You: Just yesterday, it was in the news that Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of the first such program, Eliza, had died. Eliza's interaction with real people troubled many.
Me: How do you feel about the news that Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of the first such program, Eliza, had died ?
In other news, Chinese hackers finally figured out a way to get tech savvy people to "click that link", without sending a fake greeting card, ad for prescription meds, or an important fake announcement from Bank of America or Paypal. Make it a copyright issue and get it posted onto Slashdot.
My "I'm getting sick of..." was a lame attempt to mimic your "I really hate it when...". I really don't mind talking about Web 2.0. Sorry if it missed the mark.
I understand you are a developer and a professional, and at a software developer for a company with a large online presence. You may not want to mention at work that you don't understand (or believe in) Web 2.0. You aren't really building credibility by saying "don't try to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about." Trust me when I say that there are people on Slashdot, whose credentials FAR exceed what you describe. And really, open your mind - you may learn something from them!
You should check out the O'Reilly 5-page Article on Web 2.0 to understand it better. Go back to the source (don't rely on consensus definition from your geography). You are correct that I won't agree with people (professionals or not) who haven't taken the time to learn and study the origin and meaning of the term, as I have. The fact that those in the know "get it", and others who haven't done their homework don't "get it" does not invalidate the term.
Once you look into it, I think you'll see that no one is claiming that one day a new version of the web came out. Web 2.0 was a way to classify sites and technologies that stood out from the rest because of something different. Harnessing Collective Intelligence, and Rich User Experiences are a couple of those early memes.
Sure Web 2.0 technologies pre-date the actual term. Maybe that's what you are having difficulty with.
Throughout history, mankind has done this - they notice patterns, label the patterns, and use that knowledge to explain and extend it. Advancements in Mathematics and Science progressed using these same techniques. Look for patterns. Try to explain them. Build models that explain the real world, etc. (Examples: The 4 P's of marketing, or the light as a wave models, or imaginary numbers.) I know when I started my business, I looked around and tried to learn from others. Tried to see what was working. And tried to reduce all the successes that I studied, down to a few key points that I could build upon.
Web 2.0 is just like that. It's an explanation and a categorization. It's a collection of ideas and technologies that separated some sites from others.
I have given this analogy before: When Database technology first came onto the scene, I remember people struggling to get the concept. And many were in denial that this was something new. "Big deal, we have been putting information into files for years, and even indexing the data. This is nothing new." And guess what. They were right. This was nothing new. But somehow, Larry Ellison sits on the Forbes 400 list for starting a little Database company called Oracle. Now how did that happen? He saw a trend, and rode the wave.
Web 2.0 is a trend. Ride it or ignore it. It doesn't really matter what YOU do. But I'll bet that there will be more than a handful of Forbes 400 Richest people in 2015 who make their fortune on Web 2.0.
Well, I've led you to the water.. you can drink if you want. For me, I am going to continue learning. And doing. And Web 2.0 is part of that.
Nobody has even agreed on what they mean by "Web 2.0", or for that matter whether it even exists!
I think you meant to say not everybody agrees. MANY people agree, but apparently you don't.
Web 2.0 is a "concept" or a "categorization", made up of real sites. Much like "Social Networks" is a concept. Or the business district in your city is a concept. Most cities don't start with nothing, and then say "let's build a business district over here". In fact, if you talk to the individual businesses that make up the business district, they would probably tell you that they didn't set up shop to "create a business district". They set up shop to make a buck. And setting up next to the other shop seemed to be a good place to make a buck.
Then someone else comes along years later, and notices that it's a business district.
But not everyone agrees that it's a business district (or where the boundaries are). Just like not everyone agrees what Web 2.0 is.
You can argue that there is no "business district". After all, there's nothing inherently different between this plot of land in the business district, and that one out in the rural area. Nothing. But it's there.
Web 2.0 is the same way. A bunch of websites became popular. Then someone said "hey, what's different about these websites and those old ones?" and named it "Web 2.0". You can argue that it doesn't exist. Or that it's made up. Or that there are no clear boundaries separating Web 2.0 from the other websites. It doesn't matter!!!! You need to open your mind to the fact that categorization and organization like this is a natural human tendency. Don't deny that it exists! Learn from it!
Really, I am getting sick of reading the posts by people who want to deny the existence of Web 2.0. Of course, it exists. It's a made-up concept! Just like Christmas exists (although *maybe* Santa doesn't.) Just like a neighborhood exists. Somebody looks at an area, and says "Let's call that "downtown". And it sticks. Did anything change? no. Was something new created? no. Yet there are buildings in the heart of downtown that EVERYONE would agree is "downtown" and others in the rural areas that everybody would agree is NOT "downtown". Same with Web 2.0. the ones that are "in the heart of Web 2.0" are obvious and most everyone agrees that they are. Example digg.com. Those that are NOT are obvious and most everyone agrees, too. Random Example: http://www.oldstylebeer.com/
So let's not even start talking this crap, please.
You started it.
ok, the rest of your post, I agree with.
Wikipedia is in its infancy. It'll only get better. It's still missing an article about me, and so I consider it incomplete at this point.
Calcanis is after the buck (with Mahalo or Mahellno or whatever it's called), and so everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
The issue talked about here is copying of blueprints, not theft.
Perhaps you didn't see the 5th word in the summary: "Pirated microchips based on stolen blueprints..."
Actually, since gang violence only becomes a problem in certain social conditions and since in our current social model money equals power, this is exactly so.
Oh dear God, it's frightening that any sane person believes this. I suppose you would advocate locking up the rich victim of any gang violence. Or why just victims - why not all people over a certain level of wealth - let's lock them up? There was a gang shooting downtown; better arrest the mayor.
Gotta love the real free market, free from copyrights and patents, with prices nearing the marginal cost of production asymptotically, and sometimes even reaching it; but for some reason, the so-called pro-free market people tend to start crying "regulate ! Copyrights ! Patents !" at that point:(.
As much as people on Slashdot tend to want patent reform, I only see an occasional few advocate total removal of patents and copyrights. Has there ever been a "controlled experiment" (as much as that is possible) comparing a "totally free market" to one with the "rule of law" including patents and copyrights, such that we can compare the rates of innovation in this society? I know of none - the closest I can think of is Open Source Software. The rate of innovation in Open Source software vs. Proprietary software hasn't been very impressive in my opinion. (I'd like to see a study, but my gut feel is that proprietary software beats open source software 1000 to 1, in quantity and 'contribution to society', however that would be measured.)
There is a reason that Grey market chips get made of popular chips. Because the manufacturers are price whores and get them made at the cheapest plant in China. how about not paying the executive staff obscene salaries for their useless butts and have the items made in a location that is reputable and trustworthy?
OK, so somehow you have made the leap that the fault of theft is the owner. If those bastards didn't make so much money, then people wouldn't steal. And gang violence is the fault of the wealthy. I see. hmm...
Executive salaries and chip prices are determined by market forces. Perhaps if you feel strongly that executives should work for less money, you should become as qualified as they are, and then accept an executive position, but demand a minuscule salary.
Until you do that, or someone (ANYONE!) does that, your argument is absurd.
Divide by 7, which is the number of watts necessary to properly illuminate a square foot of floor space. This gives roughly 14.28 square feet able to be illuminated.
Divide this into 2.1 million sq ft, the amount of square feet in the Library of Congress (USLOC).
This tells us that 147,000 watts are necessary to illuminate the US Library of Congress.
No, the whole principle is BS. It assumes that there's a such thing as a Class A person who is good at everything. Reality is that people are hired for a job, and often those who demonstrate good capability in that job are promoted to another job - one which requires a totally different skill set: management and good hiring sense.
Often the first thing a new manager does is hire his/her replacement for the old job. And the frequent mistake of a new manager is to look for someone like them, and they end up with someone with similar skills, but never as good.
A better strategy is to find someone with complementary skills, who can do something that you cannot do.
It's amazing how many people THINK they are class A people. Like the original submitter of this discussion post:
we only hire really great people
....says the guy who doesn't know how to recruit good people!! What a cocky a-hole. What a joke!
Hopefully, when your boss said his little catchy phrase about "Class A people only hire Class A people", you responded with "And in this case, class C people hire class A people."
Clearly, there's a flaw in your boss's theory, because a start-up company that has any success is dependent on having class-A people as the founders or first employees. If they only hire class-A people, then the whole company would ONLY EVER have class-A people in it. So how did your boss get hired again? You either are full of Class-A people (unlikely), or your boss is an idiot (likely).
In the mid '90s, one of our lead software engineers approached me with this idea - basically hijacking DNS for anything we wanted. If the domain name doesn't come up (i.e. a typo), redirect to our page. Even redirect to our page for initial users, to stick a Terms and Conditions page in front of them. I thought it merited a Patent search, and we consulted with our patent attorney, who had no idea what we were talking about.
After quite a lengthy discussion and a lot of energy with the attorney, we decided that this would be considered evil. The VERY preliminary patent search turned up nothing, but the attorney made it clear that he would need to spend more of our money to research it further. We had an internal meeting to decide if our little start-up wanted to invest in this patent (maybe $2k) for something that we thought would be evil to produce (or we could be the good guys and enforce our patent, licensing it only to the people we thought were using it for good). We passed, envisioning poor Karma and high legal fees on an ongoing basis. Boy do I regret that!
Now every starbucks and hotel hijacks your DNS until you agree to their terms. No one really thinks that's evil. But the typo hijacking thing is really getting annoying. I wish we'd have pursued it.
I have no idea whether there was prior art (probably was) or if we'd own something of value now. But it was an interesting process for a broke self-funded startup
HOLY COW that's MAJOR! Imagine having to go through every program and having to add parentheses AND having to change your constants from "This used to work" to "This is how 3.0 rolls".
Good thing they have the conversion program.
PS, this is a non-story. Seriously, anyone who has followed Python for the past 3 years knows that Python 3000 (aka 3.0) was designed from the beginning to break a few things and fix a few known legacy issues.
We just had an incident where our customer decided they didn't want a certain domain name, so they let it expire. Then they changed their mind, to keep it for one more year, just in case they found a use for it.
The tech guy renewed it, and told us it was $200. As he described it, the domain was in its second grace period (meaning that it got picked up by a bottom-feeder), and that was the charge. I doubt that the customer realized that he was making a $200 decision, when he said "oh what the heck, let's keep it for one more year" on a domain name that they never used for anything meaningful.
I have seen some strange stuff in the domain name business. I was shocked when one small manufacturer bought a relatively obscure dot com domain for $5000 from a squatter - that was the day I raised my prices to them!
I found exactly zero images that I think anyone would give a crap about.
One could say the same thing about the photos taken by Google's street view. But some people somewhere found time to find that one picture of the girl with the thong getting into her car.
I have seen the Acid2 smiley face, and no one's going to want that on their webpage, so what's the difference? Whoever came up with that test is stupid, because there's no way you are going to convince even 50% of the website owners to put a stupid happy face on their website.
Slashdot Mirror
We're just seeing this news on Slashdot now? This hit digg 7.49 Billion years ago.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Me: How do you feel about the news that Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of the first such program, Eliza, had died ?
I hope there are no vulnerabilities in Flash.
I understand you are a developer and a professional, and at a software developer for a company with a large online presence. You may not want to mention at work that you don't understand (or believe in) Web 2.0. You aren't really building credibility by saying "don't try to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about." Trust me when I say that there are people on Slashdot, whose credentials FAR exceed what you describe. And really, open your mind - you may learn something from them!
You should check out the O'Reilly 5-page Article on Web 2.0 to understand it better. Go back to the source (don't rely on consensus definition from your geography). You are correct that I won't agree with people (professionals or not) who haven't taken the time to learn and study the origin and meaning of the term, as I have. The fact that those in the know "get it", and others who haven't done their homework don't "get it" does not invalidate the term.
Once you look into it, I think you'll see that no one is claiming that one day a new version of the web came out. Web 2.0 was a way to classify sites and technologies that stood out from the rest because of something different. Harnessing Collective Intelligence, and Rich User Experiences are a couple of those early memes.
Sure Web 2.0 technologies pre-date the actual term. Maybe that's what you are having difficulty with.
Throughout history, mankind has done this - they notice patterns, label the patterns, and use that knowledge to explain and extend it. Advancements in Mathematics and Science progressed using these same techniques. Look for patterns. Try to explain them. Build models that explain the real world, etc. (Examples: The 4 P's of marketing, or the light as a wave models, or imaginary numbers.) I know when I started my business, I looked around and tried to learn from others. Tried to see what was working. And tried to reduce all the successes that I studied, down to a few key points that I could build upon.
Web 2.0 is just like that. It's an explanation and a categorization. It's a collection of ideas and technologies that separated some sites from others.
I have given this analogy before: When Database technology first came onto the scene, I remember people struggling to get the concept. And many were in denial that this was something new. "Big deal, we have been putting information into files for years, and even indexing the data. This is nothing new." And guess what. They were right. This was nothing new. But somehow, Larry Ellison sits on the Forbes 400 list for starting a little Database company called Oracle. Now how did that happen? He saw a trend, and rode the wave.
Web 2.0 is a trend. Ride it or ignore it. It doesn't really matter what YOU do. But I'll bet that there will be more than a handful of Forbes 400 Richest people in 2015 who make their fortune on Web 2.0.
Well, I've led you to the water.. you can drink if you want. For me, I am going to continue learning. And doing. And Web 2.0 is part of that.
Web 2.0 is a "concept" or a "categorization", made up of real sites. Much like "Social Networks" is a concept. Or the business district in your city is a concept. Most cities don't start with nothing, and then say "let's build a business district over here". In fact, if you talk to the individual businesses that make up the business district, they would probably tell you that they didn't set up shop to "create a business district". They set up shop to make a buck. And setting up next to the other shop seemed to be a good place to make a buck.
Then someone else comes along years later, and notices that it's a business district.
But not everyone agrees that it's a business district (or where the boundaries are). Just like not everyone agrees what Web 2.0 is.
You can argue that there is no "business district". After all, there's nothing inherently different between this plot of land in the business district, and that one out in the rural area. Nothing. But it's there.
Web 2.0 is the same way. A bunch of websites became popular. Then someone said "hey, what's different about these websites and those old ones?" and named it "Web 2.0". You can argue that it doesn't exist. Or that it's made up. Or that there are no clear boundaries separating Web 2.0 from the other websites. It doesn't matter!!!! You need to open your mind to the fact that categorization and organization like this is a natural human tendency. Don't deny that it exists! Learn from it!
Really, I am getting sick of reading the posts by people who want to deny the existence of Web 2.0. Of course, it exists. It's a made-up concept! Just like Christmas exists (although *maybe* Santa doesn't.) Just like a neighborhood exists. Somebody looks at an area, and says "Let's call that "downtown". And it sticks. Did anything change? no. Was something new created? no. Yet there are buildings in the heart of downtown that EVERYONE would agree is "downtown" and others in the rural areas that everybody would agree is NOT "downtown". Same with Web 2.0. the ones that are "in the heart of Web 2.0" are obvious and most everyone agrees that they are. Example digg.com. Those that are NOT are obvious and most everyone agrees, too. Random Example: http://www.oldstylebeer.com/
You started it.ok, the rest of your post, I agree with.
Wikipedia is in its infancy. It'll only get better. It's still missing an article about me, and so I consider it incomplete at this point.
Calcanis is after the buck (with Mahalo or Mahellno or whatever it's called), and so everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Executive salaries and chip prices are determined by market forces. Perhaps if you feel strongly that executives should work for less money, you should become as qualified as they are, and then accept an executive position, but demand a minuscule salary.
Until you do that, or someone (ANYONE!) does that, your argument is absurd.
Start with a 100 Watt bulb
Divide by 7, which is the number of watts necessary to properly illuminate a square foot of floor space.
This gives roughly 14.28 square feet able to be illuminated.
Divide this into 2.1 million sq ft, the amount of square feet in the Library of Congress (USLOC).
This tells us that 147,000 watts are necessary to illuminate the US Library of Congress.
Divide by 1.09951163 × 10^13 bytes, the amount of storage per unit of USLOC.
This tells us that 1.33 x 10^-8 bytes are illuminated per watt
Multiply by 7GB (7,516,192,768 bytes), which is the number of gigabytes of printed material that can be properly illuminated by a 1-watt bulb.
Answer: 100.4
So you were close.
Often the first thing a new manager does is hire his/her replacement for the old job. And the frequent mistake of a new manager is to look for someone like them, and they end up with someone with similar skills, but never as good.
A better strategy is to find someone with complementary skills, who can do something that you cannot do.
Hopefully, when your boss said his little catchy phrase about "Class A people only hire Class A people", you responded with "And in this case, class C people hire class A people."
Clearly, there's a flaw in your boss's theory, because a start-up company that has any success is dependent on having class-A people as the founders or first employees. If they only hire class-A people, then the whole company would ONLY EVER have class-A people in it. So how did your boss get hired again? You either are full of Class-A people (unlikely), or your boss is an idiot (likely).
After quite a lengthy discussion and a lot of energy with the attorney, we decided that this would be considered evil. The VERY preliminary patent search turned up nothing, but the attorney made it clear that he would need to spend more of our money to research it further. We had an internal meeting to decide if our little start-up wanted to invest in this patent (maybe $2k) for something that we thought would be evil to produce (or we could be the good guys and enforce our patent, licensing it only to the people we thought were using it for good). We passed, envisioning poor Karma and high legal fees on an ongoing basis. Boy do I regret that!
Now every starbucks and hotel hijacks your DNS until you agree to their terms. No one really thinks that's evil. But the typo hijacking thing is really getting annoying. I wish we'd have pursued it.
I have no idea whether there was prior art (probably was) or if we'd own something of value now. But it was an interesting process for a broke self-funded startup
Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond. Same thing. Two industry icons that I'm unlikely to ever communicate with.
perhaps you mean procreate.
Good thing they have the conversion program.
PS, this is a non-story. Seriously, anyone who has followed Python for the past 3 years knows that Python 3000 (aka 3.0) was designed from the beginning to break a few things and fix a few known legacy issues.
As I understand it, Microsoft's actual bid was much lower. But then eBay snuck in shipping and handling.
The tech guy renewed it, and told us it was $200. As he described it, the domain was in its second grace period (meaning that it got picked up by a bottom-feeder), and that was the charge. I doubt that the customer realized that he was making a $200 decision, when he said "oh what the heck, let's keep it for one more year" on a domain name that they never used for anything meaningful.
I have seen some strange stuff in the domain name business. I was shocked when one small manufacturer bought a relatively obscure dot com domain for $5000 from a squatter - that was the day I raised my prices to them!
If you're going to use helicopters, at LEAST string together fifteen of them!
Hopefully, music will be DRM free, too, not just DMR free!
Just watch. Queue the countdown.
(ok, somebody laugh!)
I have seen the Acid2 smiley face, and no one's going to want that on their webpage, so what's the difference? Whoever came up with that test is stupid, because there's no way you are going to convince even 50% of the website owners to put a stupid happy face on their website.
You have it all wrong. People are in a hurry to get home. Therefore, the price traveling home gets jacked up. So you can't afford to LEAVE work.