...what the hell is up with men's synchronized diving? Like a lot of folks I have been watching the Olympics, and thoroughly enjoying them I might add. However, this week I was on a business trip with another guy to the DC area. We went to get a bite to eat for dinner and headed back to the hotel for a beer in the hotel bar. We sat down for our beer and, naturally, as it was about 2000, the Olympics were on the television. Good deal, right? Welllll, not so fast, I'm not sure what NBC was thinking, but they were showing men's synchronized diving...
First off, why is this even an Olympic sport? The Olympic Committee is eliminating baseball and softball, but you can still compete in synchronized diving -- a sport where judges decide who wins. Don't even get me started on the whole judging thing. As far as I'm concerned, any event that requires a judge to determine the winner -- like synchronized diving -- is not true sport. But, I digress.
Anyhow, so there we were; the guy I was traveling with, myself, and about eight other dudes -- there was not a woman in the room -- and we were watching guys in Speedos executing "synchronized" dives, and after every dive they would go take a shower -- TOGETHER! I gotta tell you, it was just uncomfortable, and every guy there was thinking: "This is totally gay." Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you be the judge...
why people do the below -- what I call questionable judgment -- stuff. ***One caveat before you read further: This is meant to be a reflection piece. If you are guilty of any of the "questionable judgment" infractions don't be angry...just reflect***
Here goes. 1. Put hitch testicles on pick up trucks The examples to the right speak louder than words. I just don't get it. The state of Florida was considering a law to make these illegal. Now, I don't think we need to that far, but we should exercise some judgment...
2. Wear mohawk motorcycle helmets Maybe I'm getting old... 3. Place Calvin urinating on anything stickers on your vehicle Saw one yesterday that said "Ex Wife."
4. Get vanity plates I can't criticize ALL vanity plates, but this is one of those "totality of circumstances" gray areas. If, when everything is taken into account, you look like a jackass with your vanity plate, then you know you have to look hard at yourself.
5. Put NASCAR stickers on your vehicle This one will probably raise a lot of ire. But, you can only see so many "In Loving Memory of #3" stickers before it gets a little old and unoriginal. How about if we save the stickers for the vehicles that are getting paid to sport them?
6. Put "Cowboy/Cowgirl Up" or "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" stickers on your vehicle
7. Put "Git-R-Done" anywhere 8. Put "Bad Boyz...Bad Toyz" stickers on your vehicle This is sooo 1990's
9. Put too much USMC "Flair" on your car It's okay to be proud of your service (after all, I'm a Marine), but if you have more than one USMC sticker on your car, it's too much. The guy below also has a vanity plate... 10. Put a "Fast and Furious" muffler on your Honda Civic We've all experienced this. Some guy rolls up next to you at a stoplight in a Honda Civic that once was a nice car...a nice car before the kid driving it -- who has little, if any, mechanical skill -- tried to "customize" (pimp it out) it. In the end the car just looks like a jumbled mess of bondo and extra parts. And worst of all, it sounds like it needs a NEW muffler because the kid replaced the perfectly good muffler with a -- what I call -- "Fast and Furious" (Tokyo Drift) muffler.
11. Wear a Blue Tooth headset any place other than driving in your car Enough said...
However, I did like the below bumper sticker. I saw it on a car driving in downtown DC. I'm sure I missed some. Feel free to pile on.
why I have not posted in almost two months. Sorry for the layoff, but I've been super busy finishing up some professional stuff and moving my family to NC. I'll try to pick up the slack in the months to come.
...how David Cook beat the adorable, squishy, cute, cuddly David Archuleta in the "Battle of the David's?" A good friend of mine, knowing that I am an Idol fan, asked the below: "This is totally off topic, but I'd like to see a random thought about your view of the American Idol shocker! I was immediately repulsed by David "Oh My Gosh I Can Sing I Like Candy" Archuleta, but I thought teenie-boppers would carry him to victory. I know you shared this view. What happened?? I hope people saw what I did, which was David Cook's rendition of Billie Jean--possibly the best Idol performance ever.
I hope that doesn't make me sound gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that."
May 22, 2008 8:34 AM
Well my friend, here is what I think. First, I don't think you sound gay. It's okay for us to be Idol fans. I'm comfortable with this. We can get away with being Idol fans because we play fantasy football, too...and that balances things out. Although, most people would be shocked to know that we spent more time talking fantasy football, Idol, and other "important topics" at work than we did "running the world." Only a select few know what I mean here...
Second, I did not think it was a shocker -- even after Simon tried to sway the vote with his absolutely off the mark assessment of Cook's final performances. Usually, I'm aligned with Simon, but this time he missed the bus. Cook's final performances, especially his take on 'The World I Know,' were light years ahead of Archuleta's. Even his rendition of the gay, required Idol song was a good effort to make something out of nothing.
Archuleta, on the other hand, is like Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell in Anchorman): You put it on the teleprompter and he'll read it. The whole deer in the headlights look week in and week out just got annoying -- almost as annoying as Brooke White crying every week.
However, to answer your question, I think this article, 'Cougars 4 Cook' sign was our first clue, pretty much sums up the reason Cook won. I saw the sign that Erin Carlson references in the article -- it was only there for a second as the camera panned the audience last week, but you could not miss it -- and it just makes sense.
By the way, below is the above referenced Billie Jean rendition...
What Is An Aggregator? In my 4 April post I touched briefly on the aggregator. Essentially, an aggregator provides a consolidated view of content in a single browser display or desktop application, and in its simplest form draws that content from RSS (see my 4 April post -- Harnessing Collective Intelligence -- for more on RSS).
What does that mean in English? Well, if in your daily web routine you visit a number of different web sites for news, sports, entertainment, politics, blogs, etc. for your information fix, an aggregator can simplify this process for you. The aggregator allows you to "subscribe" to the content you want to receive and than consolidates that content in a user-friendly format. The below video is an okay tutorial on RSS and aggregators...
Different Types of Aggregators: Web Based or Client Software?
In my brief experience with aggregators I have found that most have similar features. They allow you to organize your subscribed content -- much like you would your email inbox, provide a headline and the first few sentences of each individual item, link you to the original content if you want to read the entire item, and allow you to "tag" the content for future reference.
The biggest decision you will make associated with an aggregator is web or client. A web based aggregator is just that; it's accessible through a browser. If you have Internet access and a browser, and use a web based aggregator, you can access your aggregator from any PC. I am a web based aggregator user. I use Google Reader, but there are many others (see the Wikipedia link above). Below is a shot of Google Reader.
In contrast, a client based aggregator is software installed on your PC. In order to view your aggregator you must access it through your PC. A good client based aggregator I have used is FeedReader. Below is a shot of FeedReader.
Both versions of aggregators have their pluses and minuses. However, for me, being able to access my aggregator from anywhere is a big plus. Some will tell you that client based aggregators are faster than web based -- and thus more efficient -- but I have just not found this to be true. I started with Google Reader, tried FeedReader, and went back to Google Reader because I actually found FeedReader to be slower. Maybe it's my clunky HP laptop...
Additionally, another feature to look for is offline access. Most client based aggregators have this feature and I know that Google Reader has offline access, this may not be the case with all web based aggregators, though.
At the end of the day, even for the casual web surfer, the aggregator is a must for efficiently accessing, receiving and organizing content from myriad web sites. For me it's a keystone for effectively managing my web experience.
...a tow truck towing a tow truck? How does that happen? I saw it today on I-95N in Virginia. Unfortunately, I was in heavy traffic, and didn't (or did) have the presence of mind to (not) take a phone camera picture. In any event, I guess you could equate it to a selacamp sighting...
In earlier posts I discussed two of the O'Reilly Web 2.0 principles ("The Web as Platform" and "Harnessing Collective Intelligence"). In this entry I'll discuss a couple more: "End of the Software Release Cycle" and "Rich User Experiences." I would also like to note two other O'Reilly principles, "Data is the Next Intel Inside" and "Software Above the Level of a Single Device," which I will not delve into. However, if you would like more information on these two principles please see the "What is Web 2.0" article I have been referencing for these posts.
End of the Software Release Cycle What exactly does "End of the Software Release Cycle" mean? Essentially, the Web 2.0 era is a time of the constant beta -- software accessed through the internet with a web browser is always in the developmental stage. Take the Google applications as an example. I use Gmail, Calendar, Documents, and Reader and they are always evolving. However, the evolution is not intrusive -- meaning that it does not affect my ability to continue to use the tools. Most of the changes are transparent, but occasionally there will be a significant update that is easily apparent. Of the Google tools I use, Documents seems to change the most. See the below image from a Phil Lenssen 28 Feb blog post.
As you can see, the change here was a simple update to the tool bar in Google Documents. But this change highlights the continuous beta cycle of the Web 2.0 era. As O'Reilly states, "...one of the defining characteristics of internet era software is that it is delivered as a service, not as a product."
The Google Documents example is pretty powerful because, essentially, what you have with Documents is an internet mini version (word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software) of the Microsoft Office suite -- albeit a less robust version -- that only requires a web browser, is constantly evolving (in beta form), is accessible anywhere there is internet access, and there is no long software development and release cycle. The service is always being improved and it's free. This type of development cycle is significantly different than what we are used to from the PC or client-server era, and will require a significant paradigm shift for software companies still in the design and release a product model -- as opposed to a software as a service model.
Rich User Experiences This is another way of saying that web developers are now able to build web applications as rich as local PC-based applications.
Continuing with the Google theme, according to O'Reilly, Gmail was the first "mainstream" web application to deliver rich user interfaces and PC-equivalent interactivity. The combination of several technologies, which became known as AJAX, made this leap forward possible. Since Gmail was introduced a flood of other software service applications with rich interfaces has followed. According to O'Reilly:
"We expect to see many new web applications over the next few years, both truly novel applications, and rich web reimplementations of PC applications. Every platform change to date has also created opportunities for a leadership change in the dominant applications of the previous platform."
Using the Google Documents example again, essentially O'Reilly is saying that a platform change -- from a PC-based software PRODUCT (Microsoft Office) to an internet-based comparative software SERVICE (Google Documents) -- based on a rich user experience has the potential to cause a paradigm shift in the way we view and use computers.
At the end of the day, O'Reilly's Web 2.0 principles have offered a great start point for exploring the Web 2.0 phenomena. With these principles as a foundation, in future posts I will delve into some of the Web 2.0 applications and technology that I am discovering.
I was dong a little research on YouTube and found a few videos I thought I would share.
1. This video is a short clip (50 seconds) of Tim O'Reilly "defining" Web 2.0. O'Reilly, as with everything else I have read by him, approaches a Web 2.0 definition from a business process perspective.
2. This clip (5:17) takes the information from the Wikipedia entry for Web 2.0 and presents it in video format. Nothing earth shattering, but for those of you who prefer the movie over the book, this is for you.
3. The final clip (3:00), which I found to be the most enlightening, is from Andi Gutmans, co-founder of Zend. Gutmans approaches a definition of Web 2.0 from more of a technical standpoint. His main Web 2.0 attributes are: 1. Rich Internet Applications (RIA) -Flash -Ajax 2. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) -Feeds -RSS -Web Services -Mash-Ups 3. Social Web -Tagging -Wiki -Blogging -Podcasting
A phone call between my wife, mother-in-law (M-I-L), sister-in-law (S-I-L), or any combination of the above -- usually, on speaker phone -- goes something like this:
Wife: Hi Mom. What are you doing? M-I-L: Nothing. What are you doing? Wife: Nothing. Hey, blah, blah, blah... Mom! Are you listening to me? (M-I-L is searching on the Internet and not paying attention to wife). You're not paying attention; I'm going to let you go. M-I-L: Okay. I was just looking at what the market did today. Wife: Bye. I love you. M-I-L: I love you, too. Bye.
But, that is not the end of the call -- they stay on the line... Neither hangs up. They listen, and finally someone says something like, "Are you still there?". Or, better yet, just after they offer their good-bye's and begin to hang up, someone will say, "Hey, wait, did you, blah, blah blah?..." At which point the conversation will drone on for another 10 to 15 minutes; usually with the same frustrating interaction. And this can, and often does, happen more than once.
It driiiives me nuts! What's so hard about saying good bye, and hanging up?
As I alluded to earlier, sometimes a call will consist of wife, M-I-L AND S-I-L -- with M-I-L and S-I-L usually on speaker phone. The speaker phone issue usually dominates the call -- wife gets irritated because M-I-L and S-I-L are talking to each other and not including her, or they just can't hear each other because of background noise.
In my house calls like these occur, at a minimum, usually twice per day and I feel like the guy in the video clip below... The kicker here is that that there is, to the untrained ear, nothing substantive communicated on these calls. To most the calls would be an exercise in futility, or a waste of time. However, to wife, M-I-L and S-I-L the calls are a complicated form of communication; a way to gage each other, if you will -- to make sure everyone is doing okay for the day. And I understand that...
I was surfing my Google Reader today and stumbled across a Sunday Times article titled, "Coming Soon: A Super Fast Internet" -- this peeked my interest. The intro to the article read, "The Internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds. At speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection, “the grid” will be able to send the entire Rolling Stones back catalog from Britain to Japan in less than two seconds" [1]. Kind of like an Internet on steroids -- I wonder if Jose Canseco knows about this?...
The article went on to state that Cern, the particle physics center near Geneva where Tim Berners-Lee invented the web, started the grid computing project seven years ago (sorry, Jose) to support the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) -- the LHC is designed to probe the origin of the universe. Apparently, scientists working on the LHC project estimated that, once it goes on line this summer, the annual data output could be 56 million CDs worth of information. I'm not sure how much data that is, but it sounds like a lot. They determined that that data output might bring the Internet to its knees; hence, the creation of the grid.
While the Internet is created with a mix of cables and routing equipment originally designed for voice transmission, the grid has been built with dedicated fiber optic cables and modern routing centers. According to the article, 55,000 servers -- with a goal of reaching 200,000 within the next two years -- have already been installed. The grid connects Cern to eleven other centers in the U.S., Canada, the Far East, and Europe.
A simple Google search turns up a ton of information on this subject. Obviously, this is new to me, but it's not really new. For a few quick references I found, check out the below links:
The notion of the grid interested me because of its potential to alter how we interact with the Internet. While the grid, as designed by the folks at Cern, has a specific mission to help process LHC data, and is not expected to be available to the public, its pioneering capabilities and technologies could influence a new Internet. After all, isn't that how we got to where we are today with the Internet? David Britton, a leading figure on the grid project, summed up the potential by stating, "With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine" [1]. Can you say Web 3.0?...
For some reason when I first read the Sunday Times article my first thought was The Matrix. Not sure why -- maybe it was the whole grid/matrix similarity... I don't know, in any event, it has nothing to do with the grid but I thought I would through The Matrix trailer in for your enjoyment...
In my previous post I mentioned aggregate readers tied to RSS feeds as a key component of harnessing collective intelligence in the Web 2.0 age. I also promised that, sometime in the future, I would write a post on aggregate readers, and I still intend to do that. However, this morning while surfing some older Google blog entries I came across an interesting post on using Google Reader with the Nintendo Wii gaming system. As a Google Reader fan, and new Wii system owner (Christmas) I was intrigued by this combination.
Before getting started, however, it's important to note that in order to use Google Reader with the Wii, your Wii must be connected to the net (I know that's a blinding flash of the obvious, but I thought I better float that small detail out there...). The other thing you're going to need is the Opera-based browser for the Wii, which can be purchased for a few dollars (Wii Points) through the Wii Shop Channel. Once you have this, you're all set. Fire up the browser on your Wii and navigate to google.reader.com. If you'd like to try the Google Reader interface in a regular browser, visit www.google.com/reader/wii to go into Wii mode.
The Opera browser is a little clunky -- you have to be patient entering URLs -- and navigating with the Wii remote can test your patience, but it was nice to sit in my Eames Lounge Chair and check out the updates that were flowing in to my Google Reader. It's not as efficient as a traditional browser, but it's better than what you get on a hand-held device such as a Blackberry. Below are the simple navigating instructions for using the Wii remote.
up/down: scroll up/down
right/left: next/previous item
1 button: show subscriptions
2 button: show links
When showing subscriptions:
up/down: previous/next subscription
right: select current subscription
left: close
-/+: collapse/expand folder
All things considered, I found the Google Reader on the Wii to be a good option if you're too lazy on a rainy Sunday morning to get your laptop.
If your interested in some more detail, check out Mihai Parparita's blog post. Also, check out the below video, which was also included as part of Parparita's post. Enjoy.
The second of Tim O'Reilly's seven Web 2.0 principles is Harnessing Collective Intelligence [1]. Harnessing collective intelligence means that individuals surfing the the web have the ability to add and/or modify the content of a web page -- thus adding collective intelligence. I have found three key examples that explain this principle nicely.
The prime example associated with this principle is Wikipedia. If you don't already know, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows any web user to create or edit entries -- as opposed to, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, which uses a relatively small number of experts to derive their information from. Wikipedia offers a wide-open social forum that encourages participation, but also has an established methodology for ensuring the veracity of the information contained within the site. Some argue that allowing the free-form creation and editing of information is dangerous business, and that the information offered by the Wikipedia nation is not reliable. However, according to a 2005 study conducted by the journal Nature, Wikipedia is every bit as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica[2]. The Wikipedia model for a user-created encyclopedia, to many, is a monumental leap of faith. O'Reilly refers to it as a "radical experiment in trust" [1]. However, the Wikipedia idea has been successful enough that it has become the model for a new U.S. intelligence community collaboration initiative called Intellipedia. And the term wiki has become synonymous with collaborative web sites. For more information on Intellepedia see Clive Thompson's New York Times article titled, "Open-Source Spying" [3].
Another key example of Harnessing Collective Intelligence is the rise of the blog. Personal web pages have been around since Al Gore created the Internet. However, the current format of "personal pages" -- the blog -- allows the common web surfer (like yours truly), with no knowledge of HTML, to create highly interactive, chronological running dialogues with rich content. Like a wiki, a blog offers web surfers a myriad means to create, edit, and control information. This blog is a good example because, with very little training, a casual computer user like me can create an interactive site that hosts hyperlinks, pictures, streaming video, and the ability for site visitors to comment on the blog content.
A technology called Really Simple Syndication/Rich Site Summary (RSS) is another important tool for harnessing collective intelligence. If you spend any time surfing the web, chances are you have seen the icon located to the left. O'Reilly goes so far as to categorize that "RSS is the most significant advance in the fundamental architecture of the web since early hackers realized that CGI could be used to create data-based backed websites" [1]. In its simplest form RSS allows a web surfer to subscribe to a page, and receive notification every time the content on that page changes. The link between RSS, the wiki, and the blog is the fact that RSS has created an ease of interaction between all of the Web 2.0 collaboration tools. RSS "pushes" information to a single location (the aggregator), which in turn increases the interaction on wikis and blogs.
In order to view RSS feeds you need to have what's called an aggregator. An aggregator provides a consolidated view of content in a single browser display or desktop application. There are a number of web and client-based aggregators available as freeware. I will discuss aggregators in a future blog, but for those not familiar with them, Google Reader is a great web-based aggregator, while FeedReader offers a solid client-based aggregator. More to follow on this subject...
Finally, Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University, released the below video titled "Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us" on YouTube on January 31, 2007. The video sums up nicely some of the things I have discussed in this blog entry.
Allowing users to create and edit data is a profound advancement in the evolution of the internet. Wikis, blogs, and RSS are but a few key examples of how the web community collaborates and endeavors to harness a collective intelligence.
In the previous post I described the simple differences between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 and identified seven principles outlined by Tim O'Reilly [1]. O'Reilly's seven principles offer a logical jump-off point for exploring the Web 2.0 phenomenon. In this entry I will discuss his first principle, The Web as Platform [1].
According to O'Reilly, "You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core" [1]. See the below "meme map" for a graphical description. The map offers an outstanding visual -- a picture is worth a thousand words -- for how Web 2.0 is developing the web as platform. Most importantly, the web (the platform) is constantly changing to meet the needs of the Internet community -- giving the user a stake in the development and modification of content accessible to any user with a browser and web access.
One of the key ideas of The Web as Platform is that client side applications, such as the Microsoft Office Suite, and their development, release, and distribution cycles will become obsolete. O'Reilly sums this philosophy up nicely [1]:
"There will be no scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operting systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see."
The Web as Platform is a key principle to understanding the Web 2.0 phenomenon. The ability to harness collective intelligence to create and edit data collectively within the web community is what makes the web a powerful, scalable platform. The Web as Platform principle allows users to run software applications entirely through a browser. Instead of just viewing a site, Web 2.0 sites often offer rich, user-friendly interfaces that encourage users to add value to applications as they use them.
In the next blog entry I'll discuss the second principle: Harnessing Collective Intelligence.
...why dogs love peanut butter so much. We have an eighty-five pound yellow lab named Sully, and Sully looooooves peanut butter. Every few months, when we get to the bottom of the Jiffy Peanut Butter jar, Sully gets a delectable treat -- he gets to clean the "empty" peanut butter jar so we can put it in the recycle bin. He'll spend hours using his six-inch tongue like a spatula -- trying to clean every square inch of that jar. It's a chore for him because he has a biiiiiig head and snout, and getting that snout into the little jar opening is not easy. When it comes to peanut butter, though, Sully is very thorough. However, there is always that one little spot that stymies him. It's usually on the convex portion of the very bottom of the jar -- right in the middle. He can never get this spot and it drives him nuts (no pun intended).When he was a puppy he would chase the jar around the house (or yard), grasp it between his paws, wedge it up against the wall, or try to chew the top off to get closer to the little spot, but nothing worked. As he gets older I think he's realized that he just can't get all of the peanut butter. It still drives him nuts, but when he gets to the little spot, he's mature enough to walk away from the jar. That's my mature boy... Just so you don't think Sully is the only dog that enjoys peanut butter, check out the video of Cartman working on his own "empty" jar.
By the way, if you decide to give your dog the Jiffy Peanut Butter jar for recycle cleaning, your house will stink like dog and peanut butter for a day, or so.
According to Wikipedia, Web 2.0 is "a second generation of web-based communities and hosted services such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies, which aim to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing among users." This differs from the so-called Web 1.0 technologies, which were static and did not allow interaction and collaboration. Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly Media, and Dale Dougherty of MediaLive International, co-creators of the "Web 2.0 Conference," offer the below examples of the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 technology.
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
DoubleClick
>
GoogleAdsense
Ofoto
>
Flickr
Akamai
>
BitTorrent
mp3.com
>
Napster
Britannica Online
>
Wikipedia
personal websites
>
blogging
evite
>
upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation
>
search engine optimization
page views
>
cost per click
screen scraping
>
web services
publishing
>
participation
content mgmt systems
>
wikis
directories (taxonomy)
>
tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness
>
syndication
Additionally, O'Reilly, writing a 2005 article titled "What is Web 2.0," explored seven principal features (1. The Web as Platform; 2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence; 3. Data as the Next Intel Inside; 4. End of the Software Release Cycle; 5. Lightweight Programming Models; 6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device; and 7. Rich User Experiences) that he considers core competencies of Web 2.0. Upon initial research, O'Reilly's seven principles appear to be a logical organization for exploring Web 2.0.
Recently I attended a class called "Social Software 101." The class was designed to initiate professionals into the Web 2.0 revolution. That's real nice, but what is the Web 2.0 revolution? What I found is that many of the so-called Web 2.0 tools are used by the casual computer user - which I categorize myself - every day. We just don't know it. The class really peaked my interest and I have been doing a lot of reading to attempt to understand the Web 2.0 phenomena. In my reading I have found that the information available on Web 2.0 is overwhelming. But what I have not found is that one web stop that breaks Web 2.0 down for newbies - or the casual web surfer like myself. What I hope to do with this blog is twofold: 1) Better understand the Web 2.0 phenomena; and 2) Translate my learning into a running dialog for other Web 2.0 newbies.
