TinkerX

Abe Books has posted a neat article about stuff that used booksellers have found in books. Money, baseball cards, airline tickets and lots of personal notes.

Would make a cool scene for a story or novel, or a neat moment in a poem.

Todays journey of metaphoric bliss: Alzheimer, buses, jewelry, YouTube.

Patients with Alzheimer’s and other cognitive troubles who wander out of their nursing homes are a danger to themselves, of course. And with short-term memory issues, folks can go as little as a block away and then forget how to get back or why they’re out. To help with this, some German nursing homes have put “phantom” bus stops outside their facilities. Patients remember the distinctive look of the bus stops and associate it with “going home.” So they stop, rest, and the workers from the home come and get them (link).

Paco Underhill did absolutely groundbreaking work in the science of retail shopping behaviors. The New York Times called him, “the anthropologist of the dressing room.” He wrote “Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping,” (Google, WorldCat) and has consulted all over the place. In a 1996 NewYorker article (by Malcom Gladwell, no less), titled “The Science of Shopping,” the concept of the “butt brush” theory is discussed. Full article here.

The quote that I’m most interested in today, though, is, “…the likelihood of a woman being converted from a shopper to a buyer is inversely proportional to the likelihood of her being brushed on her behind while she’s examining merchandise.” Which is the explanation for giant, wide aisles around the jewelry, perfume and watch displays in stores like Lord and Taylor, Macy’s, etc. When pondering a pretty purchase, we get into a kind of dreamy, fugue state. Being bumped on the behind takes us out of that state and puts us back into the reality of, “Holy crap… that watch costs as much as three car payments.”

[Note: I share this story with all my marketing and advertising students, male and female. It’s a good trick, and not just for guys with wives and girlfriends. Men go into this same state, I believe, when shopping for power tools, HDTVs, boats, video games, etc. My non-scientific assumption, though, is that men are more likely to break out of Shopper’s Fugue if you bump them in the testicles.]

What’s the connection to degenerative brain disorders and shopping for jewelry? Well… let’s move on to YouTube.

Douglas Galbi, over at the ever-intelligent and interesting “purple motes” blog, has an excellent recent post titled, “Stories largely missing in online video.” His conclusion, after going over some good stats, is that online video is not successful in telling stories. While I agree with him that the “short form” video — with YouTube as its major example — isn’t doing much storytelling, I’m going to point out some details that, I think, are important with regards to online viewing habits.

First, Doug is 100% right that the majority of YouTube videos are short, and a large percentage are repurposed  music videos that, in the past, would have run on MTV or VH1 or a similar network. A research study I was involved with at my day job provided much the same insight (”The YouTube Phenomenon,” page 2-16 of “Our Social Spaces,” from “Sharing, Privacy and Trust in Our Networked World.”) Our survey indicated that 49% of the top 100 YouTube videos were music videos. Also, 63% of the top 100 videos were “professional,” in nature. This segment of the material is clearly not “user created content,” but maybe best described as “user uploaded.”

Doug also points out that online video viewing time only amounts to 3% of traditional TV viewing time. When considering this, lets remember that TV is, and has been for 50 years, the dominant communication medium in our country. It’s only over the past few years that even a decent minority of the U.S. population (23.3% as of December 2007, according to the OECD) has access to broadband Internet service, which is pretty much a requirement for watching online video.

My two points, and they relate back to comfort — which relates to bus stops and butt touching –  are simply as follows.

First, we currently regard TV as, largely, a “comfort medium.” We sit down to watch, don’t interact much, and enjoy it largely as entertainment. There are good stories on TV, yes. Because stories are a big part of how we like to be entertained, especially in “comfort” mode. I would remind my several readers, however, that lots and lots of TV is also “short form” entertainment, lacking in real storytelling elements. We have talk shows, sports, game shows, reality TV, news, weather and informational shows that don’t have traditional narrative. And many of these have parallel elements in Web video. I just watched, for example, Clinton’s “campaign suspension” speech on the NYT site. It was very, very nice to have the transcript and a TOC right next to the video. I think that as more online video becomes nested within other activities, it will gain more usage. I also think that as broadband becomes more the norm, non-narrative video will seem much more natural online, both in aggregate and compared to TV viewing.

As to when we’ll get more narrative, storytelling content on the Web… well, it’s starting. Hulu provides free (ad supported) access to narrative TV and movies. I missed an episode of Battlestar Gallactica a few weeks ago and watched the hour-long show on the SciFi channel’s site to make up for my DVR behaving badly. I now have a desk chair in my home office for working on the computer… and a comfy chair nearby for relaxing and watching DVDs and long Web-videos. But, even when I choose to watch long-form video on my computer, there are issues. My spam-blocker, anti-virus software pops up in front of the movie screen and tells me it’s finished updating and update. Super. My IM pings, unless I’ve remembered to turn it off. My screen saver kicks in sometimes. Geez. I’m trying to watch TV on my computer and it keeps behaving like a computer.

The boundaries are melting. Slowly, yes. I agree with Doug that, at the moment, there’s not a lot of storytelling going on specifically within online video. I do think, though, that it’s beginning. And, also, that many online “stories” have video as one element, with other media embedding video as part of the story.

We like our comfort zones, and TV is a *HUGE* comfort zone for Americans. We head to the bus stop of our La-Z-Boy lounger because it means, “Here there be relaxation.” Major changes in how we watch long-form video will take time, and will require computers to become something other than “working machines,” and to stop touching us on our collective butts when we’re trying to enjoy a story.

[Note note: the draft of this post was written months ago. I’m not sick anymore, thanks for asking.]

Note: I am sick as heck. Bad cold. This is Day 4 of what, at work, is being called affectionately, “The Pox.” I read an interesting post on Lifehacker about “Presenteeism,” the opposite of absenteeism. The idea that going to work, regardless of consequences, is necessary. We’re all the stars in our own life drama. So the idea that I’d put my own work requirements above the health and welfare of my coworkers isn’t completely unreasonable; especially when we take into account the fact that we don’t know what facts to take into account in terms of where/how we get sick. All this being apropos of nothing, except that I did stay home from work Thursday and worked from home on Friday, and now consider those acts to be somewhat selfless and communal. Whereas before, I would have considered myself lazy and weak. New wine, old skins. Yea.

Meanwhile… having been sick, I’ve been waking up early and watching The Daily Show on the DVR. One of the episodes from last week featured an interview with Lee Siegel, author of “Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob.” I did not read the book, and don’t plan on it. This is a review of a couple things Lee said on the the show.

First, he made the claim that relationships mediated by electronics — the Web, that is — aren’t really as real as those in real life and (?) those conducted over the phone. Hmmm… Odd that he wouldn’t consider the phone part of the machine of the electronic mob. When it debuted, critics believed that the phone would end civilized discourse, as it allowed for communication without physical presence and, therefore, without possible physical repercussions. That is true (I suppose), as you can call somebody a dillweed on the phone and not worry about him/her cracking you on the mellon.

Lee went on to say that because of the lack of real presence on the other end of the digital line, we tend to imbue “the other” with our own characteristics, thus making the relationship both shallow and somewhat fictional. That’s not a bad point. It is easier, certainly, to create a web (ha ha) of assumption when there is more left to the imagination. He then started talking about bad behavior on blogs and bulletin boards, what with the ranting and raving and flaming and invective and… and… and…

And he lost me. Even as an interesting antagonist to my own view… he lost me. Because you can’t have it both ways, Lee. If the machine is bad because it is a concave lens that diminishes our perception of “other,” that’s one thing; if it is a convex lens that exaggerates the bad behavior of others… hold on. Can it be both?

Well, here’s the thing: it can, if you’re being a dillweed.

I tend to expect the best of people, regardless of circumstance. I assume that they, like me, want to get along, be friendly, be smart, do the right thing, etc. That holds true online as well as in RL. I’ve had very cool, long, intelligent disagreements with people in both places. Where it stops (again, regardless of media), is when someone clearly just wants to rant on their own, and has no interest in discourse; no interest in the voice of “the other.”

Does that happen on the Web more than in RL? Perhaps. Comments on blogs are often not set up as discussion points, but more as stand-alone statements. And it is certainly possible to read a such a comment as if it were aimed right at you, thus making it seem like a churlish response, rather than a simple statement.

And so we’re back to the Web, as Lee said, distorting relationships because of our tendency to put ourselves in the center of the whole thing. We either assume closeness that isn’t there (because we want to see it), or assume animosity that isn’t there (because we read everything as personal).

At least we do when we’re being dillweeds. I’ve done it, for sure. A disagreeable statement that, in RL, might have been mitigated with a shrug and eyebrow-raise, comes across as totally hot-headed and unreasonable. And I’ve flamed back, too. But… but but but (this is the big but, and I like big buts, and I can not lie)… because of this tendency, signs and appeals to reason come across even more strongly, too. I’ve made some very good friends over the Web — some of whom I’ve never met in person. And in almost every case, it is because their online voice is one that I want to hear more of.

Which is the same as in RL. We seek out those people whose presence is pleasant. And that’s the case online, too.

Yes, there are more cranky, shallow statements on the Web. But there are also more chances for rare and beautiful flowers to spring up, in stark contrast with the dillweeds.

I love Richard Bartle.

Not in the way that a man loves a woman, or another, less-hairy man. Or a really, really good steak. But he’s very well spoken, writes very well, is a major figure in the gaming universe, and is just an all around interesting guy. He writes great posts and leaves great comments on TerraNova, and responds amiably and intelligently there… as long as you provide some measure of amiability and intelligence back.

We don’t always agree. He doesn’t believe in God, and I think spelling “color” with a “u” is just batty. But other than those minor quibbles, he’s one of my favorite people in the infogamingmediasphere.

And he just went off on  the “smug, out-of-touch, proud-to-be-innumerate fossils” who are perennially down on video/computer games. My favorite bit?

Gamers vote. Gamers buy newspapers. They won’t vote for you, or buy your newspapers, if you trash their entertainment with your ignorant ravings. Call them social inadequates if you like, but when they have more friends in World of Warcraft than you have in your entire sad little booze-oriented culture of a real life, the most you’ll get from them is pity.

Like I said: love.

Thank you, Dr. Bartle. I’ve been playing video games since I was about eight in 1974. I play them, now (and have for years), with my 8-year-old son. More and more people are playing. Both kids and people my age… and older. And we haven’t seen a major up tick in violence during the Rise of the Game. The most violent parts of the world, methinks — Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Darfur, Chechnya, Washington D.C. — have many fewer gamers.

We are voters. We do buy newspapers. And we are tired as fuck of people (who don’t play) telling us how bad it is for us. So let me add my 2-cents to the Bartle rant. I won’t get quoted in the Guardian… and that’s OK. But I am glad to be in such good company.

* * * * *

What Richard said. And…

I’m so flippin’ tired of people who don’t play games coming at us as if we’re cellar-dwelling, no-life, dweebs. Or is if there’s something really wrong with that. Watch “Triumph of the Nerds.” The richest man in the world? Dweeb. Suck on that.

Maybe you like to golf, which requires that you take up inordinate amounts of space in order to whack around a small little ball. You can even do it by yourself, eh? And even when you play with others, it’s not really playing *with* them. You’re scoring against the course. OK. That’s fine. But how is that any less dweeby than playing computer games? Go buy $1,000 worth of sticks and plaid pants and a weird, visor-y hat. That’s cool. Drink beer while you’re doing it, if you like. Also cool.

Just shut up about *our* games.

Maybe you like to watch sports. Maybe you memorize facts about players and games and leagues. Maybe you get so personally, psychologically involved in “your” team(s) that it gives you pain when they lose. That’s cool. Buy the sweat-shirts and the caps and the big, foam fingers and spend four hours waiting in traffic and three hours in the rain waiting to sit on your ass for another four hours to watch 60 minutes of actual action. It’s all good.

Just shut up about *our* games.

Maybe you like to shoot guns. Maybe you think they’ll help you protect yourself, of just that it’s fun to shoot at targets. Good. Cool.

Just shut up about *our* games.

My whole dang life I’ve put up with smug, superior glances when I tell people (yes, I admit it, and always have) that I play video and computer games. I’ve put up with people who’ve never played these games equating them to childish, whimsical pastimes.  Well, there’s nothing really wrong with childish whimsy, but there’s actually nothing childish nor whimsical about Sid Meier’s Civilization or Assassin’s Creed.

Some games are whimsical, easy and simply fun. Some are incredibly complex and downright diabolical. Some are art.

If you don’t want to play, that’s fine. But until you understand what you’re talking about… just shut up. That’s what I do when people spend hours discussing golf, sports and guns. I don’t know much about them. So I shut up.

For the half of you out there playing games, though… I’d love to hear from you 

For the record, I think Kevin Kelly is a genius and often am extremely gratified to find him exploring weird, wild areas of technology and the mind. Even when I disagree with him, it’s usually on small points or on wording.

In his latest post on The Technium, though… I just think he’s wrong and oddly so, to boot. Read the post, so I don’t have to paraphrase it too much, here. It’s short. I’ll wait…

So, where is he wrong? Well, let’s start with the idea that computer scientists are more comfortable with technological change because, “They grok that many of the tasks they used to do can be done much better by computers.” Really? There are computers designing computers and writing code? There are robots building robots? I haven’t seen much of that.

What I’ve seen is that computer scientists use computers in their daily business, and that computers do more tasks than they used to. But not tasks that used to be done by CS folks. The scientists are doing the same tasks, just with more complex, robust and cheaper tools.

I also haven’t ever seen good art created by a computer or good poetry or fiction (or non-fiction, for that matter) written by a computer. But many artists, designers and writers absolutely embrace technology because the tools are just so flippin’ helpful. The writers I know love word processors, for example, and the spell-checking, note-taking, formatting functions now available. I don’t in any way begrudge my computer the ability to look up spelling much quicker than I did with a dictionary back in college. Yet there isn’t a computer out there that could, as of yet, write this blog post.

Same with designers. Those of you out there with a graphic arts background, especially those who have come-of-age in the last 15 years or so, will understand why “Photoshop is God” is a popular phrase. Does the computer do a better job at some mundane (and elegant) tasks associated with design? Hell, yes. Doing layout with InDesign or Quark Xpress is hundreds of times faster, easier and better than using the old paper layout methods. But a computer has yet to design a great piece of packaging or ad or children’s book illustration.

In some cases, I think this is the opposite of what Kelly is saying. As a writer (and sometimes designer), I have absolutely no fear of adopting new technology, because I think it’s impossible (or at least waaay down the road) for a computer to “do” what is at the heart of what I do: create. I’d put many musicians and film makers in this bucket, too. Again… I don’t see any films being made by computers, but the movie industry is moving the tech ahead in many cases.

And about doctors… I’m not sure what docs Kelly is working with, but most of the ones I know are huge tech nuts; they love they new toys. The digital distribution of records and labs is something they *rave* about when I talk to them. Scans of X-rays go on the hospital computer system and show up on the computer screen in the patient’s room, maybe even across town, in minutes rather than hours. MRI and CAT scan tech relies incredibly on computer power, obviously. Genetic engineering of drugs is almost impossible without computers. Maybe there are some good ol’ GPs who don’t want to computerize their bills… but I think this is a micro-example of a pain-in-the-ass system that nobody even likes the old way, so they don’t want to spend time on it.

In short… I think this is just a weird argument. When computer technology disrupts your job to the point that you are totally disintermediated –  take, for example, the guys at the print shop who used to cut film — you aren’t, I think, going to be thrilled about it… but, to be successful, you may have to get on board. But there’s a pretty decent chance you’ll go the other direction and be pissed off. On the other hand, if computers make your job easier, you’ll probably be OK with them in other instances, sure.

Oh… and I know some UNIX grey-beards who absolutely resent new computer technology. They liked being part of a small, elite band of brothers who understood computers when they were big and important and separate. Now that there’s a computer in my cell phone, and kids can mash-up aps on the Web, they feel a bit massintermediated.

Turing proposed a computer that was indistinguishable from a person in a conversation. In Kelly’s examples, he seems to be talking about our tech (computers in this case) besting us on particular tasks. Well, that’s been happening  since spear-throwers came along. John Henry died trying to beat the steam drill. I’d die trying to beat a spell checker. Just because I respect a tool’s ability to multiply my value doesn’t mean I think it’s likely to replace my value.

If you haven’t seen Garfield Minus Garfield, check it out. Pretty amusing.

The number of things you have to know about culture, psychology, etc. in order to find this funny is creepy in and of itself. The deconstruction of a comic strip, minus its star, points to a public that is increasingly sophisticated when it comes to choosing how to read material at any given moment.

Question for the gang… is this funnier if you hate or love Garfield in its original state?

NSFW links here, folks. If you haven’t seen these (5 so far), do so. They’re hilarious. First one below in frame. Links to 2-5 below that. Seriously. Watch these. You don’t have to be interested in Photoshop. Headphones recommended if you like to watch NSFW stuff @W.

2   3   4   5

Ars Technica has a recent post featuring a study where “distractions” are blamed for US $650 billion a year in lost productivity in the United States. Intel’s Nathan Zeldes is quoted as saying,”…the impact of information overload on each knowledge worker at up to eight hours a week.” Ars also links to an earlier report from Pew (I heart Pew). In that study, 10% of Americans are described as, “Connected but Hassled,” in that they, “have invested in a lot of technology, but they find the connectivity intrusive and information something of a burden.” Another 11% are “Indifferent,” who “despite having either cell phones or online access… use ICTs [information and communication technologes] only intermittently and find connectivity annoying.”

I remember back when I worked in the cellular industry, and one of my co-workers once got really, really pissed at a friend who took every opportunity to tell him (and me, when we were together) how much his cell service sucked. It wasn’t just the occasional complaint; this guy seemed to regard my buddy as the blotter for all his wireless woes.

So my friend eventually got fed up and said, “Look. If the service sucks so bad, next time you’re stranded by the side of the road with a flat tire, or you’re out of gas, or if you need to order a pizza from your car… try opening your window and hanging your head out and hollering. No matter how bad your cell service sucks, and how annoying you find the phone, I bet that living without it would bug you even more.”

Now, to be fair, this was in 1995 or so, when dropped calls and bad connections were pretty prevalent. But my friend had a point; if you don’t like it, lump it. I feel like a lot of the anti-connectivity sentiment stems from folks who either haven’t read their manuals, or haven’t really thought about what it would be like without their “distractions.”

Do I find the technology distracting? Not at all. Not ever. Nope. Why? Because the tech is a tool. I can put it down. I can use an alternative. I can find a way to do things differently or more efficiently if I want. But saying that “connectivity” itself is annoying is a bit disingenuous, I think. Or, it’s people being rude to technology, in order to spare the feelings of actual people. Which is fine, in the specific. I’d much rather have a good relationship with my family than my gadgets. But in the aggregate, it may be a bit hypocritical.

Why? Because when you are annoyed at “connectivity,” or pissed at being “distracted,” it’s not really the tools that are troubling you, is it? It’s the folks on the other end of the pipe. If you get 300 emails a day, it’s not because your email service hates you and is trying to make you slit your wrists. It’s because you’ve got some hundreds of people, departments, companies, etc. who have included you in conversations that you don’t necessarily value.

Early on in the Age of Email, I had a boss who instituted, and insisted upon, a “no email while on vacation” rule. Whenever anyone in our group took at least a week off, he required us to remove them from emails, cc., etc. “If you need something, wait until they get back and call them. Odds are the issue will be resolved by then anyway.”

He wasn’t just shielding the vacationer from a ton of emails when he/she got back; he believed that cc:ing folks on email when there was no chance of them answering in a reasonable time was, simply, bad business. It gave the sender, and other recipients, a false sense that Mr. NotHere was somehow “in the loop,” when the reality was exactly opposite.

That’s the kind of rule you need in your life if you find connectivity to be an irritant; manage the voices, not the tubes.  Make sure your friends, family and coworkers understand your priorities, and how/when you can (and can’t) be reached.

It’s only a distraction if it’s not wanted. And the technology just makes both wanted and unwanted communication easier.

A friend of mine (Hi, Bill!) sent me a link to a story at The New Republic called, “Atheism’s Wrong Turn.” It’s a decent article, and I recommend reading the whole thing. The basic point is that the crop of current, media-ready atheists — Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens — aren’t liberal atheists who push for a system that respects beliefs, but illiberal, evangelical atheists who want to eradicate God from public discourse.

The author, Damon Linker, sees this as a problem for liberal humanists, as the tendency for deists might be to paint liberal churchgoers with some of the paint spatterings of illiberal atheists, since there is some overlap between “separation of church and state,” and “separation of church and reality.”

I agree, to an extent. I think most of my Christian friends can pretty easily separate out the religious views of angry atheists from the political views of liberal believers, such as myself. The fact that I am not a fundamentalist and Christopher Hitchens is not a fundamentalist shouldn’t really confuse any but the most cross-eyed of conservative believers.

What is more interesting to me is the phenomenal sales records of the atheist, anti-God tomes that these four have authored (see below). The percentage of people who say they do not believe in God in this country is quite small. According to a Wikipedia article that quotes the 2001 “American Religious Identification Survey,” about 15% of Americans identified themselves in 2001 as “agnostic/atheist/no religion,” s up from 8.4% in 1991.

What motivates someone to buy a book that argues, quite strongly, against a belief in God? Not against a particular religious belief, or for a type of practice… but argues that God just doesn’t exist? If you are already an atheist, it is, I would think, a waste of time. If you aren’t an atheist, as I assume many of their readers are not, why buy such a book?

I think it’s a kind of spiritual/religious porn. That’s what I think.

Not porn in the sense that it’s bad/wrong/nasty to argue against a belief in God. As a liberal Christian, I’m all for a society where your disbelief in God is as respected as my belief. So there’s nothing *wrong* with these books, per se. I’ve read some of Christopher Hitchen’s work and he’s quite brilliant at times as well as entertaining.

No… I mean that, I think, the impetus for many believers who read these books is one of religious prurience. It feels naughty to buy and read a nicely bound, well authored book that argues vehemently against the very existence of a being to whom you are bound as a servant and worshiper. It’s shocking. It’s (maybe) a little creepy. It’s exciting. And you’re pretty sure you shouldn’t be doing it. You know… porn.

I think it’s a great idea for believers — of any faith — to be familiar with these works, or at least the major arguments from them. And you should do so as if seeing a naked body in a medical film, as opposed to watching hard-core scrunt. It may be interesting and compelling in some similar ways, but it has education at its heart, rather than titillation.

If you can’t read well-reasoned arguments against your faith and come up with good rebuttals, you need to question your faith. I don’t mean “question” in the sense of “doubt,” but you need to ask questions, and get answers, to help you understand the issues at stake.

A good friend of mine and I (same guy, “Hi, again, Bill!”) once came to the conclusion, during a long religious discussion, that core religious beliefs must not require high levels of brain power or rigorous intellectual scrutiny. Why? Because then God would be prejudiced in favor of the smart. I believe one statement to come out of that discussion was, “God would not require that we reason our way into Heaven.”

Many (if not most or all) arguments for atheism boil down to a belief (yes, atheism is a belief) that (some) intellectual arguments are more valid than (supposedly) emotional arguments for faith. And while reason can certainly be applied to aspects of faith, in the end… the word “faith” itself is the qualifier. If it made complete, abject, logical sense… it would be science, wouldn’t it.

So have a go at one of the atheist manifestos, if you like. Take a peek behind the curtain at some rigorous, impassioned arguing. It may feel like porn, but it’s more like a trip to the doctor; it’s good to shine a light into some dark places in order to understand what that pain is.

If you’ve never been active on a bulletin board (especially one related to games), you will find these to be random, silly, obnoxious, foul and pointless. If you have been active on a board, you will find them random, silly, obnoxious, foul, hysterical and on-the-money.

Many, many kudos for the first (that I’m aware of) anthropomorphizing of a captcha.

Internet Commenter Business Meeting

The sequel

Amber has been doing this hillariously a couple times now. I find it hysterical. I’m going to have a go, but probably do a bad job of it. This is, of course, based on the wonderful work of our friends at The Onion.

On an idiot PC Magazine post, editor Lance Ulanoff claims that MySpace, SecondLife and Twitter are all doomed. What do YOU think? Are these services all going to go belly-up in the next 2.5 years?

Ryann McSprankle, 29-year old Pokemon Cheat/Hint Professional

Hey! Mr. Ulanoff said that these services would be dead by the end of the decade! The decade doesn’t end until January 1, 2011. That gives him 3.5 years to be right, not 2.5. Who’s the idiot now?

Tranny Wind, 2-year old avatar and virtual land barron

SecondLife is already dead. The day that they made point-to-point teleportating possible, it became so unrealistic that all the fun just left. Beign able to "click" to any location in the world is just unrealistic. You should have to fly there or ride a chicken-headed friend.

Arthur "Che" Lowenstein, Professor of Internet and Metaphor, Yale

The PC Magazine assessment is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Teh entire Internets is doomed. By July 14, 2009, the Internet will be replaced by wireless devices known as "radios" whose use requires no permanent, fixed location.

 
Tinkybell Cuteypie, Princess of MySpace Bling and Hugs

Oh, you! Mr. Ulanof, I totaly luv yer page! Friend me for 200 Bling Pionts!

Ambrr (Just Ambrr), Hot Single 4-2-meet-U

Regardless of the specific platform, it is clear from the rapid growth and continued utility of these social networking sites that users value the connective and mediative activities enabled thereon. Whether or not these particular examples will remain monetized through the early years of the next decade may have more to do with established media managers finding ways to competently harnass the public’s urge to create and connect than with the profitability of any given property. Also, my Web-cam shows are at 7:45, 9:15 and 11:30pm (Pacific).

Alexa

I’m grokking yer falling rating!