Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Indies say business has never been better
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p13s02-almp.html
I guess this rules out
once and for all, the Universal EDIG/EPAC DAP.
Subject: we will not be there
From B-Lunist
PostID 246754 On Wednesday, April 09, 2003 (EST) at 6:39:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your e-mail, Paul. Along with our IFE partners, we are very
involved in our IFE system and business extensions of our new video
platform. Because our IFE partners opted not to attend, and due to recent
business opportunities and developments requiring the personal attention of
sales and management, a proxy from the IFE industry was slated to deliver
the presentation. Please call me at your convenience if you would like to
discuss this further, Paul.
That is really curious/
gernb1: A couple of
corrections to that article, gernb. ASCAP does not collect money from airplay for artists. They collect the monies for distribution to their member writers and publishers. While occasionally they are also the recording artist, typically, artists receive nothing for airplay.
Until production costs of a recording are recouped by the SR holding label, artists receive NOTHING from anyone. The system being proposed will only benefit the "fat-cats" of the music business; the labels, the writers and the publishers.
grinding along
ever so slowly; perhaps a spark of life remains in the industry.......it's 50 cent.
gernb1: "Offering free music
as a means of selling another product has been mentioned as one method of recouping revenue." Exactly!
.....but two months later
By: debeer
31 May 2001, 08:31 PM EDT Msg. 686957 of 1120111
(This msg. is a reply to 686912 by packers1.)
packers1
Yesterday evening Mr. Putnam called me (unsolicited except for a plethora of e-mail's to him LOL).
As far as Hango, Mr. Putnam made it clear that they (Hango) are not putting all their eggs in e.Digitals basket, even though he believes our PJB is the best design.
Mr. Putnam also made it clear that e.Digital has learned much from these dealings, and would in the future be more pro active (as much as possible) with future manufactures.
I am confident that major OEM's will get this built and get it to market when the time is right for THEM. I still have much faith in Eastech. Hango will also come through IMO, but screw them anyway!
Mr. Putnam said DataPlay was still on target for launch, but with any new design anything was possible concerning delays. Many new parts have to be made which could gum up the works but, as of yesterday it was still A-OK. DataPlay when it hits will IMO be huge.
I am well satisfied that we are still in the game. I remain confident not only in the current PJB design and it's ultimate success, but with so much more over many years time.
We talked about much more, but nothing new to add to this discussion at this time.
Been here since the diggers penny days, and yes I traded heavily on its way up. Currently I continue to buy at these prices and am encouraging all I know to do the same. Ken
I doubt that they are selling 100
of these devices a week. How many posters are there, anyway?
50+/newelong: As an RB poster
once said about busybump, "....if you didn't exist, Putnam would have to INVENT you." Thanks!
chwdrhed: I think they had a choice.
They could have made an "ipod;" a device that played mp3 files without prohibition about copying.
Labels recoup 100% of production costs
from every artist. While the act is paying back hundreds of thousands of dollars at their royalty rate ($1 to $1.50 per disc), the label, distributors and retailers are making lots of money on the release. Should these acts fail to make a profit, either though lack of public interest or PLAN by the label, the costs of that development is written off by the label/parent company as R&D. They NEVER lose.
mine is generic.......
it's based on personal experience as well as observation over years of their duplicity, dishonesty and general disregard for anything or any artist that desires to be treated in a fair and eqitable manner for their creative efforts.
By waiting for SDMI standards and pandering to the whims of the labels regarding "secure content," I think that edigital has made a great mistake. These labels are NOT dependable partners.
I recall the downloading binge you
went on a couple of years ago; I think your reaction was typical of many people displeased with the labels!
......and they won't get it, BMP.
The forces in opposition are too strong, and now it seems their intention is to use unauthorized downloads as the scapegoat for other problems causing diminished revenue.
hollywoodhills: No doubt that FF & RP should
be gone, but what about the CFO who brought in the crooks? Allowing Furman to control the funds is like putting dracula in charge of the blood bank! Putnam's feigned tone of disgust is just so much BS. Every "pimp" is making money from edigital except those who see it as a long term investment.
Cassandra: shhhhhh!/
Good for you, chwdrhed; chat access......
click other on the far right header of the opening page.
Click chat........click rooms, double click edig; you're in there like a wedgie.
Hopefully, all persons
of good will and open minds will once again use the edig chat room.
Go to chat.....
double click on edig.......you're in.
Thank you! All those not boycotting are
welcome to re-join the chat. Actually ALL interested parties are welcome in the newly reopened (liberated) chat room. There are no weapons of mass destruction in there.
Re: Ran Furman
Some time ago I read on these boards a response from Mr. Putnam
regarding the disadvantageous funding that edig received from some offshore entity. At the time he attributed the introduction of this "investor" to Mr. Furman. Can anyone repost or verify that reply?
Is it a SCAM, or
just a bad investment? IMO, a scam IS a bad investment, while a bad investment need not be a SCAM.
Many people have suggested that edigital, the public corporation, is a scam; i.e. a fraudulent business scheme. Were it easy to prove/ document fraud on the part of this company's management and accompanying private, controlling interests, it wouldn't be a very "good" or effective scam. But since it continues to stay in business despite constant business-plan failures, never showing a profit, but always announcing some new product or affiliation with large companies like Lucent, IBM, Toshiba, Samsung, Intel, et. al., it is obviously a very good scam or an extremely good bad investment, as it continues to successfully sell stock to the faithful.
Tinroad: Pretty accurate assessment, however,
a good portion of the problem owes to the heavy-handed zeal of the moderators; gosilver, in particular. Posts were deleted, it seemed, as a respose to the shrill voices of the incurably optimistic "snake-oilers," as you have described them. Ironically, it is they who have departed, dissatisfied with the administration of this board when they failed to achieve their goal of having moderators/administrators "off the heads" of those that disturbed their "see/hear/speak no evil" approach to edigital.
Certainly the deterioration of the pps contributed to both the anger of those who expected more/better from the company, and the hardening of the lines between those who refused to view the failures of the company as anything more than a reflection of the overall economy, and those who felt that management was largely to blame for the many failures in marketing of both the technology and retail products.
LL speaks from Agora:
RE: Volume levels of Tues 3/25 , Wed 3/26 and probably Thur 3/27......
From LawyerLong
PostID 244707 On Thursday, March 27, 2003 (EST) at 10:27:45 AM
Response To: jtdiii PostID 244679
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jt - those who are visionary are able to be mollified by what will happen in the future as opposed to what is happening in the present - I'm TRYING to be visionary about this. Everything I know, hear, read and see tells me this will most likely be a good investment, possibly a great one. I have to try to separate that from the reality of the present which is that if someone looks at numbers, economy, finances, etc., they would not want this stock.
As to your two statements:
''What does everybody else know that I don't now know.'' and
''Why don't more people know what I think I now know.''
I am cracking up over the latter.
Hang in there.
LL
This webcast was needed for "crisis
management." Had the financials been signed (unexpectedly) by Singer Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein, LLP, rather than Ernst & Young, the uproar would have been deathening. The Golden Goose lives!!
Woody Norris makes the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/23SOUND.html
By: newelong
06 Aug 2001, 07:23 PM EDT Msg. 745740 of 1116060
CONVERSATION WITH RP .......
In the conversation I had with Robert Friday afternoon we covered the following topics:
"Next Generation" HDD Jukeboxes
Robert indicated that our OEM`s won`t be knocking off TREO clones, but rather producing players with many different looks and varying feature-sets. With regard to competition all I could think of to mention were the Nomad and Archos MP3 players, and he replied that although they claim to be upgradeable [to "Next Generation"], he hasn`t yet seen how this will be accomplished. I tried to get a good explanation as to why we haven`t seen any e.Digital/OEM jukeboxes yet, and he indicated that we are only now approaching the primary season for new product introductions. He further mentioned that a rollout into an unproven market represents inherent risks, particularly for our smaller OEM`s, and especially when no one really knows how well these jukeboxes will be received.
When I brought up the subject of the oft-delayed TREO, he mentioned the hiring of Jim Collier as COO, and what a welcome addition he is; we will soon be able to offer our OEM`s and licensees complete product life cycle management.
System-on-Chip
I got the impression that with regard to the digital audio players, the DSP solution is the overwhelming choice of our OEM`s and licensees. Robert did mention, however, that we are currently exploring the use of a SOC solution with a couple OEM`s, but I`m not sure if this is in connection with DAP`s, or some other application.
3G Phones
Robert mentioned that we are working on a cell phone accessory [a music plug-in, to be exact], which would obviously negate any dependency on bandwidth, and consequently, 2.5 or 3G infrastructure.
Video
Robert indicated that our involvement here is primarily in connection with the e-book platform, leaving me with the impression that video on any smaller size screen wouldn`t be too practical at this point in time.
QDX
Robert remarked that the "fit to media", while maintaining higher audio quality than MP3, is the codec`s primary feature, and its success would most likely require the endorsement of one or two of the big five record labels.
Employees
I asked Robert for the current employee count and the number of positions presently unfilled. He kinda chuckled and said "Over 40". Hey BusyBump, whasssup with that ???
After our discussion I`ve become even more convinced that we will soon see the long anticipated launch of jukeboxes, followed shortly thereafter by the Dataplay entries, and all "powered by e.Digital". I`m also inclined to believe that both of the digital audeo player platforms will be quite successful. The only question that remains in my mind is how the issues of multi-codec/DRM and transcoding will play out. Could it possibly be that the greatest competition in this soon to emerge market of "next generation" DAP`s will be that of our OEM`s amongst themselves ? Opposing fact-based views are welcome.
I`ve seen a lot of discussion regarding the Company`s financial condition, and I would like to take this opportunity to present my 2 cents worth. First of all, I can`t see where this concern about possible "dilution" is coming from. Management stated, "We believe that with the cash on hand [as of 3-31-01] and the proceeds from existing development and production contracts, we have sufficient proceeds to meet cash requirements for the next 12 months". I presume that to mean through March of 2002, and if anyone doesn`t believe that new revenue streams will start flowing before then, I`m not sure why they would be here. Furthermore, why would anyone think that on 5-14-01 Ernst & Young would stick their necks out by signing off on the Company`s audit, and not include the "going concern" clause which has been there probably forever ? Could it be that they overlooked it, or could it be that they just happened to find a drawer full of multi-million dollar contracts in various stages of completion, and all containing those dreaded NDA`s ?
Something tells me that this Company has finally reached the point whereby its bright future will soon begin to distance itself from its trying past, and the only reminder should be the $52 million in losses-carried-forward ... Sorry, Uncle Sam.
Say, MIR, sorry to interupt the remodeling, but could you give us a quick lesson on how selling patented software can be profitable ... wasn`t it you who said it`s almost like stealing ??
Hey, DABOSS, just want to say I`m glad YOU ARE still HERE ... you do have a way of painting a vision with words, and you`re one of the reasons I AM HERE ... just sad to know that others can`t see !?!
Oh, I almost forgot. I asked Robert how they were progressing on Voice Navigation, and he replied, "We`re ready to go". He quickly added, too, that some of those attending the Annual Shareholders Meeting in November would have the opportunity to give it a try !!
NEWe.LONG
50+ (newelong): Haven't you learned that RP
uses people like yourself to disseminate bad information, yet?
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EDIG&read=745740
chisel.....the man that called
QCOM's hand. I wldn't bet against you......again. MH
For Far Smaller Fuel Cells,
a Far Shorter Wait
By BARNABY J. FEDER
AMERICANS may have to wait 20 years, if not longer, for cars powered by fuel cells to become a familiar sight. But much smaller forms of fuel cell technology may well power electronic devices like laptop computers, video cameras and cellphones by the end of this decade.
Prototypes of long-lasting fuel cells that can replace batteries are being tested in laboratories in the United States and overseas. "Every big electronics company in the world is working on fuel cells in one way or another," said Jerry Hallmark, manager of Motorola's Energy Technology Lab in Phoenix. Some, like Intel, are going a step further and investing millions of dollars in start-up companies like PolyFuel and Neah Power Systems to accelerate development.
"There are some applications that are getting very close to commercialization," said Mike Lynn, head of a unit at the 3M Company that makes fuel cell components.
Mr. Lynn declined to be more specific, but many analysts expect fuel cells for consumer electronic devices to begin appearing next year in Japan. The betting is that the first to reach the market will be Toshiba, which is demonstrating a prototype of a methanol-powered cell this week at a trade show in Hanover, Germany. Toshiba says the cell could be sold next year with laptops.
Some 200 million to 500 million of the small cells, sometimes called microcells, might be sold annually by 2011, according to Allied Business Intelligence, a market research company in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that tracks new technology. Annual revenue to the fuel cell companies could be as much as $5 billion, said Atakan Ozbek, Allied's director of energy research.
But Mr. Ozbek and others said that despite the momentum of research and development, widespread microcell commercialization is not yet a sure thing.
"People underestimate the complexity of the system, and start-up companies have been cavalier about the availability of all the components they will need," said Dr. Brian M. Barnett, director of the electromechanical systems practice at Tiax, a technology consulting and development company based in Cambridge, Mass.
Like the fuel cells for cars promoted by President Bush and the even larger units being developed to provide electric power to factories and homes, most microcells generate electricity by chemically stripping hydrogen of its electrons. The electrons form a current running outside the cell while the positively charged ions left behind move through the cell. The ions and the electrons are recombined in a reaction with oxygen to form water, the only byproduct if pure hydrogen is used.
The basic concept for fuel cells was discovered in 1839, but researchers differ on the most practical way to design them to generate the most energy in the least space.
Fuel cells run most efficiently on pure hydrogen, but storing hydrogen compactly and safely is a huge hurdle. Many designers of large and small fuel cell systems are trying to get hydrogen from solid compounds that contain hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels like methanol and ethanol, even though those fuels add other elements like carbon dioxide to the waste stream.
MICROCELLS have several economic advantages over their bigger cousins in the race to commercialization. Energy experts expect to cut the smaller cells' production costs to be competitive with those of batteries long before larger cells can be manufactured at anything close to the cost of internal combustion engines.
It should also be easier and less expensive to persuade retailers to sell fuel cells the size of battery packs than to transform the huge national infrastructure of gasoline stations.
But the biggest reason the smaller cells are expected to become popular sooner is their appeal as a convenience — something that consumers have shown a willingness to pay for — and not as an answer to energy and environmental problems.
Fuel cells that last far longer than do rechargeable batteries would free laptop computer users and television camera crews, for example, from the need to lug heavy and expensive backup battery packs. For similar reasons, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and other military research groups have been investing in research on small fuel cells for more than a decade.
Fuel cells also offer the promise of "hot swapping," the ability to switch to a fresh power source without turning off a computer or phone. The user would simply add a new fuel cartridge to the cell before the reservoir ran dry.
"Half the interest in fuel cells is out of frustration with batteries," Dr. Barnett said.
Fuel cells for consumer electronics cannot come too soon for many product designers. Battery researchers have managed to double the capacity of lithium ion batteries in the last 10 years, making them the best-performing power source for mobile consumer electronic devices.
But sophisticated color displays, wireless access to the Internet, multiplayer games on cellphones and tablet computers for note-taking all demand more power than earlier generations of electronic devices. For these new products, consumers want power sources that last days or weeks instead of hours.
Batteries are likely to continue to improve slowly as researchers overcome drawbacks and develop new materials, like supercapacitors that store enough energy to allow the user of a hand-held device to quickly replace a dead battery without losing power. But the advantages of fuel cells will be hard to beat in the long run, according to energy experts.
Consider the number of hours that a kilogram of fuel can deliver a watt of power, one common benchmark in the portable-power industry. A kilogram of pure hydrogen can deliver one watt of power for 38,000 hours under ideal conditions. Methanol, a widely available fuel from which hydrogen is extracted in many fuel cells, delivers the watt for 6,000 hours. A fully charged lithium ion battery will do the job for just 150 hours.
Most consumer electronics products draw more than one watt of power. Laptops, for example, draw up to 20 watts, which is why batteries are often drained within a few hours. Travelers often need access to a recharging source (and plenty of time) or backup batteries, which can cost $100 or more for a laptop.
The cost of battery power for electronic devices is also high enough to entice businesses to invest in micro-cell development. Rechargeable-battery power costs roughly $3,000 for each kilowatt of power. By contrast, the fuel to power internal combustion engines costs roughly $50 a kilowatt. The fact that consumers already pay high prices for battery power is a central reason why many start-up fuel cell companies regard microcells as a quicker path to profits.
FOR all that, however, completing the last few steps to commercialization of microcells is still a big challenge. Some analysts wonder whether fuel cells might not turn out to be useful for only a few specialty applications.
"It's still an open question whether they will ever achieve practical value," said Dr. Jason Howard, head of the energy technologies team at Motorola's Energy Systems group.
The fuel cell's biggest shortcoming is that, unlike the battery, it cannot deliver large bursts of power, according to Dr. Howard.
Many fuel cell companies are coming around to the view of energy experts at potential customers like Motorola and Nokia that the first application for small cells may be as backups to batteries. Fuel cells could both recharge a cellphone and keep it working when a battery is drained. Alternatively, consumers could use the batteries only for spikes in power demand — when a laptop is turned on, for example, or when a cellphone call is placed — thus extending battery life.
In fact, using fuel cells with batteries makes enough sense that James D. Balcom, president and chief executive of PolyFuel, which is based in Palo Alto, Calif., expects almost all applications to be such hybrids. "Fuel cells and batteries were made for each other," Mr. Balcom said.
But even getting that far posestechnological problems because of the complexity of complete fuel cell systems. The basic hydrogen processing requires catalysts like platinum to speed up reactions and specialized membranes to separate the fuel. Then, there are tiny pumps and valves for moving air and liquids to where they are needed, components to collect and channel the electricity and methods for handling the reaction byproducts.
Typically, it takes a stack of fuel cells, rather than a single cell, to deliver the needed power. And so far, designers have been unable to make fuel cells operate as well as batteries across a range of temperature.
Other hurdles loom. Consumers are accustomed to looking for double-A, C or D batteries. But no comparable standards exist for the cartridges containing pure hydrogen, methanol or other fuel that users would pop into their fuel cell systems.
No one in the business expects widespread use of the cells until sizes are standardized, and no such efforts are under way.
Safety also remains an issue. The various fuels used are flammable, which is why they are prohibited on aircraft. PolyFuel has clearance from the Transportation Department for a prototype that dilutes the methanol in its cell by mixing it with water to be carried on aircraft, but other fuel cell designs have not yet been approved. PolyFuel itself would have to go back to federal regulators if it increased the percentage of methanol in its fuel cell design to improve performance.
The industry will also need to develop fuel cell cartridges that cannot be easily broken. Most analysts, though, expect fuel cells to be approved eventually for air travel.
In the meantime, some fuel cell designers are concentrating on niche markets that would not face regulatory tangles. MTI MicroFuel Cells, an Albany-based subsidiary of Mechanical Technology, recently signed an agreement to develop systems for Intermec, a leading supplier of mobile devices used to record inventory data in warehouses. And Jadoo Power Systems, based in Folsom, Calif., has delivered its first prototype fuel cell systems to a federal agency for use with video surveillance cameras; Jadoo declined to name the agency.
Jadoo expects to begin supplying similar systems, which are slightly larger than those used in consumer electronics, to local television news crews for use in video cameras later this year, according to Larry Bawden, the company's president and chief executive.
THIS is a market in desperate need of reliable, long-lasting power," said a senior executive at a company that supplies video crews to television stations. "It's a $50 million to $100 million market that's going to adopt it very rapidly if Jadoo can produce it," said the executive, who did not want to be identified because negotiations with Jadoo are in progress.
Selling to specific industries or the government also reduces the pressure to immediately develop ways to distribute fuel to consumers. In the long run, the major battery companies and companies like Bic, with long experience in distributing lighters, are the most likely candidates to bring the fuel cartridges to the consumer market.
A new realism about the final hurdles may be the best indicator that the cells really are moving closer to market. Mr. Ozbek of Allied Business said he has had to push his projection for when annual sales of microcells will hit 200 million units to 2011 — three years later than last year's projections.
doctormartini: start here
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=330940
Loudeye CEO resigns after just 5 weeks on the job
By Kim Peterson
Seattle Times technology reporter
Two directors and the chief executive officer of Loudeye have resigned after just five weeks on the job, and the Seattle company said yesterday it has ended its relationship with a firm hired to provide strategic advice.
Loudeye, which provides digital-media services, also said its shareholders have approved a reverse stock split to boost its share price above the $1 threshold required by the Nasdaq stock market. Shares of the company fell 14 percent yesterday to close at 25 cents.
Departing as president and CEO is Philip Gioia, who took the post Feb. 4. Replacing him is Jeff Cavins, 41, who was named to the board. Cavins, who joined Loudeye in November as senior vice president of worldwide sales, was previously a senior vice president at Exodus Communications, a Web-hosting and services company.
The shuffling is the second overhaul of Loudeye's management in less than two months. When the company hired Gioia, it also appointed Chad Waite Jr. and Gary Sbona to the board; they also have resigned. None of the three is talking publicly about why they left.
Gioia and Sbona are executives at Regent Pacific Management, a San Francisco company that specializes in restructuring financially strapped companies.
In a statement yesterday, Regent Pacific said it was hired by Loudeye on Feb. 3 as interim management "to identify strategic direction alternatives." The company said it completed the job it was hired to do and "no longer has any responsibility for (Loudeye's) direction and operation."
Waite, a partner with OVP Venture Partners in Kirkland, said his resignation was effective Monday but would not elaborate. "It's not really in anyone's best interest to discuss this," he said.
A Loudeye spokesman said yesterday that the company had appointed Gioia and Sbona to conduct an analysis of the business, and that the company was satisfied with the completed work.
Loudeye has 120 employees and has lost nearly $150 million from its inception in 1997 through the end of September. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, the company reported $10.1 million in revenue and a $20 million net loss. It had $20 million in cash and investments at the end of September.
The company's shareholders voted Tuesday to give the board permission to implement a reverse split at a ratio of up to
1-for-20, which means shareholders would end up with one share for up to 20 they own. The board has not determined whether to implement the split or what the ratio will be, the company said.
Loudeye provides Webcasting services and media samples to Amazon.com and other customers, and also restores and upgrades archives of traditional media into digital format.
Its founder and largest shareholder, Martin Tobias, was surfing in San Diego this week and did not attend Tuesday's shareholders meeting. He said he is optimistic about the digital-media market, even though many companies in the field have gone out of business.
Loudeye is getting close to profitability, he said, and the board of directors is trying to find the right direction for the company right now. That process "can be a traumatic thing," he said.
Here, here!/
OT: Republicans Choose New York
for '04 National Convention
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The Republican National Committee tentatively designated New York City today as the site of the party's 2004 political convention, selecting one of the most heavily Democratic cities in the nation as the place to renominate President Bush next summer.
It would be the first time in the history of New York that the city played host to a Republican convention. Officials said the main venue would be Madison Square Garden, where the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992.
Republican officials said they chose New York over two competing cities — Tampa and New Orleans — because of what they described as the enormous political and emotional symbolism that has become attached to the city since the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
New York officials, led by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Governor George E. Pataki, both Republicans, had lobbied urgently for the selection, arguing that it would prove a psychic and financial lift to a city during difficult times.
The recommendation was made unanimously today by the Republican site selection committee in a telephone conference call. It is expected to be ratified by the Republican National Committee at its annual meeting in Washington later this month.
Mr. Bloomberg was called away from a news conference at Central Park to be told the news. "New York is exactly the right place for the president and for the Republican Party," Mayor Bloomberg said, calling the convention a "tremendous boost for the city."
Governor Pataki said, "The Republican National Committee's selection of New York City to host the Republican National Convention in 2004 is yet another sign of the confidence people have in New York and sends a message to America and the world that New York is back."
The Democratic National Committee had also considered New York for its convention, but settled on Boston.
The decision today was the product of an unusual set of circumstances that led to what even Republicans described as the highly unlikely scenario of Republicans gathering in New York to nominate a candidate for president.
The first consideration was the attack on the World Trade Center. But the decision also comes as the Republican Party tries to expand its geographic, ethnic and political appeal — a task that Republicans say has become more urgent in the wake of the ouster of Trent Lott as Senate Republican leader over remarks that many Republicans described as racially insensitive.
Finally, New York has both a Republican governor and a Republican mayor, which is both a symbolic and a logistical help for convention planners, not to mention the nation's best known ex-mayor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who would be expected to at least appear on the convention's stage.
New York has had five national political party conventions in its history, all Democratic, with the most recent in 1992.
City and state officials have offered up not just Madison Square Garden as the main site, with thousands of hotel rooms nearby, but also the Farley Post Office building, across the street, as a media center, linked by bridges.
Not to be negative or anything
but the NY Giants have very little to be proud of, this evening.
Even with a strong tail-wind, it's a long flight home.
Oz, how'd you do it?
Gimme the password, PLEASE!