Net savvy users are building their own portals. Which means the portals out there have to duke it out over the people who don't understand what a start page is, let alone how to change it.
The whole fallacy of eyeballs=dollars is, IMHO, the most celebrated casualty of the dot.boom. All the visitors in the world only means that you need to build capacity into your system. As a simple analogy, a brick store can have fantastic location and a huge selection, but if their customers only wander around, they're not making any money. They're just wasting space on big aisles.
Actually, I haven't read the book. I was talking about the CTM posted at their site.
And I agree, what I read is not a business plan. It's simply a loooonnngg checklist of things that are different online than in the storefront world.
We didn't take direction from it per se, but instead it was able to provide a common language where I could start to explain to the sales/marketing types about why some of their plans were silly. Most of them have very little direct experience with dotcoms, and the CTM is an easy way to get them up to speed.
I don't plan on reading the book, given the reviews here. Some hundreds of pages expounding on 95 self-evident and/or redundant points doesn't seem like a good way to spend my time.
Ultimately, if it works, it...works. Is the CTM a founding document? Something we'll look back on in a few years, and say, "I remember when cluetrain.com went up, I was at... doing..."? No. It'll have it's 15 minutes and then fall out of fashion. But, in the meantime, it served a purpose for me, and so it can't be all bad.
and the PHB, sales and marketing people all loved it. That site opened a dialogue I'd been trying to have with them for weeks, but wasn't able to get started. Perhaps because it carried the authority of being a nicely done page, or it had the presentation of being another revolutionary dotcom manifesto, I don't know. But I sent the link to the head of Marketing, and he read it and sent to everyone, with a "required reading" subject line. Things have gotten better at our site and in our company. No longer is there a battle between the sales/marketing people and IT. We're on the same page, and we develop our site for the customer's experience. I like my job better, because I'm building technologies that make the web a nicer place for users. Marketing/sales likes their job better, because they understand what it's about now. And we all work together to make it happen. I haven't said, "There's no way any of my servers are going to do that, I'm not wasting cycles on that project" since that link went around. And that is what the manifesto is, it's a translation of everything us webheads take for granted into business-speak so it's palatable to the phb's. Is it dumbed down in some places, and full of self-evident truisms? Sure, from our perspective. But anything that can help us show the rest of our companies what we do and where we need to go is ok by me.
I've been saving my pennies for the K-7... Now that we're nearly down to the wire, I have a couple of newbie questions...
Will AMD's chipset for this thing be supported by Linux? I haven't had any trouble with any boards yet under Linux (knock on woood), but I've always been using hardware that's at least 2 or 3 notches off of bleeding edge.
Secondly, what do people think about swapping the cpu/board out from under the disks/cards/peripherals? I've got a decent setup for my workstation, and I'd like to just put the new cpu/board in. What are peoples' experiences with this? Should I compile a monolithic kernel before the upgrade to cover my bases?
Thirdly, has anyone heard who's going to be retailing the K-7 hardware?
Pointers to existing Howtos, FAQs, etc encouraged and appreciated. Thanks!!!
There is a major difference between this piece and anything written by Bateson: Bateson backs his arguments with data.
Bateson did years of clinical research in schizophrenia before he began to formulate his theories of information and information processing. And while he makes the leap from intraorganism processing, and applies his postulates to supraorganismic information processing, he deftly avoids the mental vacuousness of postmodernist rambling and wishy-washiness.
Bateson is not only a joy to read, but has pertinent observations about the way information flows through our world and through our perceptions. He never uses such lame crutches as using psychic phenomena as evidence, using his own observations as unrefutable empirical evidence, or relying on circular arguments to support his basic premises.
Bateson is easily one of the greatest minds of the century. The gentleman who wrote this article will just be another has-been the moment another "digital prophet" grabs the limelight for a moment. He may be occaisonally ressurected as a footnote in the rare undergrad's paper, but only to pad it with quotes so vague and unreasoned they could mean anything.
This piece was very well written, however, like most postmodernist drivel it fails to go anywhere, provide data, or draw any kind of meaningful conclusion.
Online culture? Great! Bring it on!
But what does that have to do with supposed psychic powers? If you want to talk about the visual cortex, write a piece detailing how different personality types configure their window managers.
If you want to write a piece about how (dis)connected we are online, show me some numbers and stats about online time, depression, speed of thought, the way people who type at others all day speak differently, if we shop differently, etc.
I'm not interested in reading the ramblings of some self-proclaimed guru who (along with every other self-proclaimed guru) has suddenly "discovered" that there are a lot of people sharing ideas over electronic networks.
Personally, this is the last post from this author that I'm going to read. Are there any researchers/thinkers/etc who can write articles with some real, verifiable data so we can draw some conclusions and have a discussion? Does anyone know where these resources are on the net?
Slashdot Mirror
Net savvy users are building their own portals. Which means the portals out there have to duke it out over the people who don't understand what a start page is, let alone how to change it. The whole fallacy of eyeballs=dollars is, IMHO, the most celebrated casualty of the dot.boom. All the visitors in the world only means that you need to build capacity into your system. As a simple analogy, a brick store can have fantastic location and a huge selection, but if their customers only wander around, they're not making any money. They're just wasting space on big aisles.
Actually, I haven't read the book. I was talking about the CTM posted at their site.
...works. Is the CTM a founding document? Something we'll look back on in a few years, and say, "I remember when cluetrain.com went up, I was at... doing..."? No. It'll have it's 15 minutes and then fall out of fashion. But, in the meantime, it served a purpose for me, and so it can't be all bad.
And I agree, what I read is not a business plan. It's simply a loooonnngg checklist of things that are different online than in the storefront world.
We didn't take direction from it per se, but instead it was able to provide a common language where I could start to explain to the sales/marketing types about why some of their plans were silly. Most of them have very little direct experience with dotcoms, and the CTM is an easy way to get them up to speed.
I don't plan on reading the book, given the reviews here. Some hundreds of pages expounding on 95 self-evident and/or redundant points doesn't seem like a good way to spend my time.
Ultimately, if it works, it
dns down? try http://208.12.21.18
and the PHB, sales and marketing people all loved it. That site opened a dialogue I'd been trying to have with them for weeks, but wasn't able to get started. Perhaps because it carried the authority of being a nicely done page, or it had the presentation of being another revolutionary dotcom manifesto, I don't know. But I sent the link to the head of Marketing, and he read it and sent to everyone, with a "required reading" subject line.
Things have gotten better at our site and in our company. No longer is there a battle between the sales/marketing people and IT. We're on the same page, and we develop our site for the customer's experience. I like my job better, because I'm building technologies that make the web a nicer place for users. Marketing/sales likes their job better, because they understand what it's about now. And we all work together to make it happen. I haven't said, "There's no way any of my servers are going to do that, I'm not wasting cycles on that project" since that link went around.
And that is what the manifesto is, it's a translation of everything us webheads take for granted into business-speak so it's palatable to the phb's. Is it dumbed down in some places, and full of self-evident truisms? Sure, from our perspective. But anything that can help us show the rest of our companies what we do and where we need to go is ok by me.
I've been saving my pennies for the K-7... Now that we're nearly down to the wire, I have a couple of newbie questions...
Will AMD's chipset for this thing be supported by Linux? I haven't had any trouble with any boards yet under Linux (knock on woood), but I've always been using hardware that's at least 2 or 3 notches off of bleeding edge.
Secondly, what do people think about swapping the cpu/board out from under the disks/cards/peripherals? I've got a decent setup for my workstation, and I'd like to just put the new cpu/board in. What are peoples' experiences with this? Should I compile a monolithic kernel before the upgrade to cover my bases?
Thirdly, has anyone heard who's going to be retailing the K-7 hardware?
Pointers to existing Howtos, FAQs, etc encouraged and appreciated. Thanks!!!
There is a major difference between this piece and anything written by Bateson:
Bateson backs his arguments with data.
Bateson did years of clinical research in schizophrenia before he began to formulate his theories of information and information processing. And while he makes the leap from intraorganism processing, and applies his postulates to supraorganismic information processing, he deftly avoids the mental vacuousness of postmodernist rambling and wishy-washiness.
Bateson is not only a joy to read, but has pertinent observations about the way information flows through our world and through our perceptions. He never uses such lame crutches as using psychic phenomena as evidence, using his own observations as unrefutable empirical evidence, or relying on circular arguments to support his basic premises.
Bateson is easily one of the greatest minds of the century. The gentleman who wrote this article will just be another has-been the moment another "digital prophet" grabs the limelight for a moment. He may be occaisonally ressurected as a footnote in the rare undergrad's paper, but only to pad it with quotes so vague and unreasoned they could mean anything.
This piece was very well written, however, like most postmodernist drivel it fails to go anywhere, provide data, or draw any kind of meaningful conclusion.
Online culture? Great! Bring it on!
But what does that have to do with supposed psychic powers? If you want to talk about the visual cortex, write a piece detailing how different personality types configure their window managers.
If you want to write a piece about how (dis)connected we are online, show me some numbers and stats about online time, depression, speed of thought, the way people who type at others all day speak differently, if we shop differently, etc.
I'm not interested in reading the ramblings of some self-proclaimed guru who (along with every other self-proclaimed guru) has suddenly "discovered" that there are a lot of people sharing ideas over electronic networks.
Personally, this is the last post from this author that I'm going to read. Are there any researchers/thinkers/etc who can write articles with some real, verifiable data so we can draw some conclusions and have a discussion? Does anyone know where these resources are on the net?