Disqus - Latest Comments for Dawn Douglass

Re: Living In Public Doesn't Have To Be Destructive

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:35:06 -0000

As I mentioned in my latest blog post, I too gave up blogging a while back because of vicious and relentless trolls who were obviously working to drive me and my ideas about the future of the Web away. They succeeded for a time, but I'm not going to let it happen again. There is too much at stake.

Now that the hatefulness of the election season is over and there is a psychological sentiment that we're all in a sinking ship together, I think a lot of the rats have abandoned ship, and once again civil and productive discourse is possibe via blogging. I think "public life" will be easier, at least for a time. I hope so.

Re: Is my candidate too elite? (Scripting News)

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:53:50 -0000

Obama is disappointing me in many ways. He talks a good game, for sure, but the more we get to know him, the more I get concerned about what he really believes and what he would actually do and not do as President. He does seem elitist, as well as a bit spineless.

Re: Is User Generated Content Fair?

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:51:49 -0000

Of course, contributors should be paid. I don't understand why it's taken this long for people to figure that out.

And it's not just about drawing advertising. Look how much money You Tube sold for. Is it right for only the carpenters to be paid when it was others who stocked the store with goods and made it worth buying?

Re: Startup Reactor: The Elevator Pitch

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:19:01 -0000

I don't personally care for the "r" rather than "er" bit, though I do understand that it's hard to get good domain names nowadays.

Transpondr - I don't do podcasts, but it sounds like a good service to have. Always good to know your traffic volume and where it's coming from.

LogoBids -- there are already several such services.

Publicitr -- I don't know, I'm not into PR or SEO

Siph -- So this is a "share this" button?? It's not clear.

Zambino -- like the name. I'm for anything that helps monetize content creators and put them in control of what ads run.

Re: Advertising Is Broken

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:56:04 -0000

Hi Steve! I agree with you that advertising is broken. And it's vital to our economy that we make it effective again, along with media.

I've started a new blog where I'm explained how we can fix it. It's here, if you're interested: http://thehiveiscoming.wordpress.com/

It's new and I don't have many readers yet, but I do have some powerful ones, so I'm happy about it.

Cheers!

Re: louisgray.com: Let the FriendFeed Data Mining Begin In Earnest

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:55:42 -0000

>Aside from the previously mentioned Scoble monetization post, only one post I have ever made has >hit 60 or more comments

I don't think you're getting complete responses to your searches, Louis. The post you made on Saturday about my blog article had well over 60 comments. Thanks again for that, btw.

Re: Wow

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:45:15 -0000

Regarding you empowering others, I can attest to the fact that you go above and beyond to help! You're a terrific role model for "giving back." Thanks!

Re: Corporate hypocrisy by HP

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:00:45 -0000

There sure is a lot of hedging in these reports about what may or may have not been illegal, which just goes to show how business is moving faster than our society's ability to keep up with all the legalities involved.

That's why a common sense understanding of ethics and morality is so necessary. But we're not teaching the former and we're denegrating the latter. I have an MBA and "ethics" was a one hour discussion one day during all my time in graduate business school. Talk about "morality" in the workplace and you'll be shunned as part of the wacko right wing religious fringe.

Re: Dunn apologizes and steps down from HP board

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:03:28 -0000

The news story I read said she will still be on the board, but will step down as Chair in January.

Re: I’m sorry to Patricia Dunn

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:30:17 -0000

My husband recently died from skin cancer, and I'm currently fighting breast cancer myself, and I have to say that I personally don't feel that any "hurt" on Dunn's part is justified by the comment. But I think it shows class that you apologized anyway.

Re: Comics, is there any way to make a business here?

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:54:21 -0000

Thanks, Robert. And thanks for all the suggestions, Guys.

The first thing I need to do is find out why Live Writer won't let me post my cartoons on my own blog without them looking like crap. Hmmmm....

I believe my 2.0 website, which is almost complete, could certainly get 10 million users in 3 years. The problem is that there is a Catch 22. To get that great number of users, we need topnotch cartoonists to participate. But with an advertising model only, we would need millions of users before there was enough revenue to sustain them. And most cartoonists won't support a pure advertising model, anyway.

People want everything for free on the web. Let the advertisers pay for it. But there's not an infinite number of advertisers, and when you're in bed with the advertising industry, then they have a say in what you talk about. Ask any working newspaper or magazine cartoonist how many cartoons they have had rejected because of editors' fear of offending advertisers.

It seems to me that reasonable people should be willing, even eager, to financially support independent media, the embodiment of free speech. That means independent of undue advertiser influence, as well as government influence.

Professional cartoonists get hundreds of dollars for one cartoon. All these editorial cartoonists who are getting laid off have families and mortgages. They don't have time to put months or years into starting over from scratch. So they are simply moving to something else.

So what? So it hurts our democracy to not have cartoonists who are hitting at things that need to be struck down.

Robert, Hugh is a marketer first. He's not a typical cartoonist. Cartoonists are normally artists first, with artistic sensibilites when it comes to things like selling out to advertisers. Bill Watterson wouldn't even allow Calvin and Hobbes' t-shirts and other merchandise, because he thought it was too commercial. He missed out on millions of dollars, but his own sense of artistic integrity wouldn't allow it.

Do we want more comics as good as Calvin and Hobbes, or not? We're not going to get it as newspapers continue to die if the Web won't support a business model that will support good cartoonists.

Do you know that it took Bill Amend 8 to 10 hours every day, 7 days a week, to create one Foxtrot? Well, six days a week, because Sundays take longer. No wonder he retired his dailies at such a young age. And Bill Watterson and Berkeley Breathed and Gary Larson... making good cartoons is a brutal job. Cartoonists deserve to be fairly paid for their good work, just like anybody else.

On our website, anybody can read all the comics they want to for free. What you have to pay for if you want to grab your own limited edition copy of your favorites, to put on your blog or MySpace or Facebook via our widgets -- to display your personality, showoff your sense of humor, attract readers, spark conversations, increase comments...

The price is dictated by demand and would never be more than pennies. The initial copies would be free. Because you own the copy, you could trade it or sell it, even at a greater price than you purchased it. People who choose early and wisely could reasonably get all the comics they wanted without ever having to make an actual payment.

Yes, I know people can just steal them if they want to. But those copies wouldn't have the artist notes attached, nor the comment maps, nor could they be displayed in our widgets.

A VC will say: no people won't pay, it has to be free and when you get enough members, then advertising will kick in. If that's the model, if that's the ONLY model, then cartooning -- the only visual art form that was created in the U.S. and could only have been created here because of the freedom we now take for granted -- is going to die as an art form, especially editorial cartooning, which is all but dead already. I for one think that would not only be very sad, but a dangerous turn for our society, because no written words can get the attention nor spark conversations, thought and insight like good cartoons can.

I don't see why it's so hard to expect a very small fraction, just 1% to 2% of the total number of readers, would be willing to pay pennies for copies to post on social media.

Re: Comics, is there any way to make a business here?

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:25 -0000

Yeah for Jay! I appreciate that. You made my day. ;)

Re: Comics, is there any way to make a business here?

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 04:46:54 -0000

Which one is charity, Christopher: having your hand out to be given free stuff or having your hand out to be paid for work? I agree with you about advertising not being omnipotent, like many seem to think it is.

@Nima - There is no "working" web comic industry. Even topnotch cartoonists who are "web syndicated" by major companies typically make less that $100 a month. Yes, there is a very small handful of people making a living via web cartoons, but that's the rare exception, and is pretty much limited to one type of comic and one demographic.

@Leddo - Interesting! Maybe someday. Thanks for the thoughts.

Re: Comics, is there any way to make a business here?

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:17:06 -0000

Hugh, this isn't micropayments, which is a system whereby you can't read the work until you pay a small amount for it. As I said, all our work can be read for free. Like Jay said above, this isn't about reading a bunch of comics, it's about collecting favorite comics for specific use.

Your cartoons are literally your business cards, just as Famous Amos's cookies were his, so of course you give them away for free. I've worked with cartoonists for 12 years, and I can tell you with all certainly that for most cartoonists "I just want to draw." The cartoons themselves are the product. Many don't have the time to do anything else. What else could Bill Amend do when he's spending 8-10 hours a day drawing?

Thinking this shouldn't be so, that everybody should be like you and use their cartoons as business cards to their REAL product or service, really is unfair. Different artists create cartoons at different rates in different amounts (your gag panels are conducive to be used over and over and over again as you brilliantly do, but people who have comic strips can't do that) and they have different skills and interests. Your talent and your love is being a hawker. What are artists who don't have that skill or desire or extra time to devote supposed to do?

Re: Comics, is there any way to make a business here?

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:00:19 -0000

DS, as soon as it's on the web, it can't be exclusive because it's too easy to copy.

But being FIRST with a cartoon is something we could probably do and are thinking about. Like maybe you could subscribe to an RSS for the categories you're interested in and if you grab it first you get a link to your post about it for a limited time. So everybody who sees the cartoon while it's on our website can click to you if they want to.

I think this is especially appropriate for editorial cartoons. Because like Shawn was saying, they were never meant to stand alone. Bloggers' text complement them and vice versa.

@Salubri -- well said. Thanks.

Re: Comics, is there any way to make a business here?

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:10:12 -0000

Alex, I had this programmed to accept animations. The list: comic strips, gag panels, editorial cartoons, news cartoons, comic book pages, caricatures and animations.

Frankly, I've been leaning towards taking the animation part out of it, partly because I don't like the interface they used, but also because it will spike banduse and I'm not sure animations are quite in keeping with what we're trying to do. I keep going back and forth about that.

I'd love to talk to you about it. Is this Portland OREGON? That's where I am. Please write to me:
dawn_douglass AT yahoo DOT com

Re: The “Android” of Journalism…

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:03:40 -0000

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that say "Wag More," which I smiled at, thinking it was a good sentiment, until I thought of Valleywag.

What this world needs is more people who wag their butts rather than their fingers.

Somebody should start valleyhappybutt or valleyhappyass as a spoof of valleywag site.

Re: Google makes moves to protect organic relevancy

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:54:17 -0000

Oh, so now Google is going to protect their hedgemony by refusing to call up pages that have competitors' ads on them?!

I can't believe you're for this, Robert! PPP might not have a lot of moral high ground here, but neither does Google!

Now we've got top Google execs bragging about how they can mine Gmail for consumer data. People throw a fit about the Bush administration monitoring targeted overseas phone calls for terrorist chatter, but a company that earns more money than most countries can mine anybody and everybody's email exchanges and that's just dandy?? For that we need to cheer them on???

I think this move by Google is extremely alarming. Who's the next competitor they will gun for? What's the next excuse they will use?

Did you see the cartoon on my blog about you inside The Google, Robert? You're being totally naive on this one. You think Google is wonderful. What rot. They would do and ARE doing anything and everything to keep their stock price as high as possible, "Don't do evil" be damned.

WHY did they bring OpenSocial? Because they know they are the only ones who have the machine in place that can mine social networks for all the valuable raw consumer data. They literally want to digest every one of us.

Google already has at least 45% of ALL internet advertising revenue. They want that to be 100%. If that happens they will essentially control free speech. There won't be any more newspapers, becaue they will no longer have the revenue to support themselves. Any blogger or organization they don't like can just be removed their search engine.

You may think I'm exaggerating, but look again at what they've done. They've used their seach engine to block a competitor! Robert!!! WAKE UP!! THEY'VE USED THEIR SEARCH ENGINE TO BLOCK A COMPETITOR!!

What are they going to block next? Sites with ads for the Presidential candidate they don't want to win?

You're letting your fondness for Google and your hatred of PPP cloud your thinking here. You of all people should be sounding alarms, Robert, not cheering Google on.

Re: The brand promise of Apple

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:03:34 -0000

Oh, shoot. And I liked these commercials. I was even going to buy Macs when I get my venture money.

Hmmmmmm...now I'll have to keep thinking.

Re: Ways bloggers get paid by Amazon

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:40:44 -0000

Finally, a tech toy that isn't meant for techies!!!

I couldn't be happier to read about the Kindle. I was wondering what to get my daughter for Christmas and now I know.

She's a third year law student and lugs A MOUNTAIN of heavy books to school, which is a 90 minute commute. With all those textbooks, it's really hard for her to take casual reading material with her, too. This will be perfect!

I think all you geeks are wrong on this one.

Re: Ways bloggers get paid by Amazon

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:34:57 -0000

"Amazon - High-priced feature-lacking generic device. Only getting traction as Amazon is sponsoring. Scoble (and Dawn, does she EVER think for herself?), and other paid-off supporters."

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I've never been paid off to say anything for anybody. And if you knew anything about me at all, you'd know that I always think for myself and am not afraid to say what I think, like the fact that you're a boring, tiresome troll.

DaveD, if you think only techies can use keyboards, then I hope you're not a techie yourself, because I can't imagine who would be desperate enough to hire you, and I'd have to worry about your ability to buy food and find shelter.

As for $10 books...when you've been paying $200 to $300 for each textbook, $10 looks like a steal.

She'll be able to carry several books at once, plus magazines and newspapers and blogs. She can search for passages, for names; she can look things up...

I only wish somebody was buying me one for Christmas.

Re: Join the New Media Douchebag Club

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:45:08 -0000

"It's funny because it's true."

Re: Dear Jeff Bezos (one-week Kindle review)

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:46:34 -0000

Well, Robert, you talked yourself out of a $40 commission. But I appreciate your honesty. I'll wait and hope that they get the next version right.

But I have to disagree with you about firing the designer. The one who had authority over approval of the design is the one who needs to take responsibility.

Re: Dear Jeff Bezos (one-week Kindle review)

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:25:58 -0000

Despite the problems, they sold out.

Re: I might become a Tablet PC evangelist again…

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:25:57 -0000

Wow, that's fabulous.

And I DO have a tablet PC.

Re: Zuckerberg admits “mistakes” on Facebook’s Beacon

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:19:28 -0000

I care, Robert! As you can see by the cartoon I wrote and posted on my blog.

I think it's going to take a lot more than this apology to repair the damage this has caused the Facebook brand.

Re: Kindle goes to Europe…

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:50:21 -0000

Expensive plastic doesn't get dirty? :)

Re: Steal my content, please!

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:50:39 -0000

I'm sure Naked Conversations publisher will be happy to know they no longer have to pay you for sales of the book. ;)

Re: It’s your business

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:30:48 -0000

If you don't mind my saying so, Robert, I don't understand why you don't just go out on your own. You could easily be a consultant to startups as well as to big established companies. You could go all the video and photo stuff for free, but get paid when you talk behind closed doors about this or that.

For example, Amazon could have paid you to look at the Kindle design before they started manufacturing.

I'm sure you'd make a ton of money AND you could write off all your video and travel expenses, since it's meeting with others in the industry that informs your consulting.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Good luck with whatever it is you do.

Re: The idiots laughing beside you

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:50:39 -0000

I think he means that figuring out what content is linked to most isn't enough, that what we do with that content (gestures to him seem to equal emailing it, copying it, printing it off, writing a blog about it, and so on) is more telling when it comes to what is most valuable to us.

In other words, we live in an ever growing collaborative online world, and content that is being manipulated somehow has more importance to that world.

The movie house example is a way of saying that the movie alone (the content) isn't as valuable to us as the the movie plus the gestures (the laughter) surrounding the content.

Anyway, I just read this quickly and have never heard of this gesture stuff before, so I could be wrong, but that's what it seems to be saying, and I would have to agree with him. If he has a way of quantifying the value of what he calls gestures, that would be very interesting.

Re: Dave Winer’s thoughts on the meaning of Amazon’s infrastructure

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:27:24 -0000

Robert, doesn't this mean that Amazon is going to be able to mine even more people's data???

Why would I want Amazon to have control of my database and all the people who sign up for my site so that they can feed even more data to Facebook?

Isn't this just turning over the advertising revenue one could generate from one's applications to Amazon??

What am I missing here? I don't understand why people think this is such a great deal. Seems to me it's like giving Amazon the combination to your bank vault.

Re: Celebrating seven years of blogging

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:13:20 -0000

Seven is a lucky number. Must be even better things on the horizon. Congrats.

Re: Henry Blodget nails disruption

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:56:32 -0000

I see disruption all around me, too, caused by people like you, Robert, who serve big money interests over individual rights, so much so that good, honest, hard working people are losing their jobs (e.g. BusinessWeek layoffs) and/or their independent incomes (photographers, artists, musicians....), and just in time for Christmas.

Understand this, why don't you?:
http://dawnkey.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/ruining...

Re: Henry Blodget nails disruption

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:05:58 -0000

My agenda is upholding people of all personality types and many varied skills to make money off the Internet just like you are making money off the Internet.

What's your agenda?

Re: Henry Blodget nails disruption

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:40:07 -0000

Robert, I'm not trying to be an A-list blogger, or even a D-list blogger. I've worked hard "to learn what's happening in the tech industry" and I have OFTEN thanked you for helping me do that.

That *doesn't* mean I have to like everything that's happening in the tech industry and everything the tech industry is forcing down non-tech people's throats.

You're the one who has the audience to share all this stuff with, and good for you for doing so! I mean that sincerely. But why are you forcing this model onto everybody else? Why can't there be other ways to make money?

Do you support the writer's strike? Do you think creators should be compensated for their work? If you do, and it's good for TV, why not the Internet?

People don't want the "big bad music companies" to make all the money. So why is it a good thing for Google to do so?

Re: Henry Blodget nails disruption

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:20:35 -0000

I don't know if that was a sincere "good luck," but I'll take it, anyway. We writers and artists need all the luck we can get just to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table these days.

Re: Henry Blodget nails disruption

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:27:18 -0000

>>dawnkey: look at http://www.gapingvoid.com — he’s doing quite well, thank you very much.

SIGH How many times do we have to go over that one, Robert? Hugh is a MARKETER first and foremost, and always was. And he has a tech audience, as do all the cartoonists who make a living off the Web.

Engadget, TechCrunch, Scobleizer, Facebook...yes you techies are very good at making each other money, just like the railroad guys and the oil guys and the newspaper guys before you.

How many nontechie artists and bloggers are making as good a living as you are from the Web?

I don't begrudge you guys doing it. More power to you. It's techies who created the Web and you deserve the first spoils. We're all grateful, believe me.

I'm just tired of you guys promoting ideas that will forever keep others cut out of it, and all while espousing yourselves as the great democritizers. It's bull shit. And if you would stop and think about what I'm saying, I believe you would agree with me.

Arrington won't. He's beyond hope.

Take my getting pissy with you as a compliment.

Re: The RIAA is right

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:29:23 -0000

I think both sides go too far and expect too much.

Companies want to force us to have to buy the same song or movie over and over again in different formats. That stinks.

But I also think it's over the line to expect that people should be able to "do whatever I want to with it" -- like giving away copies of a movie for free or using a song in a Flash animated movie without the creators' consent.

Both sides are going to have to compromise. I don't think creators' rights should be trampled just because the powers-that-be in their industry get too greedy. Creators need to be fairly compensated, and no, that doesn't mean everything has to be free but the tickets to their live concerts and their merchandise.

Re: “What’s your audience size?” is wrong question

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:13:39 -0000

As I say in my 2008 predictions, I think blogging is going to change significantly beginning this year. Blogs (and bloggers) are going to be thin-sliced so that when I automatically get content from Fred Wilson, for example, I don't get all the music stuff that I don't care about, but the VC stuff that I do.

Re: Australia: keeping the Internet clean for kids

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:12:08 -0000

Does anybody think the Founding Fathers thought freedom of speech includes the freedom to show young children anything and everything that happens in this often sick world?

To say that responsibility goes to parents only is absurd. Unless a parent chains their children to their beds without a television, computer, game system, phone or access to friends, there is no way a parent can police this stuff alone.

Re: Australia: keeping the Internet clean for kids

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:16:11 -0000

As for the politics behind this, it's funny to me that the same people who call for keeping military recruiters away from children support allowing pedophiles and pornographers full access to them.

Re: Australia: keeping the Internet clean for kids

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:33:35 -0000

Stem cell research, contraception and abortion are all Catholic issues, and most Catholics are Democrats.

Re: Australia: keeping the Internet clean for kids

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:58:13 -0000

Robert, I'm surprised you would know that! :)
My kids always went to Catholic schools, too, but I never polled the other parents regarding their political party. I can't even remember it ever coming up, except for people I knew very well. I'm just going by national statistics.

I just think it's best not to stereotype groups of people, including political groups. I'm conservative and Christian, but I'm not a part of what people call "the religious right," because I'm not evangelical or fundamentalist, I believe in civil unions for homosexuals, I want major changes in health care in this country, etc. etc.

I think the world is much too complex nowdays to make assumptions and judgments based on whether or not you believe in God, or like George Bush, or believe that abortion is morally equivalent to slavery, and so on.

To my mind, being totally black and white about free speech are no better than any other radical position. It's just common sense that we don't let anybody and everybody have full digital access to vulnerable children, any more than we allow them to have full physical access.

Re: Australia: keeping the Internet clean for kids

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:50:34 -0000

I think locked doors are an attack on freedom. I say we outlaw locks and alarm systems on our homes and businesses.

And clothes, too. As Mr. Naked Time, Sexy Time says, there's nothing more freedom-suppressing than clothing.

Re: What I’ve learned in 2007

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:03:15 -0000

I don't always agree with you, Robert, but I stick with you because
1) you're a lot more humble than arrogant (which is the opposite of most A-list bloggers)
2) you have a childlike eagerness and passion for learning
3) you put family first

Happy New Year!

Re: Erased

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:47:36 -0000

The problem is that some people make information available only to friends. There is a social understanding that this information will stay on Facebook and be exposed only to certain people.

I think people have a legitimate gripe about you taking that information, IF other people could have gotten access to it. You say people should own their own information, and I agree with that. But my birthday is MY information, not YOUR information.

Robert, you've always looked at Facebook at a Rolodex. I like that analogy. Say you had an old-fashioned Rolodex. Yes, you can carry that with you anywhere you go. BUT if you take that Rolodex and make copies of everybody's business card and make them available to anybody and everybody who wants them, then that's a breach of the relationship. It's a slam against trust and privacy.

What I've missed in all of this (I haven't been following it closely), is whether or not what you took would be accessible to anybody else but you. If it would be only you, then I don't see a problem with it. But if it could be accessed by others, then you were wrong to do it, IMO.

One more thing...you always have the attitude that you're an open book and good for you. But not everybody is like you. We all have own comfort levels when it comes to privacy. (I bet 95% of women have a much lower threshold than you do.) You shouldn't assume that nobody should be upset because you wouldn't be.

It's like you're "steal my content" argument. Fine for you, but not for everybody. Frankly, I think this tendency of yours to think that what's good for you is good for everybody is the one fault that is going to keep getting you into trouble.

Re: Erased

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:52:59 -0000

btw, I had a PRIVATE ezboard a few years ago. I used it to talk to my cartoonists, scattered across the globe. We moved to something else and I told them that I wanted the account closed. It was something that I was actually paying for, so when I quit paying for it, I thought it would go away.

I found out earlier this year, that EVERYthing was not only still there, but all the password stuff was totally gone. ANYbody could access ANY and ALL of this PRIVATE forum.

I learned my lesson there. I don't believe ANYthing is really private online.

Re: Erased

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:19:14 -0000

Robert said: "the problem is that when Flickr deletes a photo, they delete more than just that person’s photo: they also delete MY comments with it."

I honestly don't get why people want everything they say and do online to be stored forever. We don't have that expectation about the "real world." Why do we have that expectation about the Web?

I'd rather my stuff was deleted!! I look back at things I wrote in forums many years ago and think, oh great, some day somebody is going to use this against me.

I'll say again, I don't get it, any more than I would get having a tape recorder running 24 hours a day to archive my every conversation.

Life should be about living, about moving forward, not capturing every single little thing we say or do so that we or somebody else can look backwards at our every thought.

For God's sake, NObody is THAT important!

Re: Erased

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:23:39 -0000

>You pay nothing, expect to get nothing.

Now this is an argument that I think is totally BS.
It's the members of Facebook who have earned the service a $15 billion valuation. Every member there pays plenty by inputing their time and data and by clicking on the stupid ads.

Anybody who thinks Facebook members can be treated like crap because they don't make Facebook even richer with direct dollars is being totally ridiculous.

Re: Inspiration and repetition

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:11:49 -0000

Yeah, I wrote about this on my blog yesterday.

It's very sad.

Re: My favorite thing at CES…

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:10:10 -0000

Wow, four days since Robert has posted to his blog.

I guess those of us who don't twitter and don't care about streaming video should look elsewhere as this blog continue to fall towards an afterthought.

Re: Gizmodogate

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:38:13 -0000

Robert, didn't you see this?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/fashion/13gaw...

MO's like Denton's are never permanent. Maturity and professionalism always win out in the end. It just takes longer these days.

Re: Why we’re going to FastCompany.tv

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:07:29 -0000

Love the airplane idea...a captured audience full of business travelers. Perhaps you could cut a deal with Travelocity or somesuch company. Then when I buy a ticket from them, I have the option to download your content so that my laptop is full when I get on the plane and need something to do.

Good luck with it all! Dawn

Re: Why we’re going to FastCompany.tv

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:59:15 -0000

Robert, you too want control over what you want control over. Just like in this post, you said content producers should be able to keep their content off link blogs:
http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/11/techcrunch-lin...

Clearly, if somebody tried making a mirror Scoble blog so that they could run advertising on it, you'd be up in arms and you know it.

Copyright isn't dead, but it IS dying because people like you keep ringing it's death chimes and making people feel like it's okay to steal other people's content while deriding those who stand up and say no.

Note: Nobody is "stealing" your content when you allow them to have it for free. If you don't want them to do that, if you've made it plain that you don't want them to help themselves to your stuff, THEN it is stealing.

Re: Why we’re going to FastCompany.tv

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:28:40 -0000

Perhaps your new employer will give a hoot, given they are going to be putting ads here.

Re: Why we’re going to FastCompany.tv

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:14:32 -0000

Robert, I wish you would stop for five minutes and listen to what you're saying, which is:

1) You can only make money from the Web if you can personally create a large audience.

Do you really think you would have such a large audience if it wasn't for the fact that you worked at Microsoft and were one of the first bloggers? I honestly like you, Robert, and I think you deserve your success, because you were in the right place at the right time and took the right actions. Nobody handed success to you, you made it.

But let me just ask you something: If you were starting today in the techfield, and you had zero contacts and zero visibility and nobody knew you from Adam, do you honestly think you'd make it so high now? If you do, then I think a lot of people would like to hear how you would do it and how long you think it would take to get back to where you are now if it all went away tomorrow and you started from zero.

I still strongly believe that people who are not A-type personalities, people who just want to create and not be salesmen, should have as much opportunity to make money from the Web as you hyper-social guys do.

2) You can only expect to make money from digital content if you can get it into material form somehow, like your book. Give it away digitally for free, but sell hard copies, because PRINT copyright is still valid, but online copyright doesn't count. Like you often say, "copyright is dead."

Just think about the longterm consequences of your stance as print continues to decline. Why will people buy books for the The Kindle, for example, when they've been trained by you not to respect copyright law?

Look, newspapers could have stolen content, too, way back when they formed. But they didn't. They paid people for it. There was A CULTURE OF RESPECT for creatives. Even now, online newspapers will pay me $250 and up for an editorial cartoon, but places like TechCrunch (which makes a lot more money than a lot of online newspapers!) have NO expectation AT ALL of having to pay for content they use.

And why? Because of your "copyright is dead" attitude that puts unrealistic expectations on creators, MOST of whom are not salesmen like you are.

I do think I have the solution to all this. My company is going to work hard to resuscitate copyright and I do think we'll be successful, though it's going to take us a few years to get fully there.

In the meantime, it just upsets me that we can't be on the same side here. It's like you're making me your enemy and vice-versa.

Esstentially, this is what you're saying, Robert: Give it up, *I* have *my* dream, but yours died with copyright law."

Is that REALLY what you want???

Re: On work and family and having a “real life”

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:02:20 -0000

I read recently...I think it was in the book Good to Great by Jim Collins...that studies have shown that coders who work more than 8 hours a day do more harm than good as the number of bugs they create skyrocket.

I would rather have well-rounded employees who can bring thought and creativity to the table, as well as well-rested employees who don't screw everything up because their brains are tired.

There is a happy medium between workaholics and slackers. Nobody wants slackers, but to make the leap that the employees who value brutal hours above healthy families are somehow more valuable is beyond absurd. When there's trouble at home, the quality of work will inevitably suffer.

I've worked at startups, including Tripwire a decade ago. "Workaholics" are usually people trying to overcompensate weaknesses in their lives. If you're a founding CEO and don't understand that there is a lot more to monitor and manage than manipulating the number of hours your workers' asses are in $600 chairs, then I predict that you are the one who will eventually be replaced, if your startup survives at all.

Re: On work and family and having a “real life”

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:23:37 -0000

I read some of the employee posts that are meant to defend Mahalo, and now I just feel worse about the company.

A lot of Jason's workers aren't coders but are people who write up pages. They get paid $30-$35k a year and work from 45 hours a week to 60 hours a week "unless there's an emergency," in which case we can assume it goes way up.

To figure out a wage per hour, you normally use 2080 hours for the year. If that's the case, these workers get paid $16.83 an hour for the $35,000.

But let's say the average work week is 52.5 hours (half of the spread above). Then they are making the equivalent of $12.82 an hour.

I consider that a pretty low wage for the area where they live, but that aside, here's the main problem I have with all this. The argument is that "of course, we work hard, this is a startup." Okay, fair enough. But with most start-ups, it's coders who are putting in these kind of hours. The coders are building permanent value. And their work will ultimately slow down from the startup frenzied pace.

But these page building people are going to be an ongoing necessity. There is no end to their hamster wheel run. Is that not correct?

This one guy said he's willing to do this work because he thinks he'll become a millionaire someday. What about the people who are going to have to keep doing this work day in and day out forevermore? What's their motivation going to be?

Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something (and I'm open to the possibility), I have a hard time believing that anybody will ever want to purchase Mahalo, because the labor costs to keep it going are going to be astronomical once the page creators will no longer work startup hours at startup wages.

They'll have to hire a lot more people at a lot higher wages to keep this going. I just don't see how that's workable in the long run.

So as for employee surprise and confusion over the debate, yes, I think people are sincerely concerned for you employees who are working your hearts out for the team and the vision, because this company doesn't scale and your stock options are likely going to be worthless.

Re: Audience of Twittering Assholes

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:16:23 -0000

I can't believe this is still being discussed so much. Why does one poor interview warrant nonstop discussion for days?

Re: The best of my cell phone videos

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:00:41 -0000

I worked for a winery for some time. We're big on Pinot Noir up here in Oregon. In fact, this reminded me that I gave you a bottle last May from Chehalem. I hope you enjoyed it.

Re: Early adopter angst

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:45:26 -0000

Web 2.0 won't go mainstream until more right-brained people are included in creating web-sites and applications, as I talk about often on my cartoon blog: http://inkswig.com/2008/05/01/uber-left-brain-v...

Re: How late adopters get into social media

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:51:10 -0000

I think your belittling disdain for late adopters is undeserved. If developers would create something that we felt good about inviting our parents and grandparents and others to, we would.

If developers don't create mainstream sites, then don't mock and ridicule the mainstream for not showing up.

I for one am sick to death of hearing "they don't get it." From where I sit, it's early adopters who don't "get" anybody but those who look and act and think like they do.

Re: YHOO/MSFT/GOOG: the market speaks

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:20:13 -0000

I think the best reporting on the Microsoft-Yahoo deal has been from Newsweek. Rob Hof talked to Yang today:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat...

Re: YHOO/MSFT/GOOG: the market speaks

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:23:10 -0000

I think the best reporting on the Microsoft-Yahoo deal has been by BusinessWeek. Rob Hof talked to Yang today:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat...

Re: YHOO/MSFT/GOOG: the market speaks

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:24:52 -0000

Okay, what's the deal? Why didn't my comment post? No links allowed without approval or something???

Re: Facebook has a point where it comes to your privacy

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:16:50 -0000

Robert, I thought you were all for putting all your private data and company data in the Cloud.

This is why I think most people will never trust cloud computing.

Re: Facebook has a point where it comes to your privacy

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:49:25 -0000

I hear this banking argument all the time and I think it's bogus. If somebody takes your money, there is a trail. You will know it instantly and the bank will have to make good on it and give it back. Money is money. It doesn't have to be the exact same money that they took, just the same amount.

Data does not work like money. If somebody takes your information, like your business secrets and your social security number and your medical records, you may never know or find out years down the line when you're adversely affected. And there is no good way to compensate you for the loss.

If somebody suddenly comes out with a product or service very similar to the one you were designing using cloud computing, could you prove that somebody accessed your records? No. They could argue it's a coincidence or that they got the information some other way.

It's not like banking at all, and everybody who makes this argument doesn't understand how hard it's going to be to get the mainstream public to trust the Cloud.

Re: Celebrity tipping point on Seesmic

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:37:05 -0000

"Contrived promotion"?? If you're that cynical, you could include the entire blogosphere and all social networks as contrived promotion.

I agree that this is huge for Seesmic. Way to go!

Re: Celebrity tipping point on Seesmic

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:25:37 -0000

So what if they never come back to Seesmic? This will still spread the word and introduce lots of people to the service. How much would it cost in advertising dollars to do the same thing?

I think a lot of this negative reaction is just jealousy. I hear people say that Seesmic is nothing special, that anybody could have created it. Well, then why didn't you?

Lot of sour grapes in the tech world, me thinks.

Re: Why did Facebook tell Google “stay off our lawn?”

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:41:50 -0000

Robert, I remember telling you some time back that Facebook opening up their APIs would be a winner in the short term but wind up costing them big in the long run.

It's like giving every friend you have a key to your house. Sure it guarantees you'll have a lot of "friends", but...

Re: Chinese shut down Web sites “in memorial”

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:31:36 -0000

Robert, reading your story about Maryam was a grim reminder of something my son went through in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004...

Our guys had been giving candy to the Iraqi children. One day they were told to stop doing that immediately. A man had followed a child home and gutted him alive in front of his parents. He pulled out the candy from the child's stomach and told the parents he deserved to die for seeking pleasure from Americans.

Some people might think that Maryam's parents overreacted. I don't.

Re: Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:10:09 -0000

Robert said: This is a scary company and if it gets in the hands of Microsoft will create a scary monopoly.

So Google isn't a scary monopoly?? I think they are the most frightening of all, and I'm all for any strong competition that can keep them from getting 100% of online advertising.

Re: Twitter blames its users

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:26:34 -0000

So what the heck are they going to do with the $15 million?? They could scrap the whole thing and start over and development wouldn't cost a fraction of that.

How much are they paying for bandwidth? Anybody have a clue?

Re: Clearing the air with Twitter

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:10:17 -0000

Robert, you should NEVER go so long without sleep. In 1995 a good friend of mine dropped dead from a heart attack at the age of 47. He had just been through a battery of physicals, including stress tests and EKGs, because he was returning to active duty. They said his heart was in tiptop shape, despite his beer belly.

So why did he have a heart attack? Because he went three days with very little sleep. He was trying to get lots of things done so his wife wouldn't have problems while he was deployed. Turns out his parting was forever.

Maryam is going to be totally pissed at you if you drop dead from working so hard, just like I'm angry at my husband for dying from skin cancer at age 46 when I used to BEG him to wear sunscreen. Me: "Fine!, but don't come crying to me when you get skin cancer." Him: "I'm not going to get skin cancer." Yeah, right. And you can't have a heart attack either, right Robert?

I know you love to work, that your work is also your play, but you're going to have to stop this manic pace you've been keeping before it permanently stops you. You're "on" all the time. You need to turn OFF, *at least* 8 hours EVERY day.

I'm only nagging you because I don't want to see Maryam and Patrick and Milan go through what me and my two kids have gone through. Please don't do that to them.

Re: Chris Messina nails it

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:57:20 -0000

Soviet Russia? As somebody who was in Eastern Europe right after the Wall came down, I don't think that's fair criticism at all.

It seems to me that Facebook has gotten itself into trouble by being open, not by being closed. It opened its APIs and now it has to work to keep bad stuff from getting through them. That's what all this kicking people off is about, isn't it?

Re: Chris Messina nails it

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:03:31 -0000

btw, I actually think Google is more like the Soviet Union. They want to take over the world. They're sucking in everything they can get their hands on. And the only reason they want open social networks is because they know that nobody else has the machine to churn all that data and turn it into highly targeted advertising.

It's like a bank account. Facebook opened theirs and people are taking their money out. Google opened their bank account, too, but only to allow deposits.

Re: Chris Messina nails it

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:29:42 -0000

Why should Google get to decide that "THE" platform should be?

OpenSocial is bull shit wrapped up in gift paper. Google just wants to make sure their own DNA is in every single thing anybody builds.

We already have an open platform. It's called the Web.

Re: Patrick graduates to high school

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:48:05 -0000

Ut oh. Now comes the time when you blink and they're off to college, it goes by so fast.

Congratulations. Enjoy it!

Re: Off of the tech entertainment train

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:42:43 -0000

This probably sounds shallow on my part, but I would watch more of your videos if they were embedded in your posts instead of just given as links. I've noticed that it's hard for me to resist clicking on a play button, but links don't draw me in.

Links say "If I click on this it's going to take lots of my time." An embedded video says "If I don't like it, I can always stop it."

Re: Off of the tech entertainment train

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:07:34 -0000

You're a broken record, C.C.

Robert is just following the natural way of things. Like when you're dating, at first you're very excited about them, but as you learn more, you can get turned off and disillusioned.

What would you have Robert do? Marry a serial killer because he liked her when they first met??

The world at large isn't static, and certainly the world Robert plays in is even more dynamic. Services change, needs change, new services launch...

The way you harp on this issue over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, it makes me wonder if you're still using dialup because getting online was so exciting for you at first.

Re: Jason Calacanis hands keys to blogosphere to Louis Gray

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:04:45 -0000

I'm not convinced it isn't real, despite Jason's history.

It so happens that I deleted my own blog just last night.

The trolling hate mongers have taken over. Blogging is now quite the opposite of enjoyable.

Re: Has/How/Why tech blogging has failed you

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:42:44 -0000

What I don't like about tech blogging is the "They don't get it" attitude towards nontech people. I've never once seen any tech blogger even consider the notion that perhaps he is the one who doesn't get it.

So there is this echo chamber where only tech interests are considered and everybody else's interests be damned.

Re: Has/How/Why tech blogging has failed you

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:01:52 -0000

I agree with Sheila about your enthusiasm and kindness, Robert. And I would add that you're the least arrogant tech blogger that I know of, which is greatly appreciated, though you do have your moments. ;)

Re: The passionates vs. the non passionates

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:06:54 -0000

I'm not passionate about technology. But I'm building what people would call a tech-based company. Why? Because I'm passionate about something else that can only be realized via the Web.

The key is to reaching "non-passionates" is to understand that there is no such thing. Everybody is passionate about SOMEthing.

Stop making the technology the most important focus and the mainstream will come. Technology for technology's sake attracks the early adopters, but it won't get you people like me who want to engage but not because of the technology.

Let the technology be a tool to connecting us to what we ARE passionate about and the majority with come. I'm betting everything on it.

Re: Save journalism?

Dawn Douglass — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:46:04 -0000

Newspapers and magazines supply MUCH more original content than the Web does.

It takes a lot of time and money to produce real journalism. And much of what gets covered isn't exciting stories that the reporters would choose to write about, but they go because that's the job they are paid to do.

Blogging is not an adequate replacement to journalism.

Then again, journalism itself isn't what it used to be. It's been infected by bias. I think saving journalism has to start with understanding that you go gather the facts. Let the bloggers and other talking heads spin those facts. Reporters and editors should be as objective as possible, the way I learned to be back in journalism school in the late 70s.

The reason I don't read The Oregonian is because it's too biased. The time has long since passed that readers need to rely on editors to tell us what to think. Get all the editorial stuff OUT of newspapers and they would do much better. Whether they lean left or lean right, they're going to lose half their audience by being biased in this polarized climate that isn't likely to change any time soon.

Re: Front-row seat to John Edwards sex scandal

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:06:07 -0000

Wow. Up close and personal. Way to go.

I've always thought there was something smarmy about Edwards. That big fake smile he puts on gives me the creeps. As someone who has fought breast cancer and lost my husband to cancer, it's hard for me to believe he could be that low. Not to mention utterly stupid.

Re: Front-row seat to John Edwards sex scandal

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:12:14 -0000

If Edwards had won the nomination this would have guaranteed that the Democrats would lose the White House.

And if Obama had picked him as VP, it could have derailed Obama's chances.

It goes to judgment as well as character. So, yes, being weak and narcissistic does matter.

I wonder what people who gave money to his campaign will think and do if it's proven that they have been giving her hush money from campaign coffers.

Re: Front-row seat to John Edwards sex scandal

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:03:34 -0000

The "nature of life" is also to make cancer 12 times more dangerous when your under stress and anguish. This will literally shorten Elizabeth Edwards life. I guess that's what this "other woman" is banking on, since she is telling all her friends that she will become the next Mrs. Edwards.

Face it, the guy is scum.

Re: Front-row seat to John Edwards sex scandal

Dawn Douglass — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:23:04 -0000

The Enquirer has been on tv saying they are 100% certain that the baby IS Edwards. You can buy a DNA paternity test at any pharmacy nowdays. It would have been easy for them or anybody else to get a hair from the baby and from Edwards.

I think Edwards said "Let's do a paternity test to prove I'm not the father" because he was in cahoots with Hunter who has quickly said she won't allow it.

Everybody saying the media is piling on Edwards forgets JamesB's point that they have been totally silent on this affair, even after he was caught in the hotel with her a couple of weeks ago. The NE has been looking into this for over a year. They say they are going to bring out all the facts they've collected in the coming days and weeks, in their own time. Obviously, they want to sell their newspapers. And they will.

I bet Hunter isn't the only one, just the only one with a baby. More women will undoubtedly be named or come forward on their own.

This is a long-winded way of saying that Robert is correct with this post. Bloggers and other ordinary citizens will play an increasing role in bringing things like this public and sorting things facts after suspicions arise. Now there is a photo record of politicians, business leaders, etc. that they can't control. Was so-and-so really at X-place on Y-date? Who was with him?

Now the public has more power to point out lies and inconsistencies.

Re: PR-less launch kicks off a stack overflow of praise

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:20:25 -0000

I think the problem with PR firms is that they don't discriminate. You pay them and they'll promote a sack of dung.

What percentage of companies at TechCrunch50 will be lame?

What percentage of iPhone apps and Facebook apps are embarrassments?

I can see why Robert is frustrated by it all. I think I'd have shot myself by now if I were in his shoes.

Re: What do the freaking tech bloggers want?

Dawn Douglass — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:09:48 -0000

All this talk about "community" is very overblown, IMO. Is TechCrunch a community? I don't think so. They get what? one or two million visitors? How many write comments? It's usually less than 100, and most of those are trolls.

Does Scobleizer have a community? Yes, I suppose it does. But as somebody who has read this blog for years now, I recognize maybe a dozen commenters. And who here besides Robert himself knows who the hell I am? I'd guess nobody. (Yeah, I know it doesn't help that I don't link to a blog. I gave up blogging. Usually the only people who bothered to comment were trolls. I'm sick to death of trolls.)

IMO, blogging isn't a good tool for community. And I think PR folks give bloggers too much credit. So what if you get on TechCrunch? You know what that will do for you? You'll immediately get thousands of hits and then they'll be gone. It's like being attacked by locust. The ones who comment will be the ones who think they can do a better job than you did and cut the service to ribbons.

If you've got server capacity to withstand this attack, then you're squandering your resources because it's really more than you need at the moment. (Like I said, 99.9% will never be back.) If you don't have the capacity, then your users will be put out because the service will go down.

When my own service launches in January, I can tell you that I won't be looking to get on TechCrunch or Techmeme (have never ever even been to techmeme) and I sure won't be paying a PR person to put out press releases. I'll get the word out to people I know and will talk to them about it and they can tell people if they like it and invite their friends and family and so it goes. Organic growth is what actually works.

You need a strong base of support before you start showing up on places like TechCrunch. Otherwise, there will be nobody there who will know enough about your service to defend it when the trolls start attacking.

I'd bet donuts that the new services you never read about on major tech blogs are in a stronger position to actually make it. THAT'S the essence of what's wrong with PR.

Re: We get the journalism we spend our attention on

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:30:54 -0000

When I was in high school in the 70s the media hyped that there was a coming ice age that would destroy life as we know it. Now it's global warning that will destroy life as we know it.

Everything we eat causes cancer. Now cell phones do, too. The purest water is bad for our kids' health because it doesn't have flouride in it.

When I had babies, the "experts" said to put them on their stomachs so that if they spit up, they wouldn't choke to death. Now the "experts" say you must put them on their backs so that they don't smother in the mattress.

Take Lipitor and you won't have a heart attack. Oh, wait, looks like Lipitor might cause brain problems and it doesn't do anything to prevent heart attack.

The trouble with media is that they don't understand that human beings actually know very little and can control even less. I expect that the people who do ignore media live happier lives.

Re: Mozilla gives the passionates one with Ubiquity

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:58:08 -0000

Somebody else download it on my computer, show me how it works and maybe I'll get passionate. I just don't like having to figure things out. I once let a clock radio I purchased sit in the box for three months until my husband came back from sea and could set it for me.

Now that my husband has passed away, my clocks on the microwave and the stove just blink, my clock in the car is an hour off, and I can't use the our digital camera because I don't know how to charge it or get pictures from it into the computer.

I'm not stupid. I was Valedictorian of my high school and have an MBA which I received with honors. I use all kinds of software and have even designed a few applications by telling developers what I want done. I'm just not a task person. I don't like reading manuals, directions, etc. for gadgety things. I won't do it.

I think that's the key to understanding nonpassionates. The truth is we ARE passionate, we just need more help to get there. OR, better yet, make it so intuitive that we don't have to read a manual to figure it out.

Re: Mozilla gives the passionates one with Ubiquity

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:53:11 -0000

Michael, I really don't know how to explain it. I'm just not gadget inclined. If something comes with a lot of buttons, I don't want it.

Funny that you mentioned nuclear power plants. My husband was a Navy Nuke (reactor operator) for 8 years and he wound up working for Intel. But I was better at using software than he was. He was great at hardware, which I don't even like to mess with.

It's something to do with the brain's wiring I think, but I'm no expert, so I'm not sure I can explain it. I do read lots of nonfiction books (business) but I don't do manuals. I can force my brain to go there when I have to, like somebody is paying me to do so, but I won't on my own time. Even if I want to record something. :)

Maybe the key is in your car example where you said you'd take lessons. So would I. I wouldn't read a book to learn how to drive. I don't want to read instructions to learn how to use Ubiquity. Like I said in my previous post, show me how it works.

You know, I never thought of it this way, but maybe that's why I like Robert and read this blog, even though I'm not a techie. Robert shows me stuff. I want to see it used and hear about how it's being used and then maybe use it myself if I think it's useful or fun. I don't want to read an instruction book about it.

Re: Mozilla gives the passionates one with Ubiquity

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:25:54 -0000

btw, this conversation has made me decide something. When my site launches, I want TWO instructional videos. One for the passionates and another for the nonpassionates. :)

Re: Mozilla gives the passionates one with Ubiquity

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:18:23 -0000

Alan: Maybe you're right, but then again, I'm passionate about ripe tomatoes but I don't grow them myself. And I've known lots of couples who were friends before they became passionate about each other.

Seems to me that to expect passion on the frontend limits products more than they might otherwise need to be. I think Activewords has it right. That's something I'm actually using because of their babysteps approach. They didn't expect me to be passionate immediately. It worked.

I don't like the word "non-passionate" anyway. I'm a very passionate person. It's misleading and would likely offend people outside the tech world. Seems to me that to imply somebody isn't passionate, just because they don't like the kinds of things I like, is a bias seeking an -ism label.

Why can't we just say geek and nongeek. "Geek" is no longer an offensive term, right? Or is it?

Re: My fellow Democrats

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:25:23 -0000

Regarding Robert's comment that "Global warming is something that’s observable. Not a religion. A religion is where you take things on 'faith.'":

Current observations are is that the globe is actually cooling, not warming. And the so-called "fact" that human activity is causing global warming is not a scientific fact at all but is accepted by the faithful despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

I'd also point out that when it comes to God, there have been countless observable miracles that science itself cannot explain away.

Re: Blogging, changing every day

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:38:36 -0000

Robert: One problem with you using FF is that comments here have mostly dried up. I think that's significant if you care about your blog being a historic record. The FF discussions wash away quickly.

But I suppose that's why you often come back and say, "The discussion to this post can be found here." Will those FF links always be good? Do they plan to archive everything forever?

Do FF posts show up in Google? I haven't run across any.

Re: The Scoble Top Tech Blogger/FriendFeed/Social Media List

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:14:18 -0000

I don't see the point of this post. I'm not even a geek and even I know about a third of these already. The ones I don't know, I'm not interested in learning about. I have only so much time a day.

Besides, I've already befriended you, and since you're friends of everybody else, I already see their FF stuff. Why go directly? It will just increase the noise even more.

Am I missing something here? Is this just a "I need to link to popular people because the neglect of my blog is hurting my Google juice," or is there a real value here that I'm not understanding??

Re: We’re in a death spiral

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:46:45 -0000

What's to be afraid of? During recessions what money you do have goes farther, your taxes get lower (unless Obama is elected), stronger companies are created, kids and adults alike learn invaluable lessons about saving and budgeting, people start looking out more for their neighbors, families and friends become more creative as they can no longer afford to buy gifts or have somebody else intertain them....

In the grand scheme of things, money isn't as important as we all try to make it out to be. Recessions provide a good, healthy reminder of that.

Re: While blogging in crisis job #1 is listening

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:49:58 -0000

I no longer know what a "blogger" is. Web logs used to be like a diary of one's life. Then some bloggers became more like journalists, going out and getting stories firsthand, instead of just pontificating on somebody else's news.

Today I hear about "professional bloggers" and "amateur bloggers" and I wonder where the heck the lines are. If I click on a link that takes me to an unfamilair blog, I have zero idea of the credibility of that person and what he or she is spouting.

If you go to newspapers and magazines, at least they are a devil you know.

"Blogging" has become this confused mish-mash, IMO. Maybe it's time to start breaking it out into better sub-categories or something.

Re: While blogging in crisis job #1 is listening

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:06:20 -0000

I would call Rob Hof a professional tech blogger because he blogs under his BusinessWeek hat and he's a trained journalist with journalistic standards. But, then, I'd call Michael Arrington a professional blogger, too, because he makes his living off of his blog. He certainly doesn't always act professionally, however.

Robert, you were one of the first bloggers, and I suppose since you were doing it for Microsoft at first, that makes you a professional. But then again, you no longer get a salary for blogging and you don't make your living primarily off your blog, so...

Maybe it's just me.

Re: Dear Microsoft

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:09:53 -0000

This is a good example of that makes "professional blogger" such a confusing misnomer to me.

Re: Personal Dashboard perfect mobile app for tough economy

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:09:03 -0000

Wow, just like the old days when you could come to this site and actually see new posts! :) Nice.

Re: The “live web” arrives on Twitter and FriendFeed

Dawn Douglass — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:43:19 -0000

Robert, trying to watch your feed is literally making me motion sick!!

Re: I am not an American

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:50:51 -0000

When it comes to writing a business blog, I don't see the value of having political rants. It's a polarized country. Why turn off half your potential audience? I don't like seeing political crap from either side when I'm reading a blog that's supposedly about something else. Haven't we gotten enough already?

Re: I am not an American

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:47:37 -0000

Taking a stand is great. But what's wrong with picking the hills you stand on? Why do we have to step over political crap everywhere we walk?

You "take a stand" on Twitter and on FF all the time. Why do you have to do it here, too? I don't think it's lame to suggest that there is a time and place for politics and that it need not be 24/7 everywhere we go.

Endlessly yelling at each other and pissing each other off doesn't accomplish anything. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

Re: I am not an American

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:28:18 -0000

Robert, you said: I’d agree with that, but at many rallies and in many talk shows lately I’ve seen the points made that those who don’t agree are “unAmerican.”

You often claim that people who don't agree with you are unintelligent. So what's the difference?

Re: Microsoft tells Google, Amazon, Adobe, Rackspace, & Apple: “stay off our lawn”

Dawn Douglass — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:30:26 -0000

It amazes me how poor Google's products are. They feel VERY primitive compared to MS tools. I think MS will blow them out of the water in water spaces they choose to compete.

But I, too, believe "the cloud" is way overblown.

Re: Why I haven’t posted for two weeks

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:20:50 -0000

For two hundred thousand years social networks were simultaneously economic networks. If that were true with today's social media, then we wouldn't be in such a horrible mess.

If you want to help, then I suggest you put your weight behind getting advertising distribution turned over to social media users via an open ad network. This would make companies more accountable and allow tons of people to start making money from the Internet. This would inject trust back into buying, increase consumer confidence, and rebuild the world's economy from the ground up.

Re: Why I haven’t posted for two weeks

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:24:31 -0000

oops, I put in my old blog address. The new one is here and explains how Silicon Valley can turn this around:
http://dawnsplan.wordpress.com/

Re: Tips for Real Time Web working on new friendfeed

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:46:05 -0000

I'm confused. Do you prefer the new FF or not?

Re: Facebook? Up 10%. Twitter? Up 16%. FriendFeed? Flat

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:30:51 -0000

No, the reason FF is flat is because they missed the window of opportunity, as I explained back in April. http://dawnsplan.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/what-...

Re: louisgray.com: Scoble Starts His FriendFeed/Twitter Monetization Strategy

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:44:41 -0000

Back in November of 2007 Scoble offered the Kindle through his Amazon affiliate deal and then gave it a poor review. If you look at his post here http://tinyurl.com/74atmx you can see me telling him in the comments: "Well, Robert, you talked yourself out of a $40 commission. But I appreciate your honesty. I’ll wait and hope that they get the next version right."

I think the majority of Scoble's readers know that he says what he truly believes, no matter what. This "conflict of interests" argument in Scoble's case isn't a valid attack.

Now if you want to argue what an ass Scoble is in other areas, I'm with you, but I don't think you can legitimately throw doubts on his integrity when it comes to product reviews.

Re: louisgray.com: Scoble Starts His FriendFeed/Twitter Monetization Strategy

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:40:22 -0000

Actually, I appreciate the block. My FF experience has been much better without all your noise. I highly recommend people people disagree with you about politics and religion so you'll block them, too.

Re: louisgray.com: Scoble Starts His FriendFeed/Twitter Monetization Strategy

Dawn Douglass — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:59:55 -0000

And yet I still stick up for right, despite you publicly calling me an idiot and unintelligent. You're welcome.

Re: louisgray.com: Hi Facebook, It's Me, FriendFeed. This Relationship? It's Complicated.

Dawn Douglass — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:39:02 -0000

LOL This is the best blog post I've read in a long, long time, including my own. Hit the nail on the head, Louis!! Brilliantly said.