DISQUS

Glad you are sticking around, Kat. Lots of food for thought, but I have to disagree with most of what you're saying. There's no right or wrong way to participate in social media. And what exactly is the ethos of social media? Was there a vote to adopt one that I missed ;-) I outline more of my thoughts here and would love to get your reaction: http://bit.ly/ASUPq

Keep up the good work!

Yet you call it Web 2010.

Although I do agree with your larger point of using the version numbers. It is silly.

Hi Stuart:
Hard to argue against the "I'm only kidding around" defense. That sounds suspiciously like a duck and cover strategy for your own weak argument :-) I will give you merit points for trying to have fun though.

Aren't you advocating in favor of grandstanding? It seems as if you are in favor of picking a fight for the sake of a fight and, well, if it doesn't go well - just walk away with a snicker.

What exactly is the point of finding a statement that can be argued both ways and then lobbing it out there? Shouldn't we all be advocating ideas that we believe in? What's the purpose of "pissing people off"? Sounds like a stunt to increase blog traffic by being rude and argumentative.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think there is enough snarkiness and rudeness on the Web without actively soliciting it.

To me a conversation is an informal exchange of ideas. It's a way to meet and engage with people. Can't we do that without carefully orchestrated plots to piss the other person off? Can't we do that without "eviscerating" each other?

Just a thought.

Maybe I should have said: "Sorry for being unable to read this morning."

I think you meant to say that "these are NOT factual." Sorry to be the pesky copy editor.

I still subscribe to a newspaper. But I'm a stubborn former journalist. I think this line of thinking is interesting because social media is one of the primary reasons why newspapers are dying.

There's no doubt that newspapers - in order to survive - will have to start creating communities online and utilize the web better. They need to change and change fast.

But let's not talk about social media as the white horse here. They are killing newspapers because they deliver news faster and more effectively than a once a day delivery mechanism printed on flimsy paper. Newspapers simply don't break news anymore.

Can they save newspapers? No. Newspapers are dead. Can social media help "newspapers" transform into "news organizations" with the web as a primary delivery system? Hopefully. But that remains to be seen.

Why not do this in conjunction with One Laptop Per Child?

Cannot picture you bald. Good luck with it.

Nice catch! Why not ask Marvel? They're on Twitter (@marvel) and have always been responsive to my inquiries.

I find it unlikely that Facebook will be testing the IPO waters with the global economy in freefall. The market goes up and down like a yoyo nearly every day and those aren't conditions that a company looking to go public wants to be test. It will be interesting to watch though.

Wow, I thought I was only one who liked working in bookstores. It's great to take a break and browse the stacks. The only problem with some bookstores, however, is the lack of power outlets (especially at the Burlington, MA Barnes & Noble).

Coffee shops are much better for that. And, well, coffee. Panara sells you a bottomless cup O Joe for a buck and half. That's a deal that keeps addicts coming back for more. And - lots of power outlets and free Web access. What's not to like?

Hi Louis:
This is a great tactical approach to keeping all of your accounts in line. Thanks for the tips. I certainly need them. The real question these days is not only how to manage them, but how to actually keep them separate and distinct -- and if that's even possible. And more importantly is it possible to keep them separate and private. Can a person have Facebook page for their personal life and interests and a work account with LinkedIn - and never the two shall meet?

That's one of the societal issues we'll be grappling with as social media platforms become more ubiquitous. I've tried to explore this concept in relation to Facebook here: http://tinyurl.com/cgq778. You might be interested in it and I'd certainly love to get your perspective on it.

I disagree that newspapers will survive in hardcopy. Why? It’s not a good delivery system in the 21st century – even at the neighborhood level. And I don’t believe blogs will replace newspapers either. News articles and blog posts are two different animals. I simply think news outlets will become web based and replace newspapers. They will still have editors and reporters and follow the strident rules of journalism. We just need to work out the revenue model to make it succeed.

Hi Woody:
Some excellent suggestions for newspapers, but unfortunately, Elvis has left the building. Newspapers cannot be saved and in less than 10 years -- there will be few left. And that's a good thing: the time for newspapers has come and gone. I say this as a former ink stained wretch who toiled for more than a decade in newspaper news rooms.

That said - the "news" industry is thriving and that's what newspapers need to become - news companies anchored on the Web. By tapping into the social media they can begin to present the news in ways modern audiences want: video, audio and, yes, text. This news will be interactive and mashable (no pun intended) - spark debate, interaction, and more even more details.

But newspapers? They're history.

Hi Amy:
I think any organization can be charitable. But that wasn't my question.

Just a question: Is this a for-profit charity group?

It makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Bigger kids for their ages are generally the best at sports. So if you're a late developer and don't excel in high school -- you're probably going to end being a professional sports player. BTW -- anyone who wants to read OUTLIERS can win a free copy here: http://tiny.cc/E6b2L

Hi Mike:
I agree that everyone should read more -- its good advice (I'm not sure everyone would take it).

And technically I didn't bad mouth Indy -- I was simply constructing an observation based on the evidence presented in the films. It's Spielberg who created a women-hater -- not me!

It's a curious condition where people brag about their ignorance. Why wouldn't you want to read Shakespeare? He's considered the greatest writer in history. His insight into the human condition is amazing -- and he's poetry is magical.

You suffer from the same problem as Generation Y -- shunning culture, knowledge and history -- for amusement. How can anyone master any skill without studying the experts and masters of the past -- whether it be writing or history or philosophy or economics?

Even your glorious Web 2.0 is building off the advances in software and hardware from the past -- constantly reviewing and improving (and understanding) what came before. Otherwise you operate from a vacuum -- without context.

The Newsweek piece is filled with flaws as well -- missing the main point of the book (have you read it or is that too much of a challenge?). Mark argues that technology is a poor teacher and shows what dozens of studies already prove -- reading and writing skills have decreased dramatically in young people.

I just conducted an interview with Mark here where he continues to make some compelling arguments:

http://tinyurl.com/5u98fy

Now go out and buy "Macbeth." You won't regret it.

Hi John:
Some good insight in your post. As a book addict (its a quiet, non-violent addiction), I worry about the decline in reading as well. I think the solution rests in our inability to teach the joy of reading. Perhaps we shouldn't force high school students to start reading Dickens and Shakespeare first. Isn't that like asking our kids to learn to love baseball by trying to hit Roger Clemens on their first at bat?

Here's a better solution:

http://darkpartyreview.blogspot.com/2007/11/ess...