[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: 'Alan Gutierrez' [mailto:alan-xml-dev@engrm.com]
> If I were to spend the next two years pooring over the contents
> of XML-Dev to design algorithms to poor over it further...
> Well, I don't get out enough as it is, you see.
Ah, but you stay at the bar. Is it the band or the floozies?
>> Entice? Free beer or egoboo?
> Increased traffic, so both.
Hmm. Keep in mind, your system has to cope with the gamers which
just might include your own government or political party. Given
that, I don't trust your engine (again, nothing personal), I still
don't see a reason to host it. Now if it paid real ad dollars
regularly....
>> Why host a feed for your blog? Why sign up for Technorati?
I don't but if I did, I would do it to retain complete control
of the use of the content. I use Blogger; free content for
free hosting. They put ads on my blob but I put them where
they aren't a distraction because I already know that the
income isn't worth the eyeball juice. In fact, the most
fun one can have is figuring out how to write blogs that
drive the ad placement software crazy. "Truckin' got my
chips cashed in, keep truckin' just like the doodah man.."
Google's meteoric rise could have a slower fall but nonetheless, a
complete one in the search business. I see a future in
which anyone buying a computer is automatically their own
internet service and the machine comes packaged with an
operating system that ensures what is marked private
remains private, what is marked free can be used freely,
and other rights are equally protected including stopping
Google or any other freeloader from cacheing my content.
Anything I write (including here) is watermarked such that
the source is indisputable. Any bot that attempts access
is stopped and it's originator is tracked and jailed. Virus
writers, of course, will be hanged after having been tortured
exquisitely to get their sources names.
Don't opt out: opt-what or opt-not.
>> So how is your search component any different from a spybot? What
>> would I (the content *owner*) do with it? Participate? Give to
>> get? Get got?
> You do nothing. It is another way to present your content.
Something for nothing? I've heard this story. I want to completely
control how my content is presented, how it is used, how it is
represented. What? The web is the wrong medium for that? Well,
then, the web simply must adapt if I can buy such a machine. What
do you think this is, a Grateful Dead concert? (Understanding the
evolution of the Deadhead culture is a nice analog to understanding
the culture of participation on the web.)
>> Discussion is only tracked by links if I bother to link.
>> Sometimes I can't be bothered. :-)
> It's hard with some of the current blogging UIs to link as much
> as one should. But a well linked article is of more value to the
> reader.
As hard as TimBL thought it would be, it turns out even average
idiots learn to type <a href=''></a>. The hard part isn't the
tag: it is remembering that stupid URI. Anyway, if the reader
has opened my page, I have their money/attention. What I do
with links depends on what I want to do with the reader's attention,
and therefore, their evolution. Will you help me do that?
Understand memory-prediction systems. Jhana is true magic.
len
|
