The Cluetrain Manifesto 114
| The Cluetrain Manifesto | |
| author | Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger |
| pages | 190 |
| publisher | Perseus Books, 12/1999 |
| rating | Suits:9/ |
| reviewer | hemos, Jason Bennett |
| ISBN | 0738202444 |
| summary | The book based on the website, TCF is a radical vision of the impact of the Internet on business-as-usual. |
Review One: hemos
It's not often that I actually read a book that's targeted at the business market. Such books often get sent to our offices here for review, and we usually hold a short ceremony in which we desecrate the books, then send them out to the vast CEO gulags we've started outside of town.Scratch that last part. In any case, it is true that I usually manage to avoid "business" writing. I've mostly found that the point the authors attempt to make could have been said in 15 pages, versus the 150 they took to say it. Even the most beautiful graphs cannot disguise a lack of content.
However, when Doc Searls (one of the authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto) passed along several copies of the book, I was a bit taken aback. I'd heard it being talked up by quite a number of people, all of whom were (hurried intake of breath!) Manager-types! But the people writing it -- from Doc, to Christopher Locke, Rick Levine and David Weinberger -- are all folks I've either met, heard or read before and people I respect.
That left me with a bit of a conundrum. If this book was written by people I respected, but as a rule business books have been the closest to Harlequin romances in terms of worth, what the heck was going on? The answer, my dear Watson, is quite elementary: this is not a business book.
Or rather, it is. But not a book about how business today should run and operate, about "disintermediation" and other piles of drivel that I think should be apparent for what they are to anyone willing to think. Instead, Cluetrain gets at the heart of what's actually going with this whole "Internet Revolution" -- people talking to people. And I think that particular message has gotten lost in the haze of convenience, price-difference and all the other media hyped ideas about what's going on with the business side of the Internet. What the authors of the book argue is that what's actually happening, in many ways, is that we are ripping down the artifical walls between producers and sellers. I agree. Disintermediation by any other name, maybe, but their treatment is refreshing in that it focuses on the human side. Any book that includes the mantra: "I am not a business. I am a human being." is good by me. And they also mention "undead evil." I'm serious.
OK, here's my take on the book with some sembalance of mental order: Cluetrain does a great job of exploding much of the hype about the present revolution. Instead, the revolution we're creating is something that humanity had for a while, and lost. We're bringing back the conversation now, and we're taking it global. That's the book in a nutshell. But the folks writing it can actually make that message interesting enough to read for roughly two hundred pages -- enough that you want to read the author credits, and drop them a line, like I did. The book also gathers strength from its use of excellent quotes and examples.
Who should this book be read by? You, of course, but also passing the book along to bosses and friends who are afraid of the Internet. I'm serious -- this book has become my defacto primer for people who don't understand what the Internet is going to do -- and doing -- and are scared about it.
And even if you don't trust me, read the sample chapter.
Review Two: Jason Bennet
Background
Greetings, all, and good to be back. After finishing some books in the past month, as well as finally getting some others written up, I'm ready to unleash a string of reviews on Slashdot. The first of these is one of the more talked-about books to come out recently, The Cluetrain Manifesto. I have to admit I didn't see the Web site until recently, and thus am a newcomer to the movement, but I must say the rhetoric is revolutionary, regardless of how much impact it eventually has. If nothing else, take a look at the site and read over the 95 theses. You may or may not agree with them, but they will make you think.
What's the book about?
Before addressing the various essays that make up the manifesto, I'll try to summarize the ideals and ideas behind the movement. Basically, commerce as we know it is a lie. For most of human history, trade has been about interacting with other people. Going to the market, seeing your friends, checking out the various stalls, conducting business, and generally doing the important things of life. Craftsmen proudly displayed their wares to all who would see, touch, and smell them. People discussed which merchants were fair, who had the best quality, and so on. The market was the center of human interaction, where politics, society and business merged (see the Greeks for an excellent example). The Industrial Revolution changed all that, however. With the advent of mass production and economies of scale, production and consumption became all important. Craftsmanship was discarded in favor of turning out as much interchangeable product as possible, using interchangeable workers in interchangeable factories. The marketplace ceased to be a conversation, and became a one-way street, aimed directly at the consumer. The rise of mass media completed the transformation from conversation to lecture. No longer did customers roam the marketplace, but instead consumers were lulled, bribed and manipulated into buying the latest and greatest, because TV told them so. The idea of the interchangeable consumer came to be the industrial ideal. Nothing was left to chance: You could get anyone to buy anything made by anyone, and all that mattered was the money. This ideal never totally came to pass, of course, but it was the driving force behind many decades of business.
The Internet has broken these chains, however. The market no longer stares exlusively at the great tube, but instead is engaged in the greatest conversation in human history. Customers now tell each other what is happening, and shoot down the grandiose marketing schemes of giant corporations. You can now talk to hundreds of people in your town about the latest restaurants, which car dealer is best, or what doctors give the best care. The bazaar has returned with a vengeance. The mass media assume we are stupid; the Internet makes us collectively smart. The Internet is a conversation.
Commensurate with the redemption of customers from the bondage of industry, workers are no longer cogs in a great production machine, but are now talking to each other in ways they never could before. Hierarchies are broken when you can e-mail anyone, anytime, to give or get help. It doesn't matter where you sit, or what your place is, everyone has access. Even worse, those employees (nee' resources) and those customers can now talk to each other easily. The two great conversations, inside the business and inside the market, are on a collision course. The only question is, will that collision propel your business to new heights, or destroy it?
Chapter 1 is more or less an overview of what is to come, and where I drew the above summary from. In short, because of the Internet, you, the customer, now have a voice, the ability to make yourself heard to others over the din of advertising and other stilted "business communication." You know what business-speak sounds like, you know what people sound like, and you know what you prefer and who you believe. Just as the customer is empowered, so is the worker, precisely because of the knowledge that a network allows to flow. These conversations threaten to completely overthrow business as we know it, and their merger will transform the market.
Chapter 2 quickly sums up why we so desperately want our voice back: because we sacrificed it, traded our souls, to be good professionals. The Web allows us to be ourselves again.
Chapter 3 discusses what's behind the Web: the unique voice of each person participating in the conversation. These voices are carried along various conduits: e-mail and mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and personal Web pages. The chapter details various ways that these modes of communication are already breaking down the barriers among customers, and between business and customers, including a very interesting newsgroup exchange about Saturn automobiles. Most of this will be old hat to Slashdot readers, but likely not to suits. Authenticity is the key here, along with spontaneity and a human touch. All of these things are conveyed by people in a conversation, and not conveyed by brochures or Powerpoint presentations. It doesn't matter so much that your company participates in all of these conversations, as it does that it is honest when is does participate. Some examples of honest, open organizations (United, Sun's Java team, at least at first) and closed organizations (Intel with the Pentium bug, Java later on) are analyzed, with clear results: those companies that try to talk succeed, while those that don't talk only hurt themselves. Someone will be talking, and it had better be you.
The anecdote which opens chapter 4 sums up the theme: even after hearing about markets as conversations for several hours to a group, some people still don't get it. The first few paragraphs basically repeat what has already been stated: markets stopped being conversations around the time mass production and mass marketing took over. What replaced this conversation was a one-way message, delivered from business to consumers. Unfortunately, no one really wants to listen to an overblown hype machine. The entire role of marketing is to make us want what we are supposed to want, but don't really want. This anti-conversation, however, is slowly but surely being pushed back by the rich tones of conversation on the Web. The knowledge contained in these conversations increases exponentially as more and more people join the party. Attempts to dominate this conversation with targeted message, i.e. push technology, have failed utterly. No one wants another television. In point of fact, conversation built the Web, manifested in the open source movement. Apache, Linux and the rest are all products of conversations. These are living examples of what can be accomplished when the market talks. The only way for marketing to survive is to work with the conversation, to give it what it wants. No more brochureware, but real information that the market recognizes as such. Work with the customer on price. Truely reposition, don't just spout different lines. Marketing sees the consumer as the enemy. The conversation is waiting for them to realize what's happening. All you have to do is talk honestly, and people will listen and talk back.
Chapter 5 details the other side of this sea change -- the change within business. In a "hyperlinked organization," people don't need the fancy office building or the top-down bureaucracy, they just want to be able to work with those people that best let them get a job done. Employees (or, dare I say it, resources) need no longer be bound by lines on an organizational chart. People go to who they need to get what they need. Centralized control is replaced by a web of people working with whoever they need. Groups form and collapse on an ad-hoc basis to meet the demands of the moment. All of the knowledge generated is managed through people telling each other stories. We already have tons of information; what we need is more knowledge, more understanding. Human communication generates this understanding. Because of all of this communication, and lack of hierarchy, it is inevitable that your customers will join in. Business intranets will expand to include customers along with employees, working together to make sure everyone gets what he needs. Business as a message is dead; Business as a conversation is beginning.
Chapter 6 summarizes the points made so far, then launches into a treatise on the future of the Web. Unfortunately, we're asking the wrong questions. We don't need to ask questions out of fear of the Web, but out of our desire to converse. The conversation we have will shape the Web the way it needs to be. There's no easy way to do this, just a journey into the unknown.
Chapter 7 concludes the Manifesto by stating that the revolution has already begun, and it's too far gone to stop. What we must do now is break our old habits, and start behaving in a new way. It's so tempting to keep an old, patched machine going even when everyone knows it needs to be replaced. Just remember, "I am not a company, I am a human being."
What's Good?
This book will blow your mind, all the more so if you're new to the Internet or unsure about what it means. It presents a radical new way to think about how we interact with commerce and with each other. To some extent or another, I think we all feel what is being communicated here. We're all tired of being cogs, of being consumers, of being resources. We want to be people, friendly customers, employees. As the conclusion says, it's already too late to stop this transformation. The Internet will only grow, and its fundamental nature means that the old is gone, and the new is come. If you are in business, you need to understand what is happening. You can either surf the wave, or drown in it.
What's Bad?
Any controversial book has its issues, and Cluetrain is no exception. The only reason I gave the book a Geek rating of 7 is because you already know what is being said. You know how people talk in newsgroups, and you probably don't want to read 50 pages telling you that. You don't need to hear this message repeated five times in the course of 200 pages. It's a good read, but know that you're likely to skip some parts, because you're tired of being beaten over the head with something you've already figured out.
Having said that, I do have quarrels with a few points that Weinberger makes when he discusses how the Internet came to be. I get the impression that he feels that the Internet sprung from chaos like Athena from Zeus, magically appearing out of the mist of conversation alone. He certainly believes that hierarchy is counterproductive in the Internet age. "[T]he most complex network ever imagined...[the WWW] has been implemented without any central control whatsoever," he writes on page 130. What exactly are the IETF and the W3C then? Didn't a small group of people design TCP/IP? There was a conversation, of course, but there was also control and hierarchy. No good open-source project lacks a leader, and every movement needs its inspiration. The Internet might not be the encrusted bureaucracy of a megacorporation, but authority is helpful in getting things done. I find the quote "[t]he Web succeeded where the Internet failed ..." (page 142) especially interesting. Although, as he says, the Web gave us the user-friendly browser, I'd rather think the Internet spawned the Web, since it is what transports the Web. Oh, and if someone can tell me what a "Unixlike language (145)" is, I'd appreciate it. I also find humorous the notion that e-mail has to be poorly written to be authentic. Finally, Chapter 6 is far too much of a political rant for my taste. Wanting to push pornography to the side does not make one a control freak. Control is not a bad thing. Anyway, I'm ranting now myself. It's a good book, despite these issues.
So What's In It For Me?
I think I've already said that. :-) This is an important book. You might love it. You might hate it. You'll likely feel threatened by it. Nevertheless, you owe it to yourself to at least read the 95 Theses. They will make you think. If you're a business type, read this. You need to, especially if you're still learning this Internet thing. If you've been around, read it if you want. There'll be some full parts, but it will mean a lot. The revolution has already begun.
Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
- Table of Contents
- Foreward
- The Cluetrain Manifesto
-
Introduction
- Internet Apocalypso
- The Longing
- Talk is Cheap
- Markets are Conversations
- The Hyperlinked Organization
- EZ Answers
- Post-Apocalypso
- Acknowledgements
- About the Authors
The Andover.net manifesto (Score:1)
Amazing.
you pragmatists ruin everything (Score:1)
1. the Communist revolution in China. Things would have been fine if there weren't so many profiteers like you without any real Communist spirit who decided that they may as well become cadres and corrupt and get rich off of other peoples' misery.
2. just about every single US election. People consistently vote for the lesser of the two evils instead of who they really want. And look where it's gotten us.
3. the stock market. If people would just have some faith that the market isn't going to take a nose dive, it never would, because people would start buying quickly enough after a sell-off that things wouldn't have a chance to get bad.
4. religion. If people would simply go by the words of their favorite religious books instead of by what they think would benefit them most, the world would be a much better place. After all, didn't Christ say that the most important commandment was "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why do Christians constantly insist on placing other parts of scripture above that?
5. Slashdot. If all the spammers who spam Slashdot because they think it's fun and Slashdot's bad enough anyway realized that it would be much better if they would work to make it that way, Slashdot would be a far better site for everyone, instead of the troll-infested hole it is now.
Really -- people need to have idealistic spirit, and not get caught up in the base impulses that end up ruining everything.
Reading != thinking (Score:1)
When the message people are trying to get across is "Think for yourself, dammit!", how exactly does "getting it" become some type of conformity to a behavioural pattern?
Because "think for yourself" is far different from "read this book and agree with what it says" which seems to be the attitude I can see. There are a number of people on /. with sigs which say "Don't get it - read the Cluetrain Manifesto" or something similar, and I've seen plenty of posts saying "get X to read the Cluetrain Manifesto - that'll tell them what's *really* going on". How is this thinking for yourself?
By reading some person's own personal political agenda about the internet you aren't forming your own opinions, you're just sucking up someone else's. How is it that other books like this which purport to explain just "how it is" get slated here on /., but this one doesn't, just because it agrees with the naive idealist politics of /. readers? Hypocrisy? I think so.
This book sucked (Score:2)
They seem to approach the subject as if they had just discovered the wonders of computing, and seem to forget about all of the scientists and engineers that have spent over 3 decades bringing their visions of the information age to reality. Also, they seem naive about issues of control over infrastructure and information. Unfortunately, this is the kind of book that will appeal more to a socialogist than an engineeer/geek.
The only explanation why Hemos could possibly give it a good review is that he is a friend of some of the authors. To me, it was a fluff piece.
I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:3)
Whilst I'm sure this is an interesting book and that /.ers will all find it a great read, I'm sick and tired of the constant pressure for people who use the internet to "conform" to some kind of behavioural pattern. And I'm even more tired of being told that the net is bringing about some kind of radical "paradigm shift" in the way individuals and organisations interact.
All of this is just a dressing up of the naive political ideals of the majority of /. readers - that things are changing for the better, that world peace is possible and even round the corner and that technology will make the world a fundamentally better place to live. These ideals, while all very noble, don't seem to correspond to any kind of reality experianced by people living on the Earth today.
And yeah, I'm sure I'm going to be told I "don't get it" or some other platitude, but what people seem to forget here is that we all have our own views of life, and that these views are all valid in their own ways. But holding idealistic, head in the cloud views is just foolish - the only way you'll change the world is by looking at it and not some "manifesto" claiming to contain all the answers to the world's problems.
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
Re:community and the web (Score:1)
I guess that depends on how you define "market" and how you define "community". They're not saying that everyone you shop with is going to be as close to you as your friends mudding, it's more like, to fit the analogy of a medieval marketplace, back then you knew Bob the Farmer way better than you know Wal-Mart today. It's all a matter of scale.
Heh, you just proved part of the CM. :) (Score:1)
Well done.
Rosy picture... darksome picture (Score:1)
Some Random Post (Score:1)
1. I will always perview everything I
post and check for speling mistakes.
2. I will make sure the subject of my
post/story is descriptive.
3. I will close my tags at all
times.
4. I will not post redundant messages.
and will stay on topic.
5. I will use the proper formatting
option.
6. I will terminate all my urls.
Thank you for your time.
Re:I was gonna read the book... (Score:1)
Some insight, some ignorance, yet thoughtful (Score:1)
- Most business books are tripe. Not all business books are. Read Drucker, Senge, Hock, or Tom Peters. They're all quite good (most of the time). There seems to be almost a smug ignorance of business in the Slashdot community, as if this makes one intellectually superior or something... isn't it ironic how much we chide business people for not knowing anything about technology?
- There seems to be a profound ignorance of history, economics and business in the second review. Were people really just mindless TV zombies for the past 50 years? Not exactly. TV has a big influence, but it isn't the only influence. Nor is it an evil influence.
Was the industrial revoltion an evil conspiracy that homogenized work and workers into meanlingless jobs? In some ways, yes, though some companies were better than others. In other ways, no: it dramatically increased productivity, and hence the standards of living for capitalist Europe and North America to levels never before known in the general populace.
Did craftsmanship create better quality products and happier consumers than mass production? Okay, would someone prefer a crafted refridgerator, or a massed produced on? "Oh, but that's different." Is it, really? Yes, technology has changed to a point where we (consumers) now want & deserve "mass customization". But at the beginning of mass consumer production, after just coming off of a war-time economy, we were just happy to get our hands on stuff, period.
About the book:
- Very thoughtful, but also very repetetive. Chris Locke is a great writer, and I liked his pieces best.
- Contrary to popular belief, this book does not say "down with marketing". It actually says "up with marketing", just in more dynamic forms.
- I like the idea that an organization should more be a "society of individuals" than a "hive mind like the borg". Ironic how just 8 years ago many of us were wearing our Star Trek uniforms discussing over cheesy poofs how perfect a society like the Borg really was.
- There seems to be this overall disinterest in economics. What's interesting is that many economists have been saying exactly this message for the last few years: The Internet gives power to the consumers, hence pushing competition up to never-seen-before levels.
- "Profit margins are YOUR problem. We don't care if you are a company." Well, that's fine actually from a consumer perspective. They should have all the power that this manifesto is predicting will come to them. But being a book catered to businesses, they're placing the hard work in the hands of the readers - how do you adopt these ideas into a viable business model? Perhaps, one would hope, that these ideas are naturally leaning towards easy to find business models.
On a side node, this position also unfortunately leads some with particular political biases (ahem), to believe that it's a call to eliminate intellectual property laws because "I'm a consumer dammit, and I don't care if you're a business that wants to make money off of your IP. I want to copy it freely and not pay for it."
Sure, you one day will probably be able to copy it freely and distribute it far & wide to whomever you please. It doesn't mean, however, that you shouldn't have to pay for it, and some day, there'll be technology that does this non-invasively. "It's about freedom, not money." Sure - and If you believe that, more power to you. I just think there's too many people on the bandwagon for free beer.
Re:good point (Score:1)
Perhaps I'm just a little guilty of being too confident in market & competitive forces, my opinion is that a lot of what the cluetrain prophesizes is going to happen with or without the shouting.
I guess it's good to at least TRY to warn the complacent companies, but it would be so delightful to see some big-boys fall out of ignorance...
Deming (and Taylor too) (Score:1)
And this reminds me of one part of Chapter 1 of the cluetrain: I think Chris Locke misrepresents Fredrick Taylor (understandably, since many people do out of fashion).
I'd argue that the misapplication of Taylor's techniques were inhumane, not Taylor's work itself. Taylor's contribution to management was in "work analysis" i.e. what's the most efficient way to perform a task? Often the inhumane part was "job analysis", i.e. in a production process, how should you organize the division of labor? Taylor had little to do with the latter... unfortunately managers took the liberty of designing jobs along the lines of the work.
Taylor made it clear in his writings & testimony that he cared deeply about treating workers as "humans", to be paid well and treated well. Managers, under his system, were the servants of workers. That he didn't know post-Freudian psychology is akin to blaming IssacNewton for not knowing about quantum mechanics.
Deming essentially updates Taylor for the late 20th century...
Re:Deming (and Taylor too) (Score:1)
Well I have one major problem with that: Taylor's work is fundamental to understanding how we got to where we are today. If the majority just rejects it as "inhumane", we're not helping ourselves understand how we can increase today's productivity.
There seems to be a general aversion to work analysis in the 1990's. A lot of work is skilled work, or professional work. But even so, a large portion of that work is _repetitive_. Proper work analysis can isolate or automate that repetitive work so skilled people can go onto the "real" things people are good at: creativity, problem solving, and innovation.
To me this is what the cluetrain is about indirectly - putting people to work in environments that are best suited to LIFE.. and to do that, we have to try to eliminate the mundane, the repetitive, the stuff that machines do well and human beings don't.
[actually I think expert systems one day will automate a lot of the trivial & mundane -- they're not going to be as inflexible as they were in the 80's, as you mention in Chapter 1
If you want to read an excellent essay about Taylor and related productivity stuff, check out "The New Productivity Challenge" by Peter Drucker, in his book "Managing for the Future".
Think for yourself... (Score:1)
Wrong! (Score:1)
Consider by analogy our experience with certian software and vendors today - you have to ask questions like:
- Does it perform a useful function, or is it merely a parasite? (desired program vs. virus)
- Does it interact well with other memes, or is it exclusonary? (modular vs. monolithic)
- Is it reliable, or does it fail at inopportune times? (how buggy?)
- Does it help/prevent you from adding newer useful memes? (open/closed systems)
- Does it make it harder/easier for distructive memes to proliferate? (secure/insecure)
- Is it acessible to improvement/modification based on experience, or is it rigid and brittle? (open/closed source)
And so on. Memes are our mental tools individually and collectively and exist in extremely large numbers, more so in healthy populations. (Limited meme (mono)cultures are extremely unhealthy: like any (ecological) system, a complex web is an indicator of health).Enough with these meta-meme anologies... :)
--
Wow. (Score:1)
Can we make these guys regular columnists on
Algorithm for doing reviews (Score:1)
1. Read the first few paras till you come to know the subject. If you don't like the subject go to 100.
2. Read the last para and chk out the conclusion. If you trust the author and the conclusion is bad got to 100.
3. Chk the size of the review..if it is short enough read it, and go to 5.
4. (REview is too frickin long case) Read the user comments and see if they agree with the reviewer. If the comments agree with the conclusion
5. goto 101
6. If you do not trust trust the author but you are really interested, go to other sites (amazon? is the best) for more reviews and go to 101 else go to 100.
7. If you reach here get an AMD processor.
8. NOP
9. NOP
.
.
99. NOP
100. exit (1)
101. exit (0)
The above algo has many loose ends. Each reader should fill them up in his own way. That's life for you.
Over and out
CP
P.S: Would appreciate if someone can give a more efficient algo.
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:1)
A note on the "centralized" Internet (Score:1)
You're right that the whole thing didn't happen in some digital parthenogenesis of computer geeks, Amazon wannabees, Buffy otaku, Russian mail-order brides, and wave after wave of AOL newbies. But beyond the top-level domains, IETF and W3C didn't really do anything about the structure and community of the Web. They just built the superhighways. We lined them with subdivisions and shopping malls.
<apology>I know I dragged the "information superhighway" metaphor out of its tomb, but it's not a bad description of the infrastructure. Blame the clue-impaired politicians and media slugs for ruining it.
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:2)
I'm sick and tired of the constant pressure for people who use the internet to "conform" to some kind of behavioural pattern
I'm pretty sure that by now the number of people using the internet has increased so much that to even try to "conform" or suggest that any kind of "conforming" is possible is laughable, by now the internet is a good cross-section of the world population in general. Now maybe suggesting that most of the Slashdot readership is very similiar in thoughts and ideals is a lot closer. After all it bills itself has "News for Nerds" and is a well known Linux site, therefore you would expect "nerds" and Linux users to frequent it.
All of this is just a dressing up of the naive political ideals of the majority of
Well, I must say that I at once agree and disagree. Yes, sometimes some ideals expressed here are a little...unrealistic, but for the MOST part things really ARE better. Look back a couple of hundred years....hell look back fifty...and tell me what time period YOU rather live in. I feel extremely lucky to be growing up and experiencing the time we're living in NOW, we have had great medical, scientific, and technological advances, the likes of which could not have even been DREAMT of 100 years ago. Yes suffering and proverty exist, and they probably always WILL, but we can minimize it. And that is the best we can do.
And yeah, I'm sure I'm going to be told I "don't get it" or some other platitude, but what people seem to forget here is that we all have our own views of life, and that these views are all valid in their own ways. But holding idealistic, head in the cloud views is just foolish - the only way you'll change the world is by looking at it and not some "manifesto" claiming to contain all the answers to the world's problems.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you somewhat. However, try and build a house without blueprints. A "manifesto" has it's place, and I for one say if you can make your manifesto a reality, then go for it! The "Cluetrain Manifesto" may be idealistic, but that doesn't mean we don't WANT it ( hell, if we didn't want it then it would be idealistic would it?
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
Eh, I agree with that, somewhat hypocritically too I'm afraid. As much as we geeks like diversity, we also crave sameness. For as much as we preach choice, we want everyone to use the same thing. It's naturally human I suppose, but still, wouldn't it be nice if everyone ( including ME ), live up to our ideals?
Ah well...
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:2)
Eh, I wish my life was great and wonderful, and to many people I'm sure it is, but I have my own problems, as I'm sure everyone does. And yes, as i stated, the world will always have suffering, but I wonder what the population/suffering ratio is nowadays, I'm willing to bet it's lower now then it ever has been. And do not forget the atrocities of the past...what about the crusades? Or the Spanish Inquisition ( ob "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" )
You say you want individuality, and then go and say this rubbish. A manifesto is a tool for pushing conformity, even if, as it is in this case, an illusionary tolerance of "individuality". True individuality doesn't come from being brainwashed into false beliefs, it comes from within a person. But then again, I wouldn't expect the average
A manifesto is NO such thing, the dictionary defination is: manifesto (mn-fst)
n., pl. manifestoes or manifestos.
A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.
Cleary states that it is simply stating what you believe, nobody says YOU have to believe it has well, it is simply what THEY think. And think about the word idealistic for that matter...in order to call it idealistic you must share their ideals, or else it ISN'T idealistic? *sigh* Not that I would expect you to understand the concept.
Re:OD, Snake Oil, Teaming, et al... Cluetrain? (Score:1)
BTW: The plural of pen is pens, not penses. (ha)
Peace
My $0.02 (Score:3)
Re:You've got to be kidding! (Score:1)
And I agree, what I read is not a business plan. It's simply a loooonnngg checklist of things that are different online than in the storefront world.
We didn't take direction from it per se, but instead it was able to provide a common language where I could start to explain to the sales/marketing types about why some of their plans were silly. Most of them have very little direct experience with dotcoms, and the CTM is an easy way to get them up to speed.
I don't plan on reading the book, given the reviews here. Some hundreds of pages expounding on 95 self-evident and/or redundant points doesn't seem like a good way to spend my time.
Ultimately, if it works, it
dns down? try http://208.12.21.18 [208.12.21.18]
I passed the CT manifesto around at my work (Score:3)
Things have gotten better at our site and in our company. No longer is there a battle between the sales/marketing people and IT. We're on the same page, and we develop our site for the customer's experience. I like my job better, because I'm building technologies that make the web a nicer place for users. Marketing/sales likes their job better, because they understand what it's about now. And we all work together to make it happen. I haven't said, "There's no way any of my servers are going to do that, I'm not wasting cycles on that project" since that link went around.
And that is what the manifesto is, it's a translation of everything us webheads take for granted into business-speak so it's palatable to the phb's. Is it dumbed down in some places, and full of self-evident truisms? Sure, from our perspective. But anything that can help us show the rest of our companies what we do and where we need to go is ok by me.
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
Not that I am, personally, a majority of /. readers, but speaking only for myself, I think you're confusing what people want with what people think they're going to get.
Sure, my ideals involve world peace and technology making the world a better place. My ideal is a utopia, and why shouldn't it be? If an ideal universe isn't really damn neat, it isn't ideal, is it?
Do I think we'll get it? Only if we fight for it, hard. One segment of our population -- the powerful part, it would seem -- appears bent on controlling the rest of the population through the one-way conversation Cluetrain decries. They've mostly succeeded; less than 50% of the people in this country participate in the democratic process (one important form of power), convinced they can't make a difference, yet they gleefully buy into the model of conspicuous consumption that drains money (another form of power) from them uncricitally.
I don't think it's naive to want to stop this process, to envision a better way and try to get people to buy into it. Sure, it doesn't "correspond to...reality experienced by people living on the Earth today," but if it did, we wouldn't have to fight to bring it to pass.
We can do it -- the Internet shows that stuff can come in under the radar. Cluetrain even implies that victory is inevitable, but I don't buy that. We shouldn't stop trying, in any case. There's a lot of work to be done; we've barely scratched the surface.
phil
A manifesto maybe but not really for me (Score:1)
It is amazing to watch people call a book insightful when it is just parrotting back to them what they want to hear or already know.
I can see the use for this material to the stodgy old school business types. However, I do not think the writer really ever took his ideas far enough in some cases or even worse he got idealistic to the point of being silly in some other parts of the book.
Tech Support and the Cluetrain Manifesto (Score:2)
As someone who works both sides of the fence so to speak (I have a vast resource of Check Point FireWall-1 related material on phoneboy.com and I work for a Check Point partner who works very closely with Check Point), I think both types of support have their place. With all the voices out there that are now heard loud and clear on the Internet, someone has to listen to them and sort out which is bullshit and which is the gospel. A vendor on the cluetrain is actively listening to what customers are doing and actually reacting in a positive manner.
I think what's happening in a lot of companies is that there are people who are taking it upon themselves to interact with the public and provide discourse in this conversation called the Internet. There is no "corporate directive" saying to do this. In fact, in some companies, it is actively discouraged because they feel the individuals can't be trusted to "speak the corporate speak." That may be true. The fact of the matter is the smart companies are allowing their employees to participate, even encouraging it. The dumb ones (most are) have tyrannical policies discouraging people from participating.
However, since I actually get paid to support people, I personally have a very fine line to walk. Obviously, for paying customers, my job is to solve their problem. For customers who have problems and say so in a public forum, I make sure they don't or they get where they need to for proper help. For those who aren't paying for support but need help, I do my best, but obviously paying customers get priority. Actually, my needs get priority. After all, I'm human, right, and isn't that what this is about, treating everyone as a human being?
-- PhoneBoy
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Wow! This site is a revelation! (Score:1)
These things are things I've felt for quite some time, and have articulated in various clumsy ways. It's so nice to see that someone else really understands what I'm thinking, and has packaged it up into such well written words.
On a mailing list about the evils of Microsoft and the antitrust trial, I complained that I was tired of being a consumer, and that I felt somewhat ambivalent towards both the DOJ and Microsoft because they both treated me like one. Nobody got what I meant. The website (and I would assume the book) explain it perfectly.
We're setting up a corporate intranet. I want to be sure that the people in my department have personal space to publish things on their own internal web pages. People were afraid of the idea, and didn't understand why it was so important to me. Again, the site explains it perfectly.
There are numerous other thoughts I've had on various aspects of how our culture is organized that this site expresses well too. I'm very impressed and will buy the book today. Thank you Slashdot for pointing it out!
I think I'll pass on this one (Score:1)
P.S. the title sucks too
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:2)
You're right. You don't get it.
But holding idealistic, head in the cloud views is just foolish - the only way you'll change the world is by looking at it and not some "manifesto" claiming to contain all the answers to the world's problems.
I took "manifesto" as tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps the authors hadn't counted on some people irrationally assuming that all manifestos claim "to contain all the answers, and somehow linking the word with those darn commies.
The "manifesto" seems to me to be about looking at the world, treating people as people, instead of continuing with the all-too-prevalent corporate "let's pretend" that usually treats both employees and customers as identical, interchangeable parts in a clockwork fantasy land.
But hey, I'm not gonna force anything on you. It's a more-or-less free society. But the conversation will continue, with or without you.
why is this damn thing so popular? (Score:2)
I mean, this is all stuff wired folks have known for ages, having had 5+ years experience with e-mail, Usenet, and the Web, interacting in the "new economy". What Chris and Co. did was to write the whole thing down, so that everyone could get a sense of how things are playing out.
And this isn't just preaching to the choir, as some critics have said. It's evident from reading the book that it is, like Hemos said, a business book aimed at business people...people who don't know who their audience is and need to relearn how to be people and businessmen and businesswomen at the same time.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Alternatively, consider the Glue Train... (Score:4)
Cluetrain Cluelessness (Score:1)
I find the concept of the 95 thesis to be yet another attempt to claim that the 'netted world we live in is somehow going to "change everything" and put an end to economies and business models as we know it. In order to poke a little fun at the Cluetrain Manifesto and deflate some of the air out of the train jumpers flocking to this book, I've posted my rebuttals to the 95 theses on my site:
http://www.scottbushey.com/aboutme/oldaboutme36
What horrible reviews (Score:1)
I was gonna read the book... (Score:1)
Just kidding, what I really want to do is to buy the book and make it required reading for all the PHB's (aka clueless managers) in my company in the hope that maybe one or two of them might actually climb on the clue train as well.
Note to Hemos et. al: while a long KISS, is good, a review has to KEEP IT SHORT and SWEET to be any good...
In the words of Homer J, (Score:2)
And he won't be allowed on the tour.
Pope
People are not only consumers (Score:1)
That's like saying that the most exciting thing about television was that people making products could now finally show what they looked like in action without having to knock on your door.
Look at their very first thesis: ``Markets are conversations.'' First of all, I doubt it. There are probably ten different organizations who bring tomatoes from Mexico to the local supermarket where I buy them, and I sure don't spend much time talking, or even listening, to any of them.
But even if markets are conversations, guess what? Conversations are not markets.
There are a lot of interesting things to be said about conversations on the Internet, and about the benefits and drawbacks of virtual communities. Compared to what could be said, the Cluetrain Manifesto is pretty dull.
Dicussions about Discussions. (Score:1)
I really cannot find enough forum to really discuss the true nature of The Cluetrain Manifesto [memes.org] outside the limited confines of the Middle-Management Memespace (that little area wherein all the buzz finds it namespace -- the library of code, mostly written by the Harvard Business School Press) areas on this or that BBS.
There is a really cool Mailing List but I started an Online Discussion for The Cluetrain Manifesto on the MemeSpace virtual communtiy [memes.org] called The Cluetrain Conference [memes.org].
Re:This book sucked (Score:1)
The book basically takes a few central themes and repeats them over and over again, finding about 100 different ways to say the same thing.
Well, in memetics as well as in advertising and psychology and teaching, it is well known that the best way to learn is to have that thing that is being introduced to your mind repeated and repeated and repeated. It was what taught you when you were two (Barney again mom) and it codes you now. They were savvy here... besides, Middle-Managers aren't the swiftest, either.
To make things worse, most of its points are obvious to anybody who has been on the internet for a while and they do come to some fundamentally wrong conclusions.
True. Its the DUH factor. Most of the best companies, the most powerful Schools of Art and the most amazing trend-setting dogmas and ideas were totally duh (with the added forehead slap with the palm). Most great modern art has been referred to the same way. Besides, we are the choir and since its obvious to you does not mean its obvious to Joe and Jane CEO in Middle America.
Viva la revolution... (Score:1)
I think this is not about making us geeks feel happy, its about "Clueing" the powers that be.
Here is a favorite poem my friend Mark Harrison [coelaboration.com] that is on Coelaboration [coelaboration.com]:
Oppression: a haiku
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Man keeps me down!
But wait, I am the Man.
Ah, a paradox.
OD, Snake Oil, Teaming, et al... Cluetrain? (Score:1)
I have seen the same thing happen with teaming where the hierarchical system is replace with a teaming environment and then there is not training and follow through -- also with other forms of Orgainizational Development (OD) -- these consultants are expensive and they might not all be Clued themselves.
I would hate to be in a company that is being Clued by force with out training, without the concept being sold, and with no followthrough.
Re:community and the web (Score:1)
Check it out if you like. We try to explore the Memetics shrapnel of these ideas. Their complexities and outlying influence.
I personally am surprised there is not an alt.cluetrain newsgroup on usenet.
Cluetrain: A Haiku (Score:1)
The Man keeps me down!
But wait, I am the Man.
Ah, a paradox.
©1999 Mark Harrison [coelaboration.com]
Christopher Locke (Score:3)
========
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:3)
The Taliban is overtly hostile to technology and Western ideals, so how can you blame technological progress for the condition of Afganistan? The county is controled by a bunch of crazy fundamentalist militants. They are about as far from the "cluetrain" as one can get. People like the leaders of the Taliban are directly responsible for the atrocities you speak of, and guess what, they've been around since the beginning of history! The Greeks, the Romans, the Vandals, the Aztecs, the Vikings, the Manchurians, etc. etc., they all slaughtered millions. There was no Golden Age, there was no primeval perfection, so get off your elitist moral high horse.
True individuality doesn't come from being brainwashed into false beliefs, it comes from within a person. But then again, I wouldn't expect the average
I suppose your entire worldview was constructed in isolation, in some godlike feat of deduction? Oh tell us, great one, what wonderous insights you have divined in your solipsitic introspection!
Re:Sowing the seeds of a revolution..? (Score:1)
Not only that, but it is giving them the tools [wahcental.net] to break those chains.
--
Reading != thinking (obviously) (Score:1)
I get your point, just going through the motions doesn't help anybody. Let me try and make my point again ('cause if you didn't get it, I'm sure someone else missed it too)
By reading some person's own personal political agenda about the internet you aren't forming your own opinions, you're just sucking up someone else's.
In this case, "sucking up to someone else's" == "forming your own" BECAUSE that's what their agenda is. If I say "Think for yourself", and you say "No", I say "Thanks"
--
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:5)
You are in need of the platitude. When the message people are trying to get across is "Think for yourself, dammit!", how exactly does "getting it" become some type of conformity to a behavioural pattern?
what people seem to forget here is that we all have our own views of life, and that these views are all valid in their own ways
Then you DO get it, now try and pass it on.
I, for one, am looking forward to purchasing the book, not to read, but to pass along and spread the meme. Think for youself, dammit!
--
MPAA lurkers... (Score:2)
" Marketing sees the consumer as the enemy."
Imagine trying to jail your own customers, who have paid good money to buy your product, simply because they want to access their purchases in ways you don't approve. If this isn't treating your customers as enemies, I don't know what is.
And as you may have notice from reading Slashdot, there is a conversation going on. Your customers are talking to each other. Among other things, they are talking about how you are treating them like enemies. And Slashdot isn't the only place this conversation is happening.
Also, its not just about DeCSS anymore. Its also about things like region coding. Notice how sales of models of DVD players that can bypass the region codes are booming? Your customers know what they want and they are all talking to each other.
While you and your battalions of lawyers work feverishly in your vain attempt to stick your finger into the leaks in the CSS dyke, the conversation grows louder. And there is nothing, NOTHING you can do to quiet it.
Unless you listen, and particate, honestly.
Maybe we should send Jack Valenti and the heads of the major studios some complimentary copies of The Cluetrain Manifesto.
Cluetrain Parody (Score:1)
The Gluetrain Manifesto [gluetrain.com]
Re:The Greening of America (Score:1)
Re:Rosy picture... darksome picture (Score:1)
Indeed. The idea of the marketplace returning to a conversation is wonderful. But when we see the power that the MPAA is able to wield against DeCSS, and Mattel against those who have exposed their filtering software problems, you have to wonder if the conversation won't be muted.
DeCSS, Mattel, and other recent issues haven't fully played out, so we can't yet say who will win.
Let's say that every /. reader grabbed a copy of DeCSS. If the MPAA is able to keep getting court orders to have it removed from whatever web site it pops up at, they've still won. How? Simple. The masses of people out there will never know anything about it except what they are force-fed by the mass media. DeCSS would survive in the geek underground, but it would no longer be able to pose any sort of threat to the MPAA.
If the marketplace is truly going to change as suggested by the manifesto, many more people are going to have to participate in the conversation. Getting on-line through AOL and shopping on-line at Wal-Mart does not make you a part of the conversation....you're still just a consumer being led around by advertising...and there's a lot of people out there like that.
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
You are encouraged to buy by way of being encouraged to conform. Advertizing shows us how we're supposed to live, and we go out and buy.
When the most meaningful decision you are encouraged to make is whether to buy the GE washer or the Whirlpool one (and that on the basis of what color it is and how many buttons there are on the front), or whether to buy Nike or Reebok's overpriced sneakers, that's not individualism.
When in order to afford all the stuff you're encouraged to buy, you have to perform like a good little worker-drone at your job, that's not individualism.
When in order to avoid offending advertizers, mass media offers up bland lowest-common-denomenator content, that's not individualism, that's conformity. And when control of that mass media falls into the hands of fewer and fewer corporate owners, all spouting essentially the same drivel, that's certainly not individualism.
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:2)
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:2)
It has everything to do with capitalism. Capitalism - at least as practiced in today's corporate industrial economy - is dependant on the continual growth of production. If the GDP doesn't rise every year, everyone goes into a tizzy. Production can only rise if consumption rises as well, and there are only two ways that consumption can rise: more consumers, or more consumption per capita.
We obvously can't have an endless number of consumers. (Though globalism is trying to maximize the possibilities.) So our capitalist society applies cultural pressure to get the consumer to consume more - "keeping up with the Joneses", as I said. Partially it's unconscious, partially it's a deliberate collusion between government and industry to keep profits flowing. (The competition for shiny baubles also serves to keep the citizens distracted from just how badly government and industry are fscking them over.)
This cultural pressure - the constant drumbeat of "Buy! Buy! Buy!" - is the backbeat of the one-way communication that we've been discussing. The most dangerous threat to our modern economic system is people deciding that they'd rather communicate with each other, and form human relationships, than follow the consumption parade.
Thus, perhaps it's no surprise that the forces of commercialization are at work, trying to turn the net into nothing more than one giant Sears & Robuck catalog. Blinking evidence of that can be found above this message. (Unless you're running Justbuster or have images off.)
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:1)
Ok my manifesto is
1. Think for yourself.
2. If in doubt see Manifesto point 1.
Time for some deep-deep-deep recursion
Re:Sowing the seeds of a revolution..? (Score:1)
"You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"
Spooky....
Re:Tech Support and the Cluetrain Manifesto (Score:1)
This is actually very true, I am part of the current trial of ADSL technology in the UK, and the support we give each other is an order of magnitude better than that we get from the incumbant telecoms company (BT) that supplies the service, personally if I wanted to build good customer service I would hire the people who naturally gravitate towards helping others in that area, as they are a self selecting group and their knowledge and expertise would mean that there would be better FAQs, and smaller overall numbers of support staff.
Communist Manifesto (Score:1)
Re:Communist Manifesto (Score:1)
Send a copy to the RIAA (Score:2)
To put the RIAA's actions in Industrial Revolution terms, what they are doing is tantamount to buggy whip manufacturers filing injunctions against Ford Motor Company [ford.com] over the Model T.
And that's my bad analogy for the day.
--
community and the web (Score:1)
This is a offtopic rant sorry but I felt like it.
Tackle
:)-
Re:community and the web (Score:1)
Tackle
:)-
Re:SELF SERVING SLASHDOT FSCKERS STRIKE AGAIN (Score:1)
Ring of truth (Score:1)
--Mike--
An interesting quote from the review (Score:2)
That perception is completely correct, but it must be understood as well. The consumer, from the point he recognizes the hype of marketting, is its enemy. He doesn't want to be targetted. But he is the enemy of the process that has been marketting in mass media. He is not necessarily the enemy of marketters or the companies they work for. The marketters don't have to continue to fight for that side. They have to option of working to transform their side into a participant in the conversation.
Re:ROB WHAT HAPPENED TO SLASHDOT FOR ~7HRS LAST NI (Score:1)
YEAH!
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:3)
Yeah those damn commies again...
Cluetrain Thesis #79: We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party.
Apparrently they're not just commies, but dirty drug-addled hippies as well.
numb
Community size homogenizes content (Score:2)
Using the example of Slashdot, as we are all familiar with it and its tremendous growth, we can see that outside points-of-view are for the most part moderated down or ignored. It is thought that the cream rises to the top, but I think that this gives too much credit to the average Joe who doesn't necessarily grasp all of the issues surrounding a subject. I'm not saying that there is no forwarding movement in the collective thoughts of Slashdot and I do feel that I'm better for reading it constantly, but the nuggets of goodness have to be searched for at this point.
Not to poke holes in the great American ideal of democracy, but I don't take comfort in knowing that it is the "everyman" who is for the most part making the decisions.
When you can observe everyone's point of view how do you determine what to see?
Hello, Excuse Me (Score:2)
Re:you pragmatists ruin everything (Score:1)
I can't remember who said it but: "If the Gods had wanted us to vote they'd have given us candidates"
Sign the manifesto, get spammed? (Score:1)
I'm not accusing the Cluetrain authors of spamming, but a company has to be really clueless to harvest email addresses from the Cluetrain. If anybody is going to be anti-spam, signers of the manifesto have to be among the most likely.
Is that the best you can do? (Score:1)
What would Marx say? (Score:1)
It appears to proclaim the internet as the medium to liberate, educate, and give voice to the poeple and upset the economic system we see today. It thereby seems like the Socialistic reform step towards Communism. To put an end to the exploitation of the worker from their identity (i.e. more than simple uncreative resources), to destroy the mass production machine created by the Industrial Revolution, and replace it with the Craftsmanship of the past. I can think of nothing else that drips with such Marxist beliefs.
Question 2:
If this is indeed a Marxist or at least Marxist tinged book then why is the business sector frothing at the mouth over something they would usually shy away from if they were told it was fundamentaly Marxist/Communist/Socialistic?
Just Thoughts
(Disclaimer: I just read some Marx yesterday, so I'm bound to want to read it in a little more into things than usual, but I can't help but see parallels)
Sowing the seeds of a revolution..? (Score:1)
The Internet has broken these chains, however. The market no longer stares exlusively at the great tube, but instead is engaged in the greatest conversation in human history
I would disagree with this on the premise that rather than breaking the chains, the truth is that the Internet is making people aware that there ARE chains on their backs.. And the other bit about
The rise of mass media completed the transformation from conversation to lecture. No longer did customers roam the marketplace, but instead consumers were lulled, bribed and manipulated into buying the latest and greatest, because TV told them so. The idea of the interchangeable consumer came to be the industrial ideal. Nothing was left to chance: You could get anyone to buy anything made by anyone, and all that mattered was the money.
would seem to be the very definition of the current war being waged between Corporatism and Individualism on the net..
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:1)
And do not forget the atrocities of the past...what about the crusades? Or the Spanish Inquisition
Sorry, but the previous poster was right on the money here. Bad as the crusades were, I have no trouble at all picking out three wars of the 20th century that were more horrible, meaningless, and deadly, by any measure.
And the way the 20th century has dealt with AIDS is even worse. When AIDS was spreading in the American gay community, Hollywood celebrities wouldn't shut up about it. As it spread more to straights, the media still covered it plenty. But now AIDS is killing a third of Africa, as effective a killer as the Black Death ever was, and in America there is nary a red ribbon to be seen.
I for one would far rather live in the 13th century. (As for the 14th, I'd have to think about it.)
And just so I can pretend this is on topic, I admire the sentiment of the Cluetrain Manifesto. But I think their admiration of the internet is misplaced. Email and web sites seem to be the most effective communication yet devised for fostering miscommunication and rudeness. Just set your threshold to -1 to see an effective illustration of this. (Also I am irritated since this manifesto's practical application seems to be as yet another source of buzzwords.)
Re:you pragmatists ruin everything (Score:1)
Well, this is rather obviously a troll, by both nature and ancestry, but I'll bite...
If people would simply go by the words of their favorite religious books instead of by what they think would benefit them most, the world would be a much better place. After all, didn't Christ say that the most important commandment was "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why do Christians constantly insist on placing other parts of scripture above that?
Are you sure you aren't just saying this because (as my neighbor) it is "what you think [will] benefit [you] most?" (Just teasing.) Also, there is the idea of 'tough love' and so on to consider.
Anyway, for your information, I believe that what you are referring to goes something like this: (ahem)
So as you can see, although loving your neighbour is important, loving God figures somewhere into this as well. Of course, loving God probably should not involve beating people up (unless they are into that sort of thing) but it is unfair to remove this rather important feature from your analysis of Christianity.Re:why is this damn thing so popular? (Score:1)
Although we've all been 'wired' for some time, there are still approximately 55 million people who think "AOL is the Internet". The book, while a good geek read, is also meant for all those that get the corporate (read: AOL-Time Warner, any "e-consultant" that advertises on CNBC) crap shoved down their throat.
To tell the truth, a lot of folks out there need a swift kick in the a** when it comes to "e-" whatever.
(Cripes, do I have stories...)
Re:good point (Score:1)
As a matter of fact, the 'net seems to be bringing about the Deming business model exactly as he predicted. (Deming's 14 points in many ways seem oddly similar to the '95 theses')
It's been a long time since I read "Out of the Crisis". I think I'll have to dig it out again...
Locke ? (Score:1)
Re: No, it's reality that ruins everything (Score:1)
2. Where has it gotten us? We are better off than we've ever been. I certainly don't believe in the "golden age of yore". Think of the acceptance of divirsity.
3. The stock market is just another legal casino. It hasn't taken a fatal dive in a long time. It sounds to me like you are guilty of your own concerns about people reacting to the market.
4. People always do what they want. If their ideals are strong enough they will live by them, otherwise they'll make excuses later. Oh well - accept them.
5. Surf at +2 and Slashdot is a great place.
I am an idealist, but I am also realistic.
a better analogy (Score:1)
or, for another example, read Genesis chapter 1, the part about the snake.
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:1)
Whew. Glad you included that second point... will try not comment on the first (unsuccessfully, i'm sure.)
uh, just for some perspective, let's not forget that their "various stupid ideas" are in many cases a combination of their ideas and the ideas of those who colonized them, which judging by the tone of your post, could probably be called "our stupid ideas." your solution (a) to Africa's problems (which are in general highly variable by locality) is refuted well by historical data. i'm not saying nothing's changed since the dutch and the french and the english decided they could "help" (and turn a tidy profit too), not to mention the various missonary groups (jesuits, etc.), but i'd hold off on the idea that someone else could solve 'their' problems better than they can. help, yes. solve, no. no way... just more confusion - the 'fix' needs to be internal.
it also needs to avoid the influx of 'our' stupid ideas, which include (for example) the british trying to convince the people living in the area that has become kenya that terracing crops was a good idea, the only way to go to get high enough food production. part of kenyatta's rise to power was based on the (overwhelming, inarguably correct) assertion that the land could not support terraced crops and that 'native' agriculture was the way it was for a very good reason.
now, just to be on-topic, it would be interesting to do a little historical analysis of the 'net in the same way as physical space (ie africa, northern ireland, whatever) is analyzed - no, scratch that. way too easy to manipulate towards an end.
Re:Hello, Excuse Me (Score:1)
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
Re:Guilty as Charged (Score:1)
Hey Loserboy (Score:1)
number 91 (Score:1)
Essentially, I enjoy and respect this community.
Louis Wu
Louis Wu
Thinking is one of hardest types of work.
Webcast of a talk by some of the authors (Score:1)
http://www.netpreneur.org/e vents/cluetrain/default.html [netpreneur.org]
What about business wonks? (Score:1)
In some ways this book is nothing new; the same old "don't be evil" message that's been used since Carnegie's How To Win Friends & Influence People and even then it probably wasn't new. In other ways this book has a lot to say.
It seems to me that the book overlooks the whole race of former-frat-boys who have turned into suits and say things like "killer differentiator app". These people actually think the way marketing people tell them to with TV ads, and frankly I don't think the internet is changing them -- they're just trying to make a buck off of it by starting "pure-play B2B" internet startups.
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:2)
We are all Individuals! (Score:1)
Repeat after me "We are all Individuals"
WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
I'm not!
Sorry. Had to do it.
Re:I'm fed up with being told what to think (Score:1)
Re:Individuality and egocentricism (Score:1)