|
Tuesday, July 1, 2003
Back to Business 1.0 
| | I had noticed last night that Business 2.0 was doing some weird things. All of the articles I read had only one or two paragraphs on the first page, and then you needed to click to the next page to read the rest. Each time I clicked on "next", I got a page not found. That's why, for all the Business 2.0 stories I posted recently, I used the "printer" copy. The front page copy was useless with only a single paragraph. Now I understand why. Continuing with AOL-Time Warner's "walled garden" approach - Business 2.0 has locked up all their content. You now need to pay to read the articles - even the ones I linked to just a few hours ago. |
| | Maybe it's time for writers to form a Net Journalists Union saying they won't write for the Net unless the product is publicly archived. If Dan isn't done with his Journalism 3.0 book, I'd like to offer it as an additional suggestion, if enough of the rest of ya'll can get behind it. Something useful to talk about, anyway. |
| | Not sure if there's a tie-in with Clay's Keynote from ETech, but it's a good excuse for a link. |
Vocation, location, blocation
Neoblogism
WeChat?
| | Apple has iChat. Microsoft has MSN chat. Linux (among other platforms) has varieties of Jabber. |
| | Let's say a nonprofit organization wants to set up some kind of IM/chat system that works with everything in a Net-native way. What would it be? |
| | I think it would be a Jabber server that works with other breeds of clients. Agreed? Peter? |
| | Or IRC, of course; though it's a bit of a hack for the nontechnical user. |
Blogflogging
| | From my wanderings off to nontech subjects, I'm enjoying Susan Merrit's main blog (here's her other). Interesting to discover that Starbucks may actually be making money (though it's not real clear) off wi-fi. |
Old Jones, New Politics
| | I hate to admit that I still don't know shit about Howard Dean, even though I have lots of friends who do and are crazy about the guy. What I do know is that the Net roots movement behind him is a freaking jihad. |
| | Here's the deal with Dean: It's about the money. Follow it. Where does it come from? Not the usual suspects. There are too damn many of None of the Above. Instead, he owes The Roots. |
| | This is a New Thing. And they don't know what it is. |
| | New mantra: It's The Roots, Stupid. |
| | By the way, there are plenty of Net roots behind Dubya too. Don't discount them. |
I have the t-shirt to prove it
| | Thanks to J.D. for the link. |
It can be done
New kStar
| | Kurt Starsinic (who was a huge help to me during my last trip to New York) got his new blog off to a great start, disagreeing approximately 100% with a bunch of stuff I said yesterday. (I try to address some of his questions after I get some sleep. Meanwhile, I'm encouraged by reading this and this.) |
| | I like the way Kurt thinks, expecially since it's radically different from the way I think. Among other differences, he's a deeply technical guy. Dig: |
| | Now, let's go to the micro level. A single 100-pound girder is made up of approximately 2 x 1029 iron atoms (by my back-of-the-envelope calculations). This is a level of redundancy that would make most software engineers nauseous, but which gives structural engineers great comfort. |
| | And the difference between the two disciplines gets even more pronounced. The structural engineer cannot count, and does not try to count, the iron atoms. He does not configure, and does not try to configure, each individual atom. He approaches "steel" as an epiphenomenon--a set of reliable performance characteristics associated with a loosely-defined infrastructure--rather than building it, in a (theoretically) mathematically-provable way, atom by atom, covalent bond by covalent bond. |
| | Great to have him aboard. |
There are responses to this message:
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
