DISQUS

The unfortunate reality is people want to label platforms based on what we know, not by its capabilities. Twitter will become what we make of it. Why can't Twitter be a product of both - conversation and Broadcast? Why does it have to one or the other?


There are plenty of rationalizations to interpret the stats you highlight. The vast majority of people are trying to figure out how they want Twitter be a part of everyday lifeflow, not workflow.



Although businesses need to take Twitter seriously, the truth is no business or marketer will be able to realistically understand the value until people decide how it fits in with their lifestyle. There is nothing that businesses can do to force how people use it either.



Cheers,

@contrapuntist

The unfortunate reality is people want to label platforms based on what we know, not by its capabilities. Twitter will become what we make of it. Why can't Twitter be a product of both - conversation and Broadcast? Why does it have to one or the other?

There are plenty of rationalizations to interpret the stats you highlight. The vast majority of people are trying to figure out how they want Twitter be a part of everyday lifeflow, not workflow.

Although businesses need to take Twitter seriously, the truth is no business or marketer will be able to realistically understand the value until people decide how it fits in with their lifestyle. There is nothing that businesses can do to force how people use it either.

Cheers,
@contrapuntist

Wow... Goldgrinch, your comment got emailed to me...


And I have to say... You are the man.



That day sounded like an awesome fantasy of just: all day lazy-adventuring munchy eating tv-watching-marathon'ing craze fest going on in your living room..



Too bad I don't smoke pot either.

:P



Take care bro. Wish my my 4/20 next year turns out similar to yours..

Hahaha.. Number 18... Planet Earth. Coolest show to not watch not on pot not on...4/20??


Let me leave the "not" jokes to Allison.

Where do you find the time to do all that you do? How many hours a night do you actually sleep? Are you up at the crack of dawn? Where do you get all your energy from? What do you despise most about Chile? Whats your thoughts on winter in Santiago...summer?

Another ugly experience...sorry for you again...I'll just mention this to you...we have a good friend who's also an avid runner, she's a pretty little petite brunette...in her early 30's she took up martial arts and boy can she kick ass...she has a 3rd degree Black belt...God help anyone that messes with her. Instead of working out at the gym...you might consider martial arts, I'm sure you'd get a good workout while learning self defense. Just a thought.
Good luck!

Sorry you had to go through such any ugly experience...you're a brave girl.

Sarah Main is simply awesome!!!

1-?
2-Behrouz - Rich In Paradise
3-ATFC - Just A Beat
4-?
5-?
6-Cevin Fisher - You Got Me Burning Up (Prok & Fitch Remix)

The review is completely way off. I think this is their best CD so far and actually enjoy understanding the lyrics. It seems as if they put effort into this CD and cared about meaning. Guess it's your loss. The CD ends with their best track to date Cold Desert.

Aparte de todo eso de la religión cristiana... ¿porque se sea una minoría no tienen derecho a ser escuchados?
Seguro que tu tambien formas parte de una minoria en algo y te encantan que te escuchen

De acuerdo con vosotros, excepto en eso de que la gente les cree a pie juntillas. Bajo mi opinión, la gente ve eso mas bien por la curiosidad de saber que ha pasado que no por informarse correctamente. Por lo menos quiero pensar que la gente no se traga todo eso lo que dicen esos programas.

FF!!!

:)

Wow! ragazzi che figata!
tanti saluti da Palma!!!

cheers!

anche Mancuso è ancora vivo...

NEOOFFICE, Not only perfect but free replacement of office

Supa!

Another late question...


But what about portuguese wineries? Did any (apart from Taylor's) attend the conference?



And the same question as RichardA: are you considering any survey of portuguese wineries?



Thanks



Cheers



Miguel

Gabriella


This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...



It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.

Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.

The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).



Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).



Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!



Cheers.

M.

Gabriella


This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...



It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.

Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.

The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).



Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).



Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!



Cheers.

M.

Gabriella


This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...



It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.

Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.

The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).



Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).



Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!



Cheers.

M.

Gabriella


This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...



It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.

Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.

The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).



Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).



Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!



Cheers.

M.

Gabriela and Ryan


Just a little sidenote...



Guys!!! You got the geography wrong!!!



Essência do vinho will take place in Oporto, not in Lisbon! Oporto sits 300km to the north of Lisbon, and, please, don't mess the two cities.

They're quite different (although both have big rivers, Douro in Oporto, and Tagus in Lisbon), and there's a historical rivalry between both (nevermind soccer, the rivalry is pretty fierce, like Barcelona and Madrid...).



Maybe we'll bump into each other at Oporto... I might go to Palácio de Cristal...

Gabriela and Ryan


Thanks for your reply.



Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.





I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.



Now for the notes.



1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.





Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)/>

"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)/>







2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.



3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)


http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

/>

"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)


http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

/>







It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).



M.



ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).





pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

Gabriela and Ryan


Thanks for your reply.



Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.





I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.



Now for the notes.



1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.





Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)/>

"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)/>







2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.



3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)


http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

/>

"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)


http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

/>







It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).



M.



ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).





pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

Gabriela and Ryan


Thanks for your reply.



Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.





I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.



Now for the notes.



1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.





Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)/>

"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)/>







2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.



3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)


http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

/>

"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)


http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

/>







It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).



M.



ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).





pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?