I highly recommend the book Crossing the Chasm for the tech lovers around. To apply its lessons to this articel...
Satellite radio has ended its "early adopter" phase, and with the recent signing of Howard Stern (and no doubt future signings of other larger-than-life radio celebs) have probably made a successful leap over the Chasm of Uncertainty.
In short, it is here to stay at least for the time being, but the amount of future success it will attain is dependent on how many more adopters it can acquire. Since satellite radio has a "premium" product (ad-free narrowly-tailored radio), it charges a premium price, which turns it into something of a luxury item, and one many people will simply do without. But...
If Satellite radio were to offer an ad-supported "free" version of their same great narrowly-tailored radio product, then the radio industry might see a sudden surge in satellite radio (a natural progression anyway, given the general decline of FM and nearly complete abandonment of AM radio...)
I imagine Google has more insight than I do, but I wouldn't be surprised if satellite radio companies begin offering ad-supported systems for cheap ( if not outright free), with dMarc (and thus Google) reaping the benefits of that system. In addition, it's a win-win for the Siriuses and XMs of the world, because their narrowly-tailored radio stations will require narrowly-tailored ads - something Adsense is itself well-tailored towards.
Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems?
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While I tend to agree that there is a bit of pomp and fluff to a lot of the Web 2.0 technologies, I think that the divide between websites of 2006 and websites of even 2003 is just as large as the divide between the Geocities websites of 1994 and the websites of 2003. In short, web development is accelerating and telescoping like all good technologies.
At their heart, Web 2.0 technologies are being used to improve accessibility and information through standardization and better dissemination modules. But you can also look at the overall shift in the Web of today versus the Web of yesterday:
You can take the Web of today with you. You can personalize the Web more than ever, with greater precision, on every site. You can find content on the Web easier, and can regenerate content based on keywords and searches effortlessly. You can "tag" any information you find on the web, making things easier to sort, easier to filter, easier to find.
In short, the real power of Web 2.0 is that it can put 100% control in the hands of the users. All that junk about breaking back buttons is just noise, a smoke screen that suggests almost as much about the complainer as the complaint.
Everyone should go read what Clay Shirky has to say about Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Seriously, it's bigger than one web method or flashy new language.
$118 billion companies don't "jump the shark."
Google is bigger than Coca-Cola. They're bigger than Apple, eBay, Oracle, and Yahoo!. The companies they are gaining on are IBM, Chevron, and JP Morgan Banking. They are in the hardcore money-making, jive-talking corporate world. They will do what it takes to make money.
And more importantly, how is this jumping the shark? This has hardly impact on the average end user. 90% of people just use Google.com to search for something, then click on the top result. The few people who might actually be peeved about this will either
a) turn off the ads, either via third-party, or more likely, through a Google-provided setting (See: don't be evil), or
b) switch to Yahoo!
And in either case, they'll probably still use Google more than they'd like to admit, because they're Google, and they not only have the best results, but they are working hard for the savvy Internet user (something Yahoo! has started to do, but in a Yahoo! circa 1997 type way.)
When you have the huge brain supply of Google and $120 billion dollars, you aren't even close to jumping the shark.
If you were suggesting that the Constitution doesn't claim equality is an inalienable right, check out the 14th Amendment.
If you were suggesting that the Constitution doesn't abide by ethical sentiments, then I would to say to you that the Constitution has as much ethical sentiment as a human being, in that it started out with some principles, adapted ones it felt were best, deleted others, mutated, etc. into its current state, which is more or less stable.
I think it would be best to say that, like human civilization, the Constitution contains some ethical proclamations which will probably (99.9% confidence) never be reverted - equality, due process, universal suffrage - some proclamations that have been solidified through regression - the 1st Amendment in a nutshell - and some proclamations that are fairly thin and inconsequential - the War Powers Act has clearly subverted Congress's right to declare war, but the strong two-party system ensures that the President and Congress are completely in sync in the declaration of war, and so Congress's discretion of going to war is rather moot. (See Also: College, Electoral.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the "2005" is just a typo, it just appeared down their wire over the weekend.
As a quick search on the Urban Dictionary will reveal, bastage is simply a polite way of saying bastard.
Carry on.
I highly recommend the book Crossing the Chasm for the tech lovers around. To apply its lessons to this articel ...
Satellite radio has ended its "early adopter" phase, and with the recent signing of Howard Stern (and no doubt future signings of other larger-than-life radio celebs) have probably made a successful leap over the Chasm of Uncertainty.
In short, it is here to stay at least for the time being, but the amount of future success it will attain is dependent on how many more adopters it can acquire. Since satellite radio has a "premium" product (ad-free narrowly-tailored radio), it charges a premium price, which turns it into something of a luxury item, and one many people will simply do without. But ...
If Satellite radio were to offer an ad-supported "free" version of their same great narrowly-tailored radio product, then the radio industry might see a sudden surge in satellite radio (a natural progression anyway, given the general decline of FM and nearly complete abandonment of AM radio...)
I imagine Google has more insight than I do, but I wouldn't be surprised if satellite radio companies begin offering ad-supported systems for cheap ( if not outright free), with dMarc (and thus Google) reaping the benefits of that system. In addition, it's a win-win for the Siriuses and XMs of the world, because their narrowly-tailored radio stations will require narrowly-tailored ads - something Adsense is itself well-tailored towards.
While I tend to agree that there is a bit of pomp and fluff to a lot of the Web 2.0 technologies, I think that the divide between websites of 2006 and websites of even 2003 is just as large as the divide between the Geocities websites of 1994 and the websites of 2003. In short, web development is accelerating and telescoping like all good technologies.
At their heart, Web 2.0 technologies are being used to improve accessibility and information through standardization and better dissemination modules. But you can also look at the overall shift in the Web of today versus the Web of yesterday:
You can take the Web of today with you.
You can personalize the Web more than ever, with greater precision, on every site.
You can find content on the Web easier, and can regenerate content based on keywords and searches effortlessly.
You can "tag" any information you find on the web, making things easier to sort, easier to filter, easier to find.
In short, the real power of Web 2.0 is that it can put 100% control in the hands of the users. All that junk about breaking back buttons is just noise, a smoke screen that suggests almost as much about the complainer as the complaint.
Everyone should go read what Clay Shirky has to say about Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Seriously, it's bigger than one web method or flashy new language.
$118 billion companies don't "jump the shark." Google is bigger than Coca-Cola. They're bigger than Apple, eBay, Oracle, and Yahoo!. The companies they are gaining on are IBM, Chevron, and JP Morgan Banking. They are in the hardcore money-making, jive-talking corporate world. They will do what it takes to make money. And more importantly, how is this jumping the shark? This has hardly impact on the average end user. 90% of people just use Google.com to search for something, then click on the top result. The few people who might actually be peeved about this will either a) turn off the ads, either via third-party, or more likely, through a Google-provided setting (See: don't be evil), or b) switch to Yahoo! And in either case, they'll probably still use Google more than they'd like to admit, because they're Google, and they not only have the best results, but they are working hard for the savvy Internet user (something Yahoo! has started to do, but in a Yahoo! circa 1997 type way.) When you have the huge brain supply of Google and $120 billion dollars, you aren't even close to jumping the shark.
If you were suggesting that the Constitution doesn't claim equality is an inalienable right, check out the 14th Amendment. If you were suggesting that the Constitution doesn't abide by ethical sentiments, then I would to say to you that the Constitution has as much ethical sentiment as a human being, in that it started out with some principles, adapted ones it felt were best, deleted others, mutated, etc. into its current state, which is more or less stable. I think it would be best to say that, like human civilization, the Constitution contains some ethical proclamations which will probably (99.9% confidence) never be reverted - equality, due process, universal suffrage - some proclamations that have been solidified through regression - the 1st Amendment in a nutshell - and some proclamations that are fairly thin and inconsequential - the War Powers Act has clearly subverted Congress's right to declare war, but the strong two-party system ensures that the President and Congress are completely in sync in the declaration of war, and so Congress's discretion of going to war is rather moot. (See Also: College, Electoral.)