information shared over theses services, like Facebook accounts and passwords, to be recovered by identity thieves. Nir Goldschlager, a founder of the security service Breaksec, responsibly reported the bug, which could have led to more bad publicity for the digital telephony service.

I think its interesting that there is plenty of publicity surrounding the government of Saudi Arabia potentially violating the privacy of its citizens when Skype itself perpetuates and allows hackers to steal private information. There aren’t many things that could dissuade users from discontinuing their usage of the application, but one of those is shaky security controls. Skype has a significant network effect to the extent that most people who use it have a contact base set up. However, with competitors like Google Voice, Apple’s Facetime, and other VoIP services, Skype isn’t exactly running a monopoly.

The video service needs to take care of their security issues as soon as possible because it stands to lose over 31 million users worldwide. At the very least, the issue is preventing major corporations from putting their stamp of approval on the conferencing site due to the lack of security. Before we throw the Saudi government under the bus for violations of privacy, we should also ask Skype why it has taken so long to protect its users. They are just as guilty as the Arab country.

Votifi in 2012 - A year in review [INFOGRAPHIC]

jostapine — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:02:09 -0400

After crunching numbers for the poll questions answered in 2012 we came up with this little summary of what Votifites think and do. Enjoy.

Advocates and Opponents Of Gay Marriage Have More At Stake With Proposition 8 Than DOMA

leschmick — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:28:46 -0400

By Nick Davis

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week with regards to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8. It seems only fitting that the Court would take up both cases at the same time. The part in question with DOMA is simply whether or not same-sex couples deserve the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. Proposition 8 actually deals with the question of whether or not individual states have the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

No matter which side the Supreme Court falls on, its inevitable that the cultural tide surrounding the acceptance of gays and lesbians will continue to grow. Just like in the 1960s and SCOTUS decisions before that, civil rights supporters were not deterred by legal setbacks, and its doubtful LGBT supporters will feel that sentiment either. Once we get past the usual comparisons to the civil rights era, it’s easy to see that the real meat of debate lies with Proposition 8 rather than DOMA.

This might be one of the few instances where money takes a backseat in any debate. Any culturally aware observer can see that the gay marriage debate is about equality and holding up societal constructs than it is about the tax breaks. The money is just the icing on the cake for LGBT supporters. That is why Proposition 8 is a much bigger deal to both sides. Proposition 8 deals with the fundamental question of whether homosexuals have the right to marry their partner. That principle applies to all 50 states, not just those which allow heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

So, since marriage contracts are currently left up to the states, what is the likelihood that it will stay that way? Excluding any unforeseen outcomes about standing issues, the Court will likely have to determine whether the 10^th or 14^th amendment takes control here. The former states that any power not given to the federal government stays with the states and the latter states that all people should be given equal treatment under the law. A majority opinion based on the 10^th amendment would preserve the status quo while an argument based on the 14^th amendment would deliver a landmark decision.

Not surprisingly, it seems that this may be another decision split along ideology. Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia seem to be in favor of federalism or states’ rights while Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer seem to be willing to decide based on equal protection. As always, that leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.

Throughout both days of arguments, the Justices and lawyers debated whether the state had a compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Two of the main points revolved around promoting procreation of new life as well as the effects of same-sex parenting. This second point is where Kennedy expressed some concern. “[The] sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or what could be a legal injury, and that’s the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case don’t you think?”

I’m no law expert, but I would be surprised if the Court didn’t strike down Proposition 8 based on the equal protection argument. The American Academy of Pediatrics has answered Kennedy’s questions about the lack of evidence regarding the effects of same-sex parents on children. They endorsed gay marriage on March 21^st stating that the AAP “supports pediatricians advocating for public policies that help all children and their parents, regardless of sexual orientation, build and maintain strong, stable, and healthy families that are able to meet the needs of their children.”

Just like in Loving vs. Virginia, the case that struck down bans on interracial marriage, the Court decided that the 14^th amendment superseded the 10^th because the law had no compelling state interest other than to promote a cultural standard.

On Tuesday, we here at Votifi asked you whether you thought the Supreme Court has the power to influence culture, or whether culture influences the Supreme Court. Of all respondents, 67% said that culture influences the Court while 24% said that it influences culture. What’s interesting is that most of the 67% tended to lean left politically while the 24% happened to lean right. To me, this is not surprising at all. Conservatives have always referred to the Court as ‘activists,’ and here it would be no different.

A New Business Model

jostapine — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:45:35 -0400

I was working on a paper for a history class over spring break and the topic was anarchism. In sunny California there were distractions at every turn, and for somebody from Michigan if I went outside the paper would never get finished. So I tried procrastinating in a less distracting way. There was a Portal video game poster up on the wall of the friend who I was staying with and I’d heard great things about the game so I went to Steam (the best place online to buy videogames). Then just as I was about to download a game generally accepted as truly addicting, inspiration struck and I knew how to finish my paper.

If you’re not a gamer you might be wondering what do Internet videogames have to do with anarchism. My paper was on Joseph Proudhon who is widely regarded as the father of anarcho-syndicalism; and Valve, the company that created Steam, is operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model.

The founder of Valve, a man named Gabe Newell was a top programmer at Microsoft before he cashed in his shares and started a videogame company. He created a corporation while throwing out all the rules about how to structure a corporation. The organization would be completely flat. That is to say if you work at Valve you are your own boss, work on what you want, and are free to move from project to project as you please. Here’s more on what it’s like from a Michael Abrash who has observed Valve from the inside.

Valve is a cool company, but it is also fascinating from an economic and historical standpoint. They may be the most successful example of anarchy since the Paris commune, and that only lasted a few months. Valve is almost two decades old and growing steadily. This company is successful because the employees are working on their passions, and their compensation is based almost exclusively on peer reviews. Abrash writes:

If most of the value is now in the initial creative act, there’s little benefit to traditional hierarchical organization that’s designed to deliver the same thing over and over, making only incremental changes over time. What matters is being first and bootstrapping your product into a positive feedback spiral with a constant stream of creative innovation. Hierarchical management doesn’t help with that, because it bottlenecks innovation through the people at the top of the hierarchy, and there’s no reason to expect that those people would be particularly creative about coming up with new products that are dramatically different from existing ones – quite the opposite, in fact. So Valve was designed as a company that would attract the sort of people capable of taking the initial creative step, leave them free to do creative work, and make them want to stay. Consequently, Valve has no formal management or hierarchy at all.

Now all this is interesting for my paper perhaps, but does the success of a company like Valve mean anything in the big picture. Will companies start to emulate them? Can they? The first question is easy, other software companies and tech start-ups are already copying Valve. For example Madison based Epic, a medical software company has adopted the flat structure and has become an industry leader, they employ mainly young people who work in small teams, with little corporate structure. And this isn’t some small start-up, Epic did $1.2 billion in 2011.

But the second part is tricky, can these models be realistically emulated? Because Valve has the luxury of being a billion dollar company, with around three hundred employees to share in the spoils, it’s easy to be an anarchist when that much money is on the table. The model would also break down in many other businesses, imagine an anarcho-syndicalist hospital? Disaster.

Employees can hide in this flat structure. It’s hard to fire people, and hard to tell if someone is slacking, but it simply doesn’t happen often at Valve where you get to work on exactly what you want to. Still employees at companies adopting the flat structure may not be as motivated as those at Valve, especially if the field isn’t as interesting as video games. Valve trusts that employees will care what their coworkers think about them, and without the traditional hierarchy mutual respect is easier to achieve among the staff. Some argue that maybe this is just the brilliance of Valve and can’t be copied.

The work environment provided by Valve is something to be envied, they have a massage parlor, and what young person wouldn’t want to work somewhere like that. I do. People who work in an environment where the work place politic is anarcho-syndicalism are inevitably and perhaps subconsciously going to change their political beliefs in regards to government. That’s not to say companies with no rules and lots of amenities are locks to succeed. The opposite tends to be true, but the perks at a place like Valve or Google or Facebook mean employees tend to spend more time working productively.

The Valve formula breeds creativity and hard work from employees, and amazing services for consumers. It is less costly to run because there are less managers and it’s inherently more efficient. Communication is better and everyone can make decisions so the occur more quickly, making the company nimble and able to pivot at any moment. I’d be surprised if more corporations don’t start trying to implement certain parts of the anarcho-syndicalism model into their business, in particular branches of those companies that must innovate to succeed. I’m not suggesting that all or even many companies adopt the Valve model, but its success is a sign that the traditional corporate model is not the only way.

1776: The Second Wave of the Internet Revolution

jostapine — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:51:20 -0400

Great interview by Evan Burfield on Bloomberg TV this morning about the DC startup scene and how to harness Washington DCs unique characteristics to promote entrepreneurship. Watch and learn:

If GOP Allows It, Rand Paul’s Meteoric Rise Could Save Them

leschmick — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:28:04 -0400

By Nick Davis

With each passing presidential election, it seems the cycle starts a little bit earlier every year. The upcoming cycle is no different despite being over three and half years away. Let’s call March of 2013 the unofficial start to the 2016 campaign season. Hillary Clinton came out on video with the Human Rights Campaign in support of gay marriage. And Rand Paul has made it no secret that he is exploring his options as they pertain to 2016. He has taken center stage this month, most notably with his 13-hour filibuster of CIA Director nomination, John Brennan.

The junior senator from Kentucky will be the GOP’s own gut check to see if they’re ready to take on the changes proposed by the Growth and Opportunity Project. It appears Mr. Paul is ready to take on that challenge. He recently outlined his immigration stance at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and called for the decriminalization of marijuana, among other things, at the annual CPAC conference. Additionally, his constitutional and federalist bent on gay marriage could appease both liberals and conservatives, allowing each state government to determine what is best for them (at least until the Supreme Court returns its verdict sometime in June).

So what are Paul’s realistic chances of getting elected in 2016? Oddsmakers have put Mr. Paul at anywhere from 12-1 to 28-1 odds that this stage in the process, not exactly a sure bet. Nate Silver, the election prophet over at the New York Times, recently outlined Paul’s appeal within his own party and whom he could attract from independents and Democrats. In that blog, Silver describes the Olympic Rings of the Republican Party. Its clear that Paul would fall into the libertarian category, but I’ll make the claim that he’ll have no problem attracting strong support from other factions of the party.

He has made it clear that he’s ready to deal on immigration, something that will attract moderates and reformers of the GOP. He’ll attract the Tea Party conservatives through his staunch fiscal restraint and religious conservatives should look fondly on his sponsorship of the Right to Life Act being proposed in the Senate now. His libertarian core base loves his dedication to the Constitution and his isolationist foreign policy.

So, that leaves the establishment base of the party, those who toe the party line and seem to be the most electable according to the pundits. It is these very people who are the reason why the Growth and Opportunity Project report was commissioned in the first place. Rand Paul is the very definition of the type of message and branding that this report described. His shift into immigration has the potential to win over some of the Latino vote while his idealistic and impassioned stance on the use of drones and libertarian approach to marijuana and gay marriage have strong potential to draw the youth vote.

There is still strong support for fiscal conservatism today. Republicans would do well to reconsider their positions on foreign policy and social issues. While Rand Paul will have only held political office for six years when the election rolls around, Barack Obama has proven that years of experience aren’t critical to being elected. In fact, it could be an asset. Americans, especially Republicans, are looking for a fresh face and ideas, and Rand Paul could be the one to deliver them.

How the Supreme Court Might rule on Prop 8

jostapine — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:24:00 -0400

If you’re confused about what is going on at the Supreme Court this week regarding California’s Prop 8, see this great infographic courtesy the New York Times.

The Senate Social Network

jostapine — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:38:18 -0400

Yahoo’s Chris Wilson has created a dynamic representation of voting in (arguably) the worlds greatest deliberative body. Wilson describes the exercise:

“For every member, I calculated which other senators voted the same way at least 75 percent of the time. In effect, this organizes the Senate as a mini-Facebook of 100 users, in which any given pair of senators are friends if they meet this 75-percent threshold….Visualizations like this one work by treating the senators as particles that repel one another, and treating the connections between them as springs that hold them together. Because the Democrats vote so cohesively, with few defectors, they are held together by a large number of springs.”

Here is the output:

What’s abundantly clear from this is that Republican and Democratic Senators are for the most part in two different universes. They almost never vote together on issues with a few exceptions. All that talk about gridlock in the Senate is pretty much true.

CPAC and The Republican ‘Autopsy’ Highlight Why The GOP Just Doesn’t Get It

jostapine — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:24:53 -0400

By Nick Davis

It’s no secret lately that the Republicans have a bit of an identity crisis on their hands. Ever since Barack Obama won a second term as President, the GOP has been doing some soul searching, and rightfully so. After losing five out of the last six popular votes, the Republican Party needs to figure out how to keep from becoming a permanent minority that represents the interests of affluent, older, white men.

Kudos to Reince Preibus and the rest of the RNC for acknowledging that there is a problem. After another GOP loss, Republicans are right to reevaluate their methods and brand. For the last 30 years or so, the general electoral trend has been eight years of one party in power followed by eight of the other with exceptions sprinkled in. If we extrapolate that into the future, that logic would tell us that a Republican would be elected in 2016. But, if there’s one thing I have learned working at Votifi is that correlation does not equal causation.

The GOP is correct in getting ahead of the curve with their Growth & Opportunity Project report. They realize the need to adapt their brand in order to account for a changing demographic, one that is becoming more diverse. Monday, they finally released that report. The 97-page document addresses a multitude of topics, covering everything from how to connect with Latinos and African Americans to bring them into the Party to campaign strategy and fundraising tactics.

In general, the report can be broken down into two broad topics: messaging and strategy.

The findings make some excellent suggestions regarding election strategy. Among those are to reduce the number of debates during the primary season, move up the date of the party convention, and overhaul fundraising practices to rival those of the Democratic Party. These are all good suggestions and probably necessary if the party wants to stay relevant. But strategy only gets you so far if your substance is lacking. I’ve heard Republican strategist say that you take the Obama out of the Obama for America and no matter how good that campaign was run, he would still lose. I think that’s probably true.

Substance is where this report falls short. The Growth & Opportunity Project, cleverly shortened to GOP, offers absolutely nothing in terms of policy change or specific policy details. Instead, it merely states that the Party must recruit women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and LGBT people to leadership positions and hold outreach programs. The unanswered question remains why would these people want to join your cause if you’re party is constantly championing policies to ridicule and spite them? The fact is, Republicans realize the error of their ways when it comes to procedures, but not when it comes to actual message and policy.

For example, the report describes their recent insensitive comments as the product of media spin and out-of-context interpretations. “The Republican Party is one of tolerance and respect, and we need to ensure that the tone of our message is always reflective of these core principles. In the modern media environment a poorly phrased argument or out-of-context statement can spiral out of control and reflect poorly on the Party as a whole.” Were Todd Akin’s rape comments poorly phrased? Were Mitt Romney’s 47% statements out-of-context?

Let’s move on to CPAC. The annual conservative retreat held in Washington, D.C. wrapped up this past Saturday. The goal of the convention is to ‘energize thousands of attendees and all of the leading conservative organizations and speakers who impact conservative thought in the nation… become the place to find our nation’s current and future leaders and sets the conservative agenda each year.’

While the Growth & Opportunity Project symbolizes the GOP’s inability to adapt to the realities of a changing electorate, CPAC was a microcosm of the dysfunctional dynamic within the party itself. As Republican strategist Ana Navarro put it on Meet the Press, conservatives suffer from ‘multiple personality disorder.’ Additionally, I’ll make the claim that the Party as a whole lacks solidarity and unity.

When I think of the Democratic Party, I see a party that believes government can create an environment of fairness and opportunity. On the other hand, when I think of the Republican Party, I think of three or four different sects who constantly attack each other. You have the social conservatives, the tea party, libertarians, and economic conservatives.

Diversity of opinion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think its one of the GOP’s greatest assets. Instead, Governor Chris Christie was excluded from the convention, largely seen as a way to spite him for being too close to Obama during Hurricane Sandy just before the election. Ann Coulter took the stage at CPAC and publicly ripped him based on a single issue, immigration. The fact that a relatively young, rising star in the party wasn’t invited to arguably one of the party’s most important events of the year is disgraceful.

Additionally, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham publicly ripped Rand Paul for his old school filibuster of John Brennan’s CIA nomination. The irony here is that Paul’s filibuster had the potential to galvanize young conservatives and libertarians (like myself) to actively participate in the party in the future. Instead, the internal bickering creates an air of dysfunction within the party. If Republicans can’t figure out how to play nice with each other, how do they expect to consistently win national elections.

Republicans have a lot of soul searching to do and the GOP report and CPAC left much to be desired. Instead of repackaging old ideas, conservatives should be celebrating their diversity and using their differences to cultivate new and fresh ideas instead of taking each other down. There’s still a lot of time before 2016, but Republicans need to quickly learn to unify themselves or I will be rewriting this blog in 2017.

Will Texas turn Blue?

jostapine — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:47:47 -0400

By Ian Rosoff

The state of Texas has a population of a little over 26 million, that’s good enough to garner the Friendship State 34 votes in the Electoral College. For the Republican Party Texas is their most important state. Two Senators and 24 Congressman roam the halls of the Capitol during the week and head back to the ranch on the weekends.

The governor of Texas is probably the best stepping stone to the Presidency for any Republican. Remember that before people realized Rick Perry didn’t know how to tie his shoes, let alone run a country, he was leading in the polls.

So what would happen to the political world if the impossible happened, Texas turned blue?

A million years ago Texas was blue. Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democratic President from Texas, but looking at the state’s political landscape over the last few decades the only way you could possible see a Democratic Texan taking the White House is if you watched the last season of The West Wing.

One of the reasons Dems have such a hard time in Texas is that the party runs laughably bad candidates in most Congressional districts. What Democrat in their right mind would volunteer to spend money and time running a race they are sure of losing? The result is that turnout on both sides becomes abysmal.

Gerrymandering certainly doesn’t help the situation. According to the NYT 2012 election map Texas had zero toss up districts and only the Texas 23^rd was even close and it’s still leaning red. None of this is likely to change as long as the Republican Party controls the governorship and the statehouse, but the demographics of the state are changing in an interesting way.

Almost all of the Democratic districts in Texas are clustered together in the Deep South up against the border with Mexico. According to the last census 38% of Texans are of Hispanic decent. Electorally that translates to 4.2 million eligible Hispanic voters.

More importantly this is an extremely young constituency. According to Pew some 32% of eligible Hispanic voters are age 18 to 29 and the national average is 22%. That means Texas has a large, young, and growing minority population whose political allegiance is (if the fact that districts bordering Mexico are moving blue means anything) slightly left on non-abortion issues.

It’s not going to happen overnight, but Texas is going to get contentious. If Democrats want to compete they will have to start putting money into developing the party in a state that they have essentially abandoned.

Republicans must no longer take Texas for granted and begin to court the Latino vote in serious ways. Currently turnout in Texas is predictably low. When there is no competition that’s bound to happen, but competition is the lifeblood of our democracy. For example Rick Perry was able to win the Republican primary for governor with only 2% of the voting-age population. Beating the Democrat’s sacrificial lamb was a forgone conclusion so essentially less than half a million people in a state of 26 million decided the governorship.

I don’t think Texas will go blue in a Presidential race anytime soon, but the next race may see a Hillary or Biden or Cuomo at least make a stop in Austin. This is one argument for why more money in politics is potentially a positive. It gives the parties the chance to use precious resources in districts that seldom see any. The Electoral College places undue import on established swing states and both parties ignore opportunities to try and create new ones. Texas may be an opportunity.

Despite Record Wall Street Profits, Main Street Is Still Hurting

raehaas — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:21:00 -0400

By Nick Davis

The stock market hit yet another all time high Tuesday afternoon as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) just barely moved into the green as the final bell hit. Meanwhile, we found out Monday that the economy added a surprising 236,000 jobs in February to take the national unemployment to a four year low of 7.7%. So, what are we to make of these bits of good news? It might seem that we are on the road to economic recovery, but Corporate America might as well be another planet compared to the millions of Americans that work on Main Street.

I don’t think anyone can argue that we aren’t in a better position than when Obama took office. But, let’s keep some perspective. By no means are we even remotely close to returning to pre-recession economic levels. While investors and Corporate America are riding the Wall Street gravy train, the poor and middle class are still struggling to make ends meet.

Some economists, most notably Lakshman Achuthan of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, are saying that we’ve actually been in a recession since the middle of last year. He cites an 18-month low in year over year payroll jobs growth as well as a 16-month low in year over year household jobs growth. Year over year job growth is simply a comparison between this time last year and today. In the first two months of last year, the economy created 582,000 jobs compared to 385,000 this year. Additionally, the fourth quarter of 2012 produced a measly .1% in GDP growth, hardly an economic boom.

In 2007, just before the stock market crashed, we saw the Dow reach its previous all time high. Anyone see a resemblance here? I’m not trying to say that we’ll see another great recession, but this can’t be a good sign. It simply means that the DJIA is not a useful tool to measure economic growth.

Sometimes I think the wealthy get a bad rap when they shouldn’t. Yes, there is a significant income gap between them and everyone else. No one doubts that. It’s easy to demonize the rich when Obama talks about raising taxes on upper-income Americans. We all know they’ll survive no matter how much they pay in taxes. With that in mind, I think its time we start focusing our efforts on how we can help small businesses grow. We need to bring everyone else up, instead of bringing the 1% down. The Tax Foundation recently found that the top 10% of Americans actually pay more than their fair share of federal income taxes, a whopping 70.6%, up from 55% from 1986.

Whether or not you believe in trickle down economics, corporations are only a single part of our economy. In fact, 98% of businesses in the United States can be considered a small business. These companies don’t have big legal departments to research how Obamacare or Dodd-Frank will affect them. President Obama and Congress could do a lot of good for the American people if they could just find some common ground. The political uncertainty that comes around every couple of months with a fiscal cliff, sequestration, or a budget ceiling debate leaves employers skeptical and cautious about hiring additional help. It’s easier to get by as is rather than hire someone and eventually lay him or her off.

America needs to renew its focus on small businesses. Some of the best innovations and personalities come out of startups, just take a look at Silicon Valley. We need legislation and incentives that target Main Street, not Wall Street.

Evolution of SXSW [INFOGRAPHIC]

jostapine — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:01:34 -0500

We like infographics

10 Things we plan to do at SXSW

jostapine — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 11:09:23 -0500

Present. Our panel is called “Latinos y Mobile: A Silver Bullet, and it is going to be awesome. Lou Aronson, Brent Wilkes, Kety Esquivel, and Estuardo Rodriguez will be speaking about the impact of the Hispanic voice on technology and, in turn, the impact of technology on the Hispanic voice. 5-6 on Friday! More info here.
Eat tacos. Apparently this is what Austin is known for: they seem to have everything from breakfast tacos to late night tacos, even an 11^th annual SXSW nuclear taco meet up. We’re intrigued.
Rock on. We have to admit that we haven’t heard of most of the bands performing, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be great. Last year we ended up at a Delta Spirit concert they are still my top 3 Pandora music station. Hoping to find some more great bands this time. SXSW is known for attracting the best new ventures, films, and bands, so we figure we can’t lose. We also plan on attending Rock On, SXSW, hosted by Rocket Lawyer on Monday night. Good music, good company, and good food? Count us in.
Explore Mars. This year there seems to be a multitude of space themed events due to the Curiosity Rover. We cannot wait to see an inside view of how this historic event went down, analyzed with a twist of the online community’s reaction. “Gale Crater, I am in you”, a tweet that will live in infamy. 3:30-4:30 on Sunday.
Watch a movie. For the most part, the movie sector of SXSW overlaps with the interactive, so it makes sense to see a film. I have to give kudos to my friends Omar Mullick and Bassam Tariq who are (almost) premiering their film These Birds Walk at SXSW. The film documents a runaway boy in Pakistan trying to figure out where his home really is. It’s got amazing cinematography (always wanted to use that word in a blog) and the backstory details the work of Abdul Sattar Edhi, the Mother Teresa of Pakistan. SPOILER: I saw a rough cut of the film a year ago but since then they added a musical score, color correction and more editing.
Meet new people. Last year we met many of our current clients during this week. Aside from the business end of things, there are brilliant and interesting people around every corner that we would never get to meet (or eat tacos with) otherwise.
Watch other people present. SXSW is a trove of amazing presentations, making it possible to forget to attend events that actually pertain to our company. However, panels such as “Mobile Saturday: Re-imagine Everything” (9:30-10:30, Saturday) and meet-ups like “How do you get People to Care about your Data?” (3:30-4:30, Monday) make it easy for us, and we cannot wait to join the conversations.
See the keynotes. Matthew Inman should be both insightful and hilarious (his bio centers around his love for Sriracha sauce), while Elon Musk is the genius behind SpaceX, Pay Pal, and SolarCity, who inspired the main character in Iron Man. There is no way we are missing these sure to be memorable talks.
Stay flexible. There is so much to do at SXSW that it can be a little overwhelming. Some of the best events and parties we attended last year were ones we heard about after we got to Austin. We’re leaving time to talk with as many people as possible, and follow the buzz that generates around the city to events we hadn’t originally planned on going to.
Take it all in, and mix it up. It is impossible to do everything you want to do at SXSW, but since everything is so awesome there is no way to truly miss out. When else can you play ping-pong against CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, interact with the MIT Media Lab, and watch the Yeah Yeah Yeahs in concert in the span of 5 days? We cannot wait to branch out, explore the great city of Austin, and come back to D.C. with some new information and connections…and maybe a new album or two.

What do employers really want from college grads?

jostapine — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:41:19 -0500

Marketplace (my favorite show across TV/radio/Internet) had a great story on college grads and the job market. You can listen to the whole thing here.

Few things that stood out for me and which I plan to share with our team of awesome interns.

In industries across the board, employers viewed an internship as the single most important credential for recent grads – more than where you went to school or what you majored in. Even your grades.

I tend to agree. In the startup world, if I see you’ve had at least some sort of professional experience in which you used Excel or did some research then I know you’re bringing some skill to bear which I know almost no college classroom will teach.

The story also referenced David Boyes, who runs a technology company called Sine Nomine Associates. Boyes said

[t]he company puts probably about a quarter of a million dollars into every single new hire. But that’s the kind of value that we get out of it. We ask people to read Cato the Elder, [w]e ask people to read Suetonius. We do that because we ask them to look at the process – the abstract process – of organizing ideas.

This is really fascinating. Earlier last week we shared the now viral video with Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and others promoting schools to teach more coding to students. But, coming from the head of an IT consulting firm, here is a clarion call for a balanced liberal arts education.

And $250,000 in training for fresh-out-of-college grads at a firm with only 20 employees? That’s pretty phenomenal and if I lived in the DC area and was graduating from college this year I’d really think about applying.

Sequestration and Education

raehaas — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 22:00:50 -0500

By Ian Rosoff

Some of the largest sequestration cuts are in education, including $116 million from higher education and $86 million from student financial assistance. As a college student about to graduate, I’m fortunate that the sequestration can’t impact my financial aid that has already been disbursed, but it could impact work-study.

The federal work-study program provides funds for students who work part-time employment at their universities. The school pays approximately half the wage and the Department of Education takes care of the rest. I’ve been a work-study student my entire career at the University of Michigan. It has been a large part of my education and my ability to pay for necessities like books.

The real value of the work-study program allows universities to pay students to work in labs, do research, and tutor other students. Institutions must also use seven percent of their federal funds for students to work in their communities on projects such as increasing literacy in local high schools. The work-study program is a win for the students and the taxpayers. Young talented college students who need a little extra money for room, board and for food aren’t forced to flip burgers, but instead can earn the necessary cash by assisting in medical labs and helping in the community.

The investment is three fold. Students learn and grow, communities and the research community benefit, and students can work to fund their own education. These jobs often teach undergraduates skills they will need for future jobs, or get them interested in helping others instead of focusing on the highest paying job to pay off loans. I’m more likely to move up the value chain in my career sooner because I had a job that taught me skills.

Paying for college is hard. Most students are forced to take out loans and parents scrimp and save to give their children an education everyone knows is critical to making it in today’s economy. Work-study is just one small program that falls victim to the sequestration that will ultimately hurt hundreds of programs. There will be $199 million cut from public housing and $85 billion across the board.

Obviously some cuts are necessary, but sequestration doesn’t allow for departments to prioritize those cuts. The ratio of cuts to revenue generation is about 3-1 in favor of cuts. Democrats need to fight for more revenue so that some of the cuts can be tempered by smarter spending.

It’s important to put a human face on some of the programs getting cut. Sometimes with politicians and pundits talking about billions and trillions of dollars the small programs that operate on just a few million seem insignificant, but they are crucial. We need to invest in college students more than ever.