That is true. But a forum can be a means to operate a business.
The filmjackets.com guy operates the forum because he likes film jackets. The owner and the members research who makes the jacket and where to get it. Sometimes the jacket is custom/semi-custom.
In that case one very active member of the forum operates his own business where he will contact a jacket manufacturer and organize group buys. The active forum member is able to buy the jackets at a discount and then re-sell to the forum members.
I bought my motorcycle jacket based on the forum. From the forum I knew who the manufacturer of the jacket I liked was. Me finding that out on my own would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Without that site I would not have the motorcycle jacket that I ABSOLUTELY wanted.
You know, I'm watching a show about a wedding cake contest in Oklahoma right now. If Food network can make money on that, there's got to be a way to do it online.
I think we're just getting started in our ways of monetizing audiences online. Just look at the reality TV shows that make money on the most obscure topics these days.
I think that the advertisers pay more for Food network airtime because Food network has repeat patrons. It's a little different for a one-off show than for an entire network.
The interesting part is that broadcast television has managed to shoot themselves in the foot by lowering the bar of production value (via reality shows) to the level commonly found among online video producers (as opposed to well written, slickly produced and expensive dramas).
By setting their audience's expectations as such, the broadcasters have made online content more appealing and therefore have decreased their ability to compete with online offerings.
Fair enough for Iranian/Chinese users perhaps but I thought Hushmail was no longer secure - ever since they handed over user data in response to a subpoena.
There's nothing wrong with handing over data in response to a subpoena. They're legally required to do so. The problem is with providers who hand over data without a subpoena.
They didn't, but the they were forced to setup something on their servers that allowed them to capture the keys (or something like that) in one particular instance, IIRC.
This is the best argument I've heard yet that Buzz is more than just another of Google's me-too apps. The article makes a good case that syndication of Buzz content through open standards could make it a powerful competitor to Facebook. I'd be curious to hear other people's opinions on whether this is just hype or seems realistic.
I'm not sure it's got anything to do with being open, but buzz is awesome because it's like a first-class email. I get notified of responses, my comments get saved in sent mail, I can even download buzz over POP!
Putting the pieces together, when I write this comment I'll get a copy in my email in a few minutes. Win.
Yes, it surely is a Facebook competitor. At first glance, it looks to me like a Friendfeed inserted into a GMail - which I see like a simple, yet brilliant idea.
Like Dave Winer, I am also 54 and absolutely do not care what anyone else thinks about it.
Perhaps that explains why you are also less likely to perceive it when it happens. Perhaps Dave Winer is more sensitive to this issue and that explains why he notices it more. I doubt that he is imagining this since you are one of the few people in IT that I have heard having a contrary experience. Perhaps you are simply an outlier.
I am guessing it could have a lot to do with the fact that Dave Winer is known to be a bit of a crank! He's historically gotten into a lot of ugly arguments, regardless of his age.
It seems crazy to me now, but I worried most about ageism when I was around 38. I had just started a job in the Bay Area where almost everybody else was in their early twenties. To the extent that there was a problem, it was all in my head.
I am now 46, I have a much better perspective on it, and I don't think about it at all. I suppose it is possible that I have been discriminated against during job searches, but I've got plenty of more important things to worry about.
I guess I think that it is not a social issue for me, and it's up to others to make their own interpretations.
I think there are a lot of disadvantages that could drag you down: you're losing your hair, you're short, you're ugly, your parents put you through a rotten childhood, and so on. But you can always find examples of people who have those same disadvantages and are thriving anyway.
I knew this girl once who thought she was ugly. She mentioned that it goes beyond mere social conditioning, that even newborn babies react more favorably to pretty people. So I said: who would a newborn react more favorably to, a pretty stranger or her own homely mother?
If I am facing some type of disadvantage, I am always going to be looking for a way to stack the deck in my favor to get around it.
Actually a lot of programmers suck at networking and are terrible at job hunting.
This is a myth perpetuated by the you-get-what-you-deserve crowd who also believe that the homeless deserve to be where they are because they didn't play by the rules.
I am the one answering questions. I have to pay (i.e., look at ads) for the privilege of doing so. Then, my work is used to lure in eyeballs that look at the ads.
Just sayin', it's not sustainable. Why shouldn't I get a cut? What do I get for continuing to answer questions on Stack Overflow (instead of on free mailing lists, or on my own blog, or in a magazine)?
Karma is nice and all, but the only reason I bother writing here is because there are no ads.
Agreed. StackOverflow provides tremendous value to the tech community.
However, the idea of charging participants in that community $100 per year for the privilege of having their resumes searchable by employers seems like a bit of a slap in the face.
Especially since the Careers site doesn't even seem to try to distinguish between employers and recruiters.
Spolsky has said that every job that gets posted requires the company name, ditto for companies using Careers. Ergo, it's no use to recruiters because they can go around the posting straight to the company. He (correctly) believes that recruiters destroy value for job seekers and companies and keep markets from working.
About the slap in the face, it's necessary to filter out bad developers who won't get value from posting their CV. The best price isn't always free.
->"About the slap in the face, it's necessary to filter out bad developers who won't get value from posting their CV."
The willingness to pay $100 to post your resume could just as easily correlate to lower ability since someone who can't find a job through any other avenue might be willing to pay for additional exposure to employers.
I'm not sure why recruiters prevent markets from working. In my experience they link up programmers and companies that aren't good about getting their name out there find one each other. It's sometimes a bit weird but under the right conditions it benefits both parties.
Recruiters (where I come from) take a big chunk of salary. Stackoverflow are charging $100 p/a. Not directly comparable, but depending on the salary, getting a job through SO will be thousands of dollars cheaper.
So I wouldn't agree SO is trying to be a recruiter on a larger scale.
