« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 20, 2005

Just stay home.

The Doc Searls Weblog : Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Meanwhile, as Jim Thompson said somewhere back there (me too), the pay-broadband business at hotels will soon be regarded as a pay-toilet business.

Holy shit. We get it already. Nobody fucking cares about the continuing, enduring utter tragedy of your not being able to find a free wireless net connection wherever you go. As a grandmother of some repute used to say, "Genug, kitty."

Bonus thinkage:
Nor do we care about the quality of the coffee in airport frequent flyer lounges.

Bonus STFUage:

Bonus quote: There are thousands of reasons why people write blogs. But it seems to me the biggest reason that drives the bloggers I read the most is, we're all looking for our own personal global microbrand. That is the prize. That is the ticket off the treadmill. And I don't think it's a bad one to aim for.

You can stick your "personal global microbrand" where there's neither sunshine nor a free broadband connection.

Posted by John at 10:50 AM | | Comments (3)

October 18, 2005

Phony blogomania has bitten the dust.

Scripting News: 10/18/2005

It's not really Wikipedia's fault, it's the way online communities evolve where everyone has an equal voice. No matter how good something is, there are always more idiots and morons to take it down. Maybe that's another law. On the Internet the volume of messages posted by idiots plus those posted by morons always exceeds the number posted by well-meaning moderately intelligent people, squared.

Ah, now there's yer digital democracy for you. Aren't all those "morons" the "users" Uncle Davey is so devoted to? Yeah, I thought so. Hehe. Yessssssssssss.

Posted by John at 3:41 PM | | Comments (2)

What I want it to mean.

The Doc Searls Weblog : Monday, October 17, 2005

Bear in mind that he means amoral in a literal way: non-moral.

Well, no.

amoral

a-mor-al


adjective

1. outside scope of morality: not concerned with or amenable to moral judgments

2. without moral standards: not caring about good behavior or morals ( disapproving )

So it's neither moral or non-moral. In a literal way. Don't worry, I'm sure you can glib it up somehow.

Posted by John at 11:50 AM | | Comments (1)

October 11, 2005

Because I say so.

Scripting News: 10/10/2005

Now, why did they just roll it out with the mainstream business press? Come on guys, that's half-clueful, now let's go all the way. When you roll something out, include us in the roll out, esp when the service relates to blogs.

You know, like this:

I got an email from someone I don't know asking how I rationalize getting a preview of a Yahoo product privately and confidentially, when I criticize Technorati for having an semi-secret totally private "summit" about issues of public importance. I guess I just explained what the difference is.

Well, actually, no, you didn't.

Can you say "cognitive dissonance?"

Posted by John at 10:28 AM | | Comments (1)

October 9, 2005

Decoder ring.

Scripting News: 10/8/2005:

And then in the second meeting, invite a user to meet with you and the team, and ask them to do the same. Be creative in the kinds of users you include in the process.

That second sentence is Winerspeak for "me, or one of my minions." Although this latest bit of unsolicited advice is remarkable in that it doesn't once mention RSS or OPML.

Note: the minions can be usefully identified by the use of the phrase "stop energy," or responding to criticism of file formats with "oh yeah? where's YOUR format?"

Technorati Tags: ,

Posted by John at 9:42 AM |

October 4, 2005

Nahhhh, couldn't be.

The reliably beige Kottke issues forth w/yet another Gladwellesque tidbit on the Matthew effect

I'd never heard of the Matthew effect before, so I looked it up in Wikipedia:

In sociology, Matthew effect was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers that are already famous...

Hmmm. What non-existent group can you think of that benefits from the Matthew effect?

Posted by John at 2:15 PM |