The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 23, 2019, 11:08:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Once upon a time I felt we were eventually going to be free of walled gardens  (Read 4272 times)
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« on: November 24, 2009, 05:01:49 PM »

but for the last year or so, things seem to be turning the wrong way.

Good read:

The Death Of The Url

http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2009/11/16/the-death-of-the-url/
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2009, 06:20:45 PM »

The best part was learning a new word: somnambulatory.  It is a good read, though I don't exactly agree with it.  Using a parallel of choosing sleep-walking over being awake works perfectly well if the individual actually wants to know more about what's really out there in the webosphere.  But for those who truly want nothing but the handful of services that the web provides, this is the perfect path for them IMO.  A Buddhist monk is fine in my netbook if he would rather meditate in the trees than seek URLs he's long forgot.

However, for a certain segment I'd agree.  Some wind up choosing the comfort of ignorance over organic growth and experience.  "It's the defaults that matter" - true.  But it's the responsibility of the individual to have and foster curiosity.  The moment that curiosity is stifled - whether through peer pressure or restrictions imposed by various powers that be - we all need to choose whether we're truly a red or blue pill at heart.  Red-pill dabblers who keep their blue-pill membership paid and current are cowards who secretly desire the best of both worlds: free will and Fillet Mignon.

The blue pill contingent despises departure from accepted beliefs.  They fight a fierce subconscious battle against all things that cause people to question.  They don't even realize they're agents of somnambulatory subservience, which causes them to goosestep more righteously when truth-challenged.  The invisible difference between the camps is that we red-pills don't even have a camp.  Our comfort comes from the brief recognition of others who share this core value: truth first.  I realize this is off-topic since the metaphor was used as nothing more than a metaphor.  But don't you just love it when threads spin off into completely unrelated mini-conversations? Wink

A wise man once said to me "I can't understand people that lack curiosity."  The next day he sobered up and began sounding like a complete idiot again  ROFLMAO  jk vs Wink
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM »

>"It's the defaults that matter" - true.

Ain't that the truth. Great soundbite.


>I don't exactly agree with it.

I dunno, ITTO, keep in mind that I'm fresh off a stint of installing two media centers and I see the icy hand of Push Technology really making a comeback in this sector. I'm convinced people really want to be spoon-fed rather than having to work for their supper.
Logged
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2009, 07:01:45 PM »

The internet is like the telephone.
Like all analogies it is imperfect but ....

In countries like france, britain etc. Telephones where put under control of the gov't.
Especially in France, for historical reasons gov't was worried device could be used for revolution etc.
Ofcourse we see how well that worked out Smiley

A good example is myspace. They attempted the same tactic to combat spammers, giving the stupid warning etc.
MySpace has lost its market share to facebook.

Under traditional media, the flow of information was one way.
People did not like this one way flow of media, but they had little choice.

The success of all social networks is it enables information to flow both ways.
So with FB, u see that info flows 2 ways (granted the shit the sheeple spout is rubbish).
Problem is this rubbish can move very fast, and is hard to control.
A prime example of this is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDSA_Revolution_of_2001

The actual "shrine" is gold madonna. That is a back view. From talking to people there where maybe 1 Million+ people.
Edsa is a huge 8 lane highway. You can see there are people as far as the eye can see.

From my own informal investigation into the account it goes like this.
Someone started an SMS text that they where unhappy with Erap.
Here people forward interesting SMS from phone to phone, adding thier own remarks etc.
Then somehow this SMS text along the way mutated, as it was being forwarded from phone to phone.
So each group mutated it to their own purposes.
Some where along the lines the message got mutated into everyone should go to the edsa shrine.

I talked to a "leftist" youth leader. Who was at the event.
His account was something like this. All the various leaders of groups gathered at the event.
No one was really sure what was happening. The leaders went to the shrine, or in some cases thier followers urged them to go.

When he went to the shrine, he had no idea what was happening.
Anyway someone told him to speak.
He was then pushed up onto the top of the shrine and given a megaphone.
Using his traditional rally techniques he told everyone to raise their left hands.
Some of the crowd did it, but then the right wing and moderates started to get angry.
He then paniced. So he then told everyone to raise thier right hands.
This made the moderates and leftists angry.
So he became even more scared.
With some people with thier arms in the air he did not know what to do. He could not tell them to put thier hands down.
So he then told everyone to raise both thier hands Smiley.
Everyone was happy and did that. But now everything was all messed up Smiley.
At this point he said he was so terrified he did not know what to do. (Getting ripped apart by an angry mob is not a good way to spend ur day).
So finally he just said the first thing that came to his mind.
You all look really small from up here. You all look like a bunch of ants  ROFLMAO ROFLMAO
According to him. Everyone was shocked. Silence fell over the crowd.
After a few moments, he was taken down off the shrine.
And someone else went up to speak.
After that he said he can remember very little about what happened.

Look at the shit that floats around FB.
Why some shit catches and some does not is very perplexing.

Quote
I dunno, ITTO, keep in mind that I'm fresh off a stint of installing two media centers and I see the icy hand of Push Technology really making a comeback in this sector. I'm convinced people really want to be spoon-fed rather than having to work for their supper.
I agree yes.
But like all things it is a paradox. People want to be spoon-fed, but they want the illusion they are holding the spoon.
It is like USA. People want democracy there, but no one wants the responsibility of democracy Smiley

.....
I have no idea why the EDSA 2 picture is not showing.
Anyway not important.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 07:09:56 PM by nop_90 » Logged
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2009, 07:22:23 PM »

Here is a more "official" account of the role SMS played in Edsa revolution.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3AKvnhw7dI56MJ%3Awww.hss.uts.edu.au%2Fmedia_arts_production%2Ffuture_students%2Fstudent_work%2Fjust-press-send.pdf+sms+edsa+2&hl=en&sig=AHIEtbS3WonJIcRpoYXOQysTQo2aU6hDiQ&pli=1
Interesting parts

The
executives of Smart and Globe, the two leading mobile carriers in the Philippines, claim
that during the week-long protests the number of text messages, “suddenly jumped to
about 70 million to even 100 million – two to three times the normal daily volume.”


Dr. Raul Pertierra
reveals that from a survey of 700 people, over half of whom were between 17 – 24 years
of age,
“527 were either living in or visiting Manila during the four days of EDSA II. Of
these 527 respondents, 123 (23.3%) attended EDSA II, while 373 (70.8%) did not.
Forty-four percent of our respondents who attended EDSA II agreed that they had
done so because of such messages.” (Pertierra, R. 2005, 119)


I think is was 2 years ago.
A text started to circulate that a nun had a vision that an earthquake would take place on a certain date in manila.
The gov't issued statements that this was total BS.
Almost every office in the buisness district at the time the earthquake was to happen prayed the rosary.

Last year a text circulated that the USA geology department predicted that a large quake would hit PH.
Despite the head of this department refuting the statement, offical statements to the contrary panic happened.



Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2009, 08:48:22 PM »

Quote
I'm convinced people really want to be spoon-fed rather than having to work for their supper.

I'm with you on that one, for the most part.  I don't see you or myself in the same bucket however.  But forcing sheeple to think when other more streamlined and more profitable methods are or will be available is not the answer to maintaining a world of free will 

Cause sloth to feel pain and embarrassment coupled with removing those things the beast lusts after!  It's our only hope, Obi Wan  ROFLMAO
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2009, 09:06:44 PM »

>I don't see you or myself in the same bucket however.

For those of us who bottomfeed off 'traditonal' url traffic, that's not much consolation.

And, as a hunter-gatherer, I have concerns that content generation will shift away from the type we need.

Remember usenet?  There's probably 2 or 3 guys still left milling about down there.

Logged
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2009, 09:13:55 PM »

I actually agree completely with the guy. however, i think he is over-reaching a bit.

For normal day to day websurfing, yes, it is devolved to a bunch of icons on the screen.
But my icons will NOT be the same as yours or most other people for that matter.

Now, I do think that most people, vast majority, will eventually never type in a URL. They will arrive via searchengine or recommendation from a site they use.... OH wait, that already happens... lol
My parents still have no idea what the address bar is for, and they are internet-versed.
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2009, 09:26:26 PM »

>They will arrive via searchengine or recommendation from a site they use

I see it as a broader problem. As they move to more video and a passive broadcast experience, our 'flat' websites will be seen as obsolete, akin to print newspapers.
Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2009, 11:58:03 PM »

Remember usenet?  There's probably 2 or 3 guys still left milling about down there.
Actually usenet is more popular than ever because file "sharing".

Quote
The Death Of The Url
The problem is not the death of url. The problem is the control of information. When you let Google or some other company dictate which web services you use, then you are fucked.

I don't believe that url is going to die. If url is going to die, what's the point of having webpage and domain then? That doesn't make any sense. I think this dude is seriously tripping with his theories and funny thing is that he can write pretty good and convince readers so kudos there.

You see if you kill the address bar and don't let users to type custom urls, that would kill the whole point of web. Now you would be stuck with local network type of setup. Of course TVs are going to have browsers when manufacturers get a browser that fits in the experience and has the proper functions to help users with TV's restrictions like writing with remote. They are just beginning to integrate popular web services with "static" APIs because that's the path of least resistance.

This is not a revolution and it will never be. Facebook is not the final social site and Google is not the final search engine. I find it really logically stupid that people always talk like these companies are something special. Yes they have the largest customer base ever and they operate in a completely new universe called internet. And yes they are both royally fucked when users don't type that url into their browsers anymore. You see these companies are more vulnerable than anything business world has seen before. These companies are making money because of their popularity. It has got nothing to do with providing a good service or excellent product. Traditionally companies that provided excellent service & great products survived. In internet companies can get HUGE user bases but they can go away as fast as they came. The whole internet has been designed in a way that makes it next to impossible to lock people in. You can try with your emails and social pressures but in order to provide "fair" user experience you have to build export features and when those exist, it doesn't take much for user to change their services especially if data can be transferred easily.

It's the supply/demand all over again. There's over abundance with free social websites and there always will be in the future so nobody would actually pay for one. That means that people don't value the website at all, they value the social contact it provides and in their minds social website doesn't own the contact, it's just vehicle for it. And because these websites don't bring much value to the social contact, it's next to worthless to the user. As you can see, Facebook is illusion. It's the trend of this time and commonly known word for something. It's the first big social website but it reality it's worthless as site. Facebook team knows this and that's why they are scrambling their ass off to create business around Facebook like apps and advertising. Sadly this doesn't add much value to Facebook experience, it mostly annoys the users. Same applies to Twitter. Only thing these sites have is their brand and that's worth of lot of money. Now what's going to happen when somebody creates better social site with better features and succeeds in marketing? I'm not talking about how hard that could be but what will happen if somebody makes a better one? Just think about that and you'll realize how flaky the success of free site can be.

After thinking about that do you think it's very realistic that websites could kill URLs?
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2009, 12:47:50 AM »

Quote
As they move to more video and a passive broadcast experience, our 'flat' websites will be seen as obsolete, akin to print newspapers.

I'm not sure how you're contrasting 'flat' with video and passive broadcast experiences, since I believe they're quite similar in nature.  I think there may be a generational point that might just be missing in this equation.  Although externally it may appear that people naturally gravitate towards passive popcorn experiences, there will never again be a time when ultra customization of every moment in the lives of content consumers will become optional. 

In English?  Wink  We ran screaming from Eden and now anything dumber than a DVR gets donated to the Salvation Army.  In better English?  Dumb it down as much as you please - the medicine won't go down these days with diabetic mounds of spoon-fed Sandy Duncan sugar.  People are hopelessly hooked on defining their moment-to-moment media experiences at ever more granular levels.  It's become a source of pride for the idiocracy masses to have the best most customizable entertainment crap the good lord never dreamed possible, and this most definitely includes freeway on-ramps.

But I digress, and growl for succumbing to that terrible cliche.  But at the end of the day, bottom line, the net net ultimately results in a zero sum game, stepping away from the box.  Oh shit I think I'm having a flashback!!  Anyway where were we, oh yes, sticking to the basic thread topic.  Well then, have you seen Bridezillas lately?  Those girls are dumb and mean  ROFLMAO

Quote
When you let Google or some other company dictate which web services you use, then you are fucked.

 Ditto

Quote
I think this dude is seriously tripping with his theories and funny thing is that he can write pretty good and convince readers so kudos there.

OMG I was kidding about the flashback  ROFLMAO  Wait... who sent you Huh?

Quote
Just think about that and you'll realize how flaky the success of free site can be.

It's next to impossible for most people to understand the concept of "free" and its value.  The way you worded this is telling: "you'll realize how flaky the success of free site can be"  What Facebook fails at harvesting is the collateral revenue that makes the ascended masters of "free" richer than the rest of us.  No profitable business model consists entirely of a free social site.  But why is it that untold riches are made almost overnight by companies that take advantage of, say, 1% of something truly scarce, needed and worth paying for while the other 99% of their offerings are totally "free?" 

Maximize the infinite exposure, all well and good.  But for goodness sake have a plan for leveraging this exposure that translates into wealth which justifies the risk!!!  Mobster  Being a world class social networking site has tremendous value in itself, since properly channeled this translates to far more profits than any fantastic yet unknown product offering.  Google, unlike some others, has managed quite well with the free-to-megacash formula.  The same can be said for Salesforce.com.  Actually Yahoo has a place in the Hall of Free, even though the Borg (Microsoft) gobbled them up just to have a fighting chance at battling the star ship Enterprise (Google)  Grin
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2009, 01:48:04 AM »

Quote
Maximize the infinite exposure, all well and good.  But for goodness sake have a plan for leveraging this exposure that translates into wealth which justifies the risk!!!  Mobster  Being a world class social networking site has tremendous value in itself, since properly channeled this translates to far more profits than any fantastic yet unknown product offering.  Google, unlike some others, has managed quite well with the free-to-megacash formula.  The same can be said for Salesforce.com.  Actually Yahoo has a place in the Hall of Free, even though the Borg (Microsoft) gobbled them up just to have a fighting chance at battling the star ship Enterprise (Google)  Grin

An out dated book but ....
Gonzo Marketing since it was published in 2001.
When Time Warner and AOL merged everyone was up in arms etc.
Christopher Locke said it was akin to rearranging the furniture on the titanic.
On 4 February 2009, Time Warner posted a $16.03 billion loss for the final quarter of 2008, compared with a $1.03 billion profit for the same three months of 2007.[28]

Partially technological.
But as Gonzo Marketing outlines, people can choose what they watch. Does not matter if there urls or not.
Also to make matters worse what people "watch" is unpredictable. A casual look at FB apps tells u that.
Some of the most retarded shit gets passed around.

Also with cloud computing in there. Well user for some reason decides he does not like FB. He decides that AssBook is much better ........
in Apr 2007 12M facebook vs 85M myspace now ...
104M vs 55M

To make matters worse neither company is making any money Smiley
Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2009, 02:01:27 AM »

It's next to impossible for most people to understand the concept of "free" and its value.  The way you worded this is telling: "you'll realize how flaky the success of free site can be"  What Facebook fails at harvesting is the collateral revenue that makes the ascended masters of "free" richer than the rest of us.  No profitable business model consists entirely of a free social site.  But why is it that untold riches are made almost overnight by companies that take advantage of, say, 1% of something truly scarce, needed and worth paying for while the other 99% of their offerings are totally "free?" 

Maximize the infinite exposure, all well and good.  But for goodness sake have a plan for leveraging this exposure that translates into wealth which justifies the risk!!!  Mobster  Being a world class social networking site has tremendous value in itself, since properly channeled this translates to far more profits than any fantastic yet unknown product offering.  Google, unlike some others, has managed quite well with the free-to-megacash formula.  The same can be said for Salesforce.com.  Actually Yahoo has a place in the Hall of Free, even though the Borg (Microsoft) gobbled them up just to have a fighting chance at battling the star ship Enterprise (Google)  Grin
It's not about free service or concept of free. It's about how people value that free service and how vulnerable companies based on free are. Think it like this: Now Facebook has 104M monthly traffic (quantcast) and with your theory they make money out of 1% (people who click ads etc.). Now what happens when this mass of free users go somewhere else? That 1% just become A LOT smaller amount of people.

Google suffers from the same problem but they realize it. Google is becoming advertising empire instead of search engine empire. Their search engine will be history soon (you can quote me on this when it happens) and after that Google has left their content/service advertisement network. As you can read from the news, they are really putting some resources into becoming the best advertisement platform. This is why they collect all that data. Now with Google OS they intent to essentially turn your computer into ad placement. Kinda like in-game advertisement but with operating system. Don't think for a second that Google hasn't got plans to invade your privacy for revenues. That's what Google does. I find it really funny when they have all google fanbois screaming "do no evil" for the biggest privacy invasion company ever.

Like we talked in the other thread... there's no free, ever, never, ever. You can't argue that. Everything is made of atoms and atoms are something we can't manufacturer but we can mold atoms into different objects and matters. Free exists only when somebody pays for it, in one form or another. If you are smart, you can provide something for free but users give something valuable to you passively. Google uses this method and the currency is behavioral data. Then Google uses this data to sell their advertisements. Nothing new here but what most people don't realize is that unless you leverage this passive currency as permanent asset, you are fucked when free users go somewhere else. Almost all big free websites have created economy for themselves that collapses when free users go away.

So as you can see, this whole new evolutionary economy of free is flawed in the most fundamental way. Free works as long as you can attach value to your free and be better free than the other free. This is another form of price competition. It benefits the customer but is very stressful and hard for companies. So unless you can tie your free business model to something traditional (like advertising industry), well, sooner or later, you are fucked. I just don't see anyway how you can build long-term sustainable business with basic free model where you offer service for free and hope that 1-5% pay for premium.

It's good to keep in mind that we have witnessed this whole web/free/virtual economy/companies for only about 10 years now. The potential of web is so enormous that I think only very few people even realize it. We haven't invented anything cool yet and it's sad but true when you think about it. Now web is basically only mirror of real world but with benefits digitalized format brings. We haven't innovated anything revolutionary yet.  
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2009, 02:46:26 AM »

@kurdt
I agree with you about the term "free", free is not a proper term per say.
A drastic reduction in value might be a better term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas The Codex Gigas (English: Giant Book) is the largest extant medieval manuscript in the world.
A book like that was priceless. But with the advent of printing press, book's values dropped drastically.
With the advent of internet a physical books value dropped again.
This is causing market instability.

Quote
It's good to keep in mind that we have witnessed this whole web/free/virtual economy/companies for only about 10 years now. The potential of web is so enormous that I think only very few people even realize it. We haven't invented anything cool yet and it's sad but true when you think about it. Now web is basically only mirror of real world but with benefits digitalized format brings. We haven't innovated anything revolutionary yet.

As all great ideas, this was stolen from a professor back prior 199X.
He said the internet is like electricity.
When it was means to generate electricity economically where invented, everyone knew it was a great thing, but no one knew what it was good for.
1990 to 2010 is for internet like 1910 to 1930 for electricity. Majority of houses have electricity / internet.
But from 1930+ was when people figured out what they could do with electricity, besides have light bulbs Smiley.

Basically FB/MySpace is the same thing as usenet/forums back in 1995.
I have been doing same shit for last 15+ years lol.
Granted my connection is faster, better puter etc.
About the only thing that has changed is ability to shove video and audio online. And instead of pirating just games/apps i can not pirate video/audio lol

We just need to figure out what to do with it lol
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2009, 02:58:45 AM »

Quote
But as Gonzo Marketing outlines, people can choose what they watch.

Yes, it's now the unbundled age.  Profiting from hostages is already an antiquated marketing approach, though most don't really understand this yet.  The only hostages left aren't worth selling to, unless of course your product is auto insurance.

Quote
He decides that AssBook is much better

ROFLMAO  AssBook dominates the cloudosphere bitches  Grin

Quote
To make matters worse neither company is making any money

There's a funny thing that nobody ever seems to recognize about this not making any money "fact" - especially with regards to privately held companies.  Do ya think the CEO makes a decent salary??  ROFLMAO  Could it be that when a company goes public, such as Google, that there seems to be massive amounts of magical capital "generated" from nowhere??  It's all about the value, the real and perceived value of a company that generates the most returns for the owners.  These crazy CEOs (business partners, angel investors, venture capitalists, etc. etc.) make seemingly whacked decisions that defy logic since according to the books nobody is making any money  Huh?  That's impossible!!  Sarcasm

Quote
Now Facebook has 104M monthly traffic (quantcast) and with your theory they make money out of 1% (people who click ads etc.). Now what happens when this mass of free users go somewhere else? That 1% just become A LOT smaller amount of people.

Perhaps in the social networking website example I'd agree, or perhaps the ever changing search engine market as well.  But what if your exposure was promoting something that someone else couldn't possibly replace?  Or even if it was satisfying some scarce commodity that you were so good at that logic would dictate your continued business??  Let me think of a good, old, classic example that might just ring a bell for ya'll.... hmmmm...  Oh wait, pkzip!  Free to fortune baby.  Free to fortune.  What's the difference?  Pkzip was a good tool that transcended the fickle tides of social networking trends.  MySpace to Facebook?  You're totally right on, as is nop.  The problem with their particular business is they rely on being currently popular like Brittney Spears or the latest MMORPG.  Some businesses ride the wave of feast or famine and others create lasting value that has less explosive growth with the potential for longevity and stability.  The concept of using "free" to get an edge over those who just don't get it remains a powerful tool in either business case.

Quote
I find it really funny when they have all google fanbois screaming "do no evil" for the biggest privacy invasion company ever.

Sick irony I agree.

Quote
Like we talked in the other thread... there's no free, ever, never, ever. You can't argue that. Everything is made of atoms and atoms are something we can't manufacturer but we can mold atoms into different objects and matters. Free exists only when somebody pays for it, in one form or another.

Of course there's no free!  But there IS the tragically and chronically misunderstood "free" that DOES in fact exist, sir kurdt.  It's almost like free software.  I've become a fan of calling it freedom software for those who miss the free point.  These are different frees in nature but the missed understandings are noteworthy. 

You pay for an airplane to fly over the beach with a sign dragging from it's tail saying "Experience the ultimate casket - The Dirt Master!  You're loved ones deserve no less."  Little did you know there was a funeral procession with thousands of people passing by that day who saw your tasteful casket ad.  All of a sudden your cost/benefit analysis of the advertising campaign was dumpstered since business is now booming - for """""""""""""free""""""""""""".  Come to think of it, if I had any possible way to know something like that ahead of time I could offer my casket ad slogans to masses of mourners for "free" while charging the regular beach goers for their captive eyeballs that pay for my Forrest Lawn exposure.

Is any of this making any sense yet?

Quote
We haven't innovated anything revolutionary yet.

Not sure where your bar is set but grab a person from 1900 and I think he/she would be pretty tickled at the progress we've made in 110 years

EDIT: My bad.  I believe the Internet was invented in 1897 by Thomas Dolby.  So make that 113 years  Grin
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 03:05:15 AM by isthisthingon » Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!