<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Internet</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/tag/internet"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://pingv.com/taxonomy/term/129/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://pingv.com/taxonomy/term/129/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2006-01-04T10:44:08-06:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Why we support Net Neutrality</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200704/why-we-support-net-neutrality" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200704/why-we-support-net-neutrality</id>
    <published>2007-04-26T17:23:48-05:00</published>
    <updated>2007-04-26T17:26:10-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="About" />
    <category term="business" />
    <category term="Drupal" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Net Neutrality" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>pingVision supports Net Neutrality.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/"><img src="http://www.savetheinternet.com/images/blog_image.jpg" alt="Save the Internet: Click here" class="wrapr" border="0" height="200" width="150" /></a>We do so because, frankly, our business depends upon it. Our business model is all about designing and developing dynamic websites to help businesses, organizations, educational institutions, communities, individuals and governments to open up lines of communication, promote their wares, share their knowledge, exchange their views and engage in conversations. Anybody can have a website. Websites are valuable ... but only if they are accessible.&lt;!--break--></p>
<p><a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/=101">Net Neutrality is the fundamental basis upon which the internet, as we know it, operates</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, emailing, and instant messaging -- anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers, or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.</p>
<p>What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that ensures the Internet remains free and unrestricted. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires bringing you the Internet from discriminating against content based on its ownership or source. But that could all change.</p>
<p>The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers, and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable....</p>
<p>...What does that mean? It means we could be heading toward a pay-per-view Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via Instant Messenger. The next generation of magical new inventions will be shut out of the top-tier service level.</p></blockquote>
<p>Such developments away from Net Neutrality would stifle the very creativity that makes the internet the interesting, exciting and informative communications medium it is today. Whether we want the internet to become like television, with a limited amount of "channels," with a limited variety of content, is not a question I'd like to have to confront. We've done alright with the internet like it is so far. It's not by any means perfect, but at least it's free (as in freedom).</p>
<p>For more information, SaveTheInternet links to this video that explains Net Neutrality:</p>
<object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cWt0XUocViE" /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cWt0XUocViE" type="application/x-shockwave &lt;br/&gt;-flash" height="350" width="425"></embed></object><p>
<br /><a href="http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-ninja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality">Ask A Ninja offers a much more humorous take</a>:</p>
<object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H69eCYcDcuQ" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H69eCYcDcuQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></embed></object><p>
We'd really like to stay in business. We believe strongly in what we do. In developing websites using free open source software (<a href="http://drupal.org">Drupal</a>), we feel we're helping to bring about a new vitality to the world of economics, communications, culture, politics and business. If our clients' websites are blocked or hindered by internet gatekeepers, then I don't think we'd be developing websites much longer. So yes, we support Net Neutrality ... for First Amendment reasons and for our own selfish business interests.</p>
<p>And we're not alone:</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=054cd28b83f3bda263c2bad1d2a71f33"></script>    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Yahoo and Microsoft adopt Google sitemap standard</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200611/yahoo-and-microsoft-adopt-google-sitemap-standard" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200611/yahoo-and-microsoft-adopt-google-sitemap-standard</id>
    <published>2006-11-16T09:24:04-06:00</published>
    <updated>2006-11-16T13:01:00-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Drupal" />
    <category term="Google" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Microsoft" />
    <category term="Modules" />
    <category term="Web 2.0" />
    <category term="Yahoo" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>One of the more interesting developments in search engine indexing of websites in this "web 2.0" era has been the advent of the sitemap — a special file listing all website urls, maintained by the website's own administrator. With dynamically generated content being added and updated constantly, it only made sense to help out the search engines, to make sure that they didn't miss anything. The only catch was that they all had their standards.</p>
<p>Now <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/15/google-yahoo-and-microsoft-agree-to-standard-sitemaps-protocol/">they've finally united</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>In an encouraging act of collaboration, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft announced tonight that they will all begin using the same Sitemaps protocol to index sites around the web. Now based at <a href="http://www.sitemaps.org">Sitemaps.org</a>, the system instructs web masters on how to install an XML file on their servers that all three engines can use to track updates to pages. This should make it easier to get your pages indexed in a simple and standardized way. People who use Google Sitemaps don’t need to change anything, those maps will now be indexed by Yahoo and Microsoft.</p></blockquote>
<p>Marshall Kirkpatrick adds:</p>
<blockquote><p>Any time competitors agree on open standards, that’s an enabler of further innovation and something to celebrate. It’s also great to see <a href="http://creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> receiving all the more validation.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is good news for people with Drupal-powered websites, for the <a href="http://drupal.org/project/gsitemap">contributed module Google Sitemap</a> does the proper indexing automatically already — only now Yahoo and Microsoft will read that file, too!</p>
<p>— meaning it's a good day to be a Drupalista!</p>
<p>Site owners may want to make sure their sitemaps aren't missed by submitting their sitemaps to <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/info/submit.html">Yahoo</a> and <a href="http://search.msn.com/docs/submit.aspx">Microsoft</a> and help them (and themselves) out.<br />
<i><br />
[Added hat tip to <a href="http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/061116-000001">Danny Sullivan</a>.]</i></p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Google buys YouTube. Why?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200610/google-buys-youtube-why" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200610/google-buys-youtube-why</id>
    <published>2006-10-09T19:09:45-05:00</published>
    <updated>2006-10-09T19:13:58-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="business" />
    <category term="Google" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Open Source" />
    <category term="social networking" />
    <category term="YouTube" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Maybe I'm just too cynical, but now, after Google went from "Do no evil" to "Must accommodate the Communist Chinese government so we can make beaucoup bucks," I look  at  <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_bi_ge/google_youtube;_ylt=A0SOwkMq2ipF.nYBCwqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-">Google's snapping up of YouTube</a> and see an acquisitive public corporation that is largely out to own things, a corporate model in the internet computing world that Microsoft has pioneered to such notorious repute.</p>
<blockquote><p>"This is the next step in the evolution of the Internet," Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt said during a conference call Monday.</p>
<p>YouTube will continue to retain its brand, its new headquarters in San Bruno and all 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. Meanwhile, Google will continue to run a less popular video service on its own site.</p></blockquote>
<p>So the goal is really just to <i>own</i> <a href="http://youtube.com">YouTube</a>.</p>
<p>YouTube has been a sensational success, proving that free social networking can work even with bandwidth-hungry video content. The online video revolution was not televised, but it didn't matter, it was videotaped -- or, rather, the <i>revolution <u>was</u> videotape</i>. YouTube has been the trailblazer. Google has been the also-ran, the giant who doesn't want to miss out on all the fun.</p>
<p>I'd like to think that Google's acquisition will mean that YouTube can be even better, but when it comes down to it, what this <i>could</i> mean -- and I'll certainly admit that this is by no means certain -- is fewer options for users, fewer decision-makers calling the shots, and a net loss for innovation and diversity online. We'll see. As <a href="http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/List/Analyst/Personal/0,,336,00.html">Forrester Research's Charlene Li</a> says in the AP wire story:</p>
<blockquote><p>"It's going to be like, 'You can either fight us or you can make money with us.'"</p></blockquote>
<p>In another interesting take, <a href="http://463.blogs.com/the_463/2006/10/dear_google_abo.html">S. Garrett ponders Google's likely copyright headaches</a>, and links to <a href="http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/10/09/i-still-think-google-is-crazy/">Mark Cuban, who says</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>it will be interesting to see how Fox reacts to this deal Fox owns content. Neither google or YT does. Could Fox, the owner of Myspace put GooTube in a huge hole by being legally aggressive and going after every video of Stewy from Family Guy , American Idol, any of their TV shows ? The same with their movies. Beyond just Gootube, (and I mash them together with nothing but love :), Fox could make them look real bad by using supoaenas to go after individual Gootube users. Fox is also a stickler for DRM, they aint gonna like having their content floating DRM free around the net. Sure, myspace would have to clean up some of their own videos, but it would be a far easier chore than Gootube has. Now that would be a celebrity lawyer match worth watching.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hmmm... David Smith on Preoccupations <a href="http://www.preoccupations.org/2006/10/from_the_horses_2.html">writes that Google is in the eye of the perfect storm</a> over not just copyright but censorship, net neutrality and national security.</p>
<p>But forget what <a href="http://blogs.forrester.com/charleneli/2006/10/google_youtube_.html">Li</a>, Smith, Cuban, Garrett have to say on this. Forget what <i>I</i> have to say on this. And of course forget all the buzz you'll see on the old media television news channels. </p>
<p>More interesting will be what the YouTubers have to say about this themselves. After all, that's what YouTube proved, and why Google wants to own it.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>On Pew, and when is a blog a blog?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200607/on-pew-and-when-is-a-blog-a-blog" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200607/on-pew-and-when-is-a-blog-a-blog</id>
    <published>2006-07-21T17:51:35-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-01-07T09:23:55-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Web" />
    <category term="blogging" />
    <category term="community" />
    <category term="Drupal" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Pew" />
    <category term="trends" />
    <category term="Web 2.0" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>There's much buzz about the new report from the <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/index.asp">Pew Internet &#38; American Life Project</a> written by Amanda Lenhart, Senior Research Specialist, and Susannah Fox, Associate Director, titled <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/186/report_display.asp">Bloggers: A portrait of the internet's new storytellers</a> (<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP%20Bloggers%20Report%20July%2019%202006.pdf">pdf</a>). One of the highlights that many have glommed on to is that:</p>
<blockquote><p>Thirty-nine percent of internet users, or about 57 million American adults, read blogs – a significant increase since the fall of 2005.</p></blockquote>
<p>This factoid led me to a question: When <em>is</em> a blog a blog? Or, to put it another way, when is a website just a website and <em>not</em> a blog?</p>
<p>We're building Drupal-powered websites all the time that <em>have</em> blogs but wouldn't necessarily be <em>called</em> "blogs." Are they not-blogs, then? I'm not asking this to be persnickety, but to question the assumption that just because people <em>say</em> they read blogs (which is what the study is based on -- what people say they do) doesn't mean that those who don't <em>say</em> it aren't <em>doing</em> it. Blogs are websites, and for many people on the internet, despite all the old media hype over "the bloggers" (read: "those (darn) bloggers"), a blog is just a word they may have heard but is not something they would recognize if they saw it.</p>
<p>Could it be that <em>more</em> than 57 million Americans read blogs? Almost certainly, though probably they don't all realize it. Consider:</p>
<blockquote><p>Only 18% of bloggers offer an RSS feed of their blog's content.</p></blockquote>
<p>My guess is that it's more like 98%, but that most bloggers just don't realize it.</p>
<p>But anyway....</p>
<p>Let's go around the virtual table of bloggers and see what some of them think. <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/07/blogging_is_the.html">Seth Godin says</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>What I found interesting is that more than half of all bloggers are doing it for themselves. (Always a good reason to do something). In other words, it's not for commercial gain or to find a large audience of strangers. Instead, it's a form of self-expression, a chance to be creative or share some ideas.</p></blockquote>
<p>But <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-we-blog.html">Ann Althouse offers a different reponse</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>I'm surprised the number is that low, especially considering the likelihood of saying this as a modest or disingenuous characterization of what you're doing if you haven't got many readers. But maybe not. What would novelists in a survey say about why they write? I think the delusion that they've got a best-seller in the making is pretty widespread. But we bloggers are a saner lot... right?</p></blockquote>
<p>On HorsePigCow, <a href="http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/07/smart.html">Miss Rogue explains</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>This is a niche. It's a rockin' cool niche, but it's a niche. MySpace...that's a niche, too. It's a big frickin' niche, but it's a niche of young-ish (mostly) people who want to live their lives online. Awesome <a href="http://www.murketing.com/journal/?p=67">article over on Murketing</a> (via <a href="http://www.brianoberkirch.com/?p=31">Brian Oberkirch</a>) about there alotta big niches, too. But one thing we can agree on is that there is no monolithic mass that is mindlessly consuming crap.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/07/ooh-tell-me-more.html">Shakespeare's Sister offers</a> a snarkier response:</p>
<blockquote><p>The study also reportedly found that most bloggers know how to type, sometimes post square-shaped items known as “pictures,” and are the most likely group of people to know what a Cleveland Steamer is.</p></blockquote>
<p>On Ars Technica, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060719-7297.html">Nate Anderson takes away</a> from the report:</p>
<blockquote><p>Though most of them are under 30 (natch), a surprising 46 percent are older. Unlike video games, the blogging demographic is evenly split between men and women, but those men and women tend to live in the suburbs. Only one third of all bloggers live in urban centers, and 13 percent come from rural areas.</p>
<p>Bloggers are also less white than the US Internet population as a whole. While 74 percent of general 'Net users are white, only 60 percent of bloggers are, meaning that blogs are helping to provide a creative outlet for a broad spectrum of Americans. </p></blockquote>
<p>On BlogHer, <a href="http://blogher.org/node/7891">Marianne Richmond notes</a> that Pew included its methodology.</p>
<blockquote><p>Also, in contrast to some recently released reports on blogging such as the <a href="http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/press:press_release/2006/id=06.06.26-corporate_weblogs.html">Jupiter report</a> on corporate blogging, the methodology was included with the <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/130/press_release.asp">Pew press release</a>. <a href="http://bloombergmarketing.blogs.com/bloomberg_marketing/2006/07/what_are_blogge.html">Toby Bloomberg</a> has been documenting this disappointing lack of substantiation from Jupiter.</p></blockquote>
<p>Marianne also points to B.L. Ochman, <a href="http://www.whatsnextblog.com/archives/2006/07/ive_got_the_quoted_out_of_context_in_dead_tree_media_blues.asp">who apparently was misquoted</a> by the Washington Post in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901900.html">their article</a> on the Pew study:</p>
<blockquote><p>Many in mainstream still media don't want to accept that bloggers are doing something more than wasting time. And the more they put down blogging, the farther away from the sea change it has spearheaded and the conversation that has bypassed them. <strong>While the Pew report did say that the 233 bloggers it surveyed mostly blog as a hobby, it also noted more interesting and germane information:</strong></p>
<p>- 27 % blog to influence what others think<br />
- 7 % blog to make money (but that's a flawed premise because they don't define what "making money" means in this context)<br />
- 34 % blog to share practical knowledge or skills with others,<br />
- 29% blog to motivate other people to action<br />
- 52% blog to express themselves creatively</p>
<p><strong>Add up those numbers, and you see that bloggers freely share information with the hope of motivating people to action and influencing what others think, and that, in a nutshell, is how the conversation began and why it has grown to such epic proportions. </strong></p>
<p><em>[emphasis in original]</em></p></blockquote>
<p>This, I feel, gets to the essence of what is (watch out! here comes that buzz-word!) "Web 2.0" is about -- people making connections -- and it's a trend that is happening across the board, not just in business or in politics....</p>
<p>...or in journalism.  <a href="http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/07/blog_motivation.html">Notes Steve Rubel</a> on Micro Persuasion:</p>
<blockquote><p>Regardless of what the research says, even if citizen journalism does not drive the majority of bloggers, those who do "practice" it are certainly influencing the mainstream media in a big way. If the blogopshere doesn't add another citizen journalist, it will always help shape what the mainstream media covers.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it does have ramifications for PR. This means that the smaller universe of bloggers who do break and/or comment on news will bear the brunt of pitches from the public relations community. The online media is dividing into three strata - the mainstream media, news blogs and expressionist blogs. The first two categories are where the PR community should focus.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.webpronews.com/2006a/0720.html">Jason Lee Miller writes</a> on WebProNews:</p>
<blockquote><p>So could the slings and arrows that Nietzsche bewailed of the pre-Web society be avoided though this new collective individualism?</p>
<p>"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."</p>
<p>The optimist will believe we've struck a balance between the mob and the self. The cynic will no doubt recall the blog swarm and laugh. And the marketers and public relations professionals will understand and lament them both, as their audience expands in context, in complexity, but also in reactivity.</p></blockquote>
<p>On BlogWrite for CEOs, <a href="http://www.blogwriteforceos.com/blogwrite/2006/07/corporate_blogg.html">Debbie Weil sums up</a> her perspective:</p>
<blockquote><p>Reading between the lines of Pew's latest report on blogging, it's clear that corporate or business blogging still occupies its own tiny - but evolving - niche in the blogosphere. Don't be fooled, however. Despite the findings below, blogs *will* become a mainstream business communications strategy. The "instant publishing" nature of blogs - so attractive to the under-30s - is just as useful for companies that want to connect with customers.</p></blockquote>
<p>With <a href="http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000419.html">the number of blogs doubling every 5-6 months</a>, we can probably expect all these findings to shift and change right before our eyes, and more will be around to blog about it.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>&quot;Net Neutrality&quot; under siege</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200604/net-neutrality-under-siege" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200604/net-neutrality-under-siege</id>
    <published>2006-04-28T03:42:44-05:00</published>
    <updated>2006-05-29T22:04:23-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="business" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Politics" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p><A HREF="http://www.savetheinternet.com/"><IMG SRC="http://www.savetheinternet.com/images/blog_image.jpg" WIDTH="150" HEIGHT="200" ALT="Save the Internet: Click here" BORDER="0" class="wrap" /></a>So you thought the internet was a place for free speech? Don't look now, but <a href="http://www.webpronews.com/2006a/0427.html">Congress is considering changing that</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Telecommunications giants scored a victory over Net Neutrality advocates in the U.S. legislature yesterday as the proposed "Markey Amendment," a provision to prevent Internet providers from creating access chokepoints was voted down in the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>The amendment's defeat has caused a firestorm of accusations against the telecom industry and the legislators siding with them in the debate. A diverse and growing opposition believes that Congress members like Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-ILL), who pushed for the amendment's defeat, are acting not in favor of their constituency but in favor of the big-money telecom industry. </p>
<p>Telecoms, like AT&amp;T and Verizon, want to create a two-tiered Internet where customers and content providers can be charged for premium content delivery at higher speeds and quality than other content. The harshest critics believe that ability will give ISPs the ability to block, slow, or degrade content unfavorable to them, including access to websites and email.</p></blockquote>
<p>One of the great promises of the internet has been how it has created the information explosion -- not just in terms of commerce, but in terms of personal expression. People are communicating online, <i>interacting</i> with each other, sharing ideas, information, experiences. Entire industries have emerged. Small businesses are empowered.</p>
<p>This, of course, is disruptive to the status quo. This <i>insurgent economy</i> is shaking the foundations of the multinational corporations. So perhaps we should not be surprised that such a lobbying effort is underway.</p>
<p>As you might expect, there's lots of money behind this.</p>
<blockquote><p>Congressmen Barton and Rush have been put under the microscope by opponents lately for their financial relationships with the telecommunications industry. Both vocal opponents of Net Neutrality provisions in the Commerce Committee, Barton and Rush led the charge in defeating the Markey Amendment.</p>
<p>Many find it no small coincidence that out of Barton's top three <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00005656&amp;cycle=2004">campaign contributors</a>, the second and third largest ones are SBC Communications (now AT&amp;T) and Comcast Corporation. Tied for 12th among contributions is the National Cable &amp; Telecommunications Association.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://chicagosuntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi?getReferrer=http://chicagosuntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sweet25.html">Chicago Sun-Times</a> points out that Bobby Rush, the only Democrat to sponsor the bill, recently "received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&amp;T" for a community organization Rush is associated with called the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation. </p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://savetheinternet.com">Savetheinternet.com</a>, is rallying a public outcry.</p>
<blockquote><p>The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of dozens of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts. We simply agree to a <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/=principles">statement of principles</a> in support of Internet freedom.</p></blockquote>
<p>They're offering this video (flash) for people to post on their websites to help spread the word:</p>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9jHOn0EW8U" />
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9jHOn0EW8U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><p>
...and bloggers are signing up in support:</p>
<blockquote>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=054cd28b83f3bda263c2bad1d2a71f33"></script></p></blockquote>
<p><b>What are your thoughts?</b></p>
<p><i>Related links:</i></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.mydd.com/tag/net%20neutrality">MyDD's posts on net neutrality</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.technorati.com/search/%22net%20neutrality%22">Technorati: "net neutrality"</a></li>
</ul>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Taking it a step further</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/taking-it-a-step-further" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/taking-it-a-step-further</id>
    <published>2006-03-25T00:42:16-06:00</published>
    <updated>2008-02-17T14:51:11-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="blogging" />
    <category term="CivicSpace" />
    <category term="community" />
    <category term="Drupal" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Web 2.0" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p><i>Continuing <a href="http://www.pingv.com/blog/laura/200603/so-what-is-this-web-2-0-and-how-does-drupal-fit-in">this discussion of "web 2.0"</a>....</i></p>
<p>Moving beyond <a href="http://www.pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/web-2-0-redux">the basic dynamic website model</a>, we get up into the realm of the content management system, or "CMS" -- a dynamic site where not one but several people -- thousands, even -- have direct access and ability to update and add to the website's content. This is what we create with websites powered by <a href="http://drupal.org">Drupal</a>.</p>
<p>What's appealing about CMSs like Drupal is that they can be used for just about any website, from small business to large corporation to online community to non-profit organization. Just about any organization with <i>any</i> sort of web presence can benefit from having a website where many people can participate at different levels of access.</p>
<p><br class="clear" /><br />
<a href="/image/portfolio-gallery/web-screenshots/blogher-beta"><img src="http://pingv.com/system/files/images/BlogHer-beta.thumbnail.jpg" alt="" title="" class="image thumbnail" height="140" width="155" /></a><br />
The power this affords, for example, to an organization like <a href="http://blogher.org">BlogHer</a> is profound. <a href="http://surfette.typepad.com/blogher">Their website last year</a> was basically just a blog. Now it is an online community with literally dozens of blogs, oodles of members and many powerful tools at their disposal to not only disseminate information but also engage people in discussions on topics spanning the globe.</p>
<p><i>Next: Multiple websites in one.</i></p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Web 2.0 redux</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/web-2-0-redux" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/web-2-0-redux</id>
    <published>2006-03-24T10:39:58-06:00</published>
    <updated>2006-03-24T11:28:33-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="blogging" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Open Source" />
    <category term="Web 2.0" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Continuing from <a href="http://www.pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/web-1-0-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-pay-web-designers">the previous discussion</a>....</p>
<p>This chart illustrates just how much easier creating and updating websites have become: <i>you</i> are the one in charge; <i>you</i> are the one who holds the keys to the site; <i>you</i> are <i>empowered</i> to change the content to how you want it, and make those changes whenever you want. Your website doesn't sleep -- it's there to receive changes night and day.</p>
<p>This isn't to say that there never is any design involved in a web 2.0-type site -- but it's much easier, because what <a href="http://www.pingv.com">we</a> (designers) do is <a href="http://www.pingv.com/services/web-design">design your templates</a> so that <i>every new addition you make to the website content is automagically formatted to fit in with your site's overall design.</i></p>
<h3>Set up and go</h3>
<p>[img_assist|fid=4486|thumb=1|alt=The web 1.0 model]<br />
This means that the "web 1.0" phase of your new website is limited only to the initial setup, or when you want to make <i>design</i> changes to the site. (And there are always free options with pre-designed templates.) <i>Content</i> changes, updates and additions are things <i>you</i> can do on your own. (Changing your prices? Just change them! Have a new service? Just change them!)<br />
</p>
<h3>But Web 2.0 is a lot more....</h3>
<p>Because website owners are empowered to publish whenever they want, the entire nature of what websites <i>are</i> has changed. Content now has become more contemporary, more relevant -- more <i>responsive</i> to what's happening. (For example, people now write blogs.) And because websites now happen in real-time -- you write it, post it and people read it -- websites have become <i>more</i> than simply brochures....</p>
<h3>Websites are conversations....</h3>
<p><i>(More to come in the next post.)</i></p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Web 1.0 (or how I learned to stop worrying and pay web designers)</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/web-1-0-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-pay-web-designers" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/image/ideas-gallery/charts-graphs/web-1-0-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-pay-web-designers</id>
    <published>2006-03-23T21:24:17-06:00</published>
    <updated>2006-03-24T11:14:13-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Web 2.0" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>This is web 1.0, the first incarnation of the worldwide web that got beyond just basic text messaging on USENET. Basically, it is the print-design model translated to the internet.</p>
<p>The workflow is like this: </p>
<ol>
<li>You write up your web pages.</li>
<li>You give your write-up and a big bag of money to your web designer.</li>
<li>Your designer takes what you've come up with and designs your website.</li>
<li>You think he should be done by now? Think again. Maybe he has other clients to take care of first. Also, he has to be able to take breaks, doesn't he? Be patient.</li>
<li>After what may seem like forever, the design for your new web content is finished, and is passed over to the webmaster, who holds the keys to access and update your website.</li>
<li>Finally, your designed website appears....</li>
<li>...and you decide you want to rewrite that first paragraph on the home page, or maybe you find a typo....</li>
<li>...and you must go back to <b>step 1</b> and repeat the entire process.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is what you might call <i>not at all empowering</i>.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>So what is this &quot;web 2.0&quot;? (And how does Drupal fit in?)</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200603/so-what-is-this-web-2-0-and-how-does-drupal-fit-in" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/laura/200603/so-what-is-this-web-2-0-and-how-does-drupal-fit-in</id>
    <published>2006-03-23T21:15:43-06:00</published>
    <updated>2006-03-24T11:45:40-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura</name>
    </author>
    <category term="blogging" />
    <category term="documentation" />
    <category term="Drupal" />
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Web 2.0" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The term "web 2.0" is bandied about quite readily. Today the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web2.0">Wikipedia defines web 2.0</a> as:</p>
<blockquote><p>Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that let people collaborate, and share information online. In contrast to the first generation, Web 2.0 gives users an experience closer to desktop applications than the traditional static Web pages.</p></blockquote>
<p>If that isn't as exciting a description as you had hoped you'd find, in the following posts I've sketched out a brief run-down of some of the most-basic concepts behind web 2.0, dynamic websites and how the worldwide web today is little like the hyperlinked billboards of the 1990s.</p>
<p>I'm hoping some people find this helpful. <i>More below....</i></p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>2006: Beyond Technology; interactive, HDTV, and Gen-X,</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://pingv.com/blog/katherine/200601/2006-beyond-technology-interactive-hdtv-and-gen-x" />
    <id>http://pingv.com/blog/katherine/200601/2006-beyond-technology-interactive-hdtv-and-gen-x</id>
    <published>2006-01-04T13:25:36-06:00</published>
    <updated>2006-01-04T10:44:08-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>katherine</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Internet" />
    <category term="Kaizen" />
    <category term="Management" />
    <category term="Marketing" />
    <category term="musings" />
    <category term="Open Source" />
    <category term="retrospectives" />
    <category term="technology" />
    <category term="tomorrow" />
    <category term="trends" />
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p><strong>Hollywood on the run.</strong></p>
<p>Hollywood is worried, although they have not yet had a full-blown panic attack. Their bedrock market - the one they have always taken for granted - is eroding beneath their feet. Generation X, is growing up and their tastes have changed. The once captive audience that grew up on the "Star Wars" movies that their parents took them to is finding that their own children are not nearly as impressed as the Gen-X parents once were with special effects.</p>
<p>But that is not the only place we are seeing changes.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/18/MNGUOAE36I1.DTL" target="_blank">Video games are capturing a bigger piece of the pie.</a> </p>
<blockquote><p>"If I had some time in the afternoon, and it was a choice between watching a movie or playing a game, I'd rather play a game," said Marlon Castro, 35, of Foster City.</p></blockquote>
<p>Already, the gate is down not only at theaters, but also at Blockbuster Video - once the powerhouse of video has taken yet another hit <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/11/08/AM200511085.html" target="_blank">as reported on PBS, Marketplace.</a> The reports says,</p>
<blockquote><p>Blockbuster is expected to report a third quarter loss today. Efforts to adjust its brick-and-mortar business model to compete with on-line DVD distribution don't appear to be working. Jeff Tyler reports</p></blockquote>
<p>In short, the market in going through a shakeout - one which Laura and I have watched closely.</p>
<p>It is no secret that I take much of what <a href="http://www.claytonchristensen.com/" target="_blank">Clayton Christensen</a> says, to heart. Christensen is a professor at the Harvard Business School. His specialty is the evolution of technology.</p>
<p>I have a few observations of my own which square with Christensen's observations.</p>
<p>New technologies are often force-fit to solve existing problems - and that makes sense. We have today's problems that need to be solved. <em>Disruptive technologies</em> are those that unseat the market leader, the dominant player, the king of the hill. In film, Polaroid, the instant picture people, did not survive. Wedded to emulsion technology, Polaroid did not take the grasp the realities of the emerging videotape market. Polaroid plunged millions into its <a href="http://giam.typepad.com/the_branding_of_polaroid_/18_polaroid_polavision_product_identity_by_pg/index.html" target="_blank">Polavision.</a> The product is now a <a href="http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landdcam-pvis.htm" target="_blank">curio.</a></p>
<p>What seems to be the case is that new technology creates new markets and disrupts old channels of distribution. Revenue and distribution models change - as do tastes and forms and even cost structures. Can emulsion film compete with digital? The business model Polaroid had was to provide cameras at cost and sell the film to make the revenue. The digital camera turned that model on its head.</p>
<p>Both radio and television evolved over time into what they are today, but first they experimented with older forms - such as vaudeville - before settling into their current content.</p>
<p><strong>2006</strong></p>
<p>The silent revolution hasn't been so silent - computer generated graphics, but the interesting thing is that film makers are not the only ones who have benefited. To be sure, the barriers to entry for a film company are substantial - high-cost equipment, pricey actors, and technical issues having to do with real-world filming.</p>
<p>More and more, blue screens and animation have crept into the movie process. And the directors are fascinated with their toys. As an aficionado, I enjoy listening to the director's commentary - sometimes good, sometimes really bad - and the interesting thing I am hearing is how they used some special effects gimmick to accomplish something. It wasn't a commentary about the story; the commentary was about how they managed to make some effect happen. I suppose there is nothing wrong with that, but it does suggest that the movie making mind-set is currently driven by technology.</p>
<p>And yet, the "Revenge of the Sith" has not ignited the popular culture the way very first "Star Wars" movie did. Re-releasing the original one, with current special effects technology inserted into it, had little tangible impact.</p>
<p>The trend has been for films to be turned into video games, yet there is a countertrend where video games, such as "Tomb Raider," are turned into movies.</p>
<p><strong>Content</strong></p>
<p>I suppose this all reminds me of the first Apple computers - when people collected fonts, just like some people collect baseball trading cards. Memos appeared with a variety of font. (Guilty, your Honor). But soon people got back to the content and were not quite as mesmerized at the fonts as they once had been.</p>
<p>The basic difference between video game and movies is the level of involvement in the outcome.</p>
<p>This is the dark horse, yet always the front runner. Technologies come and go - but involving the reader-viewer in the story and giving the person a say in the outcome, is a powerful thing which sall too often gets forgotten.</p>
<p>This is where interactive will change the landscape and the time is much closer than people think.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
