Comments on: About Gen-P (or “Jimbo lays the smacks down on Dale Hoiberg”) http://calacanis.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/ Weblog by Jason Calacanis, formerly of Weblogs, Inc. and AOL. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:21:07 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Victor Lowell http://calacanis.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-13014 Victor Lowell Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:12:36 +0000 http://calacanis.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-13014 Wikipedia "vs" EB: I'm a "middle-aged" IT professional who uses Wikipedia frequently. However, I'm not convinced I would trust it over EB, for example, for in-depth medical info. I like the idea of EB staff checking Wikipedia; this strikes me as a "best of both worlds" idea. It comes down to how important is it the information is completely accurate? Personally I put 100% trust in almost 0% of what I read on the Internet *unless* I can verify thru multiple sources. Open Source: I've witnessed this debate for 25 years. Both development models have their pros and cons. Any code which is big and complex enough to do something major isn't going to "reveal" many flaws to even an expert (code reviewer) without hundreds of hours of study. However, opening up the *testing* of code to a public forum might make sense, as many well-known software firms have repeatedly proven themselves incompetent at testing their own code prior to release. Transparency and Participation: please, pick your battles. As a *staunch* supporter of Free Speech (I am) - with the proliferation of outlets (for opinions) in recent years, we might wish to reconsider current conventions (for their use). The generation(s) who utilize these (most heavily) have important, valuable ideas - but they often get lost in the noise. Thus: "pick your battles" - pick *fewer* of them, which would allow more time to actually research your position, and in the end, enhance your reputation as someone worth listening to... I think a key reason we can't read each other's thoughts... no one's life is interesting most of the time (mine definitely included)! Really. So why tweet about how today's latte seems so much sweeter than Tuesday's latte. Please. Tell the barista... or your dog. (You disagree? Fine. But first look up "narcissism".) Lastly, there *is* still value in getting information from "traditional" media: take cases like Watergate, or the tobacco company coverups (nicotine). Situations will probably always arise (sadly) in which sources are unwilling to reveal their identity, to protect themselves from retribution. I doubt many of these sources would be comfortable posting their revelations - even "anonymously". Whereas professional reporters do have immunity, in all but rare cases, from revealing their sources; their hard-earned reputations are what merit our trusting their judgment about those sources. (Can you imagine Carl Woodward or Walter Cronkite lying?) While this may be the exception, not the rule (one hopes!) IMHO it's a very important one. Wikipedia “vs” EB: I’m a “middle-aged” IT professional who uses Wikipedia frequently. However, I’m not convinced I would trust it over EB, for example, for in-depth medical info. I like the idea of EB staff checking Wikipedia; this strikes me as a “best of both worlds” idea. It comes down to how important is it the information is completely accurate? Personally I put 100% trust in almost 0% of what I read on the Internet *unless* I can verify thru multiple sources.

Open Source: I’ve witnessed this debate for 25 years. Both development models have their pros and cons. Any code which is big and complex enough to do something major isn’t going to “reveal” many flaws to even an expert (code reviewer) without hundreds of hours of study. However, opening up the *testing* of code to a public forum might make sense, as many well-known software firms have repeatedly proven themselves incompetent at testing their own code prior to release.

Transparency and Participation: please, pick your battles.
As a *staunch* supporter of Free Speech (I am) – with the proliferation of outlets (for opinions) in recent years, we might wish to reconsider current conventions (for their use). The generation(s) who utilize these (most heavily) have important, valuable ideas – but they often get lost in the noise. Thus: “pick your battles” – pick *fewer* of them, which would allow more time to actually research your position, and in the end, enhance your reputation as someone worth listening to…

I think a key reason we can’t read each other’s thoughts… no one’s life is interesting most of the time (mine definitely included)! Really. So why tweet about how today’s latte seems so much sweeter than Tuesday’s latte. Please. Tell the barista… or your dog. (You disagree? Fine. But first look up “narcissism”.)

Lastly, there *is* still value in getting information from “traditional” media: take cases like Watergate, or the tobacco company coverups (nicotine). Situations will probably always arise (sadly) in which sources are unwilling to reveal their identity, to protect themselves from retribution. I doubt many of these sources would be comfortable posting their revelations – even “anonymously”. Whereas professional reporters do have immunity, in all but rare cases, from revealing their sources; their hard-earned reputations are what merit our trusting their judgment about those sources. (Can you imagine Carl Woodward or Walter Cronkite lying?) While this may be the exception, not the rule (one hopes!) IMHO it’s a very important one.

]]> By: Gray http://calacanis.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-11658 Gray Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:35:48 +0000 http://calacanis.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-11658 It's rather unlikely that a company like the New York Times would ever consider going open. Even though it's so urgently needed, you know how inflexible well-established companies are in terms of branding (how confident would die-hard Microsoft users feel about the quality of Microsoft's products if they were suddenly open-source?) At the same time, those companies can't continue the way they're going and still experience any real growth. It's sad that the only way they seem to expand these days is by acquiring start-ups. Netscape is obviously a good example of a company trying to break through that frontier, though their efforts came slightly too late perhaps. Thanks for the interesting read. It’s rather unlikely that a company like the New York Times would ever consider going open. Even though it’s so urgently needed, you know how inflexible well-established
companies are in terms of branding (how confident would die-hard Microsoft users
feel about the quality of Microsoft’s products if they were suddenly open-source?) At the same time, those companies can’t continue the way they’re going and still experience any real growth. It’s sad that the only way they seem to expand these days is by acquiring start-ups. Netscape is obviously a good example of a company trying to break through that frontier, though their efforts came slightly too late perhaps. Thanks for the interesting read.

]]> By: Lee Rodriguez http://calacanis.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-3642 Lee Rodriguez Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:48:45 +0000 http://calacanis.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-3642 I wondered if your father is John (Cally) and your mother is Kathy. If so I grew up with your father in Brooklyn. If it is Cally, he took me to my prom. The internet is really amazing. Lee Rodriguez I wondered if your father is John (Cally) and your mother is
Kathy. If so I grew up with your father in Brooklyn. If it
is Cally, he took me to my prom. The internet is really
amazing. Lee Rodriguez

]]> By: Heather L http://calacanis.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-2378 Heather L Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:35:05 +0000 http://calacanis.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-2378 To date universities do not accept Wikipedia as a valid reference source, and at some point they too will have to grow with the times. I wish the Internet had been available when I was in school. I remember using a prototype computer that was designed to fit under an airline seat in '81, it was so high tech then but for school I used a manual typewriter and carbons. Research was laborously done at the library and I was lucky to own The World Book. I'm looking forward to the next leap forward in technology and its impact on our morality and general behavour. Great blogs, thank you. To date universities do not accept Wikipedia as a valid reference source, and at some point they too will have to grow with the times. I wish the Internet had been available when I was in school. I remember using a prototype computer that was designed to fit under an airline seat in ‘81, it was so high tech then but for school I used a manual typewriter and carbons. Research was laborously done at the library and I was lucky to own The World Book. I’m looking forward to the next leap forward in technology and its impact on our morality and general behavour. Great blogs, thank you.

]]> By: Padma http://calacanis.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-299 Padma Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:39:01 +0000 http://calacanis.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/about-gen-p-or-jimbo-lays-the-smacks-down-on-dale-hoiberg/#comment-299 Britannica is wrongly spelt as Britanniaca n the second and third instances. In any case, for us remaining votaries of the Bitannica school of knowledge dissemination, there is simply no comparison between Britannica and Wikipedia. They are two ompletely different practices, and not mutually excluive in the least. Britannica is academic and scholarly, and is, indeed, of superior standard in terms of both factual veracty and contributor base. Admittedly, Wikipedia is handy and more liberal in terms of the subjects it covers. But really, there's no clash here. We cannot do without either of them! Britannica is wrongly spelt as Britanniaca n the second and third instances.

In any case, for us remaining votaries of the Bitannica school of knowledge dissemination, there is simply no comparison between Britannica and Wikipedia. They are two ompletely different practices, and not mutually excluive in the least. Britannica is academic and scholarly, and is, indeed, of superior standard in terms of both factual veracty and contributor base. Admittedly, Wikipedia is handy and more liberal in terms of the subjects it covers. But really, there’s no clash here. We cannot do without either of them!

]]>